Talk:Koh Buck Song

Untitled
We don't need both Koh, Buck Song and Koh Buck Song. Could someone more knowledgeable than I work out which should be the main article and which should be a redirect to it? Tonywalton | Talk 14:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible sock issue related to subject - PR agency at work?
I am also noticing strange acticities related to the subject like [] and [] just today. Even though the edits were on related articles and the timing is very close, they style of edit coupled with the similarity of the content added makes me think a sock is being attempted. A glance at this article's history page also show suspicious activities by SPAs whose only other activities are to add information about the subject in other articles. Zhanzhao (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of PROD without explanation
One criteria for removal of PROD is that explanations be given for the removal. Please state your reasons here, as the behaviour I am still seeing reflects that of an attempt to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool, which has COI implications.Zhanzhao (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

PROD objected to, explanation given
Zhanzhao, rest assured there's no PR agency at work. We're just part of a group of ordinary people with a love for literature who would like to do some "encyclopedic backlog" work, and to see the entries for Singapore writers be more fully referenced. The info here is now referenced (in response to your earlier query) and is neutral, as far as we can see. All the info that needs to be added from sources that can be verified on Google, Factiva etc is now here. Nothing more to add, for now. Perhaps other editors can go through to help clean up the article further? Not sure how to do that... Much appreciated.Tao13yen (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, the sheer number of accounts that has been created for the sole purpose of only adding Koh Buck Song references (aren't there any other writers you are interested in?) to wikipedia not just on this page but in other pages (i.e. LKY, KSL, and Merlion) is very suspicious and meets the definition of socking. I was already in the process of drafting a SPI report on this, but since you claim to be a group, the investigation result should clear you of it. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The aim of our group is to add to the store of knowledge on wikipedia about Singapore writers. The "sole purpose" you refer to is explained by the simple need to focus on one subject at a time, work that we have completed for this entry. We have only just started on our long-term effort and were very inspired by Koh Buck Song's book "Brand Singapore" on nation branding, to do this encyclopedic work for our country and culture. We hope that you will continue to be understanding when we move on to work on the entries for other writers (that is, if our volunteers do not become discouraged), and will warmly welcome other expert editors to help us refine our amateurish contributions. Thank you very much. Tao13yen (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So after 3 years, you lot are still only working on this particular person's page? Pardon me if I find that hard to swallow. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the new COI and other tags added
As mentioned previously, I find it strange that most of the editors on these page are not active on other articles, only here. This is in spite of claims that they are on a project to help improve the articles and profiles of all Singapore writers. This subject surely cannot be the only one. Also the structure of the page is making it basically a list of every single writing the subject has ever done. To put it in context, its like listing down every single review Robert Ebert has ever done over the decades. Which would be unreasonable for the purpose of Wikipedia. Hope someone can provide a solution to improve the existing article rather than turning it into a over glorified list.Zhanzhao (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As per the edit history and [| page analysis], the following are the top contributor behaviour. I only left out the 1 anonymous IP and myself.


 * Typer234 - | contribution history - 28 edits, 25 on this page, 2 on Singaporean literature, 1 on merlion.
 * Tgu35 - | contribution history - 12 edits, 8 on this page, 3 on Singaporean literature, one on Nation branding.
 * Tmk11wiki - | contribution history - 9 edits, 8 on this page, 1 on Nation branding.
 * Nhgt222 - | contribution history - 7 edits, all on this page.
 * Gytb2 - | contribution history - 6 edits, all on this page
 * Tao13yen - | contribution history - 9 edits, all on this page or its talk page.
 * Zj25 - | contribution history - 5 edits, all on this page
 * Qswa44 - | contribution history - 4 edits, all on this page.
 * Wk88 - | contribution history - 4 edits, all on this page.
 * Fab17a - | contribution history - 3 edits, all on this page.

Odd indeed

Zhanzhao (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Getting rid of excessive detail.
I've hidden the Reviews, Interviews and Citation section (The content is still there on the page, just visually blanked out for now). Unless there are any significant items on the list, leaving everything there as it was is unnecessary. For comparison, Obama gets reviewed, interviewed and cited all the time, but not everything makes it to the article page, unless there was some significance to that particular item; and even them, the content is just described in prose and referenced rather than laying it out in a list. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Koh Buck Song. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307141414/http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_1717_2010-10-27.html to http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_1717_2010-10-27.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)