User talk:HanzoHattori

Archives

2006, Jan-Jun 2007, Jul-Aug 2007

Article improvement

Hello Hanzo. I've seen that you wrote Ahmići massacre article. I also write articles related to recent Balkan wars, but based just on relaible sources per WP:RS and WP:Verifiability policy, because I think that is the only way to write good article and to avoide edit wars and nationalistic vandalism. So I wrote very important article about Lašva Valley ethnic cleansing where I treated Ahmići massacre and other massacres which were part of the same war crimes plan according to ICTY, but I also linked your article for more information. So I didn't want to improve your article before you, as you are the author, and if you want you can improve it including paragraphs I wrote, because they are all sourced and double checked (from two or more verdicts). I would also like your opinion about my article as you are very good contributor. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia 12:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't exactly write the Ahmići article, I only contributed to it. (Actually just a cleanup - now further.) --HanzoHattori 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation of Politkovskaya case

Hi Hanzo, there is now English version of Novaya Gazeta; they just published interesting article [1]. Could you take a look please? According to them, Russian Procuror-General Chaika intentionally leaked the information to destroy the case, and they let go one of suspects who was actually involved. What do you think? Please feel free to correct articles about Politkovskaya as needed, if you want. Best wishes, Biophys 04:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I heard about this theory, it was also in other the Russian (Moscow Times?) and the foreign press. Previously it was alleged they wanted to frame Berezovsky into this too (he's now becoming being like Goldstein from 1984). I think you are doing the good work on the articles. --HanzoHattori 06:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You might be interested in this : [2].Biophys 04:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Yes, Berezovsky is painted exactly like "vrazina" Trotsky, the prototype of Emmanuel Goldstein. It is noteworthy that Golsteins book was called "The Theory and Practice Of Oligarchical Collectivism". Hence the oligarch Berezovsky.Biophys 04:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with

There is the third person, who has taken photos of the victims of the Chechen war and crimes of the Russian military. He is an author of the photographs of hundreds of Chechens who were tortured and violently killed in the town of Sadikurt. We hope that these photographs will be used as evidence in court, much like with the Nazis at Nuremburg, against political and military authorities of the Russian Federation.

I'm not sure, but I think these were the fighters who were killed during the withdrawal from Grozny. Now, it wasn't actually all that bad on the side of the Russian army. The heads sticking out from the ground look gruesomly, but it was actually to make their identification easier for the families. They didn't destroy the bodies, they didn't even just bury them in a large hole altogether. If you remember the pictures from Grozny in 1995, similar thing was done with the bodies of civilians, just not covered with earth.

Now they burn all the enemy bodies and call it "a law", but back then someone evidently took care to adhere to Geneva conventions (according to Highway of Death mass burials are prohibited, not to even mention the deliberate destruction of bodies being "legally" practicised since 2002). --HanzoHattori 09:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exhibition is unneceserelly biased on several points. For example, the picture captioned "marauders"[3] shows just a security check for weapons. all the "aggressors, murderers" vs "heroes" on the other side, etc, doesn't help. I see this often in Chechnya campaigning, and I think the much better effect would be archived by showing just the objective thruths. You know, the NPOV policy ;) I don't know how to contact the webmaster, you may forward this if you can. --HanzoHattori 09:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, one would make the article on the order legalising destruction of bodies (including Maskhadov's, who in 1995 posted armed guards to shoot the dogs eating heaps of Russian soldiers). --HanzoHattori 09:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all your points are valid. I just thought about a possibility to use some of those photos in WP articles. Maybe it worth asking organizers of the exhibition about a permission.Biophys 15:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As about bodies, they are often sold for money to the relatives of the executed Chechens. Relatives of Russian soldiers often were not notified at all. Once, a Russian mother had received a coffin with a body of someone who was not her son.Biophys 15:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it's entirely possible that they were sold after the identifaction, but it's better than if they were destroyed (including "legally"), or simply buried in a secret location (like thousands of the "dissappeared"). The captions also seem to claim they're civilians, which I doubt I remotely remember this event (it was in 2000, you know). --HanzoHattori 17:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Digampathana truck bombing

Hi Hanzo. I see that you removed the Category:Suicide bombing from 2006 Digampathana truck bombing page without state the reason. Why was that :-) ?? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger attacks are all already in the cat. --HanzoHattori 15:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Iraqshootingchild.jpg

Hi. Have you seen the notice on this image page: commons:Image:Iraqshootingchild.jpg

I will be leaving some comments on the talk page for it: commons:Image talk:Iraqshootingchild.jpg. --Timeshifter 12:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't upload this, and even don't have a WikiCommons account. Lol impostors - this stuff is better than the stalkers I have (hi stalkers!). --HanzoHattori 19:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to mention this impostor at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard.

In his bio at www.chrishondros.com/bio.htm I don't see anything about Chris Hondros ever being a Sergeant in the military. Here is his Tal Afar series of photos with narration:

http://www.chrishondros.com/work_int/iraq/iraq.html

I am wondering if his Tal Afar images can be used under fair use for a specific article about the Tal Afar checkpoint shootings? According to the general wikipedia article about Tal Afar it seems to have been a famous incident widely covered in Europe but only covered in a cursory way in the USA. Especially as concerns the actual photos. Maybe someone can contact Chris Hondros and ask him if he wants to release his Tal Afar photos for this incident into the public domain. hondros@aol.com is the address at his bio page. --Timeshifter 20:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the Tal Afar incident, and I guess nothing about the article. --HanzoHattori 02:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overlapping boundaries

You cited religious strife in the next to last paragraph (or sentence?) to me, and the militias, terrorist bands and so on. In the last paragraph (or sentence?) you noted the personalized terror, such as the pogroms. I don't see how the issues in the last paragraph are not intertwined with the issues in the second paragraph.

Granted, this is a very complex conflict. Again, I return to my citing anologies and non-analogies: Sure, this is not the U.S. civil war or the Russian Civil War; it does not have clear fronts. Yet, one must note how the cleavages (and the boycotts) in the parliament directly mirror the animosities expressed in terrorism and mass displacement of families. Lastly, I would note that a sufficient number of journalists and Congresspeople have cited this conflict as being a civil war.Dogru144 13:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Civil War

We appear to disagree about what should be included in the article. Rather than make any more edits directly to the page, I thought it might be better for me to propose a version which we would both find acceptable. I'd like to keep the casualty information cited in the article, but you are correct in pointing out that there's another article which mentions it.

There are two things I would like to do:

I'd like to move the citations from the removed paragraph in to the infobox without adding any more text.

I also hadn't noticed that information from another paragraph was already repeated elsewhere in the article. I see no reason to restate the same information twice. I couldn't find this information anywhere else in the article though: "Independent militias have identified themselves around sectarian ideology and posses various levels of influence and power. The most disciplined of these are the Kurdish militias of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). There is a strand of militia who were founded in exile and returned to Iraq only after the toppling of Saddam Hussein such as the Badr Brigade. There are also militias created since the state collapse, the largest and most uniform of which is the Jaish al-Mahdi established by Moqtada al-Sadr and believed to have around 50,000 fighters." I think it would be appropriate to leave this (or a summarized version of it) in the article under the "Groups known and alleged to take part in the sectarian violence" section.

Let me know what you think about both of the ideas. If you think the information doesn't belong or needs to be reworded, just say how you think it should be and why. For example, if it's duplicated let me know so I'll stop trying to re-add it. I'm going to wait to make any edits since we've been hitting each other's materials.

Thanks, --69.218.58.110 19:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ, it's just above and below this paragraph IN THE SAME WORDS only rephrased and changed to Wikipedia (Jaish al-Mahdi is Mahdi Army, Badr Brigade is Badr Organization, etc). --HanzoHattori 19:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allah, my browser appeared to be showing an old version of the page. I'll take it you agree with moving the cites in to the infobox and leaving the paraphrasing as it is then. --69.218.58.110 20:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 26 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bykivnia, 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.

--Carabinieri 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wsaw-exec.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wsaw-exec.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Evil Spartan 15:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vukovar massacre

Thank you for improving the article. But you really shouldn't have called Croatian soldiers "refugees". Nikola 05:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Hi! I think you might be interested in watching User:AlexNewArtBot/ChechnyaSearchResult. Colchicum 12:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Suit Gundam SEED

There are no ninja characters in Gundam SEED. --Silver Edge 08:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Y - The Last Man 30 - Ring of Truth 04 - 00 - FC.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Y - The Last Man 30 - Ring of Truth 04 - 00 - FC.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar for the entire body of work. Take care, Colchicum 21:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --HanzoHattori 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Genocidal policy in the USSR

We must also cover the Nazi genocidal policy in the USSR that took the lives of 12 million Soviet civilians within the 1941 borders of the USSR, 9.5 million were non Jews. This is a reality that cannot be ignored.--Woogie10w 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia

If you're interested in writing about characters, feel free to utilize Wikia. In general, those characters do not pass our core policies and guidelines, so they will remain redirects. TTN (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who made it up to you to decide? --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not deciding anything. If you read over WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT, they all go with this. TTN (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You decide without consensus. You don't even merge stuff, you don't give anyone chance to do anything (no messages for the authors), you just destroy people's work mindlessly like some crazy robot. No. Go do something CONSTRUCTIVE - anything. --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, we'll just go around the block a few times, and then they'll stay redirects. TTN (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah? Cool. Two can play this game. --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please just utilize Wikia, which is a much better place for people with your interests. You can contribute anything you want without having to follow policies and guidelines. By the way, have you even looked at those? TTN (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHY WON'T YOU DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE? Dude? Write an article? Add something to the exisiting one - anything? MOVE THEM OVER to your Wikia? I've stopped writing about the concentration camps to check out what "TTN" deletes like crazy in the vidyagame-related articles. Awesome. Are you content of yourself? You're annoying as heck. At least you now just post "merge" proposal tags - you learnt something, at least... --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MINIMUM respect for people's WORK here - is it too much for you, really? If you are so much about this "real world information", ADD IT. --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I improve articles every once and a while, but what does that have to do with anything? For now, I want to clean up a mess that is way too long overdue (this "work" should not have been created per our policies and guidelines). Real world information is impossible for most, so that is why they are being removed. Merge tags belong on articles likely to receive discussion, not some random stubs that have had twenty edits. So please use this site for real world things and Wikia for fictional things. TTN (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, RESPECT PEOPLE'S WORK. How? If you are SO concerned about what belongs to Wikia (it's first time I EVER heard about it, EVERY time I need something about pop culture it's Wikipedia - for years). MOVE STUFF THERE. Do not just DESTROY. People's WORK. You know what's this" Work? --HanzoHattori (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ, man. I just look at your edits and I can't belive my eyes. What the hell is wrong with you, who gave you power to behave like the sole owner of whole Wikipedia? Stop and think about it, it's you alone vs LOTS of people, who, AGAIN, spent THEIR TIME AND EFFORT TO MAKE THIS WEBSITE BETTER. If this is "the new Wikipedia" (some guy who's not the owner going around and deleting stuff, HUNDREDS OF ARTICLES, indiscriminately, because appearently he got a mission from god or something, and he can get away with this), then I quit. Fuck this. --HanzoHattori (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This information should not have been created in the first place and they have piled up too high to even care about (again, core policies and guidelines totally disagree with these), so forgive me if I lack sympathy. You may transwiki the information if you would like, but I see no reason to do so myself. IF you look around FICT, there should be an annex for them or something. TTN (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

In response to your message on my talk page, if you feel something is being done by another editor that is disruptive to the project, you should make a note of it at WP:ANI. Hope that helps. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

TTN

You need to stop requesting other users coordinate an effort against him. There is a request for arbitration underway in which he is a significant party. Trying to gather support for action is not how things are handled. We have a dispute resolution process for a reason. Use it. I (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Do you want me to help you get TTN blocked from editing, or do you want me to help you and TTN stop someone else? User:I's comment made your plea very confusing. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TTN engages in behavior that is borderline psychopathic (and I don't throw that around lightly; he neglected to look at my track record, true intentions, methodology, knowledge, etc. but still dared call me a liar when I didn't lie). Now I believe it is man's goddam right to be a meanie and crazy (for example, outside my video-game-glitch alter-ego, I suffer from bipolar disorder, and let me tell ya', TTN's sharp tongue sure ruined my weekend, because behind the safety of the Internet's many tubes, he is safe from my usual problem-solving approach of delivering a swift Gō-Shōryūken directly to the carotid), but frankly, this attitude isn't something that belongs on WP. Separating policy from attitude, however, if TTN's take on policy and content is shown to be in the clear, then about 50% of WP needs to be removed, in order to fulfill its aspiration of being a normal paper encyclopedia with multimedia and hyperlinks that anyone can edit. Also, it'd then be a good idea to see if the official policies would like to start a "Fictiopedia" or "Triviopedia" or something. Either that, or we all move to Conservapedia. -Missing NOOO 05:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've probably heard this, but he's already being put under arbitration. Unfortunatley, others are taking his place. ----DanTD (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't make it very clear, but I was well aware of it when I wrote that. I'm waiting to see how it goes before giving myself my first headache since going on happy pills. -Missing NOOO 06:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually NOOO, I was replying to HanzoHattori. ----DanTD (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay then. -Missing NOOO 06:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you become an administrtor? If I ever became one, I'd block all the users I could find like that. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned here and many times before, I am completely against TTN's actions. He is singlehandedly destroying a great encyclopedia. I see there is a major discussion on this issue here. I believe that he needs to be banned and most of his merges reversed. Seeing how TTN hates the concept of a consensus, we should put his ban up to a consensus and I believe majority will vote to ban him. I completely agree with HanzoHattori here, I feel discouraged to further edit wikipedia with people like TTN running wild on it. —TigerK 69 (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this response is sort of moot and redundant given all the crap that's been said in this section, but organizing some kind of underground counter-response to TTN isn't really the way we roll on Wikipedia, regardless of his behavior. If you really think his behavior is that disruptive (and you wouldn't be alone in that thought) then the place to get it "handled", as it were, would be the Arbitration case against him should it be accepted. (Which is looking more and more likely) Trying to just negate his effect on Wikipedia by yourself will probably get you banned, but should the arbitrators decide he needs to stop then he's the one looking at a ban if he doesn't. Patience. There is nothing he has done that cannot be undone, should that be determined to be appropriate; non-immediatism works both ways. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I leave Wikipedia in protest

I spent hundreds of hours writing for Wikipedia, I would have actually spend whole days just to improve this project. I started and finished dozens of articles, I did tens of thousands of edits in thousands of articles otherwise - mostly about the so-called "real world information". I put a lot of effort (I would correct every single coma), research, and most of all time into all this. Anyone may check my edits now to see my contributions.

However, I can't be no longer part of the community where some individuals are summarily and indiscriminately destroying, vanishing without trace these years of hard work of the a huge number of a real contributors who just tried their best, only because seemingly rules changed lately. Just like this. I came-I saw-I deleted. Hooray, good work! Congratulations from the fellow deleters! Here, have this this star award of an awesome deleter! What the hell is wrong with you people?

You know, Wikipedia used to be a wonderful idea, the encyclopedia that anyone may write on just any subject, and the others may correct, expand, perfect - and this ruled by democratic votings on averything to deal with the controversy by consensus. It went downhill a lot from there, and now it's no more.

So, after becoming enraged, I calmed down a little and decided to just stop my effort here. It wasn't that hard, actually. I see no place for me here anymore, where some e-fascist may decide tommorow my entries were worthless, because apparently the rules just changed again, and, how Encyclopedia Dramatica would put this, "delete fucking everything".

So, I decided to do something, and this is I quit. At one moment even wanted to ask to revert all my edits ever done or delete this account, but come on. What for. I'm just going to finish writing this and then repost this to the person who has sparked this, and logoff. Good-bye whoever concern this. --HanzoHattori (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear this, but back in the old country, we'd get invaded and it'd never be fair. The occupying forces the last time even treated us as human cattle for biological experiments. Did that get us down? No. We're one of those countries that lick our wounds, get right up, and fight again, ready to kick ass yet again. Don't let "the man" get you down. Just be a better "the man". Regardless, I wouldn't blame you if you just set up a different account a year from now just to ensure your anonymity. But I guess this is good-bye, whoever you really are. (see also: Right to vanish) -Missing NOOO 06:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanzo, I urge you to calm down, please. If I understand correctly, all your problems are only related to user TTN. Please tell me if this is not the case. His behavior will be considered by ArbCom, and this problem is going to be resolved, I hope. You have made so many fantastic contributions in history/political articles! I am sure that you and others will be able to restore the damage when this case is decided by ArbCom. I can help if you need my help, but one just need a little patience here. Sorry for such reply, but you know that I only wish you the best.Biophys (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You need to settle down... Vampire Warrior 20:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]