Talk:Neil H. Buchanan

Question regarding how to remove issues from my wikipedia page
On April 24, 2018, I tried to issue several of the issues that my wikipedia page has been flagged for. I am wondering how I can remove issues from the page. So far, I have added additional citations to verify the autobiography; I added secondary articles citations; I linked this page with other already existing wikipedia pages so the page is no longer an orphan page. I believe I should qualify as a notable academic because I have a significant impact on the debt ceiling debate in the United States, as well as other U.S. tax, social security economic, law, and policy issues. I have cited to many notable speeches or panels I spoke in, as well as a number of articles that I have published. Please let me know if there's any additional information needed.NHBuchanan (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the tags for issues that had been fixed and fixed all but one of the issues that still remained. One last problem is that the article needs additional citations for verification and the only way to fix it is to either add citations where they're missing or to remove all the unreferenced portions of the article. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional reliable sources, including secondary sources have been added
I have added sources for the missing citations. May the flagged issues be removed from the page? Thank you. NHBuchanan —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)‎


 * You should first contact the editor who placed the tags, in this case, and ask them if they feel that the article is in a state where the tags may be removed. If not, find out from them what needs to be changed in order for the tag to be removed.   spintendo   18:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Public Person Exception for the Autobiography rule
Hello, on March 31, 2018, user:Boing! said Zebedee and user:Huon approved my page as a "public person" exception to he autobiography rule and removed the designated flag. Last week, another administrator added the flag.

--NHBuchanan (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am replacing your "admin help" with a "help me", because nothing in it requires any administrative powers. I am also making a few comments relating to it, to help clarify things for you.
 * I don't know what "a public person exception to the autobiography rule" would be, and there is no principle that a "public person" is exempt from any policy, guideline, or accepted practice. In any case I can't find any evidence that either of the two administrators you mention did anything that could be described in those terms. All I do see is that they discussed the possibility of allowing you to change your user name to that of a "public person", because of risk of impersonation, and that "Boing! said Zebedee" eventually did so. That has no bearing on any tagging of the article for autobiography or for anything else. Neither of those two administrators removed the autobiography tag: it was removed by an anonymous editor editing from the IP address 78.28.45.127.
 * The recent addition of a conflict of interest (not autobiography) tag was done by, and you may like to consult him about it. (Incidentally, he is not an administrator.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Professor, there are two separate issues at play here. There was the matter of your account, which I think has now been fully cleared up. There is also the matter of this page. I have changed the COI tag to an autobiography tag since you've done large amounts of work on this page. Were you looking for the removal of that tag and the more citations tag or were you looking for some other type of help? I know Wikipedia's bureaucracy, procedures, and unwritten but taken very seriously rules can rival many legal code's so I'm happy to try and help (or at least explain why something is the way it is). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping - I added the autobiography tag, along with tags to improve references and primary refs back in April.  I did not add the notability tag at the time, but it probably should be re-added.  This professor's citation count is absolutely anemic, with only a high count of 44. Thank you  for changing my coi back to Autobiography, which I should have done.  Don't remember why I did not. The ref improve tag should also be re-added, as huge swaths of the article remain uncited. This wasn't really on my radar, but now that I take a second look, I will either do a large edit to remove the massive POV issue ("the leading academic authorities on the United States debt ceiling statute")  -- Really?  -- or simply take it to AfD, as he does not appear to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * At the risk of saying something you already know what  is saying is that they feel you might not meet the standard Wikipedia uses for deciding who gets a page (called notability). He refers to the General notability Guideline which is a catch-all guideline and also a specific guideline, WP:NSCHOLAR meant for academics. They also talk about language that might not meet our standard of neutrality - a common problem on articles which were written by the subject. They are considering whether to edit the page to try and improve it or whether to nominate it for deletion. Again apologies if you understand all this but I want to try to be helpful to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I am uncertain about notability. The citation count is irrelevant outside of science. It altogether does not apply in law, where there can be a long time lag in citation sometimes, and temporary interest in other cases. What concerns me is the book: it is not in Worldcat. It's a specialized publisher, but   a major one for legal education, and many other of its books are in Worldcat. This typically means that no library has acquired it--for something like a course guide, that can be understandable, but this book is in a more substantial category.
 * It terms of autobiographical writing,, even when permissible it is not advisable: almost nobody does a good job of writing objectively about themselves and judging what is worth including; for academics, it's about evenly divided between those who say too much, those who say too little, and those who include what they think interesting, but the reader would not.   DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)