User talk:HanzoHattori

Welcome!

Hello, HanzoHattori, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist.

Again, welcome!--Kuban Cossack 10:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fallujah

About Fallujah, stick to your on countrys wars, i heard that you are great on losing them. And source your numbers before putting them out there we can see foreign propaganda you know. By the looks of your discussion page you're not that popular or smart for that matter, everything you write is POV, it dosent belong in Wikipedia, take it to some serb extremist website but not here. I have reported you for what you wrote on my page and you can expect ANOTHER ban soon. I have now sourced my numbers and it will stay there and theres nothing you can do about it. Take care, or not btw Nirvana77

1. Sup fag. Please learn to spell.
2. Not a Serb (Try again. Hint: Iraq is my "countrys war.") You heard wrong.
3. I can do something about it. In fact, I already did!
4. LOL. --HanzoHattori 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL on you. It was 1,200 killed, just check the link you put up. Nirvana77

Srebrenica article in need of vigilance

KOCOBO, Osli73, Srbijanković, Svetislav Jovanović, and Bormalagurski have all teamed up to do a major renovation of the Srebrenica Massacre article. Since they are working in concert, it is easy to make a single user go past their three reverts. It is not clear how administrators will see this. I will hold out as long as I can, but the original editors of this article will need to be vigilant if is not to be lost to nationalist revisionists. All of the above mentioned editors are from the WikiSerbia forum... whatever they call it. 128.253.56.185 22:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Osli's vandalism

HanzoHattori, Bosniak, Live Forever, Bosoni, Emir Arven, Dado, Haris M:

I would like to protect the Srebrenica massacre introduction from any further vandalism by Osli. He repeatedly deletes sentences from the intro that are accurate, true, relevant, and well referenced.

If we can all agree on the text of the intro, then it will become entirely clear to administrators that Osli is a vandal.

Please look at the intro as it stands now. It would be great if we could all leave it as it is now or quickly come to an introduction that we all can agree to. Currently, it explains in stark terms what happened. That is why Osli wants to delete the sentences. Make the truth less clear in the beginning, so that he can then throw in his “Defend Milosevic! Defend Serbia!” propaganda and potentially confuse some of the readers.

Please all take a look at the intro. Let’s all come to an agreed upon intro and let it stand. Then if Osli continues to delete sentences from the intro it will clearly be vandalism and if he continues, perhaps he can be banned. Then we can concentrate on the article and let our own differences of opinion be a source for constructive conversation and continuing improvement of the article.

What do you think? Fairview360 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Since youre interested in the uprising

Here's a site you might like, with emphasis placed on the Getto 1943 section, with information on Baltic collaborators. Pawel z Niepolomic 18:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

Khodzhi-Akhmed Kadyrov

Are you positevely sure that he is Akhmad Kadyrov? I asked this question on the talk and Russian board and nobody answered.

On Kadyrov's site [1] or [2] the author of the anthem is specified as Khodzhi-Akhmed but the Akhmad Kadyrov is always named as Akhmat-khodzha e.g. [3]. Is it just a slopponess of Kadyrov's webdesigners or there is some meaning to it? abakharev 11:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In English he's Akhmad-Khadji Kadyrov (or mostly Akhmad in short). Don't except too much from the Ramzan's website. --HanzoHattori 11:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. I turned the stub into a redirect abakharev 12:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Baranov and Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev confusion and massed reverts

Hello HanzoHattori. You seem to be very confused about Bazorkina vs. Russian Federation court case. Baranov was not tried himself, and neither does this case have anything to do with war crimes (the European Court of Human Rights does not try war crimes). You should read the links to the news articles about the case before making further edits. Also I would recommend that you become familiar with the Geneva Conventions before making more unsubstantiated accusations and complete reverts. For now, I will revert your changes back to the last version of the article. If this sort of behaviour continues, I will press the issue with the moderators. Moonshiner 00:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Who you thik was held responsible in the name of Russia if not him? It was him on the video ordering the murder, not anyone else. It was a war crime, because it was commited during war. Yes, forced disappearance is also a crime (to be specific, a crime against humanity). Geneva Conventions - tell me about a one single case of a Chechen POW. (With the possible exception of what Russians were FORCED to after the 1996 defeat.) None (never any POW camps, and just any opposing activity a crime). --HanzoHattori 00:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I recommended that you take a look at those articles before, now I will say that I won't make further responses to you until you do. The defendant (not the accused) in the court case was the Russian Federation, not Aleksandr Baranov. Also, how can you claim that the disappearance of Yandiyev is a war crime because it was committed during a war, but at the same time claim that the Geneva Conventions don't apply? Russia is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and therefore the armed forces must follow the rules of the Geneva Conventions during a war. So is this a war or not? Moonshiner 01:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Geneva apply, but the Russians say it don't. Because it's "not a war" (you know, the Second Chechen War). Also not an internal armed conflict, or even a martial law (declared only by Maskhadov), nothing. Oh, wait, there was an "anti-terrorist operation", "zone of a special operation," and some other Newspeak terms. Everything "finished" by now, several times already. Of course it's a war, but Russia is conducting it criminally and without looking at any conventions (not just Genevas). It's criminal from the start even from a point of a Russians constitution, because it's forbidden to use Army forces without declaring a state of emergency. --HanzoHattori 01:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Major changes in complex articles

So your changes to Soviet partisans and SP in Poland. Please be a little restrained introducing major changes to the articles and consider raising the issue at talk first. This problem, in general, is somewhat discussed here. TIA, --Irpen 18:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Talk:Georgian-Abkhaz conflict

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! MichaelMaggs 13:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Lora Prison Camp

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Thanks for the edit - I've left fixing/removing that paragraph on the backburner for far too long ! Peripitus (Talk) 21:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

General Ettiquette

Hi. You should discuss changes that you intend to make on an article's talk page before carrying them out. Otherwise, they will just be removed, and you waste both your time and mine. Mihovil 22:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ibn al-Khattab article mediation

A mediation has been started here concerning the aforementioned article. More details have been given on the article's talk page. Please respond there if you have any objections, queries or other suggestions. Thanks! Jsw663 19:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

question

usually user pages are reserved for material uploaded by the user whose name is on the page. what is the reason you placed these links on my user page (and not talk page) and why did you place it there without comment?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachsenhausen_concentration_camp
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchenwald
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zgoda_labour_camp
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Labour_Camp_Potulice
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Labour_Camp_Jaworzno

thanks. Skywriter 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Because of your trolling in the Nazi concentration camps (now repeated). --HanzoHattori 09:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Violations of Wikipedia Policy and Ettiquette

Dear HanzoHattori,

You seem to be very new to editing on Wikipedia and inexperienced.

Perhaps you are not so familiar with Wikipedia editing policies that you do not know that all factual claims must be documented. You have removed the requests for factual claims on several Websites concerning Nazi concentration camps for which I have noticed documentation is absent, particularly in the history where the Soviets took over the camps between 1945 and 1950. The documentation is insufficient. I am researching in this area and find the lack of documentation to be not helpful to me or to other researchers or students working in this area.

Instead of addressing the problem of the absence of documentation, you have repeatedly attacked me personally, calling me a "troll" and a "vandal."

I wish to assure you, HanzoHattori, that I am neither a troll nor a vandal. I am a longtime contributor to Wikipedia, particularly in the area of history. I am at a loss to know what to do with your responses. I intend to revert your personal attacks and ask again for documentation. If you again revert these requests for documentation, and refuse to address the comments left on the Talk pages of each of the articles in question, I will ask for the assistance of an administrator. I do not wish to do this unless there is no other choice.

Again, I ask you to address the substance of my request for documentation. I ask you not to assume that readers know what you may or may not know, and I plead with you to stop making personal attacks on colleagues. No one can assume readers know the origin of facts unless there is documentation.

I would like to tell you also, in response to your reply above, restated here ---Because of your trolling in the Nazi concentration camps (now repeated). --HanzoHattori 09:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)---- that it is a violation of ettiquette to add material to user pages. It is customary to add discussion to user Talk pages, such as I am doing here. Please respect that custom.

Thank you for considering these requests.

Most sincerely,

Skywriter 18:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Go to the Buchenwald or Sachsenhausen museums, the Soviet Special Camp parts. Or just google for a "Soviet Special Camp". Then google for GULAG. Your "not-trolling" is the same as if some Holocaust-denier came and questioned just everything everything, because "there is no documentation" (yes, no links in the articles - it's just the common knowledge). --HanzoHattori 14:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Your personal attacks and emotional responses to requests for documentation are inappropriate and in violation of Wikipedia policy. Please assume good faith and do not assume demonic motivation when colleagues request documentation. Instructing readers to search for documentation is not a substitute for complying with Wikipedia policy to document what is in this encyclopedia. You are mistaken in assuming "common knowledge."

You seem to confuse the request for documentation as a "denial". They are quite different. Scholarship depends on documentation not assumptions of "common knowledge."

The NYT article, which I believe you added, states specifically that knowledge of the Soviet era in postWWII Eastern Germany is little known and incomplete. Skywriter 18:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I provided you the links. When in doubt, visit the museums, or ask the German or Polish governments (like, why they want to accuse Shlomo Morel for a crimes against humanity). I for one live several hundred meters from the former Central Labour Camp Jaworzno. --HanzoHattori 18:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

link to British

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom or Great Britain by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 15:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your category edits

HiHH. I see that you are into a categ cleanup. Could you explain to us what's going on? Cheers -- Szvest 10:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

Cleaning up categories, adding new for the Arab-Israeli conflicts. It was a total mess before (in the case of Lebanon history it still is.) --HanzoHattori 10:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. So are you planning to create new categories? Does that mean that the categories removed would be replaced? Cheers -- Szvest 10:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did the Six-Day War for example. --HanzoHattori 10:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be removing all instances of Category:Arab-Israeli conflict without discussion, and without edit comments. Why? --John Nagle 19:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Because of SUBACATEGORIES (or unrelated). --HanzoHattori 19:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete warnings!

HanzoHattori, please do not delete warning messages from your talk page. You may reply to them in the talk page itself if you feel they are unjustified, but deleting them outright is considered an act Wikipedia:Vandalism under Wikipedia policies, and you have already been warned in the past against vandalism due to inconsiderate editing. I have seen that you also provide very legitimate editing in other cases, so please just stick to that! Nehwyn 10:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What ever "vandalism"? --HanzoHattori 10:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of your edits are legitimate, some are definitely reckless (read here), and your responses to discussion often emotional, but those are violations of etiquette, and do not generally call for a warning. On the other hand, modifying another user's userpage without his permission and mass blanking an article are considered vandalism, and you have done both (deleting warning is now a third, later occurrence). I can see that you are enthusiastic about Wikipedia, and I am sure you're not doing these things with malice, but merely because you did not realise they are not acceptable behaviour. Do not be discouraged, and do not take it personally; read the regulation pages in greater depth (perhaps starting from the ones I linked above), and I am sure your edits will be better received. Thanks, and keep up the good work! --Nehwyn 10:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What "modifying another user's userpage without his permission and mass blanking"? Don't remember any. --HanzoHattori 10:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Respectively: User_talk:HanzoHattori#question and User_talk:HanzoHattori#Your edit to Chechnya mass graves. Nehwyn 10:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Geez. I did this article and then blanked it (yes, with my own permission). --HanzoHattori 10:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, HanzoHattori, please read Wikipedia policies before editing recklessly. If you had read them, you would have known that if you want to blank a page you have created (provided nobody else has contributed to it yet), you need to insert the db-blanked tag after blanking, so that it is not considered vandalism. And, since you have now created a new page with the same content, you may want to do just that: blank the old page and insert the db-blanked tag in it, so that the old, duplicate page gets deleted speedily, and the new page remains. This and many more interesting facts await you in the Wikipedia policy pages. If you just want to read Wikipedia, that's fine, but if you want to edit it... please familiarise yourself at least with the most important Wikipedia policies! Again, thanks and keep up the good work.  :) Nehwyn 11:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BABEL

Could you consider using Babel boxes to declare which languages you speak? It would be useful for other editors to know if they can give you non-English sources or ask for translations.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Mogadishu

That was you 4th revert, you are in violation of the 3RR rule, if you revert to the previous version you will not be in violation, otherwise it will be dealt with through the correct channels. PPGMD 02:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So, did you find any website using "capture of the intended targets" yet? :) --HanzoHattori 02:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to, because it's a shorter version of what is supported by the text. Regardless you are in violations of the 3RR rule. PPGMD 02:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you weren't reverting back, right? :) "Capture of intended targets" isn't used by anyone elsewhere, it just isn't a real term or phrase. --HanzoHattori 02:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:DSCN0022.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:DSCN0022.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[4] made on October 11 2006 to Battle_of_Mogadishu

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. 

This is not a judgement on the correctness of the edits.

William M. Connolley 17:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Malika Umazheva

Sounds like an excelent article. Why don't you create it? If/when it gets the new article AfD hazing, just say "All assassinated journalists are notable", most everyone will agree with you. JeffBurdges 16:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon Civil War

See Template:Campaignbox Lebanese Civil War: we should create several articles like in Afghan Civil War, it's messy now. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

CW1 campaign box

It's totally wrong. There were several other large-scale engagements - a succession of Chechen "capitals", siege of Bamut, Gudermes, Shatoi, Grozny March, Grozny August, etc. --HanzoHattori 19:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I missed all of those, so feel free to add them. I was just starting the campaignbox since the article needed one. I've also started the Second Chechen War campaignbox. A lot more redlinks in it, so that one will definitely need your help as well. Publicus 19:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know...

Um, just to let you know, someone completely illiterate edited your user page over a month ago. Click on your signature to see it. Cheers -- THL 02:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I even like it, becuase it was so stupid. --HanzoHattori 21:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

state your reason...

...why the The Punisher (arcade game) is different from The Punisher (video game), when both contents are just the same. whats the difference between arcade and video? †Bloodpack† 19:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There were differences, besides graphics and stuff. For example, some enemies weren't in the SEGA version. --HanzoHattori 19:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

not reasonable, its like youre saying, all game versions should have its own article, if there isnt much difference than just graphics, it can be sum up in Punisher computer and video games, its where all game versions is compiled †Bloodpack† 19:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. "State your reason" why the 2005 game has it's own (it's a pretty obvious reason - it's a well knoiwn game!). --HanzoHattori 19:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

because the 2005 games has a complete info so everything needs to be redirected to the main article, whereas your little arcade game article just "basically" has the SAME goddamn info as in the Punisher computer and video games †Bloodpack† 19:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Not anymore - it's just mentioned in the list. --HanzoHattori 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

believe what you have to believe, but lets do this legitimately, vote for what you stand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Punisher_%28arcade_game%29 †Bloodpack† 20:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh noes. --HanzoHattori 21:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

dont call me names

because you received none from me †Bloodpack† 19:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

2001 war in Afghanistan

Please stop removing content from the article without explaining why. That is considered vandalism, and therefore, your edits will be reverted. Bad Night 02:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Zamiar-Kitana.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zamiar-Kitana.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs 05:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

2001-present War in Afghanistan

You seem to be interested in improving this article. Productive contributions are welcome. However, blanking of properly sourced material is considered vandalism. If you consider a citation inappropriate, please discuss the matter on the article talk page and look for other solutions. For example, if a cited source is biased then editors might supplement it with a second source that reflects a different viewpoint. You have been cautioned about blanking to this article before, so future violations may result in user blocks. Durova^Charge! 16:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you guys talking about? I'm blanking next to NOTHING. Look again! Geez! --HanzoHattori 18:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

48 hour block

You have been blocked for 48 hours for removal of article sources after receiving an administrator warning. If you would like to improve the scholarship of articles, please add new sources rather than replacing the existing ones. If you dispute the appropriateness of a reference to a trusted source, such as The New York Times, discuss your qualms on the article talk page in advance. You seem to be making a sincere effort to improve Wikipedia so I hope you take these two days to browse appropriate pages such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 01:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

WHAT

What are you even talking about? What New York Times??? I only LINKED New York Times to New York Times - and he UNLINKED it! This is "disputing"? Discussing: I do, look - is it my fault no one ELSE is discussing? Am I supposed to be discussing with myself? Okay - I agree with myself!

The "superior" article has Taliban linked NINE times (my once), al-Qaeda FIVE (my once - of course!), Pakistan SEVEN, etc., and at the same time I am blockable for linking NYT once?? the hell? LOOK at this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2001-present_War_in_Afghanistan&diff=86377145&oldid=86357245 - COMPARE, OKAY? Civilian casaulties (outdated anyway) for Taliban/al-Qaeda? Unsourced "US civilian dead: 1" - what for?? Many foreign civilians were killed! Same for the US wounded (yet he don't have US dead - I do) - the only wounded mentioned by the guy (the "Warrior on Terrorism" - guess I am Terrorism). Completely random (not all!) coalition countries, and in a random order - while I have only contingents above 1,000! Where is this while he keeps the words he likes linked several times EACH (count them!), but I am blocked for CORRECTING THIS? Why won't yoiu block him? Am I not right, somehow?

I'm seriously pissed off, because I'm working on Warsaw concentration camp and I have materials RIGHT NOW. --HanzoHattori

Oh, and the OMG disputing NYT thing:

• (original version) New York Times: "America Attacks" & "A Nation Challenged"
• (my version) New York Times: "America Attacks", "A Nation Challenged"

I need to end my article. --HanzoHattori 01:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, we must be living in a different worlds, because in my it's now 50 hours. --HanzoHattori 09:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to edit during a block can auto-reset the block. It's an automated feature. I hope you adjust to the way we do things here because you seem to be making honest attempts at improving articles. This isn't the kind of block I like to issue. Even though you did source your edits, you also removed citations that other editors had already provided. Also note WP:OWN. Nobody edits their article: Wikipedia is built around collaboration. If you believe this block was issued in error you may post an unblock template request on this talk page along with evidence for the reviewer to consider. The preferred format is page diffs. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 04:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A word to the wise

Hi, I'm David from the AMA, and I'm just here to give you a word of advice regarding your manner in discussions, especially on Talk:The Punisher (arcade game). It's not nice to accuse people of lying, or to tell them that "you'll be sorry", and remember that articles belong to everyone. Thanks.

Oh, and you might want to take a look at my discussion on that page of the proposed merge. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Killzone

Please don't remove information from articles that is well sourced and verified, like you did in Killzone. Instead, cite some other sources and add them, thanks.--58.169.30.238 23:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You hate this game obsessively, I see, but NPOV - do you understand it? --HanzoHattori 23:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never played this game. But in any case please don't remove sourced information from articles. If you have other information, add it and source it.--58.169.30.238 23:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't "remove" sourced information (lure more). --HanzoHattori 23:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Genocide talk

I saw you pasting to Wikipedia pieces of inflammatory, unsourced original research. You should be aware that Wikipedia is neither a battleground not a blog for expressing your personal opinions. I have met numerous nationalists who behaved along these lines and indulged in irresponsible genocide talk. They are all banned from editing Wikipedia. Your provokations will be reverted as sternly and promptly as possible. Take care, Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? What is my "original", if everything's sourced? If you kill or deport most of millions of people in the campaign ethnic cleansing, and it's "not genocide", then what is it? What is "provokations", is it your "original research" word?

Genocide is a term defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." --HanzoHattori 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

2004-2006 Waziristan conflict

I realize you weren't talking about me, since you re-added my edit, but comments like "revert indiscriminate reverting by a mentally challenged editor" are gross violations of WP:CIVIL and have to stop. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But this guy has ongoing really idiotic obsession vendetta against me in at least 2 articles (reverting everything mine as "vandalism") for a quite long time. Check out in talk page - I highlighted the most stupid revert yet. Either he's trolling, or... well, he won't say. --HanzoHattori 13:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. I'm talking about this. yandman 13:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Now, would he stop reverting all and every of my edits as "vandalism"? In more than one article. --HanzoHattori 13:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into his contribs, and take appropriate action. yandman 13:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --HanzoHattori 13:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you make your edits for the next while bit by bit. If he reverts without good explanation, he'll get a talking to. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 21:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey. He did this again - this time he reverted another user who had reverted to me. [5] --HanzoHattori 01:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

link to British

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom, Great Britain or British English by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 00:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Warrior on Terrorism

Could you do as I asked, and make the edits a small bit at a time? Make a single edit with some non-controversial changes and don't do anything else on the article for a day. Kay? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I do it every time. I revert my vandalism back, and usually add or change something ;) I don't really have time to explain everything. I'd explain something when asked about it. Like - where exactly is any problem, besides of "it's my edits, ergo vandalism"? Because I believe the problem is just there.

I don't think anything there is really "controversional", because what? Changing silly "cricket captain" to "a leader of oppositional party"? Explaining US role stated in the conflict box, but not even touched in the article? Adding any info on a captured foreigners other than al-Libbi? I don't know.

Actually, I don't even want to touch article which has things like "in setember 2005 pak millitery troops attacked on Khati Kala, and fired this vellege for four days, from gunship hellycopters" having reverted back when I delete it. This is so stupid. --HanzoHattori 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

All you had to do was remove that comment alone (since it is clearly not useful you could have just commented in the edit summary for that one). I removed it, and it likely won't be added back because it clearly doesn't belong, and I didn't make any other change along with it that Warrior might take issue with. Simple changes. You could at least make the edits section-by-section and comment in the edit summary why you're making such changes. Please don't give up on the article. Do what you can and I'll keep an eye on Warrior's handling of it. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How about you correct the minor things now--links and such. Don't make any content changes yet. He obviously can't take issue with those changes on their own. Simply explain in the edit summary that that's what you're doing; something like "minor edits--no content changed". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 16:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Warrior on Terrorism is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia

As per the outcome of the checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Copperchair. He shouldn't be giving you any more trouble on the articles you're editing. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I predict he'll be back ;) --HanzoHattori 20:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

check Srebrenica article

KarlXII who might be a reincarnation of Osli73 and Jitse are deleting the intro to the Srebrenica article. I believe the intro -- the way it was before these latest deletions -- very accurately communicates a clear and comprehensive picture of what actually happened. To stop the Srebrenica article from spinning out of control again, I am writing notes to all the editors who have an interest in the article and asking that you visit the site more often. Thank you. Fairview360 04:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

First Chechen War

Since the edit history of First Chechen War is a seesaw between you and me, I thought I should leave a comment on your talk page. I have meddled quite a lot with the article. Some parts of the article need to be made clearer, as I have noted on the talk page.

Anyway, Hi.Rintrah 17:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA,

You've been warned multiple times about making personal attacks. This will be your last warning. The next time you make a personal attack like the one you recently made against User:Warrior on Terrorism, you WILL be blocked from editing. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Although you were right, he's back, using 190.10.0.71. Keep me informed if he makes any further edits. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 04:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not allowed against anyone, regardless of their status on wikipedia. Two wrongs do not make a right. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, will be good (boyscout salute). --HanzoHattori 07:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Viktor Pimenov

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Viktor Pimenov, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Viktor Pimenov. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. --Metropolitan90 06:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Jochen Piest

Hi HanzoHattori,

I noticed you recently created the article about Jochen Piest. I just wanted to let you know that you can announce any new Germany-related articles at Portal:Germany/New article announcements and Portal:Germany/New articles. That way other users interested in the topic can see them and might improve them.

You may also be interested in the WikiProject Germany.

Thanks,

--Carabinieri 21:28, Saturday, September 7, 2024 (UTC) 2024

Visegrad Article

Thank you for creating the Visegrad massacre(s) article. In the discussion page, I added some more possible sources of information.

Gardenfli 23:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

HanzoHattori - Let's create Bosniakophobia article

Let's rename Anti-Bosniak Sentiment article into Bosniakophobia.

Here is more on Bosniakophobia: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=bosniakophobia&meta=

What do you think? Please answer on my TalkPage. Thanks. Bosniak 07:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:1133609060190.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1133609060190.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 19:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Chechen "rebels"

I remember a few months ago Ghirla posted on my talk page a note on saying that rebel is a term that is not stricly NPOV. I hope you will settle for insurgent and separatist or simply fighter. However when giving qoutes (even not direct) then its ok...--Kuban Cossack 14:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, let's see. "chechen rebels" gets 330,000 hits in google. "chechen separatists" 108,000 and "chechen insurgents" just 11,100 (102,000 for "chechen fighters" and 48,900 for "chechen resistance"). This is not Iraq (632,000 for "iraqi insurgents" but only 62,800 for "iraqi rebels", and with the latter also including anti-Saddam intifada). 61,400 for "chechen militants" (103,000 for "iraqi militants").

Actually more for "chechen mujahideen" (13,100 hits) than for insurgents (with 12,200 for "iraqi mujahideen"). The wording of rebels is used more than separatists AND fighters AND insurgents AND militants AND mujahideen, even when all these would be counted together. This is the 'official' media word (and is completely and absolutely neutral).

Oh, and btw - only 648 for "chechen bandits", which is a favourite Russian military/media word (313 for "iraqi bandits" and they mean, you know, bandits). Also just 867 for "chechnya terrorists" (for a relatively whooping 44,900 for "iraq terrorists"). Actually, 1,160 for "russian bandits" :) (also 995 for "chechen mafia" and 695,000 for "russian mafia", so you know).

I know, Google.com is probably part of the vast anti-Russian Internet conspiracy ;) --HanzoHattori 21:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Google is not = Neutral because the majority of sites (and their mirrors and sub-pages) inflate the number of hits, moreover I daresay repeat this test in other languages. So really the terminology that you refer to is, I must say, appropriate for analysis and inappropriate for wikipedia. If necessary I can ask an admin's opinion...Now there is a good passage Freedom fighter#Media reporting - where Certain media agencies, notably the BBC and Reuters, except in attributed quotes, refuse to use the phrase "terrorist" or "freedom fighter", in favour of neutral terms such as "militant", "guerrilla", "assassin", paramilitary or militia to avoid the editorialising implicit in the use of such words. (However the BBC in the 1970s and 1980s, when reporting on the Troubles in Northern Ireland, did refer to the Provisional Irish Republican Army as terrorists, while referring to members of loyalist armed groups such as the Ulster Defence Association and Ulster Volunteer Force, who employed identical tactics, as "paramilitaries". They continued to use neutral terminology of other "insurgent" conflicts around the world).

Now if anything bbc is certainly trying to be neutral... and so will I. --Kuban Cossack 14:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you will use "freedom fighter"? ;) Or "fascist regime/international terrorism/bandit underground"? Go figure, there's a rule here about writing articles to the most popular words and spellings - I've seen this in action more that once. So, you get the Chechen (Darfur, Tamil, Aceh, Africa) rebels, Colombia guerillas, Taliban fighters, Iraqi insurgents, Kurdish peshmerga, Serbian paramilitaries, Somali militiamen, Russian policemen (even if the OMON members call theselves "militiamen" for some odd reasons), Palestinian militants, French resistance fighters, Yugo partisans, etc. It's all well estabilished, so don't seed a needless confusion. As for the BBC, hello [6] [7] (2,100 hits vs 7 (actually, only four and just three different) hits on BBC News) - now you're just being silly. --HanzoHattori 20:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you like a mediation/rfc then go for it, people have issues with the term "rebel" as it does imply positive term. I know the term terrorist will not suit you, so insurgent/militant/separatist/guerrilla/fighter/paramilitries is plenty to choose from, all technical and neutral, you don't like terrorist I don't like rebel... is that enough? --Kuban Cossack 22:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Rebel is not positive word, it's neutral. The Chechen "rebels" are against this label - as they say they are a resistance movement against foreign colonial agression if nationalists, or a soldiers of god (mujahideen) if Islamists (also "victory or death" or "victory or paradise", respectively). As Putin said, there was "de-facto independence" (his words) - you don't really rebel when you defend already archived independece. "I don't like" is not enough for Wikipedia. Also, I did this (with image uploaded): [8] - maybe go and do an article on them, anything constructive for a change. --HanzoHattori 12:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if they themselves are against this label then it even further points out the unsuitability of the term...Moreover right now there are more Chechens fighting in Kadyrov brigades for the Republic of Chechnya against the Ichkerian occupiers...so they would also qualify as rebels? Really do explain why insurgent will not suit as an alternative and it has to be rebel?--Kuban Cossack 21:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, for them it's the Quisling situation. As for the neutrality (and commmonity) of term - do you think, for example, Sierra Leone rebels (main activity: hacking off the limbs out of their countrymen, leaving 1/4 of the population disabled) were nice people? (22,200 for "Sierra Leone rebels", 35 for "Sierra Leone insurgents") You must be, somehow, thinking "inurgent" is a negative because of the Iraq War use. No, it's also EQUALY neutral, just rarely used elsewhere. It's like the partisans. Technically, a lot of people in various times and places were a partisans, but it's actually used almost exclusively for the guys who sat in the East European forests through the WWII. --HanzoHattori 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

KZ/KL

Hi there; are you sure? I have not changed your edit, but I thought that either KZ or KZL was correct, but that KL was not. But I would not edit war over it.

Incidentally, wiki allows you to change your userpage, so you can erase that semi-literate message on your userpage if you wish.--Anthony.bradbury 20:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/html/eng/historia_KL/index.html official website --HanzoHattori 23:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Treblinka extermination camp

Why did you remove categories related to the topic ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dodji i pomozi nam HanzoHattori

Hanzo, come and help us with Srebrenica Massacre article, it is currently under attack by Serbian and pro-Serbian genocide revisionists and deniers. Bosniak 22:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what's the problem with Srebrenica, but here is a new article about Foca rapes. --HanzoHattori 12:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

please dont misrepresent sources

Please take a little more care when editing the Kosovo War article. It seems you are misquoting sources, and not presenting the entire statements found in the citations. Also, please take when adding and editing specific numbers without have a proper source. Thank you. // Laughing Man 23:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, there are some accusations. Point to one. Come on, I dare you. Now, I'll point to yours "mispresentiion of sources": "Reporting for the BBC, Jacky Rowland said it was unclear how the victims in the prison had died" (during the Yugoslavian show), while leaving out "This time, the official version-that bombs again were to blame-did not match what reporters saw at the scene, where twenty-five more ethnic Albanian corpses were on display" by Washington Post during the same show - and, most importantly, "Post-war visits to the prison by journalists confirmed that prisoners had been killed after the bombing" (New York Times cited). At least two sure voices (three with HRW), one unsure (of the Serb version, which you failed to mention), let's guess how you present this? --HanzoHattori 23:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

First off all what I added about the BBC reporter was a direct quote from your source. Please do not paint the picture that I removed this information, as your addition in this case was not removed, I just expanded your addition from the same source.

And taken completely out of context. --HanzoHattori 20:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Next, you dare me to point to one? I might as well take the time to document this as perhaps it might motivate other Wikipedians to review some of the previous contributions you have made, to ensure they weren't as careless and inaccurate as this one.

You added -- There is some evidence that Yugoslav forces used internally displaced civilians as human shields in the village of Korisa on May 13, and may thus share the blame for the 87 deaths there.

---

Source you supplied says -- On May 16, a Kosovar refugee who witnessed the NATO strike on Korisa reported to Deutsche Welle that FRY police forced some 600 displaced Kosovars to serve as human shields there before the attack. "We were told something bad would happen to us if we left the place," said the eyewitness, interviewed by the station's Albanian service.

On the basis of available evidence it is not possible to determine positively that Yugoslav police or army troops deliberately forced civilians to group near them, nor to establish the motive for such action. It is not clear, for example, how potential attackers could be expected to have been aware of the refugee concentration in order to be deterred from attacking.

I think this is a very obvious case of misrepresenting a cited source. Please be more careful in the future.

Finally, to clarify what I meant when I said do not add dubious unreferenced numbers, I was referring to when you removed a BBC News citation of 2 confirmed NATO casualties, replacing it with: "About 10,000 Albanian civilians killed or disappeared" unreferenced. // Laughing Man 04:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The article said these 2 were "KIA" - there were no KIA. I did not write anything about 10,000 - I added about "hundreds" Serbs dead from war (my guess - couldn't find any total numbers), 1,000 Serbs and Roma dead or missing after war (added in the aftermath), 488 confirmed dead from bombing, and about thousands of exhumed Albanians (including ~1,000 in Serbia), by 2001. "There is some evidence that Yugoslav forces used internally displaced civilians as human shields in the village of Korisa on May 13, and may thus share the blame for the 87 deaths there." is taken DIRECTLY from there: [9] (UNDER ORDERS: War Crimes in Kosovo - 16. The NATO Air Campaign). That is (was - 2001) exactly this what I wrote - "some evidence" (an eyewitness); then, they continued: "(For further discussion on the use of "human shields" by government forces, see March-June 1999: An Overview.)", so I linked THIS part of the HRW report. Now, go away. --HanzoHattori 20:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The diffs speak for themselves and fortunately you can't talk your way out if it after the fact -- let me refresh your memory again regarding when you added the 10,000 number since you say you never added it. - [10]. // Laughing Man 05:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I added it to the casualties in the infobox - because it was in the article already AND there was a figure for a Yugo civilian casualties for some reason (false "2,000" or something, changed into confirmed 500 and then deleted altogether by me, because civilians are not combatants by definition). It's actually more like 8,000 or so, but doesn't matter, because I said, go away. I'm fed with you guys, your stupid problems, and your propaganda warfare long after the wars are over. Now get out of my lawn. --HanzoHattori 05:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Good to see that you now remember. Again, please take more care in the future and try to properly cite sources for these type of edits, and please familiarize yourself with the WP:NPA and instead of blaming "you guys" and "your propaganda warfare". Regards. // Laughing Man 12:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Naruto characters

What exactly are you doing removing Category:Fictional ninja from Naruto character articles? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[11] < Test your observation skills. --HanzoHattori 05:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

While I do apologize for the fact that you were reverted so many times, it probably would have been best if you had explained why you were removing the category for the first few edits' summaries. ~SnapperTo 05:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks or point of view

Because of this edit, I ask you to read up on No personal attacks and No point of view, both of which you just violated. Repeat offenders can find themselves blocked. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) (Review me!) 12:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that you've been warned for personal attacks before:

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) (Review me!) 13:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This not my personal view. Unless I missed something, this is the view of the ALL of mainstream media, ALL of the governments, and the UN (meaning all of the world). See the talk page. Do you think all of them - media, governments, United Nations - are wrong or lieing? Or presenting my "personal" POV, because, I don't know I own them all - whole world? These people and organizations are, or ar advised by, professionals, experts on the subject. There's no arguing with them, even if some armchair amateurs think otherwise for whatever reason. --HanzoHattori 13:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Listen up Hanzo I am not an amatuer I actualy study international politics and know about this probably more than you do. If anybody is an amateur than that is you. Also it is not true that neutral experts say that this is not a civil war in Iraq. Yes there are some that say that but there are also an equal number that say that it is a civil war. And don't talk to me which articles of the Ira war are the main rticles. I have been studying the Iraq war since it began and again probably lnow about it more than you do. Also I did major editing to the Iraq war already particulary the battles, Mosul,Haditha, Ramadi 1 and 2, Iraq spring fighting, Tarthar lake, Turki and Haifa those are all my artiles. So get over it that. You are not the only editor on Wikipedia. --Top Gun 19:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. Minority opinions are a minority opinions. Now go write a petition to UN (to hire you as a better expert). --HanzoHattori 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Minority?

You can yawn all you want but from where I'm sitting you are in the minority according to the discussions on the Iraq civil war article. The majority is for the Civil war label. And I think that you should not talk like you know what you are talking about because you realy don't have an idea what is going on in the world. YAWN! Top Gun 02:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The majority of what? Governments? Real experts? Real journalists? Human rights groups? Iraqis? Heck NO. Maybe bloggers, armchair self-proclaimed experts like you (Iraq expert T. Gun), and representatives of so-called "alternative media"? LOL. --HanzoHattori 08:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all the majority of editors on Wikipedia, second the real experts that you call them, like Kofi Annan who was by the way United Nations Secretary General for God's sake man or maybe Colin Powell who was the US Chief of staff. If anybody realy knows the real political dealings in the world those people do. I can continue naming true experts and politicians until Hell freezes over. But your, how should I say this, like one other editor said it "Bush point of view" is just crazy. That guys goverment doesn't even have the support of Congress any more or even the American people for that matter. And by the way where do you have the right to say that it is not a civil war? From what country are you from? Did you have a civil war recently in your country? Do you even know what a civil war is? It is not something like the wars of like the First Gulf war or maybe World war two or the American Civil war which in one sence where even wars that where on a gentlmen level. Civil wars of the last few decades don't have clear frontlines there are not only two sides but multiple sides and in todays civil wars you don't even know who is killing who just like in Iraq. Ask any Iraqi, not those politicians that are holed up in the Green zone like cowards with the Americans, but ask those that are living on the streets on the first frontlines of the fighting in Baghdad and elswhere. Ask them. Say to them that it is not a civil war they are in. Actualy you couldn't say it you would be killed the moment you step out of the Green zone or any other small zone that the US is holding on to by a thread. Top Gun 22:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh rly? Then show me Mr. Annan clearly saying "civil war" is going on (and you can skip Mr. Powell, the guy who got infamous "linking Saddam's WMD to al-Qaeda" and such, which makes him an anti-expert). Oh, and I can assure you my government does have "the support of [the foreign U.S] Congress or even the American people", as the European Union is on quite friendly terms with the America. Also, how the Iraqi civil war will probably look like? Think of March 1991 in Iraq (crossed with elements of Iran-Iraq), but in reverse AND with a massive Saudi-led and Iranian involvements, but without American (the Saudis are openly threatening now they will support Iraq's Sunnis "in the event of a civil war"). There won't be "militia accused of firing five mortar rounds" anymore, it will be "Shiite artillery kept pounding the Sunni positions around the stronghold of Tikrit". In short: it won't be terrorists, it will be a WAR. As I said (repeating myself AGAIN) you are simply confusing terrorism and rebellion (insurgency) with the civil war. Sometimes commentators add "all out" or "full-blown" to the "civil war" while discussing the perspectives, maybe this would help you imagine this? The Iraqi government are elected representatives of their people, and they are supported by them (did you even see the elections?). Odds are quite that telling the Iraqis their leaders are "cowards" would meet you with a violence (especially since, as BBC noted: "the policeman on the beat could turn out to be a member of a death squad, arrest you and kill you").

Now, let me prove you something (again). Randomly: Yahoo Iraq, BCC Iraq, Iraq.net. Read the news, yourself, find anything about how the civil war already started and the insurgency ended. Can you? If not, just shut the hell up, and don't even start whinning how all of the media represent "Bush point of view" (unless you want to look like a total idiot). And how the BBC sums everything up? Yes, they call this all just "Iraq violence", and in the orther articles, citing the main page: "Iraq's violence and instability", "Consumed by violence, Iraq faces a difficult year ahead" (inside: "sectarian bloodshed", and "sectarian" and "violence" several times), even "the lessons Iraq could learn from the troubles in Northern Ireland" ("The scale of violence is vastly different but there are similarities") and also something for you (as you're having the Bush obsession): Iraqis split on Bush's last gamble (terms used: "violence ", "insurgents and foreign jihadists", "insurgents and militiamen", "Sectarian attacks", "troublesome area", "Sunnis who feel disenfranchised" - and actually support Bush's move)... but NOTHING about any "civil war" now - of course. (Unless you think Northern Ireland troubles was a civil war too, but then you are a maniac.)

In short: start reading the real news, stop reading blogs and taking amateur Internet nerds seriously. Before you anwer, read what I wrote again, and then click the links to read more and educate yourself. --HanzoHattori 00:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

First as for Annan he said and I quote that what is in Iraq is not a civil war but a thing that is even worse than a civil war. How you are talking I would guess that you are an American and that would explain a lot. But that doesn't matter. I realy pitty you that you have no idea what is realy going on in the world. It's not all black and wight. If you are an American then you realy have no idea what a real civil war is in the 21st century. You talk about that it will resemble the Iraq-Iran war but that is just an idiot's fantasy. A real civil war these days is not even nearly that civil or human as was the Iraq-Iran war. That war in comparison to real civil wars that are going on in the 21st century was only a picnic. You talk about Northern Ireland. That was nothing. An Iraqi man who lives in Baghdad has said and he said this on one of YOURS legitimit news services, BBC news I belive, that he worked in Beirut during that civil war and he says that in Beirut you at least knew who was fighting who. In Baghdad nobody knows who is fighting who. A civil war with frontlines and real military style battles is a thing of the past. Today a civil war is only a massacre. If you are an American or somebody from the EU you do not have a right to say that it is a civil war until you experience one yourself and realy see WHAT A CIVIL WAR IS. A civil war is not tank against tank, artilery against artilery, army against army, soldier against soldier. It is just plain and simple militaman against civilian. That is the reality of a civil war man not that crape they tell you about in your country where you look at all of us like we are all third world countrys. You stop reading the "real news" which is only refined data and start listening to the people who have realy experienced it. You say that Congres supports the goverment. The elections that were held recently were not for Congres but those were elections which showed that the overwhelming mayority of Americans DO NOT SUPPORT BUSH because he has put America in a Vietnam-style war from which the US WILL come out a looser. Maybe not in five, maybe not in ten years, but eventualy the US will leave and the only thing they will leave behind them will be a country in ruins. A country that was once a realy beautiful country. Baghdad was called the Paris of the Middle East besides Beirut. Now Baghdad is only a pile of ruins. Bush lied to the American people, whait where have I heard that before, that an american president lied to his people. Oh yeah Johnson and Nickson. He lied to go to war. NO WMD, NO AL-QAIDA LINK. And now more people are dying in Iraq then they were during Sadams rule. And this is coming from the mouths of the Iraqis themselfes. Sadam at least had a control over the Islamist extremists, he was against them because he saw the the threat from islamic extremism. Now islamic extremism is running rampant around Iraq. Again I pitty you at your ignorence. And I have nothing else to say to you. Don't bother writing a reply because I won't be coming back. There is no point to talk to a guy that has listened to his goverments propaganda his whole life. Just one more thing go out in to the world the real world and see what is realy happening. --Top Gun 06:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"First as for Annan he said and I quote that what is in Iraq is not a civil war (it's a massive insurgent and militia terrorism campaign)" (skipped: blah blah blach US politics blach blah Iraq-Iran with War of Cities and mass gassings and genocide was "civil and human" blah blah). I can assure you when the civil war starts there will be no comparisions to Northern Ireland troubles anymore, there will be comparisions to Bosnia 1992 at best and Rwanda 1993 at worst. So now we are clear. THANK YOU, GOOD BYE. --HanzoHattori 08:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that Iraqis are at war with Iraqis, that qualifies as a civil war. Brentt 16:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. So why the media, military and governments DON'T qualify it as a civil war? (Besides of the worldwide "Bush POV" conspiracy you guys seem to believe.) Because it's terrorism and paramilitary violence, that's why. Like in Northern Ireland once (where the Catholics were killing Protestants, and vice-versa), just taken to the extreme - there it was called only "troubles", here and now the term is "violence", which is of course more loaded.

In addition to the terror campaign, of course, the Iraqi insurgency continues (and in broader sense the Iraq War - but would the Iraqi Civil War begin the Iraq War will end). For some reason you people seems to think the insurgency part (which supposedly ended somehow, sometime, appearently last November) does not equal your "civil war phase" - even if the Iraqis are killing more Iraqis than foreigners ALL THE TIME, including during the invasion (and Iraqi government didn't start in Nov. 2006 too). --HanzoHattori 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHattori, the problem is that the term "civil war" is often used very loosely, as have to confess I've done on occasions. My understanding of "civil war" is a war between two parts of the population of a country. What happened in Bosnia and what happened in Rwanda weren't civil wars, and what's happening in Iraq isn't a civil war in that sense either, it's factional terrorism which may be aimed at provoking out-and-out civil war or may simply be ethnic cleansing, in which the factions, their leaders and their sponsors divide the country and its resources up between them. Mostly the people of Iraq seem to want peace and security rather than factional and sectarian division. --Opbeith 07:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Note.

With regards to your comments on Battle of Najaf (2007): Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Logical2u_Talk 20:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just decided to stay out of the war entirely (and the bloody edit conflict too). PEACE OUT (yo) --HanzoHattori 02:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

If you are found plagiarizing material again your account will be blocked from editing. Kaldari 01:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You just discouraged me from writing ANYTHING about the war in Iraq. Seriously, screw it - have fun with this but alone, 'cause I'm out. --HanzoHattori 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The people on here get on my nerves too sometimes. Don't get discouraged. Just take a break for a few days and come back and try again. Your passion makes this place more interesting even if I disagree with you not wanting to call Iraq a civil war. Richard Cane 03:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what you write about. You can write about having sex with chickens if you like so long as it isn't plagiarized. Do you not understand that plagiarism is a very serious violation of Wikipedia policy (much less personal ethics)? If you can't take the time to write something in your own words, I would suggest not writing anything at all. Kaldari 06:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Foca camps and Srebrenica Massacre

Sorry, I just realised I'd put all the following on your User page, so I'm moving them all together to here now:

HanzoHattori, I'm struggling at the moment but I'll try to get back to it. --Opbeith 14:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

HH, it's either 13 July or the 13th of July. 13 July YYYY is quite OK. --Opbeith 22:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll check out tomorrow - I'm a bit confused about who's responsible and what's happened. I've got quite a bit of stuff to sort out too, so it would be annoying if someone's taken it into their head to do something wilful. --Opbeith 01:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Have just added my comment to yours at Merope page - it's extraordinary that a page can just disappear without any indications as to how anyone can object.

--Opbeith 07:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Foča camp

(copied from my talk page) For the record, I deleted an article called Foča rape camp that was a redirect to an empty article. The article Foča camp consisted of only "See also" and External Links, making it subject to speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A3 ("No content whatsoever. Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and 'see also' sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. This does not include disambiguation pages."). So, neither Mike 7 nor I deleted an article about a Bosnian camp, we deleted redirects and empty pages per the criteria set forth in WP:CSD. Please remember to assume good faith and be civil when addressing these kinds of concerns. I'm more than happy to help editors contribute to the project, but I'm much more likely to address concerns that aren't attacks. -- Merope 14:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I wrote a header and then marked it as a stub. Seemingly I forgot to click send or something. --HanzoHattori 14:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's a stub tag on it, but nowhere in the article did it say what it was. Articles have to have at least some content and context so that other editors can develop them -- otherwise the article might never be developed and contain no information. At any rate, I've restored the article to your userspace at User:HanzoHattori/Foča camp so you can continue working on it. After you've developed it, it can be moved back to the mainspace. Please let me know if you need help with formatting or wikifying -- I'm afraid I don't know anything about Bosnian history in order to contribute. -- Merope 15:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHattori, I need to get down to do a bit more editing of the stuff that I've got. I'll try and get down to it at the beginning of next week, too much on my plate at the moment. I think when the article is ready maybe it ought to be retitled Foca rape camps (in the plural) - since it was a network of camps rather than a single facility like Vilina Vlas. We could ask Merope how to link searches for Foca camp and Foca rape camp to it. --Opbeith 18:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You can always move the articles, it will redirect to the name. --HanzoHattori 18:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and plagiarism

You were recently warned by another user for plagiarism. Now I see you are engaging in sockpuppetry on Battle of Najaf (2007). This is unacceptable. If you continue to edit under anonymous account 203 you will be reported. KazakhPol 05:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you really that stupid? Get out of my lawn, damn kids. --HanzoHattori 12:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello HanzoHattori! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with us.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Drama queens bore me

I redirected the article on the minor video game character to the article on the video game. A check of the history confirms my action, and I just did it again under the provisions of WP:FICT. Don't EVER accuse me of doing something I didn't do again (ooh, I can type in over-dramatic captial letters too!). Otto4711 19:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to learn the difference between deleting an article and redirecting it. Otto4711 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't feel that the fanboy plot summary ramblings in the split off article warranted merging into the main article. If you feel differently, the information is accessable through the article history so merge to your little heart's content. Otto4711 19:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

For the love of God, go away. Otto4711 19:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on Srebrenica massacre

As a result of persistent edit warring on Srebrenica massacre, I have proposed that a straw poll be taken regarding one of the issues involved—namely, how to title the section currently named "Alternative views". This will help us to determine whether there is a consensus on what to title this section, or at least a consensus on what not to call it. The straw poll can be found at Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Straw poll on "Alternative views" section. I have posted this announcement to each of the 19 users who have made multiple edits to Srebrenica massacre this year. —Psychonaut 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind moving your comments on other editors' votes out of the voting section and into the discussion section? It would help reduce clutter. —Psychonaut 03:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. —Psychonaut 03:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked. TWINKLE

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by replying here on your talk page, by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} .

⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What? Why? This is crazy. If you look just above, I did not even respond to the personal attacks of the guy who came here to called me "drama queen" and "fanboy" with a "little heart". I just told him to "stop" (on his talk page) - I didn't even report him (but maybe now I do... okay, name's "Otto4711", as you see - what now?).

Or do you mean the guy who came here accusing me of "engaging in sockpuppetry" - this after I stated I don't care anymore and I even unwatched this article, and for sure did not edit in ANY way? If so, I'm going to his page and say he's "engaging in bestiality" and demand him to stop - same grounding in facts, probably, but I see stupid accusations are perfectly okay, just saying they're in fact "stupid" is a crime of some sort.

And if you even know what means "anonymous account 203" tell me, because I have no idea.

If none of these, then I just have no idea. --HanzoHattori 12:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Don't accuse people of bestiality. It's just silly. And...even though you haven't properly requested your unblock, I'm going to decline to unblock you at this point. Cool your heels and wait out the block, Hanzo. You'll survive for a week. ♠PMC♠ 16:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Geezus. I tried to think about SOMETHING STUPID, like this guy coming here to tell me of me "engaging in sockpuppetry". It's like if he told me I'm "al-Qaeda propaganda" (he said something like this about The Independent article). But hey, I'm going to "engage in sockpuppetry" now, from another IP. --HanzoHattori 21:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• But, what's the block for? I have asked Swatjester, but if you know, please let me in on it--I surely think that Hanzo deserves, at the very least, notification of the actions on his part which led to this block. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo, discussion of your block can be found here. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

To summarize, you were blocked for:

• calling other editors "insane" [12]
• calling other editors "stupid" [13]
• calling other editors "retarded" or "retards" [14][15]

After several warnings:

• First warning, 11 August 2006
• Second warning, 23 September 2006
• Third warning, 16 November 2006
• Fourth warning, 25 November 2006 ("final warning")
• Fifth warning, 23 January 2007 (another "final warning")

Any questions? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. How do you call someone you:

• 1. Revert repeatedly, and telling why.
• 2. Explain this in the talk page.
• 3. He does this anyway (again and again and again).

Or someone who says the newspaper describes in Wiki as a daily Iraqi newspaper. It publishes a domestic edition in Baghdad and is distributed across Iraq, and it maintains an international edition published in English and is available online. A recent poll conducted by researchers at Baghdad University found that readers in southern Iraq regard Azzaman as "neutral and independent" as well as "highly objective", and that it is the most popular news source in the area. is "banned in Iraq [as] It was actively trying to promote violence by fabricating stories. It was also shown to have ties to al Qaeda"?

And no, I didn't call him insane - I asked if he was insane. If he answered "yes" to himself, it's his problem (not the only one). --HanzoHattori 21:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but to prevent further instances... questioning someone's sanity is essentially just as incivil as calling them insane. So even if it's not a "personal attack" to say "are you insane?", it's not condusive to cooperative editing. Leebo⁸⁶ 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Becky_Gable&diff=109346338&oldid=109305029 this} I also just asked if he's stupid. Why? Because he keeps reverting my corrections to MY OWN MISTAKES. Tell me, how stupid is this? Rate 1-10.--HanzoHattori 21:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone encounters frustrating editors. The key is to not call them names; just use non-emotional descriptions of the situation rather than labeling the person. Leebo⁸⁶ 21:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Other people's actions do not exclude you from the WP:NPA policy. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The summaries above are accurate. You were blocked for personal attacks made as listed above. I was under the impression you were aware of the AN/I thread, apparently you were not. Last time I was here, you were warned about making personal attacks and that other people's actions do not excuse your own. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 21:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Vienna Offensive

Thank you! Mkpumphrey 18:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Scan2002.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Scan2002.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Reducing lengthe of Background text in Srebrenica massacre article

Hi Hanzo, I see you and I are editing at the same time. Just a thought, since the article is way too long (recommended max is about 35 kb) I have suggested that we reduce the article in lenght. I think this could best be begun in the Background section. What is your thinking on this? Cheers Osli73 00:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I just moved a really confusing part elsewhere. --HanzoHattori 00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

'Hi Hanzo', I saw and agree. Apart from the POV issues, which we will continue to diagree on, I think we can all agree that the article is too long. Part of the reason for this appears to be that large parts of the text are copied from the ICTY judgement against Krstic. The other is the 'natural' process of people adding bits/sentences/paragraphs to the article about their pet topic. A lot of the stuff could either be taken out or reduced? Cheers Osli73 09:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Partitioning maybe. Look what's done with the September 11 attacks (and it is still quite long). All the backround before 1995 for sure, much of the details I think too. But I guess it would require some effort to summarize everything in the main article while moving to a sub-articles in the category. --HanzoHattori 10:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made during March 4 2007 to 2007 in Iraq

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Meteoroid » 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't copy/paste EVERYTHING from some website. It's not a blog, COMPARE WITH THE PREVIOUS WEEKS AND MONTHS. Like, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_in_Iraq - nothing about "a body found" or "no one injured", small or even larger clashes, if not really imprtant (I hope!)... or just to January 2007. Geez. --HanzoHattori 19:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not blank articles

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Soap made from human corpses. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Psychonaut 23:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It was my own article. It was wrong, so APPLY SOME LOGIC k? WHEN I BLANK MY OWN ARTICLE AM I VANDALISING MYSELF, SO YOU NEED TO REVERT BACK TO WRONG AND THEN COME AND TELL ME ABOUT? It's not what I call "logical", it's what I call "just weird". --HanzoHattori 19:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The article appears to have a lot of contributors history. I'm not sure how it qualifies as "your" article. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Because I redirected it from Jewish soap legend, because of misunderstanding. I created for about 5 minues = "my" article. I then reverted everything. But heck, maybe it's a better title anyway. --HanzoHattori 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you move an article or create a duplicate article by accident, the proper thing to do is not to blank the page, but to contact an administrator for assistance. Otherwise it may appear that you are trying to maliciously remove content from the encyclopedia. —Psychonaut 13:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

re: xxxx in Iraq

I looked at some of the things, and I think that only important stuff need to be mentioned... For some of the events, the actual date isn't as important, I think. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Photo09.jpg

Where can I find this image? Which film reel is the frame from? Is it online? If so, where? Which website? (You can reply here, we don't need to break up our conversation.) --Iamunknown 23:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/photo/grozny_blast/page1.shtml < Yeah, very hard to find indeed. --HanzoHattori 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And what's the copyright status? According to the bottom of the page, it is "Copyright © 1999-2007. "Kavkaz-Center" News Agency The reprint without prior permission is violation of international legislation of the webmaster." The image description page does not mention that. BTW, simply reverting speedy deletion tags and adding no information is vandalism. --Iamunknown 23:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Yes, they would be all against spreading their propaganda pictures. Probably blow up Wikipedia when get the news. --HanzoHattori 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I updated the information, see [16]. Would you also be able to find a source for Image:Img30 2.jpg? I briefly looked on the website but was unable to find it or its parent URL. --Iamunknown 23:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Boy-scout1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Boy-scout1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Foca Camp

Are you ready yet for the Foca camp "stub" to be a proper article? --Opbeith 00:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Any reply, or have you just "moved on"? --Opbeith 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually forgot. --HanzoHattori 00:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Grozny OMON fratercide incident

An editor has nominated Grozny OMON fratercide incident, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grozny OMON fratercide incident and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Map in Soviet partisans

I'd appreciate knowing, what's the precise nature of problem with that? Yury Tarasievich 09:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

proposed edit to Section 2.4 of the Srebrenica Massacre article

HanzoHattori,

I just posted the following on the Srebrenica Massacre discussion page and am now, as a courtesy, posting this on the talk pages of frequent editors of the article. Best Regards, Fairview360 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors,

Please visit this version of the Srebrenica Massacre article to see the proposed changes to section 2.4: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=117151359

Please visit this site to see the proposed sub-article which the proposed section 2.4 text will be linked to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_executions_in_the_Srebrenica_massacre

If there is no major objection, we would like to introduce this major edit to the article this Sunday March 25. This ought to give each editor the time they need to review the proposed changes before they are fully introduced.

The objective here is to make the article more concise while continuing to clearly state what happened and in no way obscure actual events.

A full review of the proposed changes to section 2.4 and the sub-article will show that all information regarding the executions has been preserved and presented in a clear manner.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Fairview360 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference

Hi, Looking at the edits you've made in the last few days I see you are on a role. I only ask that you make sure to source, or better reference, your contributions. The Wana conflict and the sentence in Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan lack references. Regards, KazakhPol 05:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard of ? --HanzoHattori 08:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Our obligation to be civil

I made numerous requests that you make a greater effort to be more civil.

Following my last request you nominated all the categories for deletion:

• ...even though you had made no meaningful effort to address the points I had raised in my replies to you.
• you didn't show me the normal courtesy of giving me a heads-up that you had nominated those categories for deletion.
• you failed to place the tags on the categories that shows those who use those categories, or have them on their watchlist, that the category has been nominated for deletion.
• your nomination itself was, IMO, unprofessional. Rather than offer a reasoned argument you used mockery.
• Then you added several comments to this discussion that contained what look to me like unprovoked personal attacks.

I see you have been repeatedly warned not to make personal attacks. I left a note on user talk:swatjester, the last administrator who blocked you, asking for their opinion on our interaction.

I continue to encourage you, in the strongest possible terms, to make a greater effort to comply with wp:civ. Some of your earlier correspondents have offered the opinion that you have shown that you are capable of making valid substantive contributions to the wikipedia. I join them in encouraging you to confine yourself to that kind of contribution. -- Geo Swan 21:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, get a life. But before this, remove this image [17] from aprox. 1,000 articles you put it into. --HanzoHattori 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Our obligation to be intellectually honest

In addition to the obligation you and I should feel to be civil to one another, I think we should feel an obligation to be intellectually honest, to tell the truth. And, if we realize we have inadvertently told a falsehood, we should own up, acknowledge it, and apologize if appropriate. I wrote, above, that you both failed to show me the courtesy of giving me a heads-up that you were nominating the categories you had a concern about, and which I had done my best to try to get you to explain. And I wrote that you failed to put the tags that would trigger the entry in my watchlist that those categories had been modified. Well that was incorrect. I'm sorry. I don't know how I missed those entries on my watchlist. You did add those. I apologize for saying you did not.

The CSRT trailer image

I understand you have a concern, of some sort, about this image. If you think you can tell me what this concern is without bombarding me with unprovoked insults, please go ahead, and do so.

FWIW, there are not 1,000 links. There are several hundred. Three hundred and seventeen captives attended their Tribunal, in that trailer. I have no idea whatsover why you don't agree that it is appropriate to place the image of the trailer where the captive's Tribunal took place next to the section of the captive's article that covers their Tribunal. Would you object if all the articles about chemical elements had the same graphic of the periodic table? I doubt you would. Why is this image different? -- Geo Swan 02:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The CSRT trailer image should illustrate the following articles: (start list, pay attention) The CSRT trailer article (end list). The rest is spam. Lurk more how Wikipedia works, or I'll take closer look on your activity and the end results would be just like with your extreme overcatergorisation debacle. --HanzoHattori 08:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Menhal Al Henali

1. That google did not turn up any references to Menhal Al Henali is not meaningful. Menhal Al Henali is the DoD's transliteration of the individual's name. The DoD uses a transliteration scheme that is incompatible with the transliteration schemes in general use. Note: Ahcene Zemiri is the same individaul as Hassan Zumiri. A web search based on either of these transliterations, or both of them, could not be guaranteed to find all the references to this individual.
2. Did you actually look at the Menhal Al Henali article? He was a hospital administrator in a United Nations refugee camp. If any other nation had captured an American doctor, working in a refugee camp, and held him in prison, without charge, for years on end, would you argue he or she wasn't notable? The same yard-stick should be applied to Menhal Al Henali.
3. I disagree with you as to whether the picture should be confined to Combatant Status Review Tribunal. However, it is important to acknowledge mistakes. Menhal Al Henali's article shouldn't have had the picture on it. That was an oversight. I removed it.
4. Some of my correspondents try to act as if WP:BIO was an official wikipedia policy. It isn't. Further, it points out, right in the first paragraph, that it is a point of view that is not universally shared. It points out, right in the first paragraph, that it is based on WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS. It states that articles that don't comply with the guidelines in WP:BIO may not comply with one or all of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, or WP:RS. As I said in the deletion discussion, I am scrupulous to comply with these policies. I think this is all that counts.
5. I have called some of my correspondents when they have tried to act as if WP:BIO were an official policy. One correpsondent then claimed that even though it wasn't an official policy, it was a "de facto policy". In my experience, "notability" is far to subjective to serve as a meaningful yard-stick on whether biographical articles merited coverage on the wikipedia. As I said to you before, after trying my best to understand the position of those who disagree with me, I have found that people whose who chose to believe that the Guantanamo captives are all terrorists, "the worst of the worst", "very bad men", who were "captured on the battlefield", because they were willing to trust the word of government spokesmen, are apt to trust that the government's treatment of those men is business as usual, unextraordinary, and therefore not "notable". If, on the other hand, you don't accept the word of the government spokesmen, and you look at the transcripts, and find a lot of undeniable discrepancies, as I have done, you are going to think the individuals who are at the nexus of the discrepancies are highly notable. So, in my experience, the subjective choice of whether an individual is notable, can be a highly POV choice. Therefore, I don't rely on notability, and I encourage other people not to rely on notability. I encourage them to rely on WP:RS and WP:OR, this is why I try to scrupulously conform to WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV.

Once again, I am going to encourage you, in the strongest possible terms, to make a greater effort to comply with wp:civ, wp:npa, wp:not#wikipedia is not a battlefield. — Geo Swan 23:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Discrediting GITMO"

You expressed the concern, in the deletion forum, that I was trying to "discredit GITMO".

I don't think the deletion forum is the appropriate place for you and I to discuss your concerns that I am trying to discredit GITMO. The deletion forum is supposed to be confined to discussing those categories, and their merits. So, I am going to do my best to answer your concerns here..

Like every other wikipedia contributor, like you yourself I imagine, I have a personal POV. WP:NPOV doesn't mean we can't have a personal POV. It merely means we have to be scrupulous to prevent our personal POV from coloring the contributions we make.

I believe I have been scrupulous about trying to make sure my contributions aren't colored by my personal POV. I believe I have done a pretty good job. I don't expect to succeed 100% of the time. So I take every civil concern expressed by other wikipedians seriously. I took your concerns seriously. And I was very disappointed by your response. I wish you had responded to the reply I left you in Category talk:Guantanamo Bay detainees. I can't help wondering whether you were willing to show me the courtesy of even reading it.

I am scrupulous to give everyone who raises a civil concern, a serious civil reply. I ask them to be specific, and explain their concern to me. I believe the record of my contributions, when examined in detail, shows how scrupulous I have been.

I am going to ask you to consider Category:Guantanamo detainee held because they wore a Casio watch in the context of your concern about "discrediting GITMO".

Eighteen men were held, for years, without charge, based, in part, on their ownership of a casio watch. This is not a POV. It is clearly verifiable from the transcripts from their tribunals and hearings. And I made sure those allegations were scrupulous referenced.

Suppose I added this material to the wikipedia:

• Suppose I added this material to the wikipedia,and, for the sake of argument, I failed to comply with WP:NPOV. Then the appropriate thing for you to do would be to either raise your concern on the talk pages of the articles, or on my talk page. My interpretation of the wikipedia policies and procedures is that you should assume good faith and act as if you thought I had simply made an honest mistake, even if you suspect I was a POV-pusher. If you were wrong, and I had made an honest mistake, you look a calm, reasonable guy, no harm done. If you were right, and there is further reason to believe I am a POV-pusher.
• Suppose I added this material to the wikipedia, and I succeeded in complying with NPOV, and but I added the material in an inappropriate place in the wikipedia. Then, similarly, you could put a civil note, on the article's talk page, or on my personal talk page.
• Suppose I added this material to the wikipedia and I succeeded in complying with NPOV, and added it to an appropriate place the wikipedia, and you read it, and your interpretation was that it "discredits GITMO", Then your interpretation that it "discredit GITMO" would be your POV. We encourage readers to read the wikipedia and reach their own conclusion.

So, the way I see it, you have to either find passages you feel violate NPOV, or are in an inappropriate place, and be specific about what you are concerned about. I am trying my best not to talk down to you. But being civil about your concerns, being civil and specific about your concerns is extremely important.

If you assume good faith, refrain from insulting and attacking the people you disagree with, you will find it a lot easier to get them to come around to your point of view. And, if on the other hand, they have a stronger argument than yours, if you are civil, and you keep an open mind, the wikipedia is more likely to be improved, because, first there won't be an ugly argument that alienates participants and observers alike, and the wikipedia will be left with two people who now share the stronger view.

Listening to other people doesn't make you a weakling.

I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to make a greater effort to resist any temptation you feel to provoke your correspondent's emotions, rather than their intellects. -- Geo Swan 01:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ.

On a bicycle. --HanzoHattori 19:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff

On 30 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories

[18]: categories are intended only for the most important characteristics and should not replace or duplicate content of the article or even worse, invent new facts. Thanks for understanding. Pavel Vozenilek 23:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? tell it to, say, George W. Bush, and welcome to Wikipedia. --HanzoHattori 06:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines

2. An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article.

• • Futhermore: he was not victim of Soviet repressions (he was arrested by NKVD but the rest was local affair), he was not among "Czech people of World War II" (he was almost as passive as he could be), and other categories are of minor usefulness if not false as well (he served in Austrian army but that is not defining, he served in foreigh legion under comman by Serbian army on Serbian front, the stick in Monenegro was short, anticommunist is an opinion label which will get likely deleted, counter-revolutionary is broad term and he was soldier, not politician at the time, etc, etc)

• • That the article on Bush is crap does not mean other ones need to follow. Thanks for understanding. Pavel Vozenilek 09:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • And please, please, do not add category just because it feels handy: "Czech general" is non-existent term until 1993, there were generals of Army of Czechoslovakia (including German and other speakers). Generals are not generals because of nationality but members of state organisation. Pavel Vozenilek 09:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jacob's Ladder

I have four issues with your recent edit to Jacob's Ladder.

• You ignored the discussion page entirely. These pages do exist for a reason.
• The text that I deleted was riddled with problems -- thus my edit. You did not fix the reverted text at all.
• You left absolutely no description of your edit.
• Reverting a page is not a minor edit.

In the future, you may wish to avoid potential edit wars by coming to census with other editors or, at least, giving some sort of reason for your edits.

Why did you revert my edit? Can you fix the article section in contention, by citing sources for all of the statements? Can you make a compelling argument for why such trivial information should stay in the article? If you can't make a good argument for your edits, this is likely to escalate to a pointless edit war. NinjaRobotPirate 01:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Because there was no discussion on the discussion page, only your message Trivia section removed. (without even any attempt at moving the information elsewhere). Reverting vandalism is a minor edit. --HanzoHattori 06:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Ronald L. Haeberle

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, HanzoHattori! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bangelfire\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 20:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Top Editor's Award Star Recipient

		The Top Editor's Award Star Recipient
		To HanzoHattori, for his long time positive contribution to the Srebrenica massacre article from User Mozart Amadeus Wolfgang . (talk) Congratulations!

Image tagging for Image:Amnesty8.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Amnesty8.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg

I removed this image from the article - because it is not fair use in this context. The image itself is not discussed critically (i.e. "The photographers use of slide film gives a low contrast look to the image..."), and I don't believe that there is any fairuse rationale that could be provided for the image that would enable it's use in the article per WP:FU policy. Please do not restore the image without first reading the policy page and providing a fair use rationale for the image. Megapixie 08:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WHAT --HanzoHattori 08:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

my change in Tet Offensive

I didn't copy and paste from any previous article but from apparently unnecessarily deleted content that had already been on the Tet offensive page. I'm not sure what your problem is. (RookZERO 14:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

Jesus Christ. DO NOT COPY AND PASTE WHOLE CHAPTERS OF CONTENT FROM THE PAGES INTO THE OTHER PAGES. The problem is not it "had already been on the Tet offensive page", but it "had already been on the Saigon I page". And it has to stay there and only there. Anyone can JUST CLICK THE LINK and read it. --HanzoHattori 16:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Hue

I spent several hours editing that article, formatting the citations so that they were complete and displayed as such in the footnotes, verifying sources and tagging those that failed, etc. I see that you wholesale reverted all of my work. Would you mind giving me just a single good reason why you did so? It's very rude of you. Judging by your comments on the talk page, and your edit summaries, rudeness is one of your endearing traits. I am reverting back to my last edit. Do not undo my citation referencing again, or we will have a big problem. There is no justification for what you did. - Crockspot 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You didn't understood. It wasn't "1,500 KIA (according to American sources) [and] 3,000 KIA (according to South Vietnamese sources)", it was 1,500 kills claimed by the Americans and 3,000 kills claimed by the South Vietnamese (the latter number unreliable). See the other sources - the combined Allied claim was over 5,000 (plus 3,000 more outside):

• Communist casualities were estimated at more than 5000 killed and 98 captured.[19]
• The NVA and Vietcong suffered 5,000 dead[20]
• The battle ended with a devastating North Vietnamese defeat, in which the communists lost more than 5,000 killed [21]

And so on. Learn how to read with understanding (it's not that hard!) and also discuss stuff on the article's talk page. --HanzoHattori 20:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Since you're such hot shit, why don't you learn how to use citation templates and reference tags instead of lame inline urls that when they eventually go dead, no one can find the source again. With a proper citation (author, publisher, publication, date) you don't even need a url, because that is a valid citation that anyone can look up in a library. A dead link is just that, a dead link. - Crockspot 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all you are not allowed to use the F word on wikipedia, second well I wanted to explain to you that you can not combain diferent claims of two armies, the US and ARVN, and then put that number as the casualties total numebr, it is one or the other but I see another user already pointed that out to you, third we are talking about the battle in the city not outside it so forget about the aditional 3,000 killed then we should accound for the hundreds of US and ARVN casualties outside the city too, and fourth THANK GOD somebody blocked you from Wikipedia FINALY, even if it's for a short time. --Top Gun 4:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I lol'd --HanzoHattori 14:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Combining two different sources to come up with a new number would qualify as original research. If there are discrepancies in the numbers, I think the proper way to present that would be to give both sets of numbers, and note the discrepancy, not synthesize new numbers. I am refraining from editing the article so that I don't violate 3RR myself. I hope that when your block expires, that we can work together, rather than against each other. My goal is to improve and increase the sourcing of these Vietnam Battle articles, particularly with contemporary news reporting. If there are sources that conflict with each other, they should all be presented in a neutral and descriptive way, so that the reader understands that there are discrepancies. In my view, more reliable sources are always better, no matter what their claim is. - Crockspot 14:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[22] made on April 17 2007 to Battle of Hue

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 31 hours. Nishkid64 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In Crockspot's 3RR report against you, the first revert he showed is a "partial revert" and can still be considered for 3RR. You had three other reverts in the article, therefore resulting in a 3RR violation. Also, note that resorting to name-calling and such is not tolerated here. I'm leaving the same warning to Crockspot. Nishkid64 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, allow me to apologize now for my incivility in dealing with you the other day. Crockspot 18:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Becky Gable. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. WegianWarrior 07:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust victims

I have noticed your edit @ Holocaust victims article. I added new section about Bosniak victims. Check it out and please contribute. Bosniak 07:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Award

		Diderot Barnstar for Encyclopaedic Excellence
		This special barnstar to HanzoHattori for his excellent contribution on Wikipedia Encyclopedia. For you great work on Chechnya war and war crimes related articles with full NPOV policy compliance. I share your passion for Human Rights activities. I welcome your excellent contributions which are vital for Human Rights awareness and condemnation of war crimes. - Ldingley

Notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuously insulting users. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Specifically, it was your edit summaries on Becky Gable that did you in.[23][24][25][26][27][28]

Change your behavior. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yay, so this is the response when I asked for intervention in the troll's case. Since when exactly the anonymous and unlogged trolls, without user pages (not least because of the new IP every time), are "users"?

Change your pro-troll behavior. --HanzoHattori 18:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility doesn't get thrown out the window just because a user is anonymous. I seriously can't fathom why you think it would be acceptable to call anyone a fag just because they disagree with you.
If you seriously think the block is out of line, I suggest using {{unblock}}; a neutral third-party will be along shortly to investigate the block. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd refer as a fag not to "anyone who disagree with me" but rather to a non-user who continues trolling me repeatedly (and this was not a lone page he was doing this) and for months (I guess it's a quite serious dedication).

(Obvious notice: "fag" is British for a cig. Cheer up MK person.)

But hey, whatever. I guess I'll use some Wikivacations. --HanzoHattori 19:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the alternate definition for fag, but the plausibility that you meant "find a real hobby, cigarette" is non-existent. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

Hi Hanzo, I disagree with decision to block you for two weeks! You only argued with a "phantom" user who every time appeared under different IP address. We both know who that "phantom user" was. I hope you will be back. Next time, please let me know if you have any similar problems with phantom users, so I could help. Feel free to send me WP email through my account if you need anything.Biophys 22:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:4e84e96c.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:4e84e96c.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Mansour Khadzhiev

Halo my name is Mansour Khadzhiev ,iam the son of the journalist Ramzan Khadzhiev,i writte now to you because i wannt ask you :can writte more information about my father please,that would be great thanks when you want say me something,please writte it on ramzan khadzhiev discussion. thanks you very much fried. Mansour —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.108.196.156 (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Hello. What can I say? I obviously don't know about your father as much as you already do. My best condolences, though. --HanzoHattori 15:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop changing talk page section titles

You keep changing this section title. The first time it seems you were trying to counter perceived bias. The second time you simply vandalized it. That section title is there for a reason: it is a portion of text from the article that the editor is querying. If you change it then nobody will understand what the editor was trying to say. Please stop doing this. Thank you. -- Hux 10:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It only reflects nonsensical contents below. Isn't there "John Rambo exterminating" and all that? "What the editor was trying to say" is a huge mystery anyway. --HanzoHattori 10:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 days for continued violation of copyrights

Per the Wikipedia blocking and copyright violation policies, I am blocking your account from editing for 2 days. This is due to your insertion of copyrighted text after a previous warning. Please understand that Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously. This block is basically a second warning. If you are found to be plagiarizing again, it is likely that your account will be permanently banned from Wikipedia, which would be unfortunate since it seems you are a very active and productive editor otherwise. Kaldari 15:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This text was BEFORE I WENT THERE. I DID NOT PLACE IT - I REMOVED MOST OF THIS ALTOGETHER, AND EXPLAINED WHY I DID THIS ON THE TALK PAGE [29] and MOVED AND CHANGED PARTS I didn't delete - and I didn't even KNOW it was copy/pasted (I just knew it was stupid and I called it "truly idiotic writing" and wrote "stop quoting this ONE ARTICLE by Arutiunian").

Morever: IN THE VERY PART YOU'RE LINKING I am REMOVING most of this! It WAS HERE and I am REMOVING IT without even knowing it's the goddamn copypasta! The yellow blocks of text, with minuses. I can see it, guess you can too. You can also see my reason for REMOVING: "another telling example of pov writing (based on one, single, biased article". And you accuse me of what, INSERTING things I criticise and REMOVE? --HanzoHattori 15:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see you just believed this "Hux" guy... Further still, these parts I FIRST REMOVED were soon restored by "Vlad fedorov" [30] but I REMOVED THEM AGAIN - for the second time in the row! [31]). I demand this "Hux" banned - seriously. Forever. For framing people. About "Vlad fedorov" I don't know, he would be like me and didn't know about copypasta. --HanzoHattori 15:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The block has been removed. Sorry for the confusion. It appears the plagiarized material was most likely first added by Vlad fedorov on February 20th. Unforuntely, it is very difficult to determine when material was first added to an article through use of the edit history interface. Appropriate action will be taken against both Hux and Vlad fedorov. Kaldari 20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)