User talk:HanzoHattori/Archive 3

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)

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

Archiving

Well, I read this, and that may help you a lot. But, to make a long story short, copy and paste everything you want to archive to /Archive 1 and then you can do what most people do and just put something like "this date-this date" somewhere near the top or you could do what some others (me included) do and that is use this template to make it look fancier. Haha. Bsroiaadn^Talk 10:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --HanzoHattori 11:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You've been blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. 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. Evilclown93_(talk) 11:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

11:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My Custerwest sparring? Okay, vacations time :) (No, no appeal) --HanzoHattori 12:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, it was 3RR?

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:

Nope, I did 3 reverts in 24 hours - Custerwest did 4 (again), including the first (as evidenced here)

Decline reason:

You are not entitled to a guaranteed 3 reverts, particularly given your history of violations. — Yamla 13:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

Copy of my comments to Hanzo as posted on my talk page:

I researched this lates round of accusations and the resulting diffs:

1. This has already been posted at 3RR, and Hanzo has already been blocked for 3RR for 72 hours, an action to which I concur (I probably would have added some time for incivility, but them's the breaks).
2. The diffs provided by Hanzo are culled through, and actually represent a series of edits to footnote and source the text. I don't see a 3RR violation here.
3. Once Hanzo's block is up, if there's a massive removal of material by him, without first detailed discussion of why each of the items is removed, I will protect the page and I will issue vandalism blocks.
4. There's no hurry in writing this or any article. You can take the time to discuss the points with civility like professional academics.

These comments, besides being posted here, are being posted at the users' pages and the article page. Please stop fighting the Battle of the Washita and start cooperating about its article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, there was a massive removal of material by Custer. The FIRST thing he did was to revert to his version [1](which he was blocked for), while I and a couple of other editors ageed to do a completely different and NPOV one (I, or maybe rather we, wrote it using the government sources only, and guys took over and wrote more:[2], most importantly), and then he continued from exactly where he was blocked. See the history.

As of his version: It's unsalvagable. There's more about something called "Little Rock's interview" than about the battle! Instead, he writes about something called "Salomon massacres" etc. He pushes various dubious events and figures (which are not included in the modern official accounts) as a hard facts, even if not only controversional now but also disqualified even in XIX century. I discussed this a lot already.

See also the talk page on how nothing gets to him: He can't acknowledge the official version by both branches of the government (civilian and military), including the memorial site. In fact, he says things like "The official word of the US governement and Washita Battlefield Historic Sites are my sources"[3] which is a blatant lie, because he then calls (again and again) said "the official word" "Amazing lies"[4] and such. Actually, I used only gov and mil websites, and absolutely nothing else (except the pre-Custer material from the Wikipedia article, the "accounts of the battle" section which I didn't touch) and all of this is linked to the source. Instead, he pushes his sources he misiniterprets and manipulates (see talk, again - it was proven and not by me), as well as outdated military ones (now rejected by the same army), and, of course, he cites the writings of Custer about Custer (both the original ones) as the unchallengable fact.

I'd like to quote the other editor:

Custerwest, you cannot just keep reverting to previous versions without using this talk page, while talking about finding common ground. It would be great if ALL major changes were discussed here first. Murderbike 17:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

And that's it. But no, wait, and I see Custer reverted back to himself again (I don't know, about 10th time today already). With the comment of "Vandalism reported". Funny that. --HanzoHattori 18:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

I've protected the page you edit-warred on, and I've decided to give you a second chance to discuss. --Evilclown93_(talk) 18:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually really leave for a while (mostly at least). I was just checking something else and go a got a message to see my talk page, so I did. --HanzoHattori 18:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, autoblock. (tried to do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1133609060190.jpg) --HanzoHattori 18:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

However, I just found something absolutely funny: the much-talked "Solomon massacres" were invented by "Custerwest".[5]

Yes, google search gave 2 results: a spam page, and a forum, where Custerwest wrote under the name of "custerstillstands" the following: Ever heard about Minnesota Massacre ? Saline and Solomon massacres ? The things that McKenzie's people found in Little Wolf's village in 1877 ?

I see it's our Custerwest by how he writes his question marks. No, I didn't "ever hear about Solomon massacres". Wonder why? --HanzoHattori 19:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

We need the autoblock number if we are to clear the autoblock.... Can you update your unblock request with this information? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

W?

Any reason why you are removing pages from Category:George W. Bush administration controversies? With no edit summaries, these edits look suspicious. Staecker 12:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Any person is person, not "controversy" (and not "crime" or whatever). Controversy is an item. Person can be controversional (who isn't?), not "a controversy". Person involved in crime is in category "criminals", under categories "crime" and "people". Hitler was a war criminal, not a war crime. --HanzoHattori 12:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also: explain "suspicious". No, seriously. --HanzoHattori 13:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My explanation: by suspicious I meant that they seemed like they might be vandalism. We get a fair amount of people who remove links (and I suppose categories) to try to whitewash articles for political reasons (e.g. someone may remove this category from Monica Goodling to try to disassociate her from controversy). Somebody who removes all people from a "controversy" category may be trying to depopulate the category to inject their political POV into the articles. This would be vandalism.

Obviously by your explanation it's clear that this wasn't your intent. Staecker 14:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Since I every few days check on the related changes of the articles within Category:Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy, I noticed all of this category editing and reverting. My independant view is that most, but not all of the persons listed in the Category:George W. Bush administration controversies should be listed on a category related to one or more particular controversy, such as one like Category:Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy. But not all controversies actually have a category, and it makes sense for individuals to be listed in the larger Category:George W. Bush administration controversies pending a systematic review of what articles and individuals are in the category, and review of those article that are not listed in a particular controversy category. That HanzoHattori does not use edit summaries makes it unclear what his/her intentions are when editing. I think the difficulty is reduced to: edit summaries are desirable. All of the time, even for benign and thoughtful edits, and the talk pages are also desirable for systematic edits of this nature. -- Yellowdesk 01:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

John Negroponte

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to John Negroponte. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Notmyrealname 15:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My edits appear very constructive. This man is not History of Nicaragua or even not History of the foreign relations of the United States. It's a human being. --HanzoHattori 15:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It might help if you explain your edits a little better. Otherwise it appears as vandalism. Notmyrealname 16:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted back to your edits. Thanks for the explanation. Again, it might help to be more explicit in the edit summary. Notmyrealname 16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up after me

Sorry to hear that, I am fairly new to wikipedia and still learning the processes. By the way many of the changes you made were subjective and not necessarily issues of noncompliance with wikipedia policy. :)--Langloisrg 16:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The battle of the Battle of Washita River - please give me a chance

Hey HanzoHattori... this is to add to what I just wrote on the article talk page. This is about trying to fix this article so it's not CW's anymore. Michael Linnear had it right when he said, CW's the problem; the rest of us don't have a problem working together. Though I admit I had a period last week or so when I resigned the article (temporarily, turns out) because I thought you couldn't be worked with either. But now, with discussion today with you, I think -- yeah, Michael is right.

Please help me out on this. Because I'm trying to clear up this mess, & get this article to rights.

I said on the talk page that you & Murderbike both got in trouble with admins because of removing sourced text that CW had added. Not because it was CW's, nor because of what it said -- but because it was sourced, & Wikipedia puts a premium on text that is sourced because of one of its key policies, namely, WP:SOURCE.

Now, you & I & Biophys & Murderbike & Michael Linnear all know that CW's use of his sources is skewed to a particular anti-Black Kettle, anti-Cheyenne, & overall anti-Indian POV which leaves out anything that contradicts that POV, contrary to another of WP's central policies, WP:NPOV. But the admins aren't, as we have learned, going to go & check his use of sources to counter him. They're looking at conduct, like edit-warring. It's up to us to resolve the content issues by coming to consensus. And the only way that we can do that is by going to the sources. The sources you've provided, the sources that Custerwest has provided (which are by & large good, creditable resources; it's just his use of them that is problematic), the sources that I'm finding in my researches. It may even vaguely be within the realm of possibility that we can draw CW in to consensus, because a balance, NPOV article includes all sides when there are contractions in the sources, including the POV he's pushing. But if CW won't be drawn into consensus, because he's so tied to his anti-Indian bias that he can't let the "other side" have it's say in a neutral POV way, there are ways to deal with it, if we have the participation of all those editors who are invested in this article being accurate & fair within the limits of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, & WP:SOURCE. That means having you aboard, as well as Biophys, Michael Linnear, Murderbike, whomsoever else. I can do the majority of the research work -- I've already shown myself willing to do so. I can also take suggestions from all of you about improvements to whatever needs to be done. But in the end, we all need to be working together, even if we can't get CW to come along for it.

Even if you think I'm going overboard with the details, the fact is that the what CW has brought up can only be countered by the type of stuff I'm doing. This will be a big article. It's just the way it's gotta be, because it's the only way that will work against CW's bias. Just as there's no rule that every WP article has to go beyond stub level, there's also no rule that it's got to be a small or even medium article devoid of pertinent detail. Pertinent, notice I'm saying -- not trivial. I don't plan to write a book -- just an article of sufficient detail to counter the bias we're getting. Beyond that, all I can say is: please give my method a chance. Read the stuff that I'm shortly to post on the talk page about what I found in Greene's book (my copy arrived today). And give me a chance. We'll have no chance at getting enough consensus to overturn the biased POV currently enshrined in the article unless we work together, you & I, instead of being at odds as we were before. Keep on working on the other articles that you have interest in, don't feel obligated to read all that I'm reading ... just back me up, if you find what I'm doing to be an improvement over what we've got now.

Can we try that?

Regards, Yksin 08:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

hmmm

look who's back. --MichaelLinnear 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. Now, if these two join forces the world is doomed. --HanzoHattori 21:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit

Hi HanzoHattori, this edit, removing other people's comments, is vandalism and will result in a block if you persist. Thanks, Crum375 14:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not stormfront.org forum to discuss the "holocaust freud". --HanzoHattori 14:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am very close to blocking you, per your comment on the talk page there. If you persist in attacking fellow editors, you will be blocked. Crum375 14:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Go see this guy, he was blocked "for trolling". This "fellow editor". Distinguished collegue. Only he may be jailed in several democratic countries for what he is doing here (OH NOEZ). --HanzoHattori 14:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we focus on reliable sources, not on editors, unless their behavior is disruptive. I asked for a source, let him reply. To delete other editors' comments is vandalism. Crum375 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not the same person

His name is actually Philip Baird Shearer. Jesus is someone else entirely. LittleOldMe 14:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Jesus is a popular name in the Central America --HanzoHattori 14:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

HH, dude, can I just ask that you calm down a bit? I do actually agree that Battle of Berlin needs a cull -- heck, PBS said the same thing himself. You're doing yourself no favours though, by screaming like this. -- Hongooi 14:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to tell him and he's ignoring me and/or fails to understand. For a while (at first) he has been COMPLETELY ignoring me on the talk page (and just edit-warring - heck, we should had been both blocked for the 3RR x 5 or so). And now he lies about what I said when he writes to you. Or maybe he actually just can't understand what I'm saying AT ALL? It's irritating. --HanzoHattori 14:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam War

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Vietnam War. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you.--Hughstew 01:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Request of Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Korean War, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 03:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not French

Actually, they're Swiss. --Yksin 07:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Korean War. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC).

Deletions of your response

I'm sorry, but I've deleted your recent comment to the Korean War talk page topic Biased Images due to the fact that it contained no purpose to the discussion at hand which is the bias in the picture selection of the Korean war. Further more, the use of insults is not necessary in commenting on another persons mistake, which, the speaker in person has admitted to making in the previous post.

If you have comment, please reply on my talk page, thank you and have a nice day. --Steven 19:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust

Sorry mate, misread part of your edit and jumped to wrong conclusion and reverted. --Hayden5650 09:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My edits

Why did you revert my edits to the holocaust article i was removing clutter and making it look better. Hadseys

I don't know what you're talking about. --HanzoHattori 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well the history page shows that you've made extensive edits to the holocaust article, reverting edits made by me, which were constructive Hadseys 19:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Like what "constructive" edits, exactly? --HanzoHattori 19:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Like removing irrelevant material, as i explained above, however, you saw fit to restore the article making it look ill-formatted and frankly laughable Hadseys 02:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Like WHAT? Cite or go away, because I'm bored of whining. --HanzoHattori 07:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Like all of what I did, all the stuff removed by User Hadseys, you've removed, even though it was relevant material; dont you want us to have a good holocaust article?

Holocaust efforts

Dude, very nice move on the article and talk page! I'm thrilled to see this happen, when editors work together, it's an incredibly satifying thing to see and be involved in. I was drawn to the article because of the apparent edit warring and dispute. Now that we've got that under control, we can move forward and make the article the best it can be. I'm not going to ingnore you or drop it, I think your contributions are valuable and that we can all come to a consensus on the changes everyone wants to make. I'm only here to help! Thank you, man...truly... – Dreadstar † 21:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Image problems

Please do not remove the templates indicating problems (i.e. insufficient source information, claiming fair use with no fair use rationale, etcetera) with the images you uploaded unless you have addressed them properly. Please see Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Image use policy if you're confused about what you need to do when uploading images. -- SilentAria ^talk 07:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages

Article talk pages are not forums. They're not where you discuss the subject of the article in question. You discuss the article itself: how to improve it, how it should change, possible additions to the page. It is not for discussing current actions of the subject. Now, the link that was on the talk page is currently used in the article. You can discuss how to better incorporate it, but you cannot discuss the content of the video.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Poles at BoB

In the future, consider announcing your posts like this at the PWNB, to attract wider attention.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust dispute diff

I have finished scanning the disputed diff and placed the significant edits on the Sandbox page. – Dreadstar † 01:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the missing links! Can you take a look at these three and let me know if I missed something in those too? It was a huge amount of data to go through.

Can you check these for me:

• Number of Soviet POWS
• Medical experiments

Also, if I may suggest that you do smaller and slower changes to articles, especially high-profile or contentious ones. It makes it easier for editors to read, understand and accept changes when done in that way. I think one of the major issues the disputing editors had was due to the massive changes in that one diff, followed by dozens of other edits. That sort of thing throws everyone who cares about the article off balance, they can't keep up with the changes. Slow down and do things in smaller chunks. Talking about changes before you put them into the article is also a good idea. Go slow and easy, unless you're addressing something that is against policy.

Thanks! – Dreadstar † 06:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to also suggest that you consider adding more detailed edit summaries per Edit summary recommendations. For instance, the list of edits here have no real information on what the edits are for, so editors would have to review each one to see valuable. – Dreadstar † 19:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Content deletion; personal attacks on Talk:Battle of Washita River

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Battle of Washita River. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Referring to this edit, in which, while restoring content deleted by Custerwest, you simultaneously deleted content by Custerwest. See also Talk:Battle of Washita River#Removing content from talk page for why I've gone back to using templated warnings. Yksin 19:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Battle of Washita River, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Referring to this edit. This is a final warning because I have asked you several times on Talk:Battle of Washita River to stop using the talk page to make personal attacks. Next time, I will report to WP:AIV. Yksin 19:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC) -- Addendum: Also note that another person making personal attacks on you is not an excuse to make personal attacks yourself. Yours and Custerwest's mutual hostility is continuing to disrupt efforts to settle disputes and improve the article. --Yksin 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: here's a list of recent attempts I've made on Talk:Battle of Washita River to get you to stop using making personal attacks and disrupting the page.

• 22:58, 22 July 2007 - "Please stop trying to get me involved in your personal animosities toward Custerwest or any other user."
• 23:11, 22 July 2007 - ":I would want to publicly register my disappointment with the continuous and seemingly endless carping by HanzoHattori about Custerwest, and Custerwest about HanzoHattori, and to ask both of you to please stop it. Even now, even under this header [Offer for Mediation], you both are engaging in personal attacks on each other."
• 00:06, 23 July 2007 - "You are both engaging in personal attacks on each other, which besides violating Wikipedia policies about civil behavior and No personal attacks, is also highly disruptive to Wikipedia in general and attempts to improve this article in particular -- especially in terms of trying to resolve disputes so that maybe one day this article can be unprotected & work on it can proceed. Please stop."
• 00:16, 23 July 2007 - "Again, this is the article talk page for the article Battle of Washita River, intended for working on the improvement of that specific article. It is not the talk page for disputes involving Serb nationalists and their international supporters, it is not a general message board, it is not a forum for nontopical discussion or complaints & further personal attacks on other users with whom you disagree. Please stop."
• 21:04, 29 July 2007 - "Relevance of this discussion [Custerwest on Sand Creek] to the article, please? I have plenty of disagreements with Custerwest too, but this is improper use of a talk page. It appears to be just another personal attack; I advise you both to desist."
• 21:09, 29 July 2007 - "First to note that User:Felix c is a different individual than User:HanzoHattori. Second to ask, yet again, for users -- notably HanzoHattori, Felix c, and Custerwest -- to please stop using this user page to make personal attacks on one another." --Yksin 19:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• 18:07, 1 August 2007 - "Once again, HanzoHattori, please cease from making personal attacks. Please read WP:CIVIL and abide by it."

Re:Berlin

I have noticed PBS has a rather OWNish attitude, but as for demanding verification of all facts, I support him. It's not that difficult to provide refs. Are there any specific diffs you want me to look at?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your sources were nor reliable enough for him. --HanzoHattori 13:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Holocaust. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. – Dreadstar † 19:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment

I referred in Talk:Battle of Washita River to the RfCs that were under preparation; this is to inform you that they have now been prepared and certified. Both are user-conduct RfCs:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Custerwest

I really am sorry it had to go this far. I do wish I had understood previously that you intended to say "well, okay, sorta" to mediation. But such is life. May it be some consolation that the one for Custerwest is much longer & refers to a huge lot more policy issues than yours. Please do comment on his too, even if you're ticked for having one on you. --Yksin 19:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, a related article RfC has been initiated at Talk:Battle of Washita River#Request for comment. Thanks. --Yksin 02:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust

I was wondering what your intentions are in regards to The Holocaust if it were to be unprotected? Would you continue to edit in the same manner as you were previously, or have you reconsidered your position? – Dreadstar † 18:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If I may, I would also recommend taking your RfC a bit more seriously. – Dreadstar † 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image overuse

On 15 July 2007 User:Seraphimblade removed a large number of copyrighted, fair use images from List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters (see [6]). On 18 July 2007, you re-added these images. The reason why they were removed was due to our policy on the use of fair use images. In particular, please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria items #3(a) and #8. Fair use imagery must contribute significantly to an article. Purposes of pure identification do not meet this standard. Further, fair use images must be used minimally. This article had 33 such images on it. Such use can not be in any way construed as minimal. I have once again removed the images from the article [7]. Please do not re-add them as this violates our policy on the use of such images. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 14:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust, Jasenovac, Jews Serbs and Roma

Please do not remove Jasenovac from the list of places Jews have been killed and list of Holocaust extermination camps. Over 30 000 jews were killed in Jasenovac, together with hundreds of thousands of others. Virtually all local Jews were exterminated in Nazi program there. Jad Vashem and other museums of holocaust feature Jasenovac as one of the main nazi death camps.

Also, do not remove Serbs from the list of victims. Serbs were prosecuted as well as Roma and communists, indeed not only by Ustashe but by Germans as well. In Kozara, it was german military that specifically targeted local civilians, mostly Serbs. Serbs had to wear white strips, and were transported to Jasenovac and other nazi camps in Germany and Poland by the German SS. Over 20 thousand children of Kozara were executed in Jasenovac. This is clearly part of Holocaust, and you cant dismiss these facts. They are admited by Yad Vashem, by american museum of Holocaust, Simon Wiesenthal wrote a lot about Jasenovac, a place where most of local Jews were executed, together with Roma, Serbs and communists - see for instance [8] - this is about nazi war criminal Artukovic, and it is clearly in this Jewish source, among many others, that Jasenovac is treated as part of Holocaust. Hvarako 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Extermination camp was a place were the German Zyklon-B gas chambers were located. Jasenovac was not run by the Germans at all and had no gas chambers of any kind.

Extermination camps were one type of facility that Nazi Germany built during World War II

Really. --HanzoHattori 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Washita River

As discussed extensively on the talk page of the article, you need to seek consensus for your changes to the article. Dreadstar † 08:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's LAYOUT and ERRORS. It's not CONTENT. --HanzoHattori 08:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was that you not continue making multiple changes to the article, and discuss every change. You indicated on the article's talk page that you were no longer editing this article: [9] [10]

Now you've engaged in edit warring to keep your changes in. I recommend that you revert your changes and discuss them on the talk page. I will report you to be blocked for edit warring. Dreadstar † 08:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

THERE ARE NO CHANGES. --HanzoHattori 08:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, each one of these is a change, and I didn’t even finish looking. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Removal of fact tag

I strongly recommend that you cease your editing and revert yourself. I will follow up on this tomorrow. This will add even more to your RfC, and will probably result in either a community block on your editing, or an Arbitration Committee case. Dreadstar † 09:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"I strongly say" there are no changes but improvement in the layout and links (and the fact tags in the section on the FICTIONAL MOVIES are totally unneeded). --HanzoHattori 09:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And as of these errors in the numbers, see the huge table below. --HanzoHattori 09:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo, you chose not to participate in the consensus discussions and committed to not work on this article, and now you're making changes outside of consensus. Propose your changes first on the talk page and give others a change to make input. Your editing without discussion or consensus like this is unacceptable, especially in light of your committment to not do so. Therefore I consider what you are doing as being willfully disruptive, and if does not stop, you will find yourself temporarily blocked from editing until further dispute resolution, up to and including a community ban, is pursued. Please consideer this your final warning. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making any changes. Please consider this the final repeat. --HanzoHattori 13:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in regards to the changes that you "didn't" make, there's a consensus-building exercise on the talk page regarding them. This is how it's supposed to be done, and, as you can see, some of your ideas are being accepted, while others aren't. The point is that they are being discussed. Oh, and by the way, PLEASE use edit summaries! AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You have been Blocked Indefinetely

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is a blatant violation of our username policy - it is obviously profane, attacks or impersonates another user, or clearly suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and trolling or other disruptive behavior will not be tolerated.

—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 15 August 2007 (UTC)

lol wut? --HanzoHattori 09:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

also: not. lolz --HanzoHattori 09:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to remove this thread. It wasn't posted by Ryulong, but someone trying to impersonate him. Poorly, I might add.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I find this pretty funny. --HanzoHattori 09:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Before you continue your unwarranted accusations of 'wikistalking', I suggest you review the behaviorial guideline on the subject of wikistalking, which states:

"This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them.

This is exactly what I am doing, checking up on an editor with a history of errors and violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Considering the RfC and your continued uncooperative and poor editing history and behavior, other editors are allowed to review your edits. Dreadstar † 18:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm. Delicious, delicious stalking. --HanzoHattori 18:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, "poor edting": NO U. (No, seriously.) --HanzoHattori 18:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you feel you are indeed being stalked, then please take it to WP:ANI.

I take nothing nowhere. --HanzoHattori 19:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

NPA

With regard to your comments on Talk:Samashki massacre: 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. Dreadstar † 19:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Foča camp

Why have you stoped working on that article ? English wiki need article like that. Today there is no article about Foča camp (or I making mistake) ? Rjecina 23:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just forgot after they put me down. (I don't promise anything. Maybe I'll make a stub with links or something, but not sooner but next week.) --HanzoHattori 07:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I did Korićani Cliffs massacre, though. --HanzoHattori 07:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:Civility and WP:AGF

I recently came across this: [17] - Now, despite being back in April this is still a worrying comment that you left on the users' talk page. No matter what the user had done he still would have never warranted such an attack. Please be mindful of remaining civil when entering into discussion's with other user's and assume good faith. If the user had indeed purposefully 'damaged' an article, the least you could've done was calmly revert the 'damage' and politely notified the user of any wrong doing. Please read the two guidelines in the heading, thank you. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian^Talk 13:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah? He ignored the polite question and vandalised the article (again - not the forst and not the second time). (This one he ignored too.) --HanzoHattori 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)