User talk:Buidhe paid

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Edit request[edit]

I saw your request at Talk:Data breach. I removed your post to WT:GAN because the request was not germane to GAN per NOTAFORUM but I'm looking into this. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and this is a lot of content to sort. Some of this preexisting content is going to need to be moved to the list of breaches. I should have this done in the next hour or two. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Data breach[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Data breach you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chipmunkdavis -- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your COI edit requests[edit]

Hi there. Continuing the conversation I started on your edit requests in Talk:Operating system. It sounds like you are a Wikipedian In Residence (WIR) right? You do not need to submit an edit request for all your edits simply because you are WP:PAID. You are required to disclose your employer, which you have already done. Additionally, you should submit edit requests (or avoid entirely) articles that you have a specific conflict of interest to (like those of your employer), or articles that your employer has specifically asked you to change for advertising or promotion. Other than that, you can just make the edits directly. Now, you are a much more experienced editor than me so please let me know if I'm wrong about anything. If you do disagree, I'd be very interested to get a third opinion in WP:COI/N because you submitting an Edit request for all of your edits is crazy to me. Your edit requests look to be good improvements to the article and you shouldn't be waiting for 2 months for someone to review them. Assuming you agree, then please close your edit requests as answered that you created for this reason.

On a separate but related matter, I see you have declared a personal connection to the authors of Anderson & Dahlin. I do not think you need to submit edit requests for your changes to Talk:Operating system that reference this book. Since you are presumably not receiving a cut of the profits from the book, it is already very debatable whether you have a COI at all. Even if you did, this text book is widely used in university for operating systems. Mokadoshi (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you are correct that it may be overkill. (t · c) buidhe 22:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The community is very sensitive to COI and paid editing right now. There's an arbcom case about it, and a big thread at ANI where a WiR may get topic banned. Before deviating from the COI edit request procedures, maybe ask a noticeboard just to be sure. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean about deviating from the COI edit request procedures? It sounds like you're saying my suggestion runs contrary to current policy but they don't say that a WIR has to submit an edit request for 100% of their article edits. I understand the current discussions in the community about this, and agree that caution should be taken. At the same time, we shouldn't be arguing that WIRs aren't allowed to make any edits to any articles unless it goes through an edit request first. Buidhe has written multiple large edit requests (some rewriting entire sections of articles), and I commend the disclosure, but no one has time to review those, and the article is worse off if these have to sit for months for someone to review it. If I'm wrong, I'd be happy for you to tell me and I'd be interested to read more about this. I also agree about the noticeboard being a middle ground option as I said above. Mokadoshi (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that because the issue is so sensitive, it might be wise to get a noticeboard to sign off on it. A misjudgment here could create major headaches for a COI/PAID editor later, for example at WP:RFA. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible articles to work on[edit]

Buidhe paid (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero-day[edit]

  • Sood, Aditya; Enbody, Richard (2014). Targeted Cyber Attacks: Multi-staged Attacks Driven by Exploits and Malware. Syngress. ISBN 978-0-12-800619-1.
  • O'Harrow, Robert (2013). Zero Day: The Threat In Cyberspace. Diversion Books. ISBN 978-1-938120-76-3.
  • Perlroth, Nicole (2021). This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends: Winner of the FT & McKinsey Business Book of the Year Award 2021. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-2983-8.
  • Ablon, Lillian; Bogart, Andy (2017). Zero Days, Thousands of Nights: The Life and Times of Zero-Day Vulnerabilities and Their Exploits. Rand Corporation. ISBN 978-0-8330-9761-3.

Cyberattack[edit]

  • Vescent, Heather; Selby, Nick (2020). Cyber Attack Survival Manual: From Identity Theft to The Digital Apocalypse: and Everything in Between | 2020 Paperback | Identify Theft | Bitcoin | Deep Web | Hackers | Online Security | Fake News. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-68188-654-1.
  • Johnson, Thomas A. (2015). Cybersecurity: Protecting Critical Infrastructures from Cyber Attack and Cyber Warfare. CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-4822-3923-2.
  • Bhardwaj, Akashdeep; Sapra, Varun (2021). Security Incidents & Response Against Cyber Attacks. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-030-69174-5.

Vulnerability[edit]

  • Karimipour, Hadis; Srikantha, Pirathayini; Farag, Hany; Wei-Kocsis, Jin (2020). Security of Cyber-Physical Systems: Vulnerability and Impact. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-030-45541-5.
  • Parkinson, Simon; Crampton, Andrew; Hill, Richard (2018). Guide to Vulnerability Analysis for Computer Networks and Systems: An Artificial Intelligence Approach. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-92625-4.

Your GA nomination of Data breach[edit]

The article Data breach you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Data breach for comments about the article, and Talk:Data breach/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chipmunkdavis -- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Software maintenance[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Software maintenance you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sohom Datta -- Sohom Datta (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hi Buidhe paid. Thank you for your work on Open-source software licenses. Another editor, Voorts, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Voorts}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

software -- workforce/who[edit]

Taking the discussion of your proposed User:Buidhe_paid/Software article offline.

First, as noted above by Mokadoshi and as I was thinking, your concerns about COI may be overblown. But, I'll let you figure that out. TBO, I'm glad you want to review the changes before making them. As I said before, hate to be critical, but I think your writing style needs improvement. I am happy to work with you to add/change content in order to achieve a well-writing article.

I'll focus on your Workflow section.

The original article is deficient IMO since it ends with a paragraph on programmer and software engineer. Programmer should be mentioned in the lede! not at the end. Your version is better since it does mention programmer in the lede. But, the wording is not good.

"Software development involves professionals from various fields, not just software programmers" implies that a programmer is a professional. But a programmer is anyone with skill in writing software -- whether they are professional or not. Don't conflate skill with job (title).

Thing is, software development has a page, so little need to go into detail on that here. Maybe you have info that belongs in that article.

On your workforce section: It has a copy of the lede stuff about "Software development involves professionals from various fields" Duplication like this is not good IMO.

"Software engineers have a professional responsibility enumerated in codes of ethics of different engineering societies to which they may belong" ... not a thing in the real world. ... just because something can be sited does not mean it's real.

TBO, I think that last sentence of the current article is about the right amount of info for who. IMO it should be in the lede (not at the end!) and it's wording should be enhanced. Stevebroshar (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

software -- impact[edit]

I like the addition of impact to the article.

Awkward to start with a quote. Maybe swap the first two sentences.

I think the content of this section is pretty good although wording is awkward.

Here's an edited version:

Computer-generated simulations are enabled by software.[1]

Software is ubiquitous in everyday life.[2] Capers Jones, a specialist in software engineering methodologies, writes that "computers and software are making profound changes to every aspect of human life: education, work, warfare, entertainment, medicine, law, and everything else".[3] Software spawned many new technologies such as the internet, video games, mobile phones, and GPS.[4][5] And, the internet alone lead to transformative communications technologies such as social media, texting, email, forums, blogs and wikis.[6] and for searching much of human knowledge via the ubiquitous web search.[5] Software also augments the functionality of technologies that once did not use software – such as home appliances and elevators.[4] Within several years of simulation software (such as computer-aided design, 3D modeling, photograph manipulation [photo manipulation is simulation software?], and animation [not all animation is simulation]) becoming available, most creative professionals switched to software-mediated development [what is software-medicated mean?].[1] Almost every complex device is controlled by software, for example the software running on an embedded system [awkward to end with embedded system].[5] Stevebroshar (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Data breach[edit]

On 18 May 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Data breach, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that data breaches are rarely detected by the compromised organization? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Data breach. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Data breach), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About your edit requests[edit]

IMO your edit requests aren't really necessary most of the time. You are indeed doing the edits for money, but WP:PAID doesn't actually say anything about editing mainspace articles. Only WP:COI says that, and you don't have a "conflict of interest" with the concept of an operating system. Even though the University of Virginia is paying you, you have no monetary incentive to write an article that would be promotional or something (a concept that doesn't even make any sense for the topics you write about). Even the books you've been given as a part of your job would fall under WP:SELFCITE. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 22:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operating System[edit]

Hello. About your COI requests in Operating System, someone has replied to most of them. Could you take a look at them again? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

as of 1 June I received all payment from the project, I will continue to use this account for winding things up but I no longer have a financial stake in any present or future edits so I do not consider myself to have a COI anymore. Buidhe paid (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Cyberattack
added links pointing to Spam, Bot, Exploit, Backdoor, Volatile, Firewall, Oak Hill, Virginia, Zero day and Kill chain
Zero-day vulnerability
added a link pointing to Backdoor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Open Definition[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Open Definition you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 48JCL -- 48JCL (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm sorry. My mental health is not the best right now so I will be rather inactive, and I have g7'd the review. Sorry, and regards, 48JCL 21:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you feel better soon! No worries (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Software maintenance[edit]

The article Software maintenance you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Software maintenance for comments about the article, and Talk:Software maintenance/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sohom Datta -- Sohom Datta (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b Manovich 2013, p. 333.
  2. ^ Kitchin & Dodge 2011, p. iv.
  3. ^ Jones 2014, p. 32.
  4. ^ a b Kitchin & Dodge 2011, p. 5.
  5. ^ a b c Jones 2014, p. xxviii.
  6. ^ Manovich 2013, p. 329.