User talk:Dr.Gonzo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click here to leave a new message.
Talk Archives:

Contents

[edit] WP:GI

Thanks for joining, Dr. Gonzo. One comment that has come up previously (by yourself and others) was that the ulcerative colitis article was too point-like. Would you be interested in starting to convert it into prose? Thanks -- Samir धर्म 19:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would, but I'm very short on free time at the moment, and besides, it seems like M dorothy want's to add a bit more, so lets see how that goes first. I'll have more free time in a week or so I'll start with my edits then, and in the meantime you can add citations for the new additions. I'll put it on my task list so I don't forget ;) --Dr.Gonzo 19:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impersonator?

Have a look at this: User:Dr. Gonzo? Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 23:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure what I can do about this. It's obvious that this could cause some confusion. I don't think it was created with a malicious intent, but nevertheless, is there something I can do about it? I would appreciate any help you can provide on this matter. --Dr.Gonzo 12:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The account has been dormant for over six months. I'm sure you could request to have it closed as it's certainly misleading, I will do some research and get back to you on Monday once back home (currently enjoying the last few hours of my summer vacation...) E Asterion u talking to me? 21:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I just blocked the account mentioned above as discussed way back. Asteriontalk 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I almost forgot about that :) --Dr.Gonzo 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Klovic

I think it will probably end up as No Consensus anyway. It is sad that the nominator went on canvassing immediately after submitting the RM request (I also find quite difficult to AGF in these instances). In all honesty, I am easy with any result as long as both names are bolden in the intro and redirects do work. Happy new year, Asteriontalk 00:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Would you mind checking out Talk:Ethnic cleansing#Bosniaks? Thanks, Khoikhoi 00:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LOL

LOL, I cannot believe that I mixed you with User:Doktor Gonzo.

I actually thought for months thinking either I am totally insane or you moved to Turkey...! ;) --PaxEquilibrium 21:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I think I like your vote. ;0)

At the bottom you said at this time. Could you please elaborate that bit?

Also please read at the top This is not a vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here.

Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're really who you say you are then all this is just an unfortunate series of events that may cripple your chances in the RfA, but I have to say this whole affair just creeps me out. For all I know, the real HRE may be dead and buried, and you're just some impostor that hijacked his account and is now trying to gain Admin status for some nefarious purpose. Of course, that's the worse case scenario... Basically, what I'm saying is - I just don't feel comfortable with supporting you in this particular RfA. Too little time has passed since the incident, and IMO it has never been explained satisfactorily (yes I know it's been a year, but still)... --Dr.Gonzo 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The haters of anything Croatian

You know who I mean... Damn it, I don't have patience for Wikipedia guidelines any more. At the rate I'm going now, I'm definitely going to be blocked. But how can we solve this? There seems to be an endless trickle of people who want to damage the Croatian articles. I've even been thinking about creating a separate Croatian Wikipedia in English. I don't know, it's so frustrating. Sorry for the rant, but this is becoming unbearable. --Zmaj 13:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all - step back and take a few deep breaths. When these people get under your skin they automatically win. It's not about "damaging" Croatian articles, it's about presenting verifiable facts. There is no "Truth" as such, so please let's keep that in mind. That being said - there are definitely users who have nothing better to do than to push their skewed views without any proof or consensus whatsoever, and the ONLY way to fight them is with reason and verifiability. You're not required to ALWAYS assume good faith when it's obvious that a user is acting in BAD faith. I'm pretty confident that we have a consensus about User:Giovanni Giove. He is a disruptive influence and should be dealt with through appropriate channels. I think Jakov Mikalja article is ripe for a RfC, and we should go from there. Wikipedian systems are slow but they work. And in the end, every single article that has been consistently "vandalized" in the past by people like this became better than it was before because of it, so this is a good thing. We just have to keep our heads cool and soldier on. --Dr.Gonzo 13:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your pep talk isn't getting through to me right now, but thanks anyway. I'm going to Istria for a couple of weeks (no Internet), so I hope I'll cool down. You know, those trolls actually manage to destroy data. Destruction by oblivion, I call it. A few days ago, I looked at the history of the article Ante Starčević and found heaps of really useful information, written by Croatian editors, that were reverted and then forgotten in the edit wars. It's awful. --Zmaj 13:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole point, isn't it? The constant struggle to get the information through, IF it's verifiable. There are articles and topics that just need that kind of backing otherwise they'll never get through. But once you back everything with quality verifiable sources you can "wage edit wars" on your own terms, and those disruptive editors can go to hell. We need people to understand that, to avoid wasting days and weeks in pointless reverting. Trust me, if you do it the right way everyone - from ordinary users to administrators will back you up. But that's a bit harder to do isn't it... --Dr.Gonzo 15:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Zagreb1987.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Zagreb1987.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate on the correct adjective for Kosovo

Hi! Based on your interest in the Balkans, you may be interested in the currently ongoing debate on whether we should be using Kosovo or Kosovar/Kosovan as the adjective for Kosovo. —Nightstallion 15:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I commented on the Talk:Kosovo page. --Dr.Gonzo 18:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Former Towns of RSK 1991-1995 category

If you have the time, go check out the "Former Towns of RSK 1991-1995" category here, and then vote at this link. Thanks. --Jesuislafete 01:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] zagreb metro area

Do you have a source for the definition (i.e. what is included and what the criteria for inclusion are) of the metro area. Most of the popular lists seem to indicated Grad Zagreb only as the metro area. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 00:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991

Exactly how are the edits obscuring the issue? And which ones are causing problems? Evlekis 00:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

For example the following paragraph: "Resistence from members of the Croatian population within these zones led to the first Croats being expelled from the region." Can you support this with some sources? Because the fact is - the region was systematically cleansed of Croat population, and they were most certainly not armed insurgents. This IS supported by many reliable sources, some of which are quoted in the article.
Also, why do you want to hide the fact that Raskovic, Babic and Martic were infact radical nationalist, using fear tactics to mobilize local Serb population? This is very well documented and there are even first hand video materials of the events as they unfolded. Also, if you want I can give you at least a dozen links to the videos of Belgrade Milosevic driven propaganda, painting local Croats as bloodthirsty Ustashe even before any fighting began?
I'm sorry but your edits are unnecessary, and since this article has been stable for almost a year now I really don't see why you would want to open that can of worms again? --Dr.Gonzo 00:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I hide nothing Doctor. My problem with the page is the "keywords" it is using, it looks more like a CNN report or a Croatian government journal. Point One: Nobody expells or kills people for no reason and there are intelligence networks among every organisation; even then - that is logic: Surely I cannot find evidence that resistence from civilians within caused the expulsions, but I sure as Hell can find census information which reflects that croats did live in the RSK, so what is the significance with Serbs expelling Non-Serbs? That is a strong accusation. That requires a hell of a lot of proof, and point No.1 would be that the region, atleast for one day, MUST have had a 100% Serb declared population. If the Serbs did NOT expel one particular member of another nation, even if he were a spy for them, then whatever the reason the Serbs expelled these people, IT CANNOT HAVE BEEN BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT SERB, OR THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED OUTSIDERS. To expel members of populations who were neither Serb or Croat can only have been because they were suspected to be siding with the opponents to the Serbs; again that does not mean that they were targeting non-Serbs, it simply implies that their campaign was against disloyal individuals, and given that Serbs too bore the brunt of the atrocities from Serbs, that too implies that it cannot have been plain old Non-Serbs who were attacked. There are Hungarians who lived in the RSK, still live there now; there were Roma who lived there, there were Roma who sided with the Serbs, yet maintained their Roma identity. And how would you like it if I switched all the Croatian atrocity pages to state that they waged war with non-Croats and not just Muslims etc. Doesn't sound quite the same does it? And one more thing, I am not a supporter of Milosevic or the other Serb polititians, but calling them ALL "nationalists" is an irritation; the term polititian is good enough, people should be able to make their own minds up just as I, a British-born lad with parents from Macedonia and who belies in a unified Yugoslavia (ie. NOT a Serbian sympathiser by nature), am able to do. Was it not changes in the Croat constitution which revoked the rights of Serbs as a primary nation within Croatia which unsettled the Serbs? Did you follow the events of December 1990? I'm not Serb, but I am not going to sit back and read bullshit that the Croat-population was all good-hearted offerring a silver spoon to all its ethnic minorities, why you only have to look at the roots of the parties which came top at the free elections: in order to break from Yugoslavia, Croatia had to hark back to anti-Yugoslav and anti-unification sentiment which is as old as the pro-unification itself; that meant nationlaism, and with respect, one does not advocate national sentiment meaning to make non-members equals now do they. Think about it. Can you find proof that these Serb "nationalists" were "fueling anti-Croat sentiment", if you were a Serb from Gospic, would you have needed someone in Belgrade to encourage you to fight for your political freedom? Are the pro-Russian movements of Estonia, Moldova and former USSR republics fuelled by Moscow?? Are people unable to think for themselves; if so, is it wise to be democratic is a society where people need "big boys" to think for them?? Think about it Gonzo. Evlekis 01:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all - cool down and don't YELL. I suggest you read the ICTY judgements against Milan Babic & Milan Martic for some clarification of what I'm talking about. You can find them here [1] and here [2][3] Really, you come off like you know little or nothing about RSK and the events of 1990-1995. I can understand that you feel Croatian sources are biased, but how is CNN biased? In this case they are the very definition of neutral observer. Also, I hope you feel ICTY judgements are NPOV? Because I can support every single word in this article with ICTY sources. Some parts are already quoted.
Also, by your tone I can tell that you are very passionate about these issues. The least you can do is research them and act like a free thinker - make your own conclusions. There is way too much propaganda on both sides right now to get a good picture of what was actually happening by relying on newspaper sources alone. Then, come back and edit with a cool head. --Dr.Gonzo 01:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Look..Gonzo...I don't want us to fall out. You're a good editor or so I see from your personal history and we don't need to argue. Firstly, I apologise for my tone, I wasn't yelling, I just find that - PEOPLE TAKE MORE NOTE when you use capitals or thick block, just to emphasise certain points, nothing personal, so again, please accept my apologies. There are many similar articles all over Wikipedia, what I plan to do next time is use the talk pages. You see, I never meant to change the details, I wanted to change the presentation; even when you provide sources, things still do not have to look one-sided. Now you said "what's wrong with CNN?" and "the ITCY is a good source". Sure you can use ITCY information as evidence, but we must also state that it was the ITCY which stated this, and again, must not state that he is a war criminal, but that he was found guilty of war crimes by the ITCY and so on. Remember, this is politics, you think I am passionate, but not so much that I wish to get actively involved: all arguements, have counter-arguements; no claim is ever rebuffed, unless the plaintiff holds out his hands and says "ah, yes, sorry, you were right". Now this wasn't Milosevic, it wasn't Izetbegovic, and it wasn't Tudjman either, so their successors can argue eternally. The ITCY is an organisation funded entirely by specific governments, all who have a personal interest. In 1993, it was a pleasure to see these Serbs stands trial from victims of Serb atrocity, but once Milosevic fell from power, the ITCY started to look less Anti-Serb, it continued to seek Serbs but it started to lean towards indictments of individuals whose crimes were against Serbs. Croats had hitherto only appeared for crimes against Muslims, and Muslims themselves, had only been on trial for crimes against other Muslims - suffice it to say, that those Bosniaks/Muslims were collaborators with the Serbs, or the Croats. I don't believe the court is international, because without the contribution from one or two countries whom I will not name, the court would not exist. I hardly think that Burkina Faso, Bhutan, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Fiji, the Soloman Islands, Georgia, Poland, Malta, Cyprus, Chad, Namibia, Malaysia, Guatemala, Portugal, Moldova or South Korea care too much about what is happening in Morocco, or whether there is a border dispute between Belarus and the Ukraine, or whether Nagorno-Karabagh's status is causing widespead atrocity in Azerbaijan. Now let's take a closer look at Croatians, not as enemies, not as Croat and Serb, but as men of science. 1991: Serbs delcare RSK, not good; to do so, they must comit atrocities, nobody denies that - don't think I tried to deny it. During that time, a series of battles involving Croats happen (like Medak 1993), again, atrcotities by all sides seem unavoidable. Then in 1995, Croatia realises that to capture the whole territory once and for all, it must use all its force and go for the kill: Gonzo, I know that this means that people must be expelled, I don't deny it. The only problem is, that the high-profile governments, gave your military the thumbs-up to use whatever tactics were necessary. And so the operations went ahead, and Krajina was yours once and for all. Barely a decade later, Ante Gotovina is wanted for war crimes in the area. What was he supposed to do??? If his actions did not cause the removal of Serbs, those Serbs would still be working for and funding their authorities (your rebels), and new soldiers would arise and the war would never end. Only everyone thought, Croatia would never have to answer for it. Now you've been stabbed in the back by the countries who helped you to achieve your goal. In the case of Babic and Milosevic, well, atleast they did not achieve what they fought for, but Gotovina did. Serbs did hold Krajina for about four years, nobody recognised it. Gotovina and friends liberated the Krajina-Croats and the whole world recognises it, so why is he on trial? See? I'm not anti-Croat. I am anti-ITCY. There is no neutrality in conflict, and every individual who works at the court, all its staff including from the judge down to minor personel such as the brain-dead half-asleep security guards are ALL citizens of countries who are signatury to the court. In theory, they represent an office which is higher than the countries themselves, the UN - in practice, they are ALL employed by their respective governments; they wear their badges which indicate authority but once the school bell rings and it's time to go home, they hold out their hands for a wage from their respective governments, they serve their governments like an civial servant, they are on their government's pay-rolls, paid by the local tax-payer, and if Mr.President is unhappy with any of them for "misrepresting him", he will replace him quicker than he can sneeze and there is sweet F***-All that Louise Arbor can do if she falls from favour with the US governemnt, there is no UN court of appeal where-by a judge from the Gujurati minority of India can overrule George W.Bush or his democrat counterpart if in power! Governments are political organisations, just like corporate businesses. Anyway, news networks are not all objective and CNN definitely is not. You see Gonzo, however you look at it, all through the Balkan wars, Serbs were condemned by the western media, and the western governments. You can talk against the Krajina Serbs and their pre-1995 aspirations all you want, the Krajina Serb has the same moral and so-called "internationally legal" right in Krajina as has the Albanian in Kosovo. The suggestion that things are different because Serbs in Kosovo were excessively aggresive is nonsense. When the push came to the shove, Croatia proved that it too can be as aggressive, but in conflict, one has to do what one has to do - each side has its clerics, its architects, its warlords, and mostly, its decision makers. These people are normally safe from fighting, encouraging the simple civilians to do their dirty work; when one of them dies, they don't care because they don't even know him by name. But if any of these sharks who advocated war, rebel or government, cared so much about the thousands of civilians who fall victim to opponent atrocity, he need only raise his arms and "surrender". If he insists on fighting, and it goes on over 20 years (like Sri Lanka vs Tamils), then it is as much his fault if his party is weaker, as for his counterpart, you cannot blame him for continuing to fight for what he/his people believe is right. And Serbs were on borth sides of a single coin, one in Kosovo and one in Krajina. CNN did little to report on the missing Serbs from Kosovo and the events which led to the Yugoslav clampdown; neither did they nor SKY bother to report much about the Albanians declaring Jihad, their involvements with Al-Qaeda. But when Al-Qaeda was in Bosnia, they weren't such a "bad bunch of lads" (in 1995). But many non-Nato countries around the world showed their people the horifying images of these Mujihadins chopping off Orthodox boys penises and sticking it in their mouths etc. Away from the Balkans, do you follow Sudan? We hear constantly of Sudanese atrocities against minority Black Africans in Darfur, but why only Darfur? Why not the north of Sudan? There are Blacks there too are there not? Simple, there are plans by some individuals to split Darfur off from Sudan - but whilst it is Sudanese, Omar al-Bashir doesn't have to do anything to capture it, he already has it - so before he sends in his security forces, it is down to the eastern front (Sudan's KLA) to provoke such a reaction. So they move in, and years later, they are still there - but what do we know about the Eastern Front? According to CNN, they are just fighting for greater rights; according to reports across the Arab world, they make their money on drugs, they rape Arab girls, and they have a bad history for holding villages, expelling opponent civilisations, killings etc - even allied states of the US report this (Egypt, Kuwait etc). What CNN tell you may be true, but dr.Gonzo - it is not the whole story, it never is. And this is the tip of the iceberg, but for Wikipedia, media is media - it can be used as a source as long as it is stated that it is only "what BBC reported in February 2004 etc". That way, people like me can hit back and say that "Alahu Akbar News" from Palestine reported "so and so" differently etc. Back to the issue, it is late for me now. I plan to go back to the Dalmatian Riot page, restore the original without the citation features, and rephrase it more carefully, and you can help me do this. We can discuss these things and I am sure we can come to a gentleman's agreement how to present it. Are you all right with this? Evlekis 02:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying but to tell you the truth I'm getting tired of all this nationalist nonsense as it is. I'm not a nationalist by any definition yet I find myself in a position where I have to literally fight against editors who come here in bad faith and destroy articles with sensless propaganda, blame shifting, warmongering etc. And I'm sad to say that those editors are mostly ones with radical pro-Serbian bias. Obviously, for some people the war is not over and they want to keep fighting right here, on the pages of this great encyclopedia. And that's what it is - an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Which brings me to my second point - while you're certainly entitled to your opinion on what constitutes a neutral article, the fact is - in these kind of articles, where a slightest unbalance can start an edit war you need to be extra careful to 1.) have verifiable, reputable sources for your claims 2.) exclude certain things although you know it's not very encyclopedic, but will keep the article from going Defcon 1. In other words, although it would be perfectly acceptable to accompany every mention of Milan Martic and Milan Babic with the adjective "convicted war criminal" (because that's what they are, it's verifiable and non-debatable) Croatian users choose not do it. In return, (rational) Serbian users make consessions, like not messing with the article even if doesn't say exactly what they would like it to say. Life is always about compromises, and Wikipedia is no different. And if you look at the edit history for this article you'll see it was very stable in the last year or so (thanks in no small part to efforts of ChrisO) and although it's not perfect it serves it's purpose.
Please, don't think I'm trying to patronize you or trying to fudge the issue, but please, pick your battles, because I guarantee, if you start messing with this article (which in my humble opinion isn't half bad), there'll be vultures all over it in a matter of hours and that's when you really won't get anything done. As for myself, lately I prefer to just leave opinions on talk pages instead of editing articles personally, because it seems every time I try to change something remotely related to Ex-Yu there's like 10 edit warriors ready to strike... If you want my advice - stay the hell away from these controversial articles and do your own thing, write new ones, leave the controversy behind, you'll feel a lot better and know that you made a difference. This war will be controversial for another 100 years maybe more, so trying to write rationally about it today is mission impossible, people just don't want to hear the other guys "Truth"... --Dr.Gonzo 03:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right. You won't believe this but I am sick of these issues aswell. But do appreciate that I am an objective editor, I have defended Croatia and its actions against radical Serbs, and I have defended Albanians too. Nobody who carefuly examines my edits can call me a nationalist of any kind. In fairness, sometimes I have to defend Serbs too. The thing is Gonzo, between you and me; living in the UK, I am concerned about my family in Macedonia, partly their security but mostly their poor pathetic standard of living, so I am compelled to follow events in Macedonia; to what is that related? The rest of the former Yugoslavia, as well as Eastern Europe! "We will join N*TO, things will be better; we will join the EU, things will be even better; we will adopt the EURO, it will be like Heaven; we will cut off our dicks and have sex changes like in the USA, then life will be best..." and all that bollocks. The domino effect leads me to follow events from all over the world... sad but inevitible. But atleast I can contribute on Wikipedia, probably the only positive outcome of it all! I appreciate the rapport between hardliners on those pages but let's be fair. On such a page as Dalmatian Riots, there are two ways we can go about sorting out the page. The first is simple, inserting the template informing the reader that it is disputed. Alternatievly, we can discuss reshaping the article to sound balanced. Now believe me, there are ways we can do this without removing any of the content; precisely my original target. All that needs to be done is: piece by piece, agree on a rephrasal. If it's balanced Gonzo, it will offend nobody, no Serb, no Croat... you've already asserted yourself on the page, a reason why you and I are talking. ChrisO will have something to say, so do you...and so do I; we are all civilised, so do you think we can come to some kind of agreement? Evlekis 08:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
All right, I tell you what - you can list everything you feel is wrong with the article on it's talk page, and then we can see if we can compromise on those issues. Do it in a 1.),2.),3.),etc. format. When we come to a consensus we can enter those changes into the article provided they are backed by verifiable sources. Also, please, for your sake, drop the "defending Croats, Albanians, Serbs,etc. against hardliners" attitude... It's a completely wrong approach - what you should be doing is writing a good, completely dispassionate, verifiable encyclopedia. If you just slightly shift your attitude to make that your primary goal, participating in heated debates that accompany these kinds of articles will be so much easier... --Dr.Gonzo 13:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Gonzo, I totally agree, and will do it. I'll give it a few days as I for one will be busy and a cooling off period never hurt anyone. Just for your information, when I said "defending certain groups against hardliners", I never meant "...it was right for them to comit that massacre...", I meant in the encoyclopaedic sense, where-by when a meathead publishes his news report, I try to iron out the parts which look unfair so to speak. I did think that I'd done that with the Dalmatian Riots page but it backfired a little, others didn't agree!! Now I don't want to offend people at the same time!! So, some time next week...a "1,2,3" approach it will be, it can take till Christmas if need be, there is no rush. I look forward to reading from you then. Pozdrav. Evlekis 11:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next stage of Dalmation Riots page

Hello again. I don't know if you've lately been following the events of the Dalmation Riots May 1991; the fact that you havn't contributed since we last met doesn't mean that havn't read it of course. I know last week I said that I'd run through the details of my changes and try to form a concensus. But plans can change quickly. You see, I've changed my perspective now. Naturally, I am concerned about the presentation of events involving the Balkan wars, and I'll be honest with you: yes I am rather disheartened about the misrepresentation of the Serbians, speaking as one who swears blind that he isn't one in reality. You see Gonzo, I don't deny what happened; but how it happens is something else. I follow world events and as I told you before, when you strip a movement down to its bear foundation, you see that there is nothing intriniscly wrong with any school of thought, it all serves some kind of purpose. But when you go your way, I go mine, then we cross paths, a conflict surfaces, and if we are bone-headed enough to ignore the needs of the other, there we are poised for a full-scale war (I am talking if we are potential heads of a government here, not personally as Wiki editors!). But sticking to the subject, I don't believe that the riots page should stand: it is too minor, it wasn't even a real riot, let alone pogrom, and if you want it deleted, I will gladly stand in as a neutral here and vote for deletion. Obviously it was a local issue which did not directly involve any noteable person or organisation. I hope by now we've cooled any differences which existed a week ago. Evlekis 09:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your warnings

I will revert the edits by Afrika paprika as much as I like, that is MY RIGHT. The banned user:Afrika_paprika has the right to do nothing here. And you waste your time in defending him. See WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. I no way im going to break the 3RR. The case was ALREADY judged by a moderator.--Giovanni Giove 18:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem has been ALREADY judged by administrator user:Isotope23, and the user ALREADY identified as Afrika paprika. You are just looking for pretests.--Giovanni Giove 18:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
you have reported me? Who cares? If you are honest, you would do something against Afrika, and not against me.--Giovanni Giove 18:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giacomo Micaglia 3RR report

Actually, those IPs were Afrika paprika evading his block. It only stopped because Alison protected the page and I rangeblocked Afrika's IP. I have no idea about the first 2 reverts though.--Isotope23 talk 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I commented here:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Giovanni Giove reported by User:Dr.Gonzo (Result: ) --Dr.Gonzo 20:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive removals

Hello Dr. Gonzo, I wanted to drop you a note to let you know that an anonymous editor has removed significant amounts of content from your archives, as seen here. As I am unsure if this may be you on a non-secure computer, I did not revert the edits, but thought I would let you know so that if this is not acceptable to you, you can go revert them yourself. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 18:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it wasn't me, and I'll revert it immediately. The nerve of some people, deleting other peoples archives... --Dr.Gonzo 22:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The nerve of some people? :S I'm sorry, I didn't mean to seem rude or anything, Boris (who is blocked and his account deleted) wanted me to delete his comments because they show his full name and his points of view on many of the things he wrote long ago have changed. I'm not deleting your comments, just his comments. I'm sure this doesn't mean much to you, but it means a lot to the user in question and I'm sure he would appreciate it if you left the comments deleted. I'm sure that if you revealed your full name, you would feel bad about the whole world being able to see what you wrote. We all make mistakes... :( I hope you understand and I hope you'll agree to what I said. :) --24.85.243.74 19:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I won't let you delete them. Everyone is responsible for the things they write, and just because he suddenly had a change of heart about his earlier statements doesn't make it right to just delete them. That way you take away something from me as well because I participated in those discussions. Besides, nothing is ever really deleted on Wikipedia, just "updated", so this whole thing won't hide anything from anyone. He should have thought about what he was doing before writing comments and articles under his full name. --Dr.Gonzo 01:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
How about just removing Boris' full name? --24.85.243.74 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I can live with that. Just be sure to leave some alias instead, like BM or something, so it doesn't look like you're trying to hide something. --Dr.Gonzo 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta

What is exactly the basis for your vote. What is your oppinion on renaming. -- Imbris (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I was the one who initiated the last (failed) RfM, you can just look it up there (it's archived on the articles talk page). I haven't changed my opinion. --Dr.Gonzo (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)