User talk:HanzoHattori/Archive 1

Welcome![edit]

Hello, HanzoHattori/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

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

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

Fallujah[edit]

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

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

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

Srebrenica article in need of vigilance[edit]

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

Osli's vandalism[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since youre interested in the uprising[edit]

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

Thank you.

Khodzhi-Akhmed Kadyrov[edit]

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

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

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

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

Alexander Baranov and Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev confusion and massed reverts[edit]

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

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

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

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

Major changes in complex articles[edit]

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

Your edit to Talk:Georgian-Abkhaz conflict[edit]

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

Lora Prison Camp[edit]

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

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

General Ettiquette[edit]

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

Ibn al-Khattab article mediation[edit]

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

question[edit]

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

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

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

Violations of Wikipedia Policy and Ettiquette[edit]

Dear HanzoHattori,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for considering these requests.

Most sincerely,

Skywriter 18:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

link to British[edit]

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

Your category edits[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please do not delete warnings![edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:BABEL[edit]

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

Battle of Mogadishu[edit]

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

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

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

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

User notice: temporary 3RR block[edit]

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

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

The duration of the block is 8 hours.

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

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

Malika Umazheva[edit]

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

Lebanon Civil War[edit]

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

CW1 campaign box[edit]

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

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

Just to let you know...[edit]

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

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

state your reason...[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dont call me names[edit]

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

2001 war in Afghanistan[edit]

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

2001-present War in Afghanistan[edit]

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

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

48 hour block[edit]

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

WHAT[edit]

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

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

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

Oh, and the OMG disputing NYT thing:

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

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

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

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

A word to the wise[edit]

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

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

Killzone[edit]

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

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

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

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

Genocide talk[edit]

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

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

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

2004-2006 Waziristan conflict[edit]

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

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

WP:NPA[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

link to British[edit]

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

Warrior on Terrorism[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warrior on Terrorism is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia[edit]

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

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

check Srebrenica article[edit]

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

First Chechen War[edit]

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

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

WP:NPA,[edit]

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

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

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

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

Viktor Pimenov[edit]

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

Jochen Piest[edit]

Hi HanzoHattori,

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

You may also be interested in the WikiProject Germany.

Thanks,

--Carabinieri 16:38, Sunday, May 19, 2024 (UTC) 2024

Visegrad Article[edit]

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

Gardenfli 23:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HanzoHattori - Let's create Bosniakophobia article[edit]

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

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

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