User talk:HanzoHattori/Archive 4

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


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

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

Yes, I heard about this theory, it was also in other the Russian (Moscow Times?) and the foreign press. Previously it was alleged they wanted to frame Berezovsky into this too (he's now becoming being like Goldstein from 1984). I think you are doing the good work on the articles. --HanzoHattori 06:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You might be interested in this : .Biophys 04:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


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

I have a problem with

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

There are two things I would like to do:
 * I'd like to move the citations from the removed paragraph in to the infobox without adding any more text.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Award
Thanks :) --HanzoHattori 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Who made it up to you to decide? --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not deciding anything. If you read over WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT, they all go with this. TTN (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

Reply

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


 * That's okay then. -MissingNOOO 06:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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


 * I suspect this response is sort of moot and redundant given all the crap that's been said in this section, but organizing some kind of underground counter-response to TTN isn't really the way we roll on Wikipedia, regardless of his behavior. If you really think his behavior is that disruptive (and you wouldn't be alone in that thought) then the place to get it "handled", as it were, would be the Arbitration case against him should it be accepted. (Which is looking more and more likely)  Trying to just negate his effect on Wikipedia by yourself will probably get you banned, but should the arbitrators decide he needs to stop then he's the one looking at a ban if he doesn't.  Patience.  There is nothing he has done that cannot be undone, should that be determined to be appropriate; non-immediatism works both ways. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble   argue  check ) 09:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

(Attack redacted per WP:USER. --Strothra 16:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

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

So, after becoming enraged, I calmed down a little and decided to just stop my effort here. It wasn't that hard, actually. I see no place for me here anymore (Attack redacted per WP:USER. --Strothra 16:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

So, I decided to do something, and this is I quit. At one moment even wanted to ask to revert all my edits ever done or delete this account, but come on. What for. I'm just going to finish writing this and then repost this to the person who has sparked this, and logoff. Good-bye whoever concern this. --HanzoHattori (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear this, but back in the old country, we'd get invaded and it'd never be fair. The occupying forces the last time even treated us as human cattle for biological experiments. Did that get us down? No. We're one of those countries that lick our wounds, get right up, and fight again, ready to kick ass yet again. Don't let "the man" get you down. Just be a better "the man". Regardless, I wouldn't blame you if you just set up a different account a year from now just to ensure your anonymity. But I guess this is good-bye, whoever you really are. (see also: Right to vanish) -MissingNOOO 06:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


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


 * Unfortunatley, Collectonian has taken over TTN's sabotage missions. I'm not going to leave yet, myself, but I'm getting as pissed off as Hanzo is. DanTD (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi
You need to settle down...  Vamp ire Warr ior  20:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think this user has good reason to be upset. DanTD (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. TTN can be too harsh at times, and I don't even know what this collation guy is gonna be like... Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, he might be even right. This is entirely up to Hanzo. Hanzo worked a lot to describe human right abuses, and I guess his work will soon be deleted if only he leaves WP. List of victims of the Beslan school massacre was just speedy deleted...Biophys (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I logged-in to finish al-Anfal Campaign. Guess I'll do here something sometimes, after all... blame my weak will. If you know who deleted this list (is this even checkable?), go and report them (the proposer and one who accepted this scandal). Also, restore (also, if possible). If this was "according to the rules"... well, the atmosphere here is getting really unbearable. That's all. --HanzoHattori (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait, no. Whoever even makes these Wikipedia rules? I have no idea, and now would like to know. I thought they make a good job, now they apparently do an awful job. --HanzoHattori (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It is great you are coming back! If you are talking about Beslan victims list, I know who and why did it, and I technically can restore it. But this should go through a special AfD re-discussion procedure, and I am not sure of success at all.Biophys (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Another list. People who disappeared in Chechnya (Russian), ,. A couple of most recent cases (translation) . . Biophys (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I just learned that you left - but I see you are back, that's great. If you have any problems, don't hesitate to ask for help on a wider foras, such as WP:PWNB. We have a section for Poland-related deletions for example, where we review all of them and have saved quite a few worthwhile articles. Take care, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't :) --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ussr0113.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ussr0113.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

December 2007
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. StephenBuxton 20:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. StephenBuxton 20:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm adding this note, as you don't appear to fit the profile of the usual deletion vandals, so I am assuming good faith. HOwever, if you are going to make edits which include huge chunks of text being removed, please explain why in the summary, otherwise you will continually have people undoing your edits, and then eventually blocking you for vandalism. StephenBuxton 20:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you've now done that - thanks! StephenBuxton 20:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's some crap about Mao. --HanzoHattori 20:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Scan2002.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Scan2002.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
The association of the Israeli flag with the Jewish resistance during WW2 is inappropriate and possibly propagandistic. -- Dissident (Talk) 18:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

They used this flag. Swallaw that. --HanzoHattori (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's exactly this kind of childish, combative attitude that drives people away from Wikipedia. It's up to you to supply adequate support for the notion that the flag is appropriate as the representation of any resistance movement, more than just documented sporadic use. As the Israeli flag was symbolic for Zionism, to equate it with Judaism in general would otherwise be a definite NPOV no-no. -- Dissident (Talk) 17:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you should discuss this at the article's talk page. The description of flags in the article (Polish and Jewish ones) seems to be NPOV. They did display these flags.Biophys (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was what is now known as the Israeli flag that was displayed, it would still not make it appropriate for use as the representation of the Jewish resistance. gives different, specific flags for both the ŻOB and the ŻZW; they could be used instead. -- Dissident (Talk) 19:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if the actual flags were different, they should be used instead, but I am not sure we have the images. Certainly anything related to the state of Israel should not be discussed there unless justified by sources.Biophys (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Highlander Conscripts" in the Red Army during WWII
Fine, if these are Chechens or other people from the Caucasus (do not call them "Mountain Peoples" or "Highlanders," the former is a name that is meaningless in the English language and the latter actually means "Scottsmen"), then say that there were fewer than 62,000 of them in the Red Army during WWII. Don't say "some sources claim that 62,000 Chechens deserted because of this, which is more people than there were in the Red Army." — A lizard (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't even "say" (write) this. I just explain to you a pretty obvious thing. --HanzoHattori (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, it doesn't matter what you said or what anybody else said or wrote: that passage of that article, as it is written, is a complete dog's breakfast; an average English-speaker who reads this article and who wants to use it as a source for research will believe that it says there were fewer than 62,000 soldiers in the Red Army in WWII. This is just one example of how very badly this article was written and it must be changed. If you happen to have access to sources of facts about the 1944 Chechen Insurgency to such an extent that you can verify the figure that there were 62,000 conscripts in the Red Army who came from the Northern Caucasus, then clarify the article. Don't you think it is better to change an article that is so badly broken in how it is written than it is to just make excuses on a talk page? — A lizard (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The "avarage reader" must be an idiot, especially since in the same article is written that 120,000 security troops were sent by L. Beria to put down the uprising. But if you really need, why won't you write it better yourself? --HanzoHattori (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't Leave Wikipedia Again
if you leave wikipedia in protest the one sided, bias people of wikipedia will win. They only care about what they think is true. If you leave they get their way. If you stay and fight we can win. Wikipedia needs to be neutral. The hippie article and the civil war in Iraq article is not neutral and are two of a number of articles that need to be dealt with. --FairAndBalancedUSA 03:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you left, are you leaving or are you, after all, staying? Always a shame to lose engaged and level-headed editors.Osli73 (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:
Good work. Regards :) The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Since I know as editor interested in German atrocities during WW2, I was wondering if you could both comment and expand on article about Kidnapping of Polish children by Germany. They are several problems with estimates and wording, I am also wondering about making seperate articles about children kidnapped from other countries, and I believe your vast knowledge about this issues would be beneficial to the article, its expansion and other future articles about this atrocity.--Molobo (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about it. Just don't remove well-sourced stuff with a concrete figures again. --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian War related articles
Hi Hanzo. I would like to invite you to the Bosnian War related articles to help with your knowledge. As you can see there are so many users who are not here to contribute to Wikipedia but to vandalise articles. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Understanding
G'day Hanzo,

Certainly very glad you didn't leave although I think your words towards me were overly harsh in the Bargation article discussion even if I may not have explained myself quite as clearly as I should have. I had a look at your page very quickly at first and decided that you should have sufficient experience, but when no references appeared, so I wondered what was going on, and got a blast in the face! In any case, I think we share more then there is difference between us, so I propose we shake hands and work together then fight. Ok? There are many MANY bad articles in the WW2 area, with many unsubstantiated and sometimes idiotic claims made. However, if you over-react to everyone and stress, you will give yourself a stroke and then there will be one less Hanzo to correct them. Not good :\ I hadn't had a look at your articles, but I understand you collect evidence of atrocities during WW2? I recently found an article on a Russian site of a massacre of Soviet wounded by Das Reich in Ukraine apparently because the doctor that stayed with them instead of escaping the encirclement was Jewish. Are you interested in this information?--Mrg3105 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Just to let you know that a member of the Military History task force is working on a rewrite of this article in his sandbox--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:U3-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:U3-1.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment Osli73
Hi Hanzzo. I want to inform you that I am going to start request for comment, if Osli73 continues with the same behaviour. I have now plenty of material, but I would also like you to take a part. I am going to present this case very systematically, for example to list his block log, his reverts, other disruptive edits like this: Block log:
 * 12:23, 5 December 2007, Stifle blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: Bosnian Mujahideen)
 * 07:45, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month.
 * 07:37, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months.
 * 02:26, 23 March 2007 Thatcher131 blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo)
 * 01:48, 1 March 2007 Jayjg blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violation of arbcom revert parole on Srebrenica massacre again)
 * 09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole)
 * 00:49, 5 September 2006 Blnguyen blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 96 hours ‎ (did about 10 reverts on Srebrenica massacre in about 2 hours)

So if you have something to add feel free to do that. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You both stop edit warring. Propose changes on talk page(s) and then discuss them, with the others too. --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Info
Hanzzo, please take a look at the talk page of Al Qaida article. I proposed an improved version and explained it. Thanks. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I provided the sources. As you can see we have to decide what to to with the link to Bosnian Mujahideen article, Osli73 keeps including it, although the term is wrong and the subject is wrong. I excluded it and explained it way, but it didn't help. So I leave it to you...Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you think?
What do you think about writing article Political repressions in Russia? (we have Category:Political repressions by country). However, I am afraid that we have already too much material about this...Biophys (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

From France
This was passed on to me from a French researcher who does not wish to be identified. taken from an article in a conference : 1) French Colonial troops massacred :

- a very important point : eyewitnesses accounts are not in great numbers, enquiries were not done in 1940 and also after 1945, with a few exceptions. This research is not yet completed as far as I know, so more infos are to come in the following years.

- before Lyon, June 19th  and 20th  1940 , in various massacres, 188 Senegalese and 19 NCO's and officers of the 25e Regiment de Tirailleurs Senegalais, 4 French (white)artillerists of the 253rd battery of the 405e rgt of A/A artillery, 1 civilian of the village of Eveux had been executed (wounded included) by a) soldiers of the Gross Deutschtland Regiment, and b) soldiers of the Totenkopf SS division (on 20 th June). In the village of Chasselay, German tanks were driven on 51 prisoners killed These massacres are rather well known and a monument was raised as early as 1942.

- there were many others against colonial troops :

ex Erquinvilliers (Oise) : 64 Senegalese Tirailleurs executed (May) ex Araines (Somme) 5-7 June 1940, Rommel' soldiers executed an Indigene Captain, called N'Tchorere, who refused to be grouped with the black Soldiers and took the head of the group of (white) officers and NCO's. He was killed immediately (bullet in the head). Very little is known about what happened to the other prisoners, perhaps they were the ones found near Araines later (83 killed).

ex Clamecy (Nievre) a Senegalese tirailleur is killed after an incident with a German soldier. Following this 24 Senegalese and North African tirailleurs are executed, and 21 more who refused to bury the 24 killed before.

More massacres have to be investigated as it seems they followed many fights between French colonial troops and German units.

On June 21st, colonel Nehring, Guderian's chief of staff issued an order which was a legalization of earlier massacres : "Envers les soldats indigenes toute bienveillance serait une erreur. Il est rigoureusement interdit d'envoyer ces prisonniers à l'arrière sans garde. ils sont à traiter avec la plus grande rigueur" ..."il est établi que des soldats coloniaux français ont mutilé de façon bestiale des soldats allemands" (which is an old argument used in 1914, and will be used against Russians in 1941).

2) about civilians massacred in 1940, some examples:

- Belgians in Deinze (at least 29 killed)

- Belgians in Vinkt 87 civilians executed (May 27th)

- French in Courrieres, 54 killed,( 27th May),

- French in Oignies, 70 massacred (27th May)

-3) about British soldiers massacred :

100 were killed/shot in Paradis, near Bethune by SS of the Totenkopf division.

--Mrg3105 (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)