User talk:HanzoHattori/Archive 2

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1] [2] (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rebel is not positive word, it's neutral^{[citation needed]}. 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): [3] - maybe go and do an article on them, anything constructive for a change. --HanzoHattori 12:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Treblinka extermination camp

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [4] (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)[reply]

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. - [5]. // Laughing Man 05:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Naruto characters

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

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

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. ~Snapper T o 05:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Plagiarism

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello HanzoHattori/Archive 2! 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. ♠P M C♠ 16:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

To summarize, you were blocked for:

calling other editors "insane" [7]
calling other editors "stupid" [8]
calling other editors "retarded" or "retards" [9][10]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Vienna Offensive

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

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)[reply]

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

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Mete oroid » 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I updated the information, see [11]. 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)[reply]

Foca Camp

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ever heard of ^{[citation needed]}? --HanzoHattori 08:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Seriously, get a life. But before this, remove this image [12] from aprox. 1,000 articles you put it into. --HanzoHattori 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Menhal Al Henali

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.
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.
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.
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.
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Jesus Christ.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: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)[reply]

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[14]
The NVA and Vietcong suffered 5,000 dead[15]
The battle ended with a devastating North Vietnamese defeat, in which the communists lost more than 5,000 killed [16]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Regarding reversions[17] 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. Nishkid 64 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nishkid 64 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[18][19][20][21][22][23]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [24] 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)[reply]

Oh, I see you just believed this "Hux" guy... Further still, these parts I FIRST REMOVED were soon restored by "Vlad fedorov" [25] but I REMOVED THEM AGAIN - for the second time in the row! [26]). 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)[reply]

The block has been removed.

O'rly?

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)[reply]

Please see further discussion on my talk page. Kaldari 21:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I goddamn added NOT A SINGLE WORD from Arutunyan. Ever. I REMOVED three paragraphs (with the comment of "another telling example of pov writing (based on one, single, biased article)" - referring to the idiocy of "Another telling example was Politkovskaya's recent allegations", which I was yes, removing too), and this one paragraph I mostly left I MOVED - from below. From the original paragraph (which was HERE IN THE ARTICLE): "Hence, Politkovskaya was primarily viewed as an activist rather than reporter. When terrorists held an auditorium hostage during the Nov. 2002 production of Nord-Ost, she spoke to the hostage takers and made their demands public. In Sept. 2004, terrorist in the Beslan school siege had also demanded her presence.^[1]", after REMOVING first "Hence, Politkovskaya was primarily viewed as an activist rather than reporter.", I JUST MOVED THE REST UP IN THE ARTICLE. This is all in the VERY EDIT YOU LINKED FIRST with this oh-so-smart caption of "insertion of copyrighted text".

ALSO, I just checked and Arutunyan is lying here again. This is who the Beslan captors demanded: Dzasokhov, Alkhanov, Rushailo and Zyazikov. None of them came. They didn't ask for Aushev and Roshal, but they came to negotiate - and Politkovskaya VOLUNTEERED to come too (in Moscow she entered with Roshal), except she was poisoned on the way. [27]

And yes, I am still "Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "HanzoHattori". The reason given for HanzoHattori's block is: "Copyright infringement: plagiarism after previous warning"." This while Vlad (this zomg-plagiarism, repeatedly) and Hux (false accusation) AND Kaldari (banning me despite innocence and then banning me despite saying he doesn't) are not. I just love this website.

And to keep the story short. In THIS edit, I let the following paragraph to REMAIN (I didn't know about Vlad's copypasta - why should I? am i supposed to be omni-knowing for some reason?) and just MOVED IT so it won't to what I thought would be proper context:

When terrorists held an auditorium hostage during the Nov. 2002 production of Nord-Ost, she spoke to the hostage takers and made their demands public. In Sept. 2004, terrorist in the Beslan school siege had also demanded her presence.^[1]

This was just Arutunyan's lie, btw.

What I "inserted"? Nothing. 0 (zero) words copy/pasted. I didn't even SEE the damn article.

And this is what I actually DELETED in the same edit:

According to journalist Anna Arutunyan, 'During a reporting trip in 2001, Politkovskaya was detained by military officials in the Chechen village of Hotuni.' When she was released, Politkovskaya wrote: "I have seen with my own eyes this filtration camp: these are in fact same holes - zidanes, which the resistance forces have, where people are put with the help of ropes and are then traded out of for ransom. There is a strict reservation, in which people must exist, or more like die..."^[2] 'directly accusing General Baranov, then commander of the Chechen federal troops, of these crimes. The publication was followed by a criminal investigation based on the allegations, but a delegation of official human rights envoys was unable to find any such pits. At a later press conference in Moscow, Politikovskaya admitted that she had never actually seen the pits herself, but that witnesses related seeing them to her. In another account she had said the ransoms was $150, while in another - $500'.^[1]
Another telling example was Politkovskaya's recent allegations that special forces were preparing an "escape" for jailed oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, in the course of which he was to be killed. Her source was a retired KGB officer who had served time in the camps. While the article was published in Novaya Gazeta this spring, these allegations went nowhere.^[1]
Hence, Politkovskaya was primarily viewed as an activist rather than reporter.
Against this backdrop, it would seem that despite a brave and sincere commitment to unravelling corruption and atrocities wherever possible, Politkovskaya's priorities as a journalist focused more on accusing and less on reporting.^[1]

And only because I know all of this was simply stupid. Right now, some of this is RESTORED (all was restored by Vlad again, but this remain) - but before I was banned, I REMOVED most AGAIN, and de-POVed the rest too. [28]

In short, I was banning for "inserting" something I was removing - repeatedly. Both the Hux's accusation and mod's actions were simply either dumb as hell or badly-intented (or both). --HanzoHattori 10:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|above}}

I'm removing your unblock request because you've already been unblocked. However, PLEASE calm down. Yes, there was a mistake. Yes, I can understand you're upset about it. But we can make mistakes too. Mango juice^talk 12:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome, because:

User is blocked From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search You are unable to edit Wikipedia because someone using the same IP address or shared proxy server was blocked. This is known as an "autoblock".
The other user was blocked by Kaldari for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "HanzoHattori". The reason given for HanzoHattori's block is: "Copyright infringement: plagiarism after previous warning".
This block has been set to expire: 16:50, 22 May 2007.
Note that you are not blocked directly. If you do not understand the reason for this block, you are probably on a shared IP address.

((unblock|Appearently, I am blocked because I share my ip with myself. Guess it's my fault too.))

Should be fixed; try, now? – Luna Santin (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the block. As I said before, it is not easy to tell when material is first added to an article without spending a large amount of time looking through the logs. I accepted Hux's claim at face value, which was my mistake. Kaldari 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to clear this up, since I was the one who started the whole thing: while HanzoHattori did insert the text in question ("When terrorists held an auditorium hostage...") on two occasions (here and here), I did not check closely enough to ensure that it was a copyright violation before reporting it as such to Kaldari (the texts, while very similar, are not actually identical). That was a mistake on my part and that mistake led to a big mess. I apologize to HanzoHattori and to anyone else that has had to take time out to deal with it and will make every effort to pay closer attention in the future. Hopefully, this matter is now closed. -- Hux 17:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instruction for dummies (you): scroll down to find the originals. Please don't tell me you're a complete moron, because I several times already said I JUST MOVED IT AROUND IN THE TEXT AND INSERTED NOTHING. Well then, maybe you need to be told enough times, so I JUST MOVED IT AROUND IN THE TEXT AND INSERTED NOTHING. I JUST MOVED IT AROUND IN THE TEXT AND INSERTED NOTHING. I JUST MOVED IT AROUND IN THE TEXT AND INSERTED NOTHING. Got it now? Okay? Would you AT LAST stop acting stupid? --HanzoHattori 17:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please attempt to remain civil and stop calling people names. Secondly, you're right that the first time that I mentiond above was not an insertion but simply a relocation of existing text. I didn't spot that so please accept my apologies. However, the second time you did insert the text. How do I know this? Because I had deleted it in this edit (citing copyright violation). You then put it back in the next edit. Thirdly, since the text was found to not violate copyright anyway I really don't really understand why you're being so vehement about denying this. How about we just let the matter drop? -- Hux 05:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Al-Qaeda

Would you like to explain this edit? You removed massive amounts of content without any explanation as to why. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thats fine. Just use an edit summary in the future, especially when removing lots of text. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foča

Hi Hanzo. I have seen that you are interested in war related articles. I wrote Foča massacres article. I would like you to reveiw it in order to check neutrality. All my sources are reliable (ICTY verdicts), so I think it is very neutral article. But, I would like a second opinion. Thanks. The Dragon of Bosnia 20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generalplan Ost

Your latest contribution to Generalplan Ost is very valuable [29] so please reinforce it with the source to make sure that it won’t get challenged or whitewashed with the next wave of edits. --Poeticbent talk 02:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

hello hanzo. i just wanted to thank you for your many labors in cleaning up the korean war page. very kind of you to correct typos, clean up style, etc. Hongkyongnae 18:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgetten war. --HanzoHattori 19:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MKkardgame.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MKkardgame.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will 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.BetacommandBot 04:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are complaining to the wrong guy.

It was removed because of this nomination. Please argue about the nomination not me. TheBlazikenMaster 18:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God, this is retarded. Who nominated this? --HanzoHattori 18:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Saying "this is not right fix it right now" isn't very nice. TheBlazikenMaster 18:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you folks want to make the "samurais" too? Because it's "samurai" right now. --HanzoHattori 18:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ninjas is right plural acording to an English dictionary. If you're not happy about it, you should re-nominate it. TheBlazikenMaster 19:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it says "plural ninja or ninjas". But ninja is more correct - did you even see any documentary, or a serious book or even article on the subject? Do you think ninjutsu practicers use this? --HanzoHattori 19:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably mention that Wikipedia works based on consensus. If everyone did what they wanted, that would result in some pretty ugly scenarios. Rather, for Wikipedia, there's a social contract called "consensus" that means that everyone should try to either

agree to disagree once a general opinion (sometimes in the form of a supermajority) can be reached.
try to see if consensus can be changed, using rational persuasion and getting more input, but not push the envelope too far

The nature of Wikipedia means that it uses "descriptivism" rather than "prescriptivism" (in a broader sense than grammar, but also of naming conventions and facts). Consensus has been parsed from the Category for Discussion debate (archived here). Now might be a good time to agree to disagree, since that is how projects like this get along in the long run. Gracenotes^T § 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ninja

The category looks like a mess. Usually, the category for people who study a subject is placed within the category on the subject. This category has done the reverse; Category:Ninja should be a subcategory of Category:Ninjutsu. When the discussion is closed, I may reorganize the category tree.

By the way, are you a member of the Bujinkan? Dr. Submillimeter 20:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just the armchair nerd. Much anime and videogame popculture and some actual historical knowledge (limited, but I did a panel on the subject on a local con once and I will probably do another). [30] is actually me ;)

You wrote to me:

"Do you think dictionary is a serious source of knowledge on anything?" Yes, I think it's a serious source of knowledge on language, which is what we're concerned with here. Note that Wikipedia prefers the common term over the technical term in general. Thus we have an article Tiger, and Panthera Tigris is a redirect. Any associated categories would use "tiger" as well. Being an expert on ninjas does not make someone an expert on linguistics, and it is the experts on linguistics to whom we must defer here, since the question of what term to use is a linguistic one. Domain experts are great for information about a topic, but are absolutely not the last word when it comes to nomenclature. Xtifr _tälk 23:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"so WHY delete the CORRECT form "ninja"?" They're both "CORRECT", but this is a fair question nevertheless. Why prefer either one? The answer is because "ninjas" was the original name for the category, and when there are multiple correct usages, Wikipedia generally sticks with first one used. Also, despite your apparent (and misplaced) disdain for pop culture, pop culture has an enormous influence on language. And all the evidence presented so far suggests that "ninjas" is more widely used, and thus more correct as far as Wikipedia (and linguists and lexicographers) and concerned.

Speaking of disdain, I'd strongly suggest laying off the ad hominem attacks in your arguments, as they really only serve to cause those of us who are not "teenaged popculture fanboys" to question your motives. Like, is this just another Trekkies vs Trekkers or Skiffy vs. Speculative fiction debate? Xtifr _tälk 23:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ninjas" was changed two years ago(!) and deleted as wrong (after the original discussion). I thought the stuff which was agreed to be deleted should not be restored just like that, especially since for years everyone agreed it was good. What "evidence presented so far"? I actually presented evidence it does not (including in all professional usage, like documentary movies and books on the subject not-for-dummies[31], instead of the silly movies, bad translations, and parodies - making this one encyclopedic, and the other not). --HanzoHattori 06:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule on Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. It looks to me like you were trying to weed our original research, and I can sympathize with that, but it still doesn't justify edit warring. I've kept your block to only 12 hours because it seems you're trying hard to expand our articles. As always, you can contest your block with {{unblock|reason here}}. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you do something with the other guy? ([32][33][34] to use later) --HanzoHattori 15:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

HanzoHattori (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

fighting the original research/repeated vandalism

Decline reason:

Like The Evil Spartan below, I'm sympathetic to the situation, but it's also pretty clear you were revert warring over the page, and it's your third 3rr block, so you should've known better. Maybe life will get easier with the checkuser request.— Chaser - T 17:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

And btw, "plz ban" the other guy. Seriously - he's unreformable (he is only reverting, constantly, dismissing exactly all the sources as "corporate media" claiming they're "all wrong" and refusing to cite any other). Example: [35] (my version has 48 "corporate media" and governent citations so far, and started only today, his has 1). Also, my [36] vs his [37] (also only 1 source cited). --HanzoHattori 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's right, you have violated 3RR. However, I've filed report at WP:RFCU as it's pretty clear the two editors you're warring with are socks. I suggest you just wait out the block. The Evil Spartan 16:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR? Oh, so he did it too: [38]. Also, it's always nice to call genocide "crackdown" (I guess The Hague is "corporate" or whatever).[39] --HanzoHattori 16:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So he did. I've said something to Heimstern. I'm afraid you're not dealing with a new user, however: my guess is he's a sock. Anyway, I find his editing as repulsive as you do (nothing like having a jihadist try to edit Wikipedia for POV), so I've reverted. The Evil Spartan 16:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. The Evil Spartan 16:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Al-Qaeda in Iraq, I just used parts of the article on Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad because previously it was on Zarqawi & Co's activities 2003-now, and now it's 2003-2004 only. The original article:[40] (basically, I used, uh... about nothing? I just thought I should have used more).--HanzoHattori 16:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you mean the text from the website of US State Dept., works of the US federal government are public domain. --HanzoHattori 16:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriosuly: What did you mean? HELLO?--HanzoHattori 17:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? THIS IS STUPID. I was blocked, and he was only warned[41] (after 3 reverts on one article, why[42]). Morever, after this he reverted edits of the user who warned him[43] - still without consequeces. If you look on his talk page, he's only warned(original research), and warned(vandalism), and warned(edit warring), and NOTHING comes from this. But yeah, you are "sympathic" to me, sure you are. --HanzoHattori 20:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever.--HanzoHattori 20:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to hazard a guess, it would probably be because you've amassed an impressive number of blocks for 3RR violations (as well as WP:CIVIL violations); it's impossible to assume that you didn't know any better. Now, that said, I would have just blocked both of you if I were a neutral party, but I've recused myself from this whole situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how am I upposed to act when he's disrupting me even when I edit AND refuses to discuss this and provide sources or reach concensus (which I all proposed)? If you look on his talk page, he was repeatedly (just) warned, even regarding the one and same article. Quote from May: Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Al-Qaeda, you will be blocked from editing. From February: 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.[44] "without further warning"? Uh-oh. He got just two "further warnings" and nothing else. --HanzoHattori 20:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just take a look on this.[45] I think it needs no further comment. --HanzoHattori 21:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pusher

Don't worry about him. He just got reverted by someone else anyways. I know getting blocked like this is frustrating. --MichaelLinnear 23:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste moving

Please stop copy and paste moving into Al-Qaeda in Iraq. If you wish to move the file, please go through WP:RM. Do not simply copy parts from one article and move it to another. The Evil Spartan 15:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scuse me, but you're wrong. I started exactly from zero (null), used the 2006 Congress report, and then put it through the google search for more. You can see the history of gradually expanding. --HanzoHattori 16:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I started with this:[46] (Congress' stuff info + my infobox I did two days before -- do you mean the photo or what? I even changed the caption) --HanzoHattori 16:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can even see the original version of my infobox here:[47] (I even changed it a lot in the meantime - because I decided AQI should have their own article, so I used it in both) --HanzoHattori 16:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's your conniption?

Is there any reason to threaten me with an edit war? C'mon, I have had many talks with people before, and never have I stepped into a debate, taken someone's side, and immediately been lambasted so much for helping. I have tried to communicate myself, and constantly been told to clarify myself. You've accused me of speaking in riddles, accused me of vandalizing your work, etc. etc. etc. I have little wonder you've accumulated about 8 blocks for such wonderful comments as "hi faggot". "Revert your revert, or this will mean a war" may be the most stupid comment I've ever heard from someone on Wikipedia: Wikipedia is a not a battleground. If you would stop talking and threatening people, and actually read some of their posts, maybe you could actually get something accomplished rather than constantly being blocked, reverted and warned.

As for my mysterious "popups" - I used them because I already explained to you (apparently you didn't listen, as the other 16 times) - the page should be a disambiguation or a redirect - the same group should not have two different pages.

Now, if you would like to try to resolve this, I will try with you. However, if you have more threats, please just get them out of your system now. The Evil Spartan 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And "as the other 16 times", it's not "the same group", it's the reformed successor group - just like MGB and KGB, or Reichswehr and Wehrmacht, or Ludowe Wojsko Polskie and Wojsko Polskie, or Związek Walki Zbrojnej and Armia Krajowa, or OSS and CIA, or Iraqi Regular Army and New Iraqi Army, or Soviet Army and Russian Army (etc etc etc). It' not just another name, and it's not only name too - they dramatically changed alliegance (from an independent group), and in great part their tactics and goals as well. This is written in the article AND in the infobox, where you get the lines for foreranner and successor groups.

How do you even want the common article to be called - Tawhid? They aren't Tawhid no more. Al-Qaeda? They were rivals to al-Qaeda previously. Other name? They're known as AQI first and last, in practically all media and official reports and analyses as well.

If you call destroying and disrupting my work (including on blatantly false reasons like this "COPY AND PASTE" twice, and ignoring my askings of what was that and to revert this) and threatening me "helping", then stop helping now. --HanzoHattori 23:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War

Could you please rewrite the casualties section of the article. Since you have removed two of the three cited sources, the section no longer makes sense. Thanks.--Hughstew 01:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved not removed them. Used for a cleanup of Vietnam War casualties. --HanzoHattori 06:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the casualties section still doesn't make sense now. Since you have the expertize, could you please help to rewrite it?--219.78.22.217 05:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Washita

What are your sources for the Battle of the Washita ? Why have you taken all the footnotes off ? I put several historical sources with footnotes and you have erased everything. What kind of jerk are you ? Custerwest 16:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Army Center of Military History. The definitive source, not some blog of yours. I didn't finish yet - guess I'm a massive jerk. --HanzoHattori 16:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have your read a single historical book on the battle ? The army center of military history isn't filled of military historians about the Washita. It's just an overall view of the battle. Where are your quotes? Your sources ? Your books ? Have you something serious on the matter ? Have you got names ? Places ? Testimonies ? Accounts ? I have. This whole thing is a ridiculous joke. Custerwest 18:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you where you can adress your grievances. Go bother the US Army. --HanzoHattori 18:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have nothing - your "contribution" to the Washita article is weak. It's ruining the whole page. Have you got any quote? Any account? Any footnote? Have you something? Are you an editor, interested in history of the battle, or just a troll? Gosh, what have you? What are you doing on the page of an historical event you don't know a clue about? Incredible. Custerwest 18:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I appreciate the work your trying to do to this article. I would suggest paying attention to your tone on the talk page though. I know it can get frustrating, but it can really alienate other editors, and administrators as well to talk so sarcastically. But keep up the POV watch! Murderbike 19:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Feel free to join up here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Murderbike 19:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (HanzoHattori)

Hello, HanzoHattori. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori, where you may want to participate.

-- 64.178.96.168 20:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2007

With regards to your comments on Talk:Battle of Washita River: 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 will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Yksin 22:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your post on User talk:Yksin

In case you think I'm an admin: I'm not. Just a plain simple user who's only been around on Wikipedia since sometime in January. But even I know that one person making personal attacks on you does not make it okay for you to make personal attacks on him/her. You may notice that I made the same warning on Custerwest's talk page too. Obviously the two of you have got a disagreement on the Talk:Battle of Washita River; I suggest taking it to WP:ANI instead of peppering the talk pages of unrelated articles about it (which is how I learned of your dispute). -- Yksin 22:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanzo, why can't you be civil and comment only on the content not a contributor? Do you enjoy it? This is not good. "Anything you said can be used against you" in Wikipedia (Miranda warning). But you already know that. Sorry. This is just a friendly advice; I was blamed of incivility too.Biophys 23:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I be not commenting on a contributor but on content, when contributor=content? He's not only quoting his own blog as a source, he is even named after it. How one can draw a forced distinction? And yeah, all this calling me an idiot monkey etc probably made it quite personal, no idea why. --HanzoHattori 23:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, he cursed enough to be blocked. But it is the entire idea that contributor is never equal to the content. So, one must criticize content and do not curse the contributor. By simply following this rule, you would avoid a lot of trouble for youself. I understand your feelings. Of course, there is a lot of differences between this Western culture in wikipedia and your or my ideas what is an appropriate behavior. But we are guests here and must follow rules that the host asks us to follow.Biophys 00:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ANI#Problems between HanzoHattori and Custerwest. --Yksin 00:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale on images

Saw the discussion on AN/I and figured I'd leave a note on your talk page. Not a warning or anything, just sharing what I had to do when someone left an NRD template on an image for a page I watch. You need to provide a fair use rationale for each page your copyrighted images are on. Unfortunately {{Non-free comic}} just identifies the image as a copyrighted image that requires a fair use rationale for the articles it appears on and does not provide justification. May I suggest using {{Non-free media rationale}}? Makes filling out the fair use rational fairly easy. Once you've added the fair use rationale to your images, then you can remove {{nrd}}--Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --HanzoHattori 16:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geez...

Geez, Hanzo... just lay off the provocations, please. It doesn't help you any, & may lead you back into the same dangerland you've already been in. I don't want to have to go back on my willingness to speak up for you if that threatened Request for Comments ever shows up again. Meantime, Custerwest has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation; I also reported him/her for making a personal attack on you after final warning. CW had a busy little time reverting reports on him/her for both vandalism & 3RR violation, but eventually we got admins to take notice & do something. Now I'm off for vacation. Please behave yourself. --Yksin 01:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YES COMRADE (okay okay :) ) Have fun! --HanzoHattori 01:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that request - don't bait blocked users as you've been doing at User talk:Custerwest, just leave him alone. You're verging on trolling (and certainly gloating). Try to act in a way that maintains a collegiate atmosphere, you will need to work with him to reach a consensus on that article once his block expires. WjBscribe 02:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the blocking admin in this case, I will third that comment. Your statements on his user page were completely out of line and uncivil. Please do not do that again, or you will be facing a block yourself. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hazno! Do not you see? A couple more incidents like that, and you may be permanently banned. And it does not matter was you right or wrong in the article. I guess you think about yourself as a fighter. But people fight to win. This way you will loose. Good fighter controls his emotions and acts rationally. Biophys 02:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Anna Arutunyan Journalist Murder a Conundrum The Moscow News N39 2006
^ http://www.smi.ru/01/02/23/162389.html

[Arutiunian-1] Anna Arutunyan Journalist Murder a Conundrum The Moscow News N39 2006

[2] ttp://www.smi.ru/01/02/23/162389.html

[1]

[2]