User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This user has opted out of talkbacks

Note: please do not use talkback {{tb}} templates here unless you are referring to discussion areas that I have not yet been a part of; I do monitor my conversations
AWAY This user is non-permanently away from Wikipedia as of August 4, 2014. This is because I'm away in Europe on business. Don't worry, this page is being occasionally monitored by my friendly talkpage stalkers


Good day. If you want you can have a look at this page. A massacre happened in this town under Greek occupation in 1919. Greek sources speak of mutual excesses but a western commission who traveled to the area disagrees. They found it one sided. User Alexikoua disagrees and is doing revisionism on this page. Is adding massacres committed on Greeks by Turks while removing or rewording events the other way. Probably will accuse any user who disagrees with it. Dunderstrar (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't want me trying to get involved in content, or I'll be unable to get involved in behaviour. Follow WP:DR and get me invovled if the behaviours kick in the panda ₯’ 22:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User continues making problematic edits, adds citation tag after sentences while there are already multiple sources. Dunderstrar (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

DUND. appears to be the reincarnation of permablocked user:DragonTiger23. His endless aggression against me as soon as he created his account left to no choice but to fill an wp:spi with sticking evidence. I believe its a matter of time to settle this.Alexikoua (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

User insists in another massacre article putting a casualty number of 35 in detail. Does this in disregard of the multiple western sources which give the total victims above 5.000. Its first addition didn't mention that the inquiry is based on 177 people. Is repeatedly rewording sources in different meanings. Problematic behavior goes way back in time. Removed in 2012 the link to the town in the Menemen massacre. Can this behavior not be sanctioned? Dunderstrar (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Your signature[edit]

The last part of your signature is extremely tiny, and I have a retina display. Normal displays couldn't even correctly render that and would show up as a pixel. Just a thought. :-)—cyberpower ChatOnline 18:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, it shows up on every computer I use. Now formally, the last part of my sig is unimportant ... on both accounts the sig is panda, followed by characters that look like either "dp" or "esl", followed by a little tick for "prime" or "double-prime"
dangerouspanda is therefore: panda / dp / prime
eatsshootsandleaves is therefore panda / esl / double prime
I assume it's the prime/double prime that is just a tick ... which is what a prime symbol is :-) the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


Is there any way we could please get you to knock off the condescension? We (those who take part in forums like ANI) are supposed to be here to help newcomers, not belittle them and put them in their place. But what do I find? Hot off the heels of your "Someone who says they "know Hinduism" can never call it a "religion"" condescension, I find "You simply use a personal WP:SANDBOX for testing in non-article space like everyone else who read the policies and guidelines does". There is absolutely no need for the "like everyone else who read the policies and guidelines does" putdown at the end! Of course he hasn't read all of our rules and guidelines - he's a beginner! We're supposed to help beginners, remember? Not berate them for not knowing everything!

Now, I hope you remember that I have a lot of respect for the admin work you do - I've said so before - but I'm finding you getting increasingly authoritarian and aggressive in your approach to interaction, and that's exactly what we don't need for welcoming and retaining newcomers. Please try to remember that we were all new once, and we all relied on the helping hand of friendship to get us started. So sure, point people in the right direction, but don't lambast them for not knowing everything, eh?

Anyway, I hope you'll take this as the friendly suggestion that it is meant — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take your second one more to heart - your first was insulting to me, and I would have expected an apology from you on that one. I grew up in a partially-Hindu household. I have been to the "homeland" many many times. I'd bet that I have prayed more Mandir than you have churches. So, to tell me flat out that I had no business saying what Hinduism was about was a massive insult. the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I honestly don't think you have any business dictating what another person can or cannot say about Hinduism. Would you like some examples of people who say they know Hinduism (and apparently do) calling it a religion? I can provide many more (apart from the Hindi Wikipedia article) if you want. I mean no disrespect to your own upbringing, but I'm widely traveled and I've been closely connected with a number of religions in my time. I've actually spent time in India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, amongst other places with Hindu populations, I grew up with Hindu friends and attended their family weddings, and I've discussed Hinduism with holy men in India on a couple of occasions. My wife is a Thai Buddhist, and Buddhism is related to Hinduism, and I've traveled in the Buddhist countries of Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Burma too - so I'm not a newbie when it comes to such things. While I do not think for one moment that I know more than even a smidgen of the whole thing, one thing I have learned is that it is never right to dictate to another what they can or cannot say about their own religion/culture/ethnicity. Anyway, I'm pleased you at least think my second point is worth some consideration - and I do think you are generally becoming increasingly aggressive here. Is there any chance you might consider slowing down a bit, stepping back a bit, perhaps not jumping in so quickly to so many disputes? I know I got burned out towards the end of last year - I took a forced three-month break, and that helped a lot. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
PS: Yes, you have certainly prayed in more Mandir than I have Churches - I'm not a Christian. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
(Hey, I said your second point had some merit, not your third LOL). See, the images we have of each other don't always pan out :-) Cheers the panda ₯’ 00:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, whatever points you think might or might not have merit, I do hope you'll consider my words. I really do think it's vital that we focus on helping newcomers (however wrong and/or confused they might be) rather than chastising them - a few harsh words from someone in authority right at the start can be a sure to turn away a newcomer for good. Anyway, I've said my lot - thanks for listening. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree ... however, using your second example, the "newcomer" insisted time and time again that they were going to do things their way and were refusing to listen to advice. By the time my comment came along, it simply was saying "no, you need to do what every other user does, please" - nothing more nasty nor condescending than that the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Re: User talk:Tutelary — There are a lot of opinions about the level at which WP:CIV and WP:NPA interferes with normal editing practices. For example, WP:COMPETENCE citations have been claimed to be violations of personal attacks even though it is obvious that an incompetent user would be a detriment to the encyclopedia. If you have a way for normal users to get the point across (that there is no actionable point being made in another's comment due to a lack of high-quality research practices, e.g.) please let me know. The claim that you can just ignore poor argumentation doesn't go very far in my book (see WP:SILENCE and WP:SMN). Wikipedians tend to look at whether people make counterarguments or not in evaluating consensus.

jps (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Remember that WP:CIVIL is clear: you comment on the edits, not the editor. It's one of the Pillars of Wikipedia. When one uses the WP:CIR argument correctly, one is not saying that the person is incompetent, they're saying that their edits do not show the necessary research, etc the panda ɛˢˡ” 18:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
When does commenting on another user's comments cross the border from commenting on the edits rather than the editor? You claimed that the words I used "You don't add anything to this conversation but your own lack of scholarship." were somehow commenting on the editor, but I don't see how that was parsed. If you could explain it, I'd happily refactor. jps (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it simply because the subject is you rather than your edits? If so, that would seem peculiarly wiki-legal, but if that's your opinion, I'll gladly change the subject of the sentence. (Note that it would be helpful to actually document this in policy or behavioral guidelines if this is your opinion as a behavior enforcer). jps (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
It is documented. "Scholarship" is a personal trait - it's not typically an adjective used to describe edits. As such, "your own lack of scholarship" is a pretty clear direct personal attack, especially with "your own" in it. Pretty obvious. One of my favourite lines from policy is: "Someone may very well be an idiot. But telling them so is neither going to increase their intelligence nor improve your ability to communicate with them." the panda ɛˢˡ” 18:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
In my field, "scholarship" is only shown in the presentations of material itself, not as a personality trait of the presenter. "The scholarship in that paper was superb." "Scholarly" or "scholar" (or as appropriately negated) is the way one would describe the personal character. "You are a gentlewoman and a scholar." Perhaps different cultures use the words differently? That's always been my problem with WP:CIV, there are ways to interpret comments so that they are uncivil and ways to interpret comments so that they are civil. I think you have shown that you interpret that comment to be uncivil and I am sort of the opinion that "civility is in the eye of the beholder". Therefore I will refactor. jps (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the diagram at WP: TPNO is a good guide as to what would be considered uncivil, particularly if the comment falls into one of the bottom two tiers. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That diagram assumes there is an argument to refute. If the argument is, "I know there are other sources, but I haven't read them so I disagree with you" the counter to that is, "you haven't done your homework...." or something euphemistically rephrased to that effect. jps (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

In any case, refactoring has occurred. [1]. Any indication that this may not have been done well would be appreciated! jps (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


...for this. I was writing in a hurry, as I was very short of time, and it shows ... to an embarassing extent. Mind? Of course not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

...but I see you missed one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Heh! I'm surprised there's just one! My level of imperfection greatly outweighs my level of perfection! the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

2009-10 last games.[edit]

Hey. Sorry if it looks like it's being deleted. If it's not appearing, this is what it's supposed to be: