Jump to content

Wikipedia:Editor review/Cosmic Latte

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cosmic Latte

[edit]

Cosmic Latte (talk · contribs) I've been an active Wikipedian for most of 2008 (an article to which, incidentally, I have contibuted a fair amount). I'd be interested in adminship, but probably at a later date due to current time constraints. Right now I'd just appreciate whatever feedback might be offered. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Hi Latte! (awesome username, btw)
I looked at a summary of your contribs in a few tools, and I glanced over the last 3000 of your mainspace edits, as well as a good number of your Wikipedia-space contribs.
I see a lot of substantial contributions to articles, as well as plenty of vandal-reverts, AFD comments, and you even have ~50 AIV reports and a few RFPP reports to boot. Great work!
If you are looking at running for adminship in the near future, I would recommend that you watchlist WP:AN and WP:ANI. This will help you get a feel for what adminship really entails, and it will also help you learn what current consensus is about various policies and guidelines relating to user conduct. Also, you should take the advice of Casliber below. As an admin, you will get involved in many, many very stressful situations, and you will be expected to keep your cool no matter what. I apologize for not giving a more in-depth review contributions. I know little about the GA and FA processes, and vandal-fighting is, well, practically a boolean - either really good or really bad. Either way, overall, I saw nothing incredibly bad or unfixable, and I would like to wish you luck with that Major depressive disorder FAC. Cheers! J.delanoygabsadds 01:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comments from Casliber

[edit]

Good article work and showing an even temper and positive outlook. Very helpful. I groaned when I saw "Speaking of "more information," you might like to give WP:CIV and WP:AGF a read in your spare time. Cheers, Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)" but if that is the worst exchange then not a big issue. Throwing in some GA or DYK work is an instant guide to ability to negotiate with other, so is very helpful. I have to think about content contribution with MDD as it has been a learning curve for all of us! :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess something to think of, when angry or worked up, always check the preview button and have a good long think about posting anything confrontational. Most of the time, you should be trying to defuse situations with each edit rather than exacerbate them. Sometimes you have to call people on issues and try to remember to always keep it focussed on hte contributions and edits if you can. Note that even the best of us lose our temper at times...When posting, the edits/diffs should be able to speak for themselves, I guess, if not, then you may want to think about posting. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cheers_Dude

[edit]

With all due respect, I wouldn't be comfortable with you as an admin at all--at least, until I can see that you're able to reason logically and handle disagreements and conflicts in ways that aren't abrasive. When I made a constructive edit that seemed to be perfectly logical and gave specific reasons for my edit within my edit summary, you removed it on the basis of 'commonsense' as shown here [1] and here [2]. I'd expect an admin to be able to reason a lot better than that.

I was first to initiate a discussion on the talkpage between us and here's what I said [3]. In our discussion, you kept mentioning 'commensense' as your basis and you would also imply that I thought the world was going to end within a 2 week period, as shown here [4] The simple edit of 'expected to be' does not imply that I believe the world will end within a two week period. It simply implies that the year is expected to happen on the given date but isn't known for a fact. To add to that, there are all sorts of religions out there that believe it's unknown when their particular god ends the world.

You went to third parties and insulted my arguments as 'crazy speculations', as shown here [5]. When I finally received agreement and understanding, it had to come from others, as shown here [6]. Please work on reasoning logically and being less abrasive when in disagreement. Again, I'm just giving you my feedback as that's the point of this page and I don't think you're right for an administrator. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that your arguments were "crazy speculations"; I said that they had the unusual implication that next year was a crazy speculation. There is a difference. Nevertheless, any speculation that the world might indeed end next week, due to supernatural means, is what I call WP:FRINGE to the extreme. And, as you are aware, I offered more reasoning than merely invoking WP:COMMONSENSE (although I fail to see how invoking policy was inappropriate): "To say that next year will be 2009 is to use the word 'will' in about the most obvious and uncontroversial sense imaginable. Should the future tense therefore be eliminated from the English language, on the grounds that 'We simply do not know know what the future holds'"? As for involving third parties, your edits struck me (and others) as WP:POINTy, so I had little expectation of resolving the dispute one-on-one. So I took it to WikiProject space, which is a fair and standard practice. Moreover, the person whose particular input I sought is someone with considerably more experience with both Wikipedia as a whole, and year-related articles in particular, than either one of us--so I certainly would not have had a problem if you had been the one to seek his intervention. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to provide feedback. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I used to remove a lot of "vanity vandalism" (vain-dalism?) from year- and date-related articles, until User:PseudoBot took over much of that work, although I still keep an eye on those pages. I did a fair amount of copy-editing to 20th century, for which I was awarded a barnstar. As of now, I'm the primary author of Soul#James_Hillman and Eric_Nance#Song, as well as the existentialism component of Psychology#Humanism_and_existentialism. I've been involved with a fair amount of WP:AFD's, including the controversial Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nucular, as well as the successful WP:DRV for that article at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_10 (click "show" for the nucular discussion). I was recently a minor contributor to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_bow_tie_wearers_(4th_nomination), but a fairly major contributor to the successful DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_November_19 (click "show" for the List of bow tie wearers discussion). However, I'd say that my biggest contribution to Wikipedia is my work on Major depressive disorder. When it comes to psychology, WP:NPOV requires a fair amount of eclecticism, and I have taken an eclectic approach to the article, contributing ideas from a wide array of perspectives: neurological, evolutionary, existential, humanistic, psychoanalytic, cognitive-behavioural, etc. My work, both gnomish and substantive, is rather well-represented at Major_depressive_disorder#Causes—Major_depressive_disorder#Psychological in particular—and Major_depressive_disorder#Sociocultural_aspects (although these sections are products of highly collaborative efforts with such editors as User:EverSince, User:Casliber, and User:Paul gene). I've also worked to promote that article, a current WP:FAC, to WP:FA status at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Major_depressive_disorder (previously at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Major_depressive_disorder/restart).
  3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past 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?
    I've never been in any conflicts of the WP:3RR variety, but I've certainly had some intense discussions. A debate (beginning here and extending through here) about whether to mention psychoanalysis as a treatment for major depressive disorder was resolved peacefully on the talk page. I didn't respond quite so admirably during an exchange (currently here, on my talk page) regarding the hegemony of the National Institute of Mental Health, although I finished by invoking WP:COOL and promptly applying it to myself, as well. At one point during the nucular DRV (see above), I invoked WP:POINT. Although I think a case could be made for referring to it, I now think that it was perhaps a bit over-the-top. My best response to a stressful situation probably came recently, during the FAC for major depressive disorder (see above). When one user's attitude rubbed me the wrong way, I responded simply by encouraging the user to show some WP:WIKILOVE. Addendum: Nevertheless, I did not always respond perfectly to this user (who has reviewed me, below); for example, I should have used more thought-out edit summaries here and here, although I maintain that I used at least the first of these with some semblance of reason. Still, in the future I will be more careful with my use of interjections in edit summaries.
  • This is a gross misrepresentation of your behavior, Cosmic Latte. You edits are the opposite of "wikilove" and I remember how I laughed to myself when I saw that particular edit of yours! That was one edit of many ugly edits you made with ugly and dismissive edit summaries. Perhaps I will post some diffs here to make my point, if necessary. Odd that you should choose that outlier, totally unrepresentative of your behavior as an example. I don't know if it is worth my time, however, as I am pessimistic that change will occur in any event, given how you are misrepresenting your behavior here. And I also know that you will find your cohort of supports, similar to your ilk, so it is a waste of my time to bother with this. I don't expect to encounter you again. I am glad that you spend your time on ADF. To my mind, that befits you. I hope you do not try to reduce the quality of articles in the future, as you did with Major depressive disorder. Stick with ADF's. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowmanradio posted some very typical samples below. I could post some of your demeaning attacks and will if need be. I would rather not spend the time unless necessary. Your examples are self-serving. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Review from Mattisse

1. Why were you so disruptive and rude on the recent Major depressive disorder FAC? You left edit summaries to me saying thing like yawn and blah and did everything you could to be dismissive and demeaning. Why did you behave in such an unsavory way?

  • I'm sorry if I came across as rude, but please WP:AGF. I explained my use of interjections here. They were not intended to be dismissive or demeaning, but rather to add an emotional dimension to what I feel were cogent points. But perhaps I should have been more tactful and less impulsive. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see comments by Snowmanradio that amply convey the destructiveness and negative atmosphere your comments created. It is difficult to maintain WP:AGF in the face of repeated behavior over one month's time that destroyed an FAC. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fear you are trying to turn this editor review into a WP:BATTLE, and I have no desire to fight with you. But, at the risk of sounding slightly belligerant myself, let me point out that no one else has accused me of "destroying" the FAC, and some might in fact attribute the bulk of the drama to you. My intention here is not to point fingers, but rather to defend myself against your rather hostile comments here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that you were extremely effective in making me the villain. Originally, it was a foregone conclusion that the FAC would pass, given the large amount of supports immediately registered and that Casliber is a FAC favorite. Undoubtedly the FAC would have passed if my concerns had been addressed in a respectful manner. Certainly that is what I though would happen. I only registered my Oppose for now when extreme frustration set in, and I fully believed I would be retracting that. However, you made that impossible. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. I realize you are a sidekick of Casliber (above) and apparently do the dirty work for him. Is this the role you foresee for yourself in the future? He tried to have me blocked today for an innocent comment I made on my talk page in response to him, in an attempt to lighten the mood. Do you agree with his attempt to block me for making an innocent joke?

I'm nobody's "sidekick"; I just happen to have a lot of respect for Casliber, and have collaborated with him on the MDD article. From the looks of it, he did not try to have you blocked, and I'm not too fond of punitive blocks, anyway. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did he take a comment off my talk page, that he agreed was a joke, and post it in a public place, out of context, where he knew a trigger-happy admin would see it? There was no need to do that, except to harm me. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How to explain the extremely positive comments above by Casliber who witnessed and supported your demeaning treatment of editors offering critical comments of his FAC?
  • Perhaps, just perhaps, not everyone shares your view that I treated anyone in a "demeaning" way? Besides, not everything that Casliber said above was "extremely positive"; he had some constructive criticism for me, which I will heed. I would appreciate it if you tried to frame your criticisms in a more constructive manner, too. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Do you feel it was correct to maintain material in an FAC article, as you did, that was not properly referenced or cited? Do you know the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources? If you do not, do you think you should be a major contributor to a medicine-related article?

  • Of course I don't want information to be misleading or improperly sourced, but I haven't always agreed with you about what constitutes misleading or improperly sourced information; I felt that you were relying on WP:MEDRS too rigidly, contrary to WP:IAR, which encourages flexibility within reason. And of course I know the difference between the aforementioned types of sources; I have a university degree and have dealt with all three. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why did you continue to use sources incorrectly throughout the FAC?

4. Do you believe it is honest to state that you have made a change in an article when you have not made that change, and therefore make an untrue statement? Do you regret that you did this repeatedly in a recent FAC?

  • For example, I am referring to the many times you claimed to have removed and improved the first reference to religion which was a primary reference, stating you now understood that was an incorrect use of primary referencing. However, on the day before the restart, I looked at the reference again and found that the original primary reference was still uncorrectly placed as it had been originally.

5. Since I have only encountered you over the last month, which I did on a daily basis where you did everything you could to derail my well-meaning comments, do you have another side to you? Do you feel your behavior of the last month is representative of your behavior in general?

  • I didn't try to "derail" your comments; in the "WikiLove" comment linked above, I tell you, "Your contributions and suggestions are most welcome." This has been in intense FAC, and emotions ran high. Perhaps I should have kept my WP:COOL even better than I did, and Casliber is right in his above recommendation that I keep my temper in check, but my criticisms of your points were just as "well-meaning" as you say the points themselves were. Actually, I'd say that, overall, I'm a pretty easygoing, mellow fellow. This FAC has just been a contentious situation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is entirely possible, in my eyes, that you are unaware of what rudeness is and that you do not know how to repond reasonably and calmly to others without being dismissive. I recommend that you follow Snowmanradio's suggestions below. He is explaining some things that you need to know. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Are you usually dismissive and rude to other editors when you do not agree with them? Or was this just an untoward period of time, not characteristic of your normal maturity?

  • I believe an answer can be found in my response to question #2 ("Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past 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?"). I have had disagreements with plenty of editors, including Casliber, but have generally resolved them very peacefully and with no animosity. It is your choice if you wish to construe me as "dismissive" and "rude," and I apologize if I have come across that way; I rather see myself as passionate and perhaps somewhat stubborn, which might be the WP:AGF way to construe my more "intense" FAC activity. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me your use of "wikilove" and "AGF" did not work because of your rude and dismissive attitude toward others. It is not effective to use those terms to others if you own behavior does not reflect AGE and wikilove.

7. It may not be correct to ask, but I will anyway. How old are you?

I sincerely hope I do not encounter you again. It will not be with pleasure if I do. However, I am now forewarned about your behavior, as exhibited over the last month. I will certainly be very considered and careful in any interaction I have with you in the future, should that unfortunate event occur, as I see you as dangerous to well-meaning editors. Perhaps you will reform and grow. I sincerely hope for that, as in your current mode you are not an asset to Wikipedia, in my opinion. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry that you regard me so negatively. During this FAC, I have probably become as frustrated with you as you have with me, but I hold no ill feelings toward you; indeed, I was even the first to let you know when the FAC was restarted. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the comments below by Snowmanradio are excellent. If you follow his suggestions, I believe the atmosphere in the Major depressive disorder FAC, now having been restarted, will improve 100% if your edits and edit summaries are respectful, rather than setting a tone for ugliness such as occurred in the first FAC. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not "feedback". It's a petulant pursuit of a personal grudge. The point of Editor Review is to provide constructive feedback, both positive and negative. You passed that point a long time ago - this is just abuse. If you just don't like Cosmic Latte, then avoid him. If you think he's an actively harmful editor, then pursue dispute resolution. Whatever you decide to do, please stop this badgering - your tone and choice of venue are completely inappropriate, and Cosmic Latte has been more than patient in responding to you without rising to the bait. MastCell Talk 20:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your opinion. Perhaps you could set an example by toning down you rhetoric as you are merely contributing to the inflammatory tone. If an editor has felt attacked over time for registering an opinion on an FAC, attacking further does not contribute. I believe Snowmanradio (below) is being very helpful. He was involved so he can specifically address so of the issues in a concrete way. I am support of Snowmanradio's efforts. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do my best to set an example. In this case, that involves stepping in to ask you to stop abusing Cosmic Latte and this venue. I agree that Snowmanradio's comments constitute constructive criticism. MastCell Talk 20:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, here are two things I've found extremely counterproductive on Wikipedia: an elephant's memory for the smallest perceived slight, and an insistence on personalizing any and every difference of opinion. MastCell Talk 21:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Review from Snowmanradio
  • 2. Some of Cosmic Latte's replies begin with a phrases which are difficult to interpret. See; "Er...yeah"[8], "Holy crow"[9], "Yawn"[10] (also the edit summary here is "Yawn"), "Er...no"[11], "Erm" [12], "Heh"[13]. I think there is a possibility that these phrases may not inspire brilliant discussion. Snowman (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Good suggestion, as I note today, Cosmic Latte does not use edit summaries to help other editors understand what he is doing, necessitating having to look at each of his edits [14] - however this is better the the rude and alienating ones he added previously. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll keep this all in mind, but once again Mattisse, I would appreciate it if you'd avoid the negative labeling. You say that you are a mental health professional. Surely, then, you know how to phrase complaints in the form of I-statements. Such rephrasing would be considerably more conducive to empathic responses on my part, and could be less, well, alienating than your current approach. Or, to follow my own adivce, I would feel more respected by you if you would cease to accuse me of setting "ugly," "rude," or "alienating" tones. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just discovered that blah is a word that has its own page in the en wiki, and the word appears to have had quite a long interesting history of use (if the wiki is correct). The list above is mainly from what I recall were used in the recent first FAC discussion on MDD (later restarted) or its talk page in the text, rather than as an edit summary. The cumulative meaning, whatever this is, may or may not be clearer than a once-per-discussion use. Some of the other expressions appear to be defined, at least in part, in the Wictionary; but "Holy crow" is not in the en wiki or in the Wictionary. Anyway, I think these phrases are difficult to interpret and may have meanings that are not in a dictionary. I think "Holy crow" is an expression of surprise, but it is not used very much in the UK. Snowman (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, blah is up for ADF. "Holy crow" has no meaning that I can determine from google. There is the suggestion that it is a version of "Holy cow" which, according to dictionary.com, means "an exclamation of surprise, delight, indignation, or dismay". —Mattisse (Talk) 21:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I interpret this that you are saying here and in question 3 that the meanings of these "phrases" can be ambiguous (you wrote a reply to question 3 about 12 minutes earlier). Snowman (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not aware of any guideline concerning the word "blah," but the general feedback I'm receiving in this editor review suggests that my use of interjections in this FAC did not reflect excellent judgment on my part, and may have come across as rude, so I apologize for that and will be more careful from now on. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that a few editors carefully use selected interjections or informalities quite a lot and are skilful with such phrases almost all of the time. My impression is that using a negative interjection has the potential to be taken much more negatively than intended. I think that "blah" could mean something like "that is babble", if interpreted negatively, but perhaps it is a word that is open to different interpretations. In general, I think that the more serious the discussion is, the more the need to be careful and precise with the use of words. Snowman (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that you have done some reflective thinking, and that is what I was hoping for. Anyway, question 1 - Do think about new editors trying to figure out what edits are doing. I personally think that good edit summaries for little formating edits or minor edits can convey a lot instruction to new editors trying to figure out the ropes of wiki mark-up code, (and I think this is in line with wiki guidelines). Good luck. Snowman (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions
  • I'm not sure if I can add anything to WP:ES regarding this. That page says it all pretty well. Note that I usually do use edit summaries for major mainspace edits; I just sometimes neglect to use them on discussion pages, especially when my edits are to the bottom of the page. But it couldn't hurt to use them anyway. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that good edit summaries can provide new users with summaries of the rationales and policies that are used to justify edits. Certainly some of my own introductions to various policies and guidelines first came through others' edit summaries. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you check my edit summary usage, you'll notice that it distinguishes between major and minor edits--and, I think, for good reason. Minor edits are supposed to be non-controversial, so there should be less reason to check them than to check major edits. If you WP:AGF, then you won't imagine that I might be marking major edits as minor, and will be inclined to let the minor edits be. That said, edit summaries can't hurt. But I think a lack of them for minor edits can be attributed to something more substantive than laziness. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit summaries for minor edits are extremely important as are edit summaries in general. Anyone who follows arbcom knows that a tried and true method of sneaking in unwanted edits is to misleadingly mark them as minor. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, they convey emotion, and the inflections and nuances of natural speech, which are otherwise difficult to communicate online. I try not to sound excessively formal, lest I sound depersonalized or approach what Charles Bernstein calls "tone lock." Nevertheless, I suppose that such interjections may be ambiguous, and I'll be happy to limit my use of them if there is agreement that their actual effect is not inflection or personalization. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder at the point of using interjections in a FAC to convey emotion. In a FAC, I would think that an editor, in replying to a comment by another editor, would not be wanting to convey emotion. It is the emotional tone of comments that were problematic in the MDD FAC. Using emotional words has a high likelihood of creating an emotional atmosphere. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Written text does not include the tone of voice and body language accompanying directly observed speech. I think that you are open to misinterpretation if you attempt to convey emotion in two to nine clicks on a keyboard. You must also remember that people from different cultures may use these phrases differently to what you expected. I wonder, if you convey emotion, you may be more likely to get an emotional response in return. This may add an unwanted dimension to the discussion, and so, adding emotion, may not be the best way of furthering a discussion. Am I being presumptive here? Snowman (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps as a reply, "I am getting tired now and I am going to make a cup of tea, before I make another reply" would be better than "yawn". I have partly answered this question in my own way, but what is your way? Anyway, you do not need to answer this question, but perhaps you might think about it. Snowman (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Skagedal

Hi Cosmic Latte! I don't really have the energy to do a full review, but I will just comment on a few things. I think you do wisely to listen to the feedback from Snowman. If I'd argue with you, and you begin your response with "Er... yeah" or similar, I think I'd feel disrespected. I would of course try to assume good faith, but feelings are feelings. Also, while I can totally relate to the feeling of "yawn!" when someone posts the same argument over and over, it is best to try and stay stoic, especially when things are already heated. If you have already answered something once, just... let it be. The tea idea is probably a good idea. :) To be perfectly clear, I say these things because it's your review; you do seem to be generally a calm and kind editor. I appreciate the work you do in psychology-related articles, I hope we will collaborate in the future. I hope you are not brought down by the comments from one editor on this page – you are of course an asset to Wikipedia! /skagedal... 22:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My grateful thanks to Snowmanradio

You pin pointed exactly what had been grinding me down in the MDD FAC. I thank you so much for being able to productively communicate my concerns to Cosmic Latte. And I thank you for understanding my point of view when no one else has. It makes a big difference when even one person acknowledges there is a problem. You took the trouble to do so, and even more, to followup and try to convey the problem to Cosmic Latte. If you have changed one editor's behavior in this regards, it will have been worth it. I will try to follow your patient and reasoned example in the future, although I think your talents in this regard are far greater than mine. This has been an awful experience, but I have learned from it also, thanks to you. I am beholden to you. Thank you! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Fainites (though Skagedal has just said some of what I was going to say!)
  • I've flicked through a fair number of your edits and edit summaries in the last hour or so. A reasonable spread of thoughtful, substantive work on articles. Lots of useful wikiwork on AFD, vandalism and the like. I noted a willingness to admit error. I look forward to many more substantive contributions to the psychology project - an area of Wiki that really needs it. Editors who can revert vandalism are many. Editors who can contribute to a broad range of psychology articles are few.
  • On manner; in general you seem to be a calm, helpful and civil editor over a range of situations, willing to give and take. However, recent events eventually took their toll on even your cheery aplomb but it took a lot to achieve that. I noted you got drawn into unproductive exchanges and a slightly sarcastic tone started to appear. Understandable but unwise. If you find yourself getting wound up - wind yourself down before replying! (This is advice I need to give myself by the way). Other peoples behaviour is not your problem but there are ways to avoid contributing heat to the situation. This is meant to be an enjoyable hobby. Resist the temptation to quote WP: policies at established editors! Its like fingernails down a blackboard (or are you too young to remember that?)(Blackboards I mean). Having said that - the only positively rude edit summaries I could find were "yawn" and "blah" but this kind of thing is plainly not a habit of yours. Nuff said.
  • On edit summaries - some people feel very strongly about providing edit summaries for minor edits. Its a good habit to try and get into - even if its only ce., sp. or punc. (as appropriate). Someone will certainly bring it up at an RfA.
  • On being an admin - are you sure? Looks pretty dull to me but each to his own. I couldn't find anything of note in your editing to give me cause for concern at the prospect of you wielding the power of an admin at some point in the future.

An asset to Wikipedia. Fainites barley 23:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reflection by Cosmic Latte

  • I acknowledge at this point, after receiving considerable feedback, that my use of interjections in the recent FAC--stemming from a combination of atypical frustration and a more typical attempt to sound "natural" and informal--was probably a bit over-the-top, and resulted in ambiguity and offense that I did not intend. I apologize for this, and thank those who have pointed this out to me. I'm grateful for all of the constructive feedback that has been given to me, and thank all of you for being willing to put time into this. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/Cosmic_Latte&oldid=1248818844"