Wikipedia:Editor review/Magister Scienta

Magister Scienta

Magister Scienta (talk · contribs · count) Hello, after recently reaching the 2,000 edit mark, I realized that I wanted to further enhance my editing abilities. I thought one of the best ways to do this was to see what aspects of my editing other users thought I should change, thus this forum was perfect. Any comment, even the hard-to-hear ones, are greatly appreciated. Magister Scienta ^talk 00:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
I truly think that my primary contributions have been considerably diverse. A concise list of major contributions is: Template creation and maintenance, NPP (which has made me fairly well experienced in CSDs), welcoming new users, maintenance of articles (somewhat often pertaining towards Judaism), and occasionally creating articles myself.
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.
Truthfully, I've never been in an editing dispute, I vehemently believe that cooperation is always better than competition (the non-friendly type). The few instances in which I thought I came off a little strongly, I attempted to quickly reconcile with the other user. If I were to get into an editing dispute, I think my actions would depend considerably on what was being disputed. For example, if another user was inserting blatant vandalism into an article, I would first ask the user to stop (maybe even 3 times) and would then seek administrative action. However, if it were a more complicated issue I would strive to reach an agreement, or middle-ground, with the other editor. If all else failed, I would ask for a consensus amongst other editors and then, if the consensus sided with me, seek administrative action if the other user persisted in defying the consensus.

Reviews

I'll leave the "not reviewed" tag since I only checked a sample of deleted contributions, particularly speedy deletion taggings. Speaking of which, it looks mostly good except a tendency to sometimes use {{db-reason}} when speedy deletion is really not appropriate (even if some admin with a track record of ignoring policy deleted them) or using the wrong criteria where they do not fit. Unfortunately my browser crashed, so I lost some of my previous comments. Some examples I think were incorrect (although deleted):

Scarlet soho - A7. A band that toured with multiple notable artists, had a tour sponsored by Red Bull, songs on a Canadian sitcom and reviews in Drowned in Sound? I think there were really sufficient indications of significance and importance.
File:Con-58b.wav - F1 and F2. I'm baffled by that one. Again, deleted contrary to policy. F2 does not allow to delete WAV-files just because they are not images and the WAV-file worked fine for me.
Xecure Lab - "it is a blank page". First of all, if it really had no content, A3 is the correct tag. But that page had an infobox with relevant information, so it was not blank and if an infobox exists, A3 cannot be applied.
1 v - "it is about an unremarkable location". Again, if WP:CSD does not allow to delete something, do not use {{db-reason}} for it. Locations should not be speedy deleted.
Dillon Pace - A7. Again, a musician with plenty of indications of importance/significance: Signed by Toby Gad, collaborated with a dozen notable musicians, in a band with Mandi Perkins etc.

To sum it up. Keep up your work but be more careful with speedy deletion taggings in the future. If something does not fit the explicitly narrow-worded criteria, don't try to make it fit but use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead. Regards So Why 11:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I assure you I will be more cautious in my use of CSDs. Magister Scienta ^talk (Editor Review) 21:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Alpha Quadrant:

I've seen you around in the file namespace on more than one occasion. You have done a good job working there. Looking over your article edits, it appears that the majority of your article namespace work is copyediting. I don't see any issues with the copyedits, they all appear to be well made edits. Nice work on Amon of Judah, I see that you helped bring the article up to good article status. Your attitude in discussions is also very commendable. Looking through your talk page history, you are very polite and courteous to other editors. I was particularly impressed by this discussion. The only thing I noticed was a recent decline in article namespace editing. According to X!'s tool, last month only about 6% of your editing was in articlespace. There is nothing problematic with that, I see that you worked heavily in categorization and templates during that time. However, if you plan to run for adminship in the future, you might want to be more active in article space. Overall though, there is nothing really to make suggestions on, you're work here is excellent. I hope this editor review helps you out. If you want me to elaborate on anything I said, I wouldn't mind doing so. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. In regards to the article space edits, I've gotten pretty busy recently and have had far less time to work on articles (among a few of my goals I'm trying to eventually get Amon of Judah to FA). Hopefully my IRL workload lightens up in the near future, and again, thank you for taking the time to review my editing. Cheers, Magister Scienta ^talk 02:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]