Wikipedia:Editor review/Bonkers The Clown

Bonkers The Clown
Thanksgiving's tomorrow! Bored to death, so here I am. Slam me if you wish, hate me, love me, I don't mind. Mèsi poutèt ou. وداعا ;) Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 05:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My main contribution to Wikipedia is editing it. Thank you. Just kidding! My main contribution, I think, would be creating pages. I have, as of date, created 102 of these things, and sometimes I can stare and drool at this page for an hour or so.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * I would not act like some crazy, drunk bloke down the street and I would be as calm as the Buddha. Thank you.
 * I would not act like some crazy, drunk bloke down the street and I would be as calm as the Buddha. Thank you.

 Reviews 


 * I'm not sure exactly what you want to get out of this review, so it's a bit difficult to give constructive advice. I get the impression from your talk page that since you're taking a break for school, that you're quite young, and while you're proud of creating 102 articles, I'd be more concerned about the quality of those articles. For example, looking at at your history, I can see the following issues :
 * In the history of Killing Season, an admin had to revdel your initial edits because of a copyright violation, and the article was subsequently nominated for deletion. It survived the AfD because other people sourced it.
 * Yup, Killing Season (film) was one of the first few pages I created. Back then, my grasp of what was right and what was not was still mediocre. Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 11:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Similarly, you created Woffles Wu, which was then nominated for deletion. Your initial "Keep" !vote did not cite any policies, and again, the article was saved largely on the initiative of another user - in this case MelanieN, who had to ask several times for sources to save the article, before doing a search herself.
 * Yup, I have to thank her. However, there is no need to really cite policies; policies do not have to be quoted to make an opinion valid. Use your common sense. Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 11:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You can, as you say, put forward an argument on an AfD without mentioning policies, and indeed it looks like a better argument. Such as "The article is unsourced. I searched web, news and books, using terms 'x', 'y' and 'z' and couldn't find anything. The term is too obscure, I think to go into the search box". instead of "Fails WP:N WP:V WP:RS". But the first is still based on policies without actually mentioning them. The trouble is, what you think is common sense isn't necessarily what other editors think is common sense! -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   11:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Captain Underpants, your comments don't seem to really cite policy, and bring up other articles to try and use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason to merge. A better rationale here would be to link relevant searches you had performed, and concluded that there was not significant enough coverage from the sources to justfy a keep, hence merge.
 * Previous comment by me relevant here. Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 11:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A non-free file you added has been nominated for deletion by Future Perfect at Sunrise, who, in my experience, knows his stuff when it comes to non-free files. Copyright violations are a serious matter on Wikipedia and cannot be dismissed lightly.
 * I have never dismissed them lightly. Note my rationale for using the screenshot. Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 11:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Bringing us up to date, this recent AfD you nominated has the rationale "unreferenced fancruft". When nominating an AfD, you need to supply as much information as possible that proves you have followed WP:BEFORE and attempted to find other resolutions, otherwise you might suddenly be looking at a Snow Keep.
 * My belief is that if a page obviously should be deleted, why elaborate? If it is meant to be deleted, it will be. (Tell ya, it'd be a joke if that resulted in a Snow Keep.)
 * Stranger things have happened..... -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   11:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In summary, it looks like you're getting better, since most of the problems highlighted above occur earlier in the year rather than later, but I think your overall reluctance to take yourself seriously has caused you problems. Sure, I make jokes, and write bits of humorous essays, but when you're discussing whether an article is notable enough for Wikipedia, or whether something violates one of Wikipedia's five pillars of free content, clowning around probably isn't going to get people on your side.
 * Thank you. Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 11:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Additionally, as I said earlier, I'd focus a bit more on creating quality articles - your figure of 102 creations doesn't look so good when you see how many went to AfD and how many could have actually been deleted if nobody else had stepped in. That the AfDs were largely closed as "Keep" suggests you're not creating bad articles per se, but you need to remember that with a new article, you have to start with the sources first. When you hit "Save page" on a new article, be sure you've put in as many sources as possible. Think, "if this article was at AfD, how could I write a convincing Keep !vote?", and keep working on the draft until you're confident it will survive that. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   16:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... Thanks, but then again, "Tis the season of stubbing again... Hail and rejoice!" (to quote Dr. Blofeld, (who definitely has created tons of stubs, not all have been expanded.) Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 11:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * All in all, thanks for the review. You really deserve a no-barnstar! ;) Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 11:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)