User talk:Kudpung

Please sign your message.

Archives

Imagine a world where all the new page patrollers went on strike - please remain seated with your computers on until Wikipedia comes to a complete stop

Why AKEJU's page shouldn't be deleted.

Hello Kudpung,

I understand you moved a speedy motion for my created page to be deleted because you didnt see a reason why AKEJU should be in the encyclopedia. My reasons for creating the page will be summarisep below.

AKEJU has been active in the music industry for over 10 years now and has participated in so many notable events and made mark through his music. I believe an encyclopedia is meant to document people making significant marks around the world and which AKEJU falls as a musician because his will to strengthen the synergy between Africa and other countries has been recognised and appreciated by his fans.

Kindly look into his profile again and make recommendations on the adjust i should make. I will appreciate AKEJU's page is restored back to my userspace so i can improve on the article. Thanks BSMG (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC) BSMGBSMG (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi BSMG. I researched this page before I nominated it for deletion. I could find no reliable sources that support notability. The article contained no concrete claims to notability and the sources that were supplied with the article were either fake or bore no relation to the subject. If you still feel it should be restored, please contact the deleting admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kudpung, Thanks for your reply. As regards the above explanation. Every of the content and sources are real and not fake. Though some were done years back. Also most of the interview was done when Akeju was known as Bacious Clay (Bclay). And i stated it clearly in my entire article.

I will appreciate if you restore the page back. Thanks

 BSMG (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi BSMG. Please read my comment again. You aopear to have missed something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

ORCP Comment

Hi,

Thank you for responding at my ORCP; your opinion is much appreciated. I noticed one of your main points being "If you can't invest that much time, I don't see you investing sufficient commitment to find out what adminship is all about and learning what admins need to know to be able to do their job."

I consider myself a fairly experienced user on here, with three years' tenure and over 1800 edits; I know how ANI, CSD, XFD, etc. work as I've spent considerable time lurking through the admin noticeboards and stuff. If you ask me what an admin is, I'll be happy to give you a correct and complete answer. The problem is that I have a job and other interests beside Wikipedia, so I can't churn out 1000 edits in a day, but I do spend a good amount of time reading or editing Wikipedia every day and according to DEWKIN my longest streak of consecutive active days is a month and a half.

Call me crazy, but this is exactly one of the problems I have with Wikipedia (even though I do like it a lot and it is one of my favourite sites around). Not everyone lives on Wikipedia, and I feel that the insinuations from regular RfA voters suggest that one has to in order to become an admin. I think that anyone with at least 2 years of experience, 2500+ edits (at least 1000 being non-automated article edits, which I am over 80% of the way to), and a good track record (having great knowledge of what he/she is talking about, maturity, participation in several different areas of the wiki, and no blocks) should be able to pass RfA, and besides, I have more non-automated article edits than the guy currently at RfA. So to have my ORCP closed under the same essay as some guy who files an RfA after one month and 25 edits makes me feel like I am just some new guy who's been here for a month and made 25 edits.

I look forward to discussing this with you.

Thank you,

YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 11:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

When you've been around as long as I and some others have, you'll realise that anyone with 1,000 non automated edits is still a raw newbie, and by then you'll be less upset at us having told you so. I was the author of the advice page which you didn't read but which has become, with literally thousands of views, the de facto councel for those considering adminship. Davey2010's close was appropriate - he even used terminology which I had spared you from in my first draft of my comment: something to do with time wasting. One doesn't join the army as a trainee private soldier and immediately start asking one's colleagues about one's chances of rapid promotion to colonel. That said, your heart's in the right place, so don't let all this daunt your enthusiasm - just keep up the good work you're doing, apply for some of the minor rights that will allow you to specialise, such as for example WP:NPR, and get some real experience of what it's like in the trenches before asking for a desk job. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW, in contrast to my own, which like me, are rather old fashioned, Ad Orientem's criteria are wonderfully succinct and wrapped in a nice prose. Do read it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I've actually read that page two or three times by now, and I meet more than half of those criteria. Maybe I should just quit this place because it's obvious from this and reading my talk page archives that I get no respect around here, my contributions just get peed on by the Wikipedia community, and there's no incentive for me to continue at this rate until at least 19 years from now, at which time I'll be in my 40s and have wasted almost half my life on here. Users using bots and scripts and who make 600,000 edits a month are given respect just for that raw statistic, and users who actually slow down and do their edits manually get ignored and treated like n00bs who have no clue what they're doing even after three years. There's no reason for me to continue. YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 20:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

YITYNR, according to this there is probably too little movement on your talk page to draw any possible conclusions as to the community's overall opinion or appreciation of your participation on Wikipedia. What little there is, including contributions from such highly respected users such as Newyorkbrad, appears to be mostly the standard kind of help and advice that gets given not only to new users but also to users with a much greater level of participation. If you'll allow me an opinion, it appears that advice, however well intended, is something you perhaps don't always take in the spirit with which it is intended. With that, I believe we've discussed this enough for now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think you've done some great work here however with RFA alot more is expected that's just the way it is, To be honest I didn't see much work on the various adminy-areas either and I figured it was more sensible to close the ORCP than to allow the snow opposes to come (When you see 2 0/0s then you know the entire thing is going to sink),

On the upside I whole heartedly agree with Kudpung tho you've done some great work here and I hope you keep it up - Ofcourse you can return to ORCP anytime you like however leaving it a year would make a much better impression and goes in your favour as opposed to asking every month, 2months etc etc,

Anyway keep up the great work and you might be successful the second (or even third) time,

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:V-Key

Hi Kudpung กุดผึ้ง: Thanks for reviewing the Draft:V-Key page. You said in your comment that the page is distinctly promotional in tone and content. But I have already made many changes along the way to remove words that are positively slanted. As for content, I am really unsure what you mean by promotional. It is a deep technology company and the best way to explain it is through its technology and how the technology manifest (solutions) so that man-on-the-street like myself can understand what the company does. Or perhaps you are referring to the awards section? I added in only because that was the very first information that made me want to create the page - when i searched about V-Key, i realised it has already received many third-party accolades, but nobody is aware how its patented technology has in fact affected many Singaporeans' life. For example, it is the security tech behind our mobile token used by many Singaporeans. i feel that our home grown company should get a chance to be listed on wiki given its achievements. wiki should not only be a place for global companies that have made the most noise. thanks! Adsiah