User talk:Galassi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Roger Garaudy[edit]

You reverted my changes to the Roger Garaudy page charging that there was "no such content in the citation". You're simply wrong. "Many of his books and ideas have been deemed controversial" - my edit comes from "he became a political outcast after publishing a book which claimed that Nazi war crimes were invented to justify the existence of Israel". My " he suffered accordingly in academic circles" comes from the article's, "He also taught philosophy at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, where he fell out with another activist-philosopher, Michel Foucault, leading him to ask for a transfer to Poitiers." as well as "His breach with the party came after the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, which he criticised as did a number of other party members, leading to his association with groups to the left of the party and his expulsion in 1970". Lastly my "as in the law system of his homeland, France" comes from the article's "After an outcry in the press, Garaudy was prosecuted under France’s tough laws against inciting racial hatred and denying crimes against humanity, to be found guilty in 1998. He appealed against the judgement at every possible level but lost each time, with the final verdict from the European Court of Human Rights declaring that he had received a fair trial". So I don't understand what you mean and I'd ask that you be more careful when erasing somebody's work. I'm going to revert the article back to my edit now.

Reverting large edits[edit]

You recently reverted a large amount of edits I made on the basis of original research violations. What you probably didn't realize is that those violations existed in the article before I made my edits, and what you reverted to still contained them. Please, if you want to change a small part of an article, make small edits, don't try to change it by reverting a large amount of good edits. I created an article on the talk page of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Isreal regarding your revert. Thank you. Miona152 (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel[edit]

I would like to dispute your reversal of my recent edit to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. WP:RS states that blogs are largely unacceptable. One of the blogs I cited contains video from CBS 60 Minutes as well as C-Span, with full video of Ahmadinejad giving the statements I referenced. What could be more reliable than video proof of what is described in the article? Miona152 (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Read up on the appropriate policies. Wikipedia reports Reliable Sources, not personal opinions/dislikes. Also 1 - it is quite illegal to misrepresent citations. Also 2 - the appropriate place to discuss this is the article's Talk Page.--Galassi (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
What are you referring to when you say "it is quite illegal to misrepresent citations"?
I changed the citation to a "reliable" source, but I still consider one of my previous blog citations, the one where there's a video showing the relevant segments of the interview, to be reliable. That particular blog-source also shows how mainstream media (in this case, 60 minutes) can be unreliable. Wikipedia should reconsider the definition of a "reliable source". If a blog shows video evidence of information, then how would that be truly unreliable? Video evidence is usually the best evidence, especially when it is regarding a statement given by a person. Is there any way I can make a complaint with the people who make the rules for Wikipedia? Miona152 (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Slavic Neopaganism[edit]

Why did you delete my post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viki11rodno (talkcontribs) 17:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Award[edit]

Award of Ukraine Za Zaslugy 3rd Degree.jpg For Merit - 3rd degree
You are hereby awarded this long-overdue Ukrainian National Award "For Merit", in recognition of your extensive contributions to art and cultural entries, such as Music of Ukraine and Bandura, as well as historical subjects. Congrats.--Riurik(discuss) 08:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, am honored.Galassi (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fedir[edit]

If you have a moment, consider suggesting Fedir Krychevsky for Wikipedia:Did you know?.--Riurik(discuss) 03:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankists[edit]

You have introduced into the "Chopin" and "Mickiewicz" articles, assertions that the mothers of both have been proven to have been descendants of Frankist Jews. You cite as your evidence "M. Mieses, Polacy–Chrześcianie pochodzenia żydowskiego, I–IV vol., Warszawa, 1938." Could you please give me the respective volume and page numbers, and the pertinent quotations?

You have also introduced into the "Chopin" article an assertion that Countess Skarbek was likewise of Frankist Jewish descent. You cite as your evidence an article in the Russian-language online publication, Kaskad. Could you please tell me approximately how far down in that article this assertion is made, and would you be so kind as to quote the relevant passage for me in English translation? Nihil novi (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an access to the library right now. Look for word -Фигнер- in the Kaskad article.Galassi (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Exact quote- "сама графиня до замужества принадлежала к сословию мещан и была дочерью банкира Фингера".Galassi (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the text in question from the Chopin article. Please see the discussion page there for more information.
Nihil novi, thank you for vicariously bringing this to my attention by commenting on it, both here and on the Chopin discussion page. I love that you're protesting its inclusion but I believe we can protest using much simpler (and more powerful) grounds (the criteria for which I believe you'll agree are more than appropriate). I will be watching the article even more closely than I normally do to make sure the text is not reposted. It's my opinion that you shouldn't waste your valuable time debating with this person about this particular piece of text. Sugarbat (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Please accept my profound gratitude. Nihil novi (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Carvaggio[edit]

Thank you. I like the way that you've approached the issue of personal characteristics in a constructive and helpful way and have sought to improve the text rather than removing it completely. I think this gives a more balanced picture than relegating discussion to footnotes. Thanks again. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


Pogroms and Kozhinov[edit]

Hey Galassi... While Kozhinov, not being a professional historian, is not a scholarly source at any rate, I hardly see any ground for you dubbing him an anti-semite, especially a "rabid" one. Wishing to avoid a revert war, I decided to take this question up here first. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

kozhinov is not just rabid, but he is also a holocaust denier. a simple google search elicits quite a bit of that- http://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2+%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B8&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:ru:official&client=firefox-a Galassi (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Have you actually read his books? Because the whole "holocaust denier" dealie that you attribute to him is based on what he views as problems with statistics, as well as certain things that haven't been decisively proven (ie. the collaboration between zionists and nazis). In dealing with pogroms, Kozhinov makes a point in using mostly jewish sources, and from those he derives that the jewish self-defence(1) against "pogromshchiki" was more succesful than is usually admitted, as well as that the government's role to suppress the anti-semitic riots has been largely underplayed in modern historiography. Of course, we should get to primary sources... but it's not that easy... (1)-Note that weapons were rather freely sold in the Russian empire. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I have perused several. They are pretty insufferable, and the author is pretty odious. If you ever find reliable stats of "casualties inflicted by the Jews during the pogroms"- then we would happily include such salient bits. Until then....Galassi (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Firearms: but not freely carried: "В виду встречающихся в последнее время ходатайств священников – членов Союза Русскаго Народа о разрешении им держать огнестрельное оружие, министерством вн. дел разъяснено, что ходатайство подобного рода удовлетворению не подлежат, в силу положения совета министров, утвержденного 25 ноября 1905 г. и разъяснения мин. вн. дел о том, что самое призвание священнослужителей возносить бескровные жертвы у алтаря Божия препятствует им прибегать в каких-либо случаях к оружию убийства." ~from http://starosti.ru Galassi (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

200YT[edit]

PLease read the Gimpelevich article before reverting.Galassi (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If its in English I will take a look. I am no expert on this material and don't even know what the "truth" is about this. Its more about the use of POV terms like "considerable" or "widely", ect terms. Sources should specifically say this or its open to interpretation or POV. --Tom 16:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
It IS in English, and it lists MANY scholarly opinions.Galassi (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess that is the rub. This is one authors review that includes some analysis taken from other scholars and pieced together. The overall tone seems pretty neutral, but again, I am NO expert on this material and just stumble by. --Tom 16:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I am a bit of an expert, and have the benefit of having been able to appreciate AS's tract in the original tongue. It is pretty inflammatory, really.Galassi (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no doubt that it is. The last source you added, again, doesn't really support the material however. The author questions the intentions of AS and asks why the West media hasn't picked up on percieved anti-semetic motifs in his books. Its more of an anaylsis of other peoples view points. It sort of presents both "sides" and makes the reader think. Anyways, --Tom 16:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said in the other talk, AS is considered a PHILOsemite by neonazis and ultranationalists, but wiki has rules against marginal views.Galassi (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


kobza[edit]

The term "koboz" currently redirects to the above page, because it seems to be the only one dealing with and differentiating such instruments in E Europe. Therefore some notice of the E European term "koboz" - which is simply a dialectic version of "kobza", belongs on the present page unless and until you or someone else creates a page, linked to this one, giving details of such other E European instruments, or else suggests another page to which the search "koboz" ought to be linked. Please do not simply destroy material and leave a trail of useless links. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. KOBOZ must redirect to COBZA with a C, an entirely different instrument, and a separate article.Galassi (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I do not think I was mistaken, since you have created that page since I posted but have not moved the information you deleted nor provided links to related pages. You have not supplied references to back up your contentions either. So this new page looks like a continuation of the vandalism so far. Please do the job properly or else restore, thanks. Note that "koboz" is closest to the Turkish - historically relevant.Redheylin (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
WHy don't you move that data? I've created the stub, feel free to add there anything you like. I am not an expert on Koboz/Cobza, so take it away. My area of expertise is Ukrainian music and instruments.Galassi (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If you are not an expert on Cobza, how do you know it is the same as Koboz? If you are an expert on Ukrainian Kobza, why can you not provide reference material showing the relation of the two instruments? Either way, you are vandalising wiki. You seem to be saying that Ukrainian things must be separate from all else. That is a political POV for which you are damaging the prospects of a well-referenced music history. You have jettisoned the material and so it is up to you to find the right place for it and link correctly if you are not to be a vandal. Please do so. Redheylin (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
A google of kobza-cobza and romania shows that the k spelling is far more common in Romania.(talk) 02:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[[1]] does not mention a specifically Ukrainian kobza, just that the Romanian and Hungarian may be the direct descendant of the "Northern Slav" kobza. [[2]] says the two are identical. The importance of the instrument as a national symbol is one thing - it is also said in wiki to be true of the komuz and the tamburica - but to insist upon cutting all links with history and geography is to turn this instrument into an icon of ignorance and racism. Please produce comprehensive sources and do the work. Redheylin (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop kvetching and do your homework. There is no letter K in Romanian - http://www.omniglot.com/writing/romanian.htm, only in loanwords. You might want to read http://torban.org for the history of Ukrainian music and instruments.Galassi (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The link you provide shows the letter K present in the modern Romanian alphabet. The search "Kobza and Romania" gives some seven times more results than "Cobza and Romania". Kobza IS a loanword from Turkey via Ukraine according to the Romanian sources I gave. But those sources do not support your idea that Romanian kobza is "entirely different" and always spelled with C. Rather, both are designed after the oud but named after the komuz. It is hardly likely that this would happen independently in two contiguous territories. Your claim is not holding up. I am copying this discussion to the talk page and shall request other editorial input. Redheylin (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Read: "K" is FOR LOANWORDS ONLY. Rear the descriptions of both instruments. They have different shape, tunings, techniques, construction, usage, area. Look up Hornbostel-Sachs classification #, also different.Galassi (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Please respond on the talk page. Please supply references. Redheylin (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


AfD on Communist antisemitism[edit]

Can you explain your recent edit at the AfD regarding Communist antisemitism? Regards.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything unclear about it? -Galassi (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I think so, as you have removed content from the AfD page.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
A tech. error.Galassi (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
OK.  Cs32en Talk to me  04:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


Caravaggio[edit]

In case you're feeling confused about what's going on at this page, with me deleting a large section that I wrote and Attilios then reinstating it: it's simply that I confused the two of you. I deleted my section on sexuality and then, thinking it was Attilios who had been protesting about it, notified him. I should have notified you, my mistake. I never actually wanted that section, I think it's far too long and not much to do with Caravaggio, more to do with modern prurience. I don't want it in. What I DO want in is those two sentences, which are about as much as the subject needs. Please don't now get into an edit war with Attilios. Let's solve this o the article Talk page if we need to. PiCo (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, as this is turning into a massive WP:COATRACK. However the bigger problem is Contaldo, who apparently has done a lot of WP:OR about the middle finger misuse.Galassi (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard Yary[edit]

Hi Galassi, I came across the discussion about whether Yary's mother was Jewish or not. This is a very important issue because this fact is a key argument of those who maintain that OUN(B) never persecuted Jewish civilians. The article currently reads:

"According the historians O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh Yary was of partilineal Czech and matrilineal Hungarian-Jewish descent[1][page needed](Polish rather than Hungarian (maiden name "Pollack") according to Patrylyak[2]).[not in citation given]. Yary's Jewish descent was affirmed by the historian Z.Knysh, but denied by P.Mirchuk who affirmed that Yary was not Jewish, but was denounced as such by his enemies in OUN-M, and Knysh himself was Yary's personal enemy[3]."

I have read Patrylyak (http://www.history.org.ua/LiberUA/Book/Patr/10.pdf) and he doesn't support the theory that Yary's mother was Jewish. He writes: "Його батько був австрійським офіцером, за національністю чехом, мати - полькою (дівоче прізвище Поллак)." "His mother was a Pole by ethnicity"

Moreover, I have very strong reasons to suspect that Kucheruk in his book says the same thing, even though this book is not available anywhere on the internet. How did it happen that this Wiki article began to claim that Kucheruk's book says that Yary's mother was Jewish? Who invented this claim and how did he explain it? Has any of the contributors to this article ever seen Kucheruk's book at all? If so - why is there not even a page number given? Thanks,Ostap

—Preceding unsigned comment added by OstapBender1900 (talkcontribs) 08:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made an inquiry to a specialist. I was told before that the surname "Pollak" is predominantly Jewish, so Partylyak could be (deliberately?) wrong on that account.

What is certain is that Jary's wife was in fact Jewish. I will also write to JPHimka.-Galassi (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Galassi. I am very impressed by your professional response and your access to John Himka, whom I greatly admire.

Yes, there are a lot of Jews named Pollak and Pollock, but there are also a lot of Poles named that way, given that "polak" means "a Pole" in Polish. This is like many other Polish names - e.g., Kaminsky/Kmaensky - which can be either Jewish or Catholic. I am sure you agree that Wikipedia should not automatically claim Jewishness for every person named Pollak. The name itself is no evidence of ethnicity. Moreover, given that Patrylyak is the official Ukrainian Academy of Sciences' expert on OUN, I strongly suspect that he is familiar with Knysh's claims and if there existed evidence that Knysh is right, Patrylyak would have mentioned it. But that's not the main issue here.

The main issue is that I strongly suspect that Kucheruk doesn't claim that Yary's mother was Jewish, and if he mentions this possibility, then only as a reference to Knysh's claims. So, who said that Kucheruk's book says that Yary's mother was Jewish? Has any of the contributors to this article ever seen Kucheruk's book at all?

And second, our article here says "According the historians O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh...", but there is no reference given to Knysh's book or article. Does any such reference exist, or is this pure folklore?

Also, notice that this article attributes to O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh the claim that Yary's mother was "Jewish-Hungarian", while Patrylyak says that she was Polish. This further puts the existence and/or veracity of O.Kucheruk's and Z.Knysh's claims that she was "Jewish-Hungarian". Can we get in touch with Kucheruk or find a copy of his book?

I agree with you that it is fairly certain by now that Yary's wife grew up in an Orthodox Jewish family. Here is what Patrylyak says: "1922 року в Ужгороді Ярий одружився з єврейкою Розою Шпільфогель, яка походила з м. Перемишлян (тепер Львівської області). Ярий був у перманентному конфлікті з батьком і тому не отримав від нього спадку, його дружина теж посварилася зі своєю ортодоксальною єврейською сім'єю." In spring 1922 in Uzhgorod he married a Jewish woman Rose Shpilfohel. He was in permanent conflict with his father and therefore did not receive inheritance from him, and his wife also broke up with his orthodox Jewish family.

Here is a seemingly excellently researched biography of Yary:

http://vladko2008.livejournal.com/tag/%D0%A0%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%20%D0%AF%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B9

... О матери – Марии Поллак ничего не известно....В г.Ужгороде он познакомился с беженкой из Галиции, еврейкой Ольгой Шпильфогель, 29.10.1896 г.р., уроженкой Перемышлян. Она родилась в семье набожных евреев и при рождении получила имя Рейзель. Не желая в дальнейшем подчиняться правилам еврейского кагала, бежала из дома и родители под давлением общины отказались от нее. В 1922 году в г.Стрий она перешла в католическую веру, получив имя Эльза. В феврале 1922 года Ярый зарегистрировал с ней брак в Ужгороде. ... About his mother - Maria Pollack - nothing is known.... In Uzhgorod, he met a refugee from Galicia, a Jewish girl Olga Spielvogel, born 29/10/1896, a native of Peremyshliany. She was born in a family of devout Jews, and at birth was given the name Reyzel. Not wanting to continue to obey the rules of the Jewish religious establishment, she ran away from home, and her parents, under pressure from the community, abandoned it. In 1922, she converted to the Catholic faith, receiving the name of Elsa. In February 1922 Yary married her.

What do you think? What does John Himka say? OstapBender1900 (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No reply yet. Himka's opinions re participation in atrocities can be seen at http://community.livejournal.com/history_ua/247529.html?nc=2&style=mine. Re Knysh: you can find Mirchuk's polemic with him fairly easily. I don't have it handy, but OUN-M repeatedly denounced Jary to Gestapo as a crypto-Jew. Re Kucheruk - I have seen the book a few years ago, and as I recall he stops short of claiming anything unequivocally (there is no certainty that he was in fact Jary), but all info must be from there, as this is the only source dealing with the subject.-Galassi (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Galassi,

First of all, I found the text of Knysh's memoirs on-line. Here it is:

http://zustrich.quebec-ukraine.com/lib/knysh/knysh_part03.htm "Yary came from an Austrian official's family. Born in 1898 in Rzeszów. His real name was German "Jagry”, Yary – ukraiinized version. There were rumors that he had traces of Jewish blood - his father could have been a Hungarian Jew converted into Christianity, and mother, of the name Pollyak, also a Jew converted into Christianity - but one cannot be certain of this. But some suspicions must have been around, because the National Socialist party offices in Germany didn't like him too much and always suspected that his Aryan origin was not entirely clean..."

Second, please forgive my criticism but I don't quite understand the follwoing: if it is false that Kucheruk said that Yary's mother was of Hungarian-Jewish descent, why is this false claim still there: "According the historians O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh, Yary was of partilineal Czech and matrilineal Hungarian-Jewish descent"? It has been 3 weeks since we talked last, and it's still there. In fact, since there is no place to read what Kucheruk actually said and since Kucheruk couldn't have claimed the obviously false claim that Yary's mother was a "Hungarian Jew", why not omit the lie about what Kucheruk said and instead correctly describe what Patrylyak, Knysh and Mirchuk said? Would you like me to write a new version?

Also, it appears that it was you who first introduced the reference to Kucheruk into this English language article on Yary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Yary&oldid=343360230

I suspect you did so by simply translating what somebody else wrote in the Ukrainian or Russian version of Yary article. Is it valid to attribute words to a book without seeing it and without even having a page number, just because some propagandist made this false claim elsewhere? And why is it still there, given that you know that this claim is false? Again, sorry for being critical, but I am a stickler for truth, especially in encyclopedias.

Thanks,

OstapBender1900 (talk)


The Black Hundred[edit]

I suppose The Encyclopædia britannica is reliable source, Isn't it? -- George Serdechny 20:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

BOTH singular and plural are legitimate.Galassi (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes they are. But Black Hundreds have another historical meaning. Check this or this (I suppose there were no ideas about The Black Hundred in 1885). I'll rewrite Ru-Wiki article in a few days, relying on you in the English Wikipedia. Thanks for your cooperation anyway. -- George Serdechny 05:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

New Questions on Richard Yary[edit]

Hi Galassi,

I added a new message for you on this topic. Please take a look above.

Thanks, OstapBender1900 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC).

Penitent Magdalene (Caravaggio)[edit]

An editor has put a lot of work into Penitent Magdalene (Caravaggio), but I have problems with the result. Would you like to have a look? She's a nice person, no problem there, and perhaps togather we can make a little project to improve this article. PiCo (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Reznick[edit]

I looked around for some sources. See talk:Semyon Reznik.   Will Beback  talk  03:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Aphorists[edit]

Hi. You removed this entry a while ago. I added this person because the book Tuesdays with Morrie had mentioned that he produced around 50 aphorisms after learning he had ALS. Does the evidence need to be mentioned in the specific article on the person? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 14:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with his aphorisms. Are they notable? By the number - I couldn't tell. Other aphorists are really proliphic.--Galassi (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

UKRwiki[edit]

I'd be happy to help but I don't speak Ukrainian. What do you need help with? Varsovian (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't want to know. Holocaust deniers from MAUP are trying to highjack the H'related articles, and have succeeded in some, it seems. There are not enough admins to deal with this, as the participating admins cannot take administrative actions against edit-warriors. My written Ukrainian is just too rusty after 30 years in the US.--Galassi (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Mazepa[edit]

Why the attacks on my edits? These are all historical facts...--Львівське (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The tone was utterly unencyclopedic, and the position expressed was utterly pro-Muscovite. For a nice summary of the latest MAzepa research see Olga Kovalevska, "Ivan Mazepa, in questions and answers" Tempora, 2008, Kyiv.--Galassi (talk) 11:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Tone perhaps, but I can guarantee you that there is nothing pro-Russian about those facts. Even the Russian narrative fails to bring up his plotting efforts to preemptively side with Poland against Russia.--Львівське (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Whatever you wrote had a strong anti-Mazepa flavor, IMO. Words like "turncoat" etc.--Galassi (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, turncoat seems milder and ostensibly more accurate than traitor, which Russian sources seem more fond of. Mazepa chose the side he could get the best deal from. He was Peters lapdog for the longest time, and after finding out he was to be replaced (and given some cushy title but no military power) he looked into alternatives. He tried to swing a regime change in Poland so he could unite with the Poles against Peter, and when that fell through and Poland was looking threatening (and he couldn't get Russian support to defend) he sided with the Swedes to save his own skin. His own men didn't support him for the most part, and the people he was "defending" didn't support him either as the Swedes were equally as brutal to the peasant population as Russian troops. He was a political opportunist at most, and since he rigged his own election as hetman, the trend in his career held through.--Львівське (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
You wouldnt' attribute M's action to the undue influence of his Jewish supporters, perchance? Claims of "Swedish atrocities" already smack of Russian POV. You'd have to have pretty slick sources. BTW, the more encyclopedic term would be "renegade". --Galassi (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I've read nothing about Jewish influence and Mazepa? I think the actual quote was "equally as brutal as Russian troops" and something to the extent of ravishing the countryside, killing peasants, raiding, and so on, but I might have to double check. The sources are all pretty respectable people, I don't POV push on this matter, both sides engage in blatant applied history here and conveniently leave out facts.--Львівське (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding 3 reverse/rule policy on WP[edit]

Hi Galassi,

As a veteran editor, would you look at a case of 3 reverse edits for me? What exactly is the rule, and does it kick in automatically or someone has to file a complaint? Where does one file a complaint, if so? Thanks, warshytalk 20:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not automatic. Some has to make a call. Where is it?--Galassi (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check it for me just to see if I'm right on the policy. The last round/bout of reverse editing on this issue started (here) (1st R), and then continued (here) (2nd R). I am thinking of undoing his last R and warning him that 1) He's not a registered user, and 2) His next R will incur the 3RR block sanction. I'm assuming 'he' will reverse me again, since this is not a registered user but someone that logs in anonymously with the specific purpose of doing war edits on this page/issue. If my assumption is correct, what then? Would you be willing to come in and block him out?

This, of course, won't end the war or 'solve the problem' since they can also come in anonymously from a new IP and do the same, and they probably will. I'm just curious in this particular instance if I am right, and if so, if you would back me up? Thanks for any advice. warshytalk 20:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about that. Unexplained and undocumnted edit like these are pranks, IMO.--Galassi (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Addition to ukrainian people's militia[edit]

I don't really understand the addition. I thought the militia was created under the OUN? How could it turn into a German police force? I'm not seeing the connection between the two.--Львівське (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Germans apparently armed it, and disarmed it a week later, repeatedly, many times over.--Galassi (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a source? I've been reading up on this subject and it's pretty gray. One author points out that the Soviet word for police was "militsiia", and "One witness suggets that Soviet Ukrainian policemen [...] left behind by the Soviets formed the first nationalist Ukrainian militsiia in Lviv at the end of June 1941." Maybe there's more overlap between this group and the aux police due to this translation, confusing militias with police.--Львівське (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
It is all in Patryljak. Read it.==Galassi (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
will do,thanks --Львівське (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep an eye on the Bandera article. There is a new participant that has a massive ukrophobic bias on RuWiki.--Galassi (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainians[edit]

This is shown in the picture, dude! Afraid of facts? --Voyevoda (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Meant WP:COATRACK.


Chmielnicki, First Crusade, other possible genocides[edit]

I am not entirely sure what the difference between a "genocide" and a "massacre", properly speaking, are. Is a massacre supposed to be more wanton and less systematic than a genocide? Are there any real hard and fast definitions? (I know people define genocide as a systematic attempt to wipe out or eliminate a group of people or a part of it thereof, but it would seem to me that a massacre involving people who discriminate in their killings would constitute a genocide because the killers are deliberately seeking members of a group and killing them.) — Rickyrab | Talk 18:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I use "Chmielnicki" because I learned of his "massacres" (pogroms, genocide, ethnic cleansing, revolt, rowdiness, rioting, whatever) through books on Jewish folklore. Perhaps Sholom Aleichem. I'm not sure offhand, but someone wrote about "Chmielnicki's time" - never mind that there is a town called Khmelnytsky near Kamenets Podolsky and not all that far from Chernovtsy - both of which were where my grandma's parents came from. So that leaves two great-grandparents who came from "Hungary" and four other great-grandparents who came from "Russia", although they could've come from Galicia and other places from all I know. (The one from Chernovtsy insisted he was coming from Russia and spoke Russian, although at the time of his emigration - which almost certainly predates WWI - that town was probably in Austria-Hungary.) — Rickyrab | Talk 18:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
That's the problem with folk-memory, it is not really reliable. Massacres are certainly different from genocide, and Khmlelnitsky era massacres as terrible as they were were NOT genocide, as I wasn't a war against Jews per se, unlike WW2. Basically, unlike in WW2 a conversion was a ticket to safety.--Galassi (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award[edit]

Smiley.svg
For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

TomasBat 20:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Bandera[edit]

Hi there,

You have removed my edit [3] with the reasoning that it's "illiterate mistranslations and factual errors". I'll ignore the first part as you can fix grammatical errors instead of removing the entire text. This is what Wiki is all about. Let's concentrate on the second part of you comment. I don't believe we should hide the truth (even if one might not like it), so could you please explain what part/s exactly contain factual errors and based on what you were able to make such decisions so fast? (As a heads up I have spend a days of research to find the facts and cross check the confirmations).

Thank you in advance. APTOC (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a few problems with your edits. There is the question of attribution and origin of the material, as well as possibly tenuous connection to Bandera in view of his incarceration. There is is also the question of your edits on RuWiki, which show a large anti-Ukrainian bias and avid use of unreliable sources.--Galassi (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
That is exactly what I thought initially, but wanted to ask to ensure that I am not mistaken in regards to your grounds (and I see that I was not). Your answer has no facts - just generic statements (while my addition has every line backed by references). In regards to your answer, I agree that the best defense is offence. However one shouldn't try to offend by giving knowingly false statements (ALL my changes on Ru Wiki went through a discussion AND approval by the community and despite such a sensitive area my actions have never resulted in being blocked). Now let's get closer to the topic. One shouldn't try to cover all the criminal actions of Ukrainian nationalists against Jewish people during WW2 by labeling it "large anti-Ukrainian bias". I feel bad for you that you feel this way, but so far every addition on other Wiki was legitimate and true and backed by sources that were confirmed in separate discussions. I’ll ignore "large anti-Ukrainian bias", but I'd ask to retain from future insults. I do love Ukraine. (I don't want to comment on your migration from Ukraine to US as I am not sure how Patriotic this action is towards Ukraine, but unlike other people I don't like to judge others as it’s your own thing). Now let's get to EN Wiki. First you accused the changes to be wrong because of the content having grammatical errors. Then you have questioned one of the sources that were removed. Now, you try to make up some statements about the person who made the change (which is worse since those statements are not only inappropriate, but false). Let's discuss the content and not people. Would it be ok from your end? I hope it is. Until you can prove that something that has multiple references is wrong it will be in the article. Denial of truth and hidden anti-Semitic views are not a good strategy. Jews are equal people and they (and their memory) do not deserve being discriminated by anyone. I'd ask you not to begin a war of corrections until you have some facts. In such cases you should first provide alternative opinion instead of removing. I'd ask you to retain from removing from Wiki such large portions of text that has sources only because it contradicts to your personal believes. Wiki is not a sand box - people have to have very clear grounds for each one of the actions (both additions and removal). It has clearly defined rules for any action and I'd ask you to follow those. In addition, in the future, please feel free to correct grammar for other people if you see any mistakes and please don't remove the entire block. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. APTOC (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Read up on WP:COATRACK, and do read the discussion page before adding controversial material. Your edits on the Pidgajnyj article were preposterous, and are only possible on RuWiki, where the antiUkrainian sentiment is acceptable. You might be better off there.--Galassi (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I see that you are not capable of having a normal conversation. Have a nice life. APTOC (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
hidden anti-Semitic views are not a good strategy, Galassi ;) --Львівське (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep. But an overt anti-Ukrainian is, to some [who?], on RuWiki. ;-)).--Galassi (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Vladimir Horowitz has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Antisemitism and Joseph Stalin. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please use the talk page[edit]

Dear Galassi, I made dozens of edits in the past few days and used edit summaries wherever appropriate. Please do not just come in and blindly revert, since I have no idea what the problem (if any) there is. I am particularly upset that you even reverted my citation needed tags and reference works page numbers. I see no reason to revert all that with such edit summaries "undiscussed changes rv. also disruptive. USE TALK PAGE". There is no rule that all changes must be "discussed" as long as such edits are done to perfect an article. You yourself can discuss whatever you like, and should do that per WP:BURDEN.

Please use the article talk page to discuss any proposed changes, objections, or reverts. I would like to avoid senseless reverting and not have to edit war with you on any article. Thank you. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Stalin, Losev, and anti-Semitism[edit]

Galassi, your continuing attempt to include material on Losev in Stalin and Anti-Semitism appear to be misrepresenting the actual facts of Losev's case, as various other editors have argued on Talk:Stalin and Anti-Semitism and Talk:Aleksei Losev. Your revert here [4] is unjustified, since this very subject has already been repeatedly discussed at the aforementioned talk pages.

The Losev-related material you have reincluded after I removed it is also factually inaccurate and poorly sourced. Your edit claims that

"According to literary historian Konstantin Polivanov, Stalin's own philosophical development in the direction of Russian Imperial idea and anti-Semitism that paved the way to the repressions of 1930s that largely purged Jews from the Soviet government, was influenced by the anti-Semitic writings by the anti-revolutionary and anti-Marxist Russian philosopher Alexei Losev. Losev was incarcerated in the 1920s, but was suddenly released in 1930 and allowed to resume his academic career."

The references you are providing do discuss Losev's anti-revolutionary and anti-Semitic views, but the idea that "Stalin's own philosophical development in the direction of Russian Imperial idea and anti-Semitism" is not there. It is entirely WP:OR. There is no doubt that Losev and Stalin both demonstrated hostility toward Jews, but no serious scholar claims that the former influenced the latter. The statement that Losev "was suddenly released in 1930 and allowed to resume his academic career" is also not stated directly in the references you provide. And it is considerably less than half-true. According to this Google books reference (Routledge translation of The Dialectics of Myth),

"On 8 October 1932 he was released from custody because of the OGPU. He continued working at the canal construction, however, while waiting for the release of his wife. Soon, Valentina Mikhailovna managed to get transferred to the same area from the Altai camps where she had originally served her sentence. They were reunited, their extraordinary correspondence between camps ceased, and Losev began to write philosophical prose - in secret, of course.

In 1933, with the canal successfully finished and Losev an invalid, his sentence was revoked by the decision of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR. It has been suggested that his early release and the annulment of his conviction were the result of an intercession on the part of the Soviet Red Cross and in particular of Maxim Gorky's wife, E. P. Peshkova, who coordinated the Red Cross in those years. When Losev and Valentina Mikhailovna returned to Moscow it was made clear to him that he could no longer either teach philosophy or publish philosophical works. Throughout the 1930s he had to earn a living teaching as a part-time instructor in Moscow and then in provinicial universities in cities such as Kuibyshev, Cheboksary, and Poltava. Despite the ban on publishing, Losev continued his research and writing. Apparently hoping that the innocuous subject matter would help persuade the censors (why should the Party care about antiquity?), he prepared a large study on ancient mythology and another on the history of ancient aesthetics. Neither work was published, however, and the manuscripts went 'into the drawer' to await a more auspicious time. The only thing that he did manage to push through censorship in that period was his translation with commentary of several texts by the fifteenth-century Christian Neoplatonist St Nicolas of Cusa."

IMHO, Stalin and Anti-Semitism should discuss what is written by historians who are specialists on the subject of Jews, Stalin, and anti-Semitism. No specialist in any of these fields has claimed that Stalin was influenced by Losev's ideas (neither does Polivanov actually state that), and, according to WP:WEIGHT, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."

Regards,

Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This [5] is entirely unacceptable. I have given you appropriate sources and all you do is revert without discussing. Moreover, I have already told you that the consensus on the talk pages has always been against you. I can see that three editors -- Miacek and Alex Bakharev and Anti-Nationalist -- every one of the editors to weigh in -- have already called your reading of Polivanov tendentious, and that's as good a consensus as any. (Not that a lack of consensus is deemed justifiable to blindly revert.)

Either address the arguments and sources brought before you or please leave the article alone. I was expecting that you would agree to amicably discuss and settle the issue in a friendly way, either right here or back on the talk pages, but you are simply being obstinate about your wish to reinclude your factually incorrect and misreferenced bit about Losev. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. However, I am going to have to appeal to an administrator if you continue your silent revert warring. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hadrian and Antinous[edit]

Hi Galassi. I noticed your recent scrupulous work at these two articles. I thought you might be interested in more on the topic of Antinous, who I've researched only with reference to Imperial cult. To judge from your chosen areas of editing, it might be too far off-piste. But who knows. If you're interested in more on the matter, try Caroline Vout, Power and eroticism in Imperial Rome, illustrated, Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN 0-521-86739-8. [6]. Partial preview only, but she's a fine thinker, and what's there is very readable. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating, indeed. Feel free to quote it in the article!--Galassi (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Since your revision regarding the nature of the relationship is unsourced, I revised it in the light of Lambert, as cited, which you seem not to have read. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have an agenda of denying that some of the ancients were pedophiles. Why? Fatidiot1234 (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ever heard of WP:GOODFAITH?--Galassi (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually Hadrian was not a paedophile. A paedophile is attracted to pre-pubescent children. Hadrian, according to traditional ancient Greek pederastic relationships, would not have had intercourse with Antinous until he reached puberty. Judging by the fact that Antinous was already thirteen or fourteen when he first could have met Hadrian, this seems to be the case. Also, it should be noted that "boy" is often used to refer to young males as old as their twenties. Trajan may be a different matter but there is practically no scholarly view of his sexual orientation.--Tataryn77 (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you provide a Reliable Neutral Source on "traditional Greek etc." Without OR, please.--Galassi (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Georgians[edit]

Actually, I think the previous edit was the controversial one! As far as I can see, the Stalin pic had been in the article for a long time. Instead of me, you should be asking User:BRUTE to discuss his edit on talk before making it, since he was making a controversial (?) change to the stable version. Anyway, I'm sorry for reverting. Let's discuss this on article talk. Nanobear (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Dyukov (writer)[edit]

Hi, your pov edits are disputed by multiple users, please stop revert warring, please take this as a WP:3RR warning, there is a thread at the WP:BLPN please make your case for your edits through discussion and consensus there. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken (not to mention WP:GOODFAITH). None of my edits are controversial, and I see no dispute on the talk page.--Galassi (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

CCSVI[edit]

This page discusses the difference between primary research studies and review articles WP:MEDRS. Also please discuss further concerns on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nikolai Yezhov[edit]

Hi, you seem to be edit warring with an IP over article content at Nikolai Yezhov. Please do not use the "rv IP vandalism" edit summary in such cases. Per WP:Vandalism, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing." In this case it's pretty hard to see where the vandalism is, since the IP gave a reason for removing the book at Talk:Nikolai Yezhov. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


HI - re:DERIASHNYJ[edit]

Please check this out and add comments.. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Deriashnyj‎. Thanks;

Lovetinkle and the IP gang[edit]

opinions? --Львівське (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Volodymyr Dzhus[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Volodymyr Dzhus has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ravendrop 07:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Article ban: Battle of Konotop[edit]

For renewed revert-warring on Battle of Konotop and unconstructive conduct on its talk page, I am indefinitely topic-banning you from that article under the provisions of the WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanction rules. Fut.Perf. 15:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Duly noted. Do me a favor and take a look at the recent content dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aleksandr_Kolchak&curid=170155&action=history.--Galassi (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Ekh, Moryak, [7]... Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Дуже дякую.--Galassi (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Fourth complete reversion of my edits--complaints (Albinoni's Adagio in G)[edit]

I would like to express strong disagreement regarding the fourth consecutive reversion of all my edits on the Adagio. See discussion here: [[8]] I would like to point out that it is not "universally agreed to" that this Adagio has "NOTHING" of Albinoni or is "no way" related to Albinoni. Substantially different yes; with post-Baroque techniques and a heavier mood or style than is typical of Albinoni, yes; entirely or almost entirely written by Giazotto yes; but the big, simple point is that this piece was for a long time widely believed to be from Albinoni. The Adagio, written by a Giazotto who admired Albinoni, has at least some imitation of Albinoni in certain passages. Unfortunately I can't find much of expert opinion on either side directly on this point (as opposed to the separate manuscript or hoax question), though I did find some lay musical analyses on either side (or in between: "pastiche" of Albinoni's and of modern styles is a common description). Overall, I think you are too quick to do complete reversions; and I cite previous complaints on this page and WP:NPOV in support. Thank you. 70.89.232.180 (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 --70.89.232.180

You don't get it. You must produce a RELIABLE SCHOLARLY SOURCE per WP:RS that states that Albinoni has anything to do with the Adagio, in part or otherwise. Otherwise you undocumented claims will have to be removed.--Galassi (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you don't understand the argument: see talk--depends on historical reception. Also no source the other way (no musical analysis that the piece does not imitate or copy parts of known Albinoni.) Anyway, another editor has provided useful moderation in comments and accepted the restoration of my edit on "inspiration," so we can leave it at that if you agree. In future, you would save a lot of grief if you provided thoughtful comment before reversion and did not simply consecutively revert all of another editor's work! (which is contrary to wikipedia guidelines, and also discourages contributions) 70.89.232.180 (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 --70.89.232.180

The problem is that your edits are not constructive, and what's worse - they are undonumented, and based on your own opinions, which betray no experience in music. Your edits are simply disruptive, not to mention several wikirules violations (WP:OR, WP:RS etc.)--Galassi (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be long to repeat the ins and outs here, so I would refer all to the discussion given in the original article for my defense--I did not cite my own opinions or musical analysis at all; in fact I said outright that I am NOT a musical expert. I was holding you to your own sources which sometimes say "mostly" giazotto not "entirely" (even though I privately agree Giazotto wrote it) and to the lack of any evidence you provide for your opinion that the work in "NO" way shows the influence of Albinoni, contrary to the historical reception and contrary to what we know of Giazotto's work. Another editor did keep a major edit of mine, regarding the inspiration of the work. I was willing to make whatever edits were proper, and certainly found in contrast e.g. DavidRF very helpful, but you provided little -- if any -- explanation or response, and maintained what I think is a completely unsupportable POV, that there is "NOTHING" of Albinoni in the Adagio, even by inspiration. Rather than get into another long argument, it's at least POSSIBLE there may be some good reason you've been criticized before for violating wikipedia policy above regarding consecutive full reversions. I don't say you were not right in those cases, I haven't looked into it, and you have probably made many fantastic contributions from a quick glance, but in this particular case you could have saved a lot of time by responding in a more civilized manner, or considered how it looks to another sane person, rather than dismissing it as "daft." I also would point out that I have agreed with reversions, including in this very case, whenever there is some reasonable answer to points in support provided -- or even unreasonable ones! since my rule is to defer to more experienced contributors. 70.89.232.180 (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 --70.89.232.180

Another reversion, even though a new primary source provided! undid for violating WP:NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.232.180 (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Pound/Mullins[edit]

The extended discussion of Pound was to explain to the reader that Pound was incarcerated at the behest of Franklin D Roosevelt for purely political reasons. The article as it stands gives the impression that Pound was mentally ill which he was not. You say that this discussion is a covert means for putting in some biased information but the information added was explaining the intellectual background for Mullins' research on the Federal Reserve. Pound commissioned this research. The current article gives the impression that Mullins was a crank but in fact he was a very brilliant man. If you don't mind, therefore, perhaps you would explain why you consider this information to be biased. Thankyou. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't keep deleting my work if you are unwilling to explain your actions. Your coatrack accusation doesn't hold water and if it did you would have the courtesy to respond to my request for justification. You clearly have some antipathy to Pound and Mullins and that antipathy is interfering with your objectivity. The Secrets of the Federal Reserve is a work commissioned and directed by Ezra Pound and is grounded in his own interest in these matters. Due to the protocol on edit warring you will put yourself at a distinct disadvantage by your unwillingness to discuss the matter amicably. Should you revert my work again you will be reported on the Administrator's noticeboard. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Wiki has rules. POund info belongs in the Pound article, NOT in Mulllins. Read up on WP:COATRACK.--Galassi (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it says that a coatrack article is used as a hook to hang irrelevant and biased material. Is the information I am providing biased ? If you think it is then you must explain what is biased about it. As regards relevance, Mullins did the research for Pound because he got the chance to earn an extra ten dollars per week (that was a lot of money in those days). He was not personally interested in the project himself. It was Pound's project (he had been an active critic of debt-based fiat currency for years). Mullins tells us that "Pound was unable to go to the Library himself, as he was being held without trial as a political prisoner by the United States government." (From the Foreword to Secrets) Secrets is Mullins most famous book and i am explaining to the reader how he came to write it. So you cannot accuse the material of being irrelevant. I think you are not assuming good faith, you are being uncivil and I think you have an axe to grind. The onus is upon you to justify your accusation of 'coatrack article'. If you don't explain yourself and you continue to revert my work, your behaviour and lack of civility (Read up on WP: Civility) will be reported to the administrator's noticeboard for edit warring. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Book of Veles[edit]

Вітаю! Скажіть будь-ласка — які претензії до цього розділу; вважаю, що його цілком можна залишити — він включений в Вікіпедію-ру та Вікіпедію-укр. Це абсолютно об'єктивна інформація по Влес-Книзі.

Objects Vles-Books that have no explanation in modern science

Veles Book has lots of fragmentary stories (and images) that have no interpretation in modern science. For example:
1) Science does not know the cities of Vles-Books : Voronzets, Iron, Karan, Golun (aka Ruskolun and RusaGrad). Famous science cities (Kyiv, Novgorod, Korsun-Chersonese) are more ancient (for a thousand years) than is generally admitted.
2) Historical events and dating:
— Hike Russes "in the army commander Nabusar".
— The arrival of the Slavs to the Dnieper River — from the mountains Іr (near India).
— Dating period Slavic-Gothic Wars, and the period of "coming Varangians to Russia".
3) Mentions unknown historiography "historic leaders of Russia": Oriy, Kisko, Sventoyar, Skoten, Kryvorig, Segenya, Barvlen, and others.
4) In the field of mythology, there are some images that are unknown in the Slavic mythology:
— The goddes of victory, "Mother-Glory" (rus. "Матерь Слава") — is the most popular deity of Vles-Books. Mentioned in Vles-Book 63 times (more often than any other deity).
— God Vles in Vles-Book — has a completely different function (he teaches people to Agriculture, the precepts of morality; he walks on the constellation of the Milky Way) than the "god of cattle Veles from the tradition of Kievan Rus". --Vles1 (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You wopuld need a RELIABLE SCHOLARLY SOURCE that discusses this data. However, this is difficult to document as the book is a forgery, and there naturally would be no scholarly researsh on the subject.--Galassi (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
1) This fragment indicates "objects Vles-books that are not in Slavic mythology" - writen about all these features : Yatsenko, Asov, Slatin, all. I gave the reference to "State Research Institute of Ukrainian Studies" - what you have removed the link?
2) I made ​​reference to the fact that during 1996-2008 - Vles-book was in the school program in Ukraine. Why have you removed this?
3) The second part of your phrases - anecdotal: "As Vles-book is a forgery, the proof of mythology Vles Books - not in academic science. " That is it "fake without evidence"- then at least remove from the article "untrue statement of a thorough study history, mythology of Vles-Books"! Because you are your own contradictions.
4) I gave the sentence of Mr Rybakov relation to Vles Books. This scientist did not write a word about the "mythology Vles Books" (and he is "senior specialist in Soviet mythology of the Slavs" and director of the Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR). Why have you removed this? Then, at least among Rybakov off "opponents Vles Books", because it is outright false. --Vles1 (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
You need RELAIBLE SCHOLARLY sources. Both Russian and Ukrainian wikis have unequivocally stated that the Veles book is a forgery.--Galassi (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
What does "RELAIBLE SCHOLARLY", if the article contains "false information about the Rybakov's opinion"! Give a link to a "Rybakov's opinion", or remove Rybakov from the article!
Rybakov opinion is very important - he was a director for many decades, "Institute of Archaeology, USSR Academy of Sciences", a leading specialist on "Mythology of the Slavs". And if Rybakov silent 30 years — it is "loud silence" - Rybakov is not actually supported the persecution of Veles book. Give the answer to the question of Rybakov.
And secondly, all of my edits made from the "Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedias". The Ukrainian Wikipedia says:
— Veles-book more than a decade - has been incorporated into school curricula.
The Russian (and Ukrainian) Wikipedia:
— "Mythology" Veles book has several features that are not found in the mythology of Kievan Rus and Slavs in general, is:
  • Bird-lightning "Mother of Glory" (also referred to as the "Mother Swa") - which is mentioned in Veles book "63 times (more often than any other deity);
  • The above theme "Jav, Prav, Nav;
  • Vles in Veles book "- has a much broader role (teacher of agriculture, crafts, moral commandments) than the" god of cattle Velez "in Kievan Rus".
These items are absolutely correct. Why do you think that in the U.S. — someone knows better about Vles-book than in Ukraine and Russia. My suggestion — provide a link between the various Wikipedia.--Vles1 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
You should mnow the rules. No original research, no primary sources, no blogs etc. Secondary scholarly sources only.--Galassi (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I ask you about Rybakov, and the State Research Institute of Ukrainian Studies; about teaching Vles-books in schools. Have you read my question? Can you answer? --Vles1 (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I added information about the position of Professor Rybakov and Professor Peter Kononenko - I hope you do not challenge their authority.--Vles1 (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
THe sources you added are UNRELIABLE, and some of them are also UNVERIFIABLE, in violation of wikipedia rules.--Galassi (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
In which of the facts you doubt it? In the position Kononenko, or "12 years of Vles-Boors in schools"? When you write about the facts? --Vles1 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File:George Ballanchine.jpg[edit]

I have reverted the addition again - that file is tagged non-free: it does not have a proper fair-use rationale, and the use on this page is purely ornamental anyway. Therefore, it simply fails WP:NFCC. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

And it was explained, twice actually: diff and diff. Please find an alternative free image. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

In that case - delete it AFTER the file is deleted.--Galassi (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no reason to delete the file. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, the display of this image on George Balanchine is fair-use, it is a picture of the subject of the page, etc. etc. Totally defendable fair use. On the three other pages where it was displayed, the display is ornamental, it is not about the subject of the page, the image is not described, it is just in a group of images which display people - purely ornamental. That can not be defended as fair-use (not that there was any form of rationale for the three other uses, which was the prime reason why I removed it (but, as I said, I don't believe that with it should stay, there is not a proper fair-use rationale for this use). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

And more, if there is no fair-use rationale for a non-free image, then the procedure is to remove it from display first, then see how to proceed. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Gelassi, since the previous image was removed, would you be kind enough to place a new one [9]? I cannot edit the Georgian people page as it is protected.--Gioreteli (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I've inserted this image in the three cases where the other image could not be used. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. ΔT The only constant 03:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Pechersky[edit]

Galassi,

If you plan on writing in Russian, try to at least use the translator properly, since I highly doubt you read or write without one. You admitted your Russian is rusty, or was it Ukrainian? How is your Yiddish? Even rustier I bet. How about Hebrew? Just rust? Ok. Since you are an expert on ancient Greek pederasty, Stalin's favorite anti-Semitic philosophers, and musical instruments, stick to writing about skin flutes.

Let me educate you. Not that there is a point:

1) In 1945, Pechersky testified before the Commission of Inquiry of the Crimes of Fascist-German Aggressors and their Accomplices in Moscow. The Commission published a report called 'Uprising at Sobibor'. The report was included in the Black Book by Grossman & Erenhburg. You with me still? Put the flute away.

2) You wrote this lunacy, and in 3 languages for whatever reason - " In 1946, the Moscow state publishing house Der Emes published Pechersky's book in Yiddish "Der Ufshtand In Sobibur" — Uprising in Sobibor (אַלעקסאַנדער פּעטשאָרסקי, דער אופֿשטאַנד אינ סאָביבור); another variant of Pechersky's memoirs was published in the Moscow Yiddish magazine Sovetish Heymland in December 1973 (№ 12)." В 1946 г. в Москве на идиш была издана книга Печерского — «Дер уфштанд ин Собибур».

a) You misspelled Ufshtand; You misspelled Собибур. I know, I know. You rusty.

b) Pechersky spoke neither Hebrew nor Yiddish. Any reason for Hebrew? Can I add Thai or Khmer?

c) Any reason why you used Cyrillic letters to write the word 'in Sobibor' (ин Собибур)= F-;(в Собиборе)=A+;

3) In 1946 Der Emes published the Yiddish translation of Grossman/Erenhburg Blackbook. Albert Einstein wrote the preface to the two volumes. Inside those 2 volumes, are accounts of eyewitnesses; lots and lots of accounts. One of those accounts is the testimony of Pechersky before the Soviet Commission, which the Commission published as 'Uprising in Sobibor' and later translated into whatever languages you want to pick.

Read this - (http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Black_Book), to get a firm grasp. No. Stay away from the flute.

4) книга Печерского? In what sense? The book has a title and an author already - one of the most famous Soviet front-line correspondents of World War 2. Vasily Grossman (see step 3 above)

5) You write 'another variant of Pechersky's memoirs'.. You wouldn't happen to be referring to the 2 versions of Grossman's Black Book? First version didn't pass the Soviet anti-Semetic censors, but after editor 'Н. Лурье' toned down the 'Jewish angle of the Holocaust', the book was allowed to be printed in Yiddish in 1946.

6) "Moscow Yiddish magazine Sovetish Heymland in December 1973 (№ 12)." Must we list every single time that Pechersky's testimony was published and republished? In Romanian too (Cartea Neagră, 1946)?

It is enough that everything in Point 1 is in the article. Please use this article -> Black Book to include the lengthy publishing and reprinting history of subsections of this book.

I wrote this article after much research. Stick to flutes. I reverted your edits.

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Read up on WP:NPA. And the Pechersky entry in the http://www.eleven.co.il/article/13210.~ANd after that: apologize.--Galassi (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I read it. I just sent them an email to correct their info.
So do you plan to keep adding that information into the article despite obvious evidence the editor in 1978 made a mistake? I've read the pages and pages of complaints about your editing on this page, so decided to phrase my response different than the other 100 people above this post - I made it into a joke.
Since Pechersky didn't speak Yiddish, it would be better to link it from the middle than to ruin the flow of the article by inserting those factually incorrect sentences you are so keen on.
I take back what I said about spelling and apologize for that remark. I apologize for saying you wrote this lunacy. It is still an error though, just not yours unless you continue to knowingly force it into the article.
You did excellent edits in early April on the article. Yet that IP did not. I think generally I am philosophically on your side of the majority of your edit wars that I read above, yet not this one.
Cheers! Meishern (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Your apology in not accepted, Nick. I happen to know the meaning of the expression "skin flute", but as a civilized individual I wouldn't make a similar conclusion based on your expertise in gambling. As to the article in question: what languages AP knew or didn't contitutes origianal research (WP:OR), and here we have WP:RS, and the latter mandates the inclusion of the info you presumptiously deleted, from a false sense of WP:OWN.--Galassi (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
We on first name basis already? I am at a loss, never bothered looking yours up. After some sleep, and after re-reading my comments, yes, I should have kept away from the flute. My apologies. I was out of order.
You are incorrect about WP:OWN since any edits that bring value to an article, I support. I revert editors who include false information due to an obvious typo/mistake/carelessness on the part of the source. 2+2 is always 4. Either Pechersky wrote a book, or he didn't. There is no middle ground.
I am well familiar with (WP:OR) and thus I use multiple references to back up what I write. Purposefully exploiting a typo within a source to sabotage an article is vandalism. I know of another online encyclopedia article which has World War 2 ending in the year 945, while starting in 1939. By your logic, its important to now edit the Wikipedia article on WW2, and move the date a thousand years back? Deleting things like that is not called presumptuousness. Its called exercising good judgement. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You must stop disruptive rollback[edit]

Galasi's roll backEqual temperament is disruptive[edit]

Galasi had twice rolled back my sourced edition forEqual temperament without any just cause. you must provide you reason before rv other people;s contribution Why you said nationalist POV ?

1. The first column figures of chord lengths are from Simon Stevin's own manuscript.

2. The correct chord lengths were provided by Fokker, who was the editor of Simin Stevin's work.

3. Professor Gene Cho is American citizen, taught in US university.

Where is your basis for "nationalist POV"

Why are you so afraid of people knowing the truth, even deleted Simon Stevin's own data ?? Absurd.

-- (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


Personal Vendetta[edit]

You are just reverting my edits on several articles on a personal vendetta basis now. This is an official notice that your behaviour has been officially noted. Please stop it. Any more and you shall be reported and likely sanctioned. Edit for the better of Wikipedia, NOT becuase you have a personal problem with another editor. Vexorg (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

David Duke[edit]

It wasn't only Jewish and anti-racist organisations that complained, and to suggest it was in my opinion aids Duke's supporters. Please don't reinstate this, take it to the talk page if you think I'm wrong. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Tolerant[edit]

The Vikings were an important part of Ukrainian history, so why do you then erase completely true statements with sources from SeikoEn? Please, as a self declered Jew, be tolerant to Ukrainians!--Vitaly N. (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

1.You would need a RELIABLE SOURCE for that "true" statement. 2.Who I am is none of your business, and it is irrelevant here.--Galassi (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Reliable source it is! On the other hand, you don't have any source to say it is not ... so do not complicate things when you know that I am right! Which sentence in this passage is incorrect? You do not have the right to delete it if you do not have a different argument!--Vitaly N. (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainians[edit]

You seems as a reasonable user so that's why I turn to you with honest intentions. There are a number of articles about the great role of the Vikings in the Ukraine but not in English. I've put there several sources which spoke about the Viking role and I do not understand why you want to delete them. There are several reasons why they should be mentioned and one of them is that they established the medieval state in the centar of Ukraine. The Vikings have left many traces in the cultural script, customs, architecture, toponyms, etc. Why is this passage complicated? Would it not be left as an interesting clue to someone who would perhaps like to do more research? Why politics needs to intervene in matters which are of interest for historians? Think about my proposal because I have a desire to cooperate with the honest users. Thanks!--SeikoEn (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

IF you have a reliable source apropos: the appropriate way to write is "according to historian NN the viking influence in Ukraine manifests itself in ITEM 1, 2, 3, etc." That is if the historian is competent, and not a Plachynda type.--Galassi (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It is OK, but still there are no simillar cases in other parts of same section. Sentences about Vikings are clear without any speculations ... These are the facts: the Vikings were influential in Ukraine, it is known that they were mixed with the locals (especially medieval elite) and today there are some names from that period (Ingvar or Igor, Helgi or Oleg, etc.). I want to agree with you, so please tell me exactly which sentence bothers you? Can you write your proposal of a sentence ... Thanks!--SeikoEn (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please go to discussion page ...--SeikoEn (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Categorizing at Kitezh[edit]

Hi there. I'm not sure you fully understand the difference between a Fictional lost city and a Mythical lost city. A fictional lost city would be something created in a work of fiction. A good example would be the island of Numenor in the Simarillion by Tolkien. It was a "lost" city/island created by Tolkien in his work of fiction. A mythical lost city would be El Dorado in which it is a legend in our own "real" world. Balancing this though is that user ExplorianCaptain is also incorrect in referring to this as simply a Lost city. An example of that sort would be the city of Troy in which there were scientific/archeological factors that pointed to the city actually existing. I know it can be confusing and sometimes splitting hairs, but it is important when we deal with different categorizations that we try to maintain pretty clear lines. I considered changing it, but I figured that would seem a bit caustic to just swoop in and throw both yours and EC's edits away as if you didn't warrant discussion or anything. Please take a minute and consider what I'm trying to explain. I'd greatly love some feedback and to hear your thoughts. Foremost if there is a specific work of fiction in which the city of Kitezh was created then by all means you are correct in labeling it a Fictional lost city. I would greatly appreciate knowing where it was created in literature as I have not been able to find such. I think it's an interesting article and would very much like to get some good references in there. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Kitezh is in fact a LITERARY FICTION. The legend is entirely fakeloric.--Galassi (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
And again I will ask where are your sources for this assertion? You saying so isn't enough I'm afraid. You just added that it originated in "an anonymous book from the late 18th century".. to the article. And once again it is not referenced. I put the tag for references on the article for a reason. It is not up to me to find the references, but rather the burden is on the person who adds information and in particular anything that makes definitive claims. That being said I went to find sources, but all I am finding are dubious and outright unreliable sources that make the claim of Kitezh as folklore and myth. Folklore and myth does not equate with literary fiction. Please show me the source you are using for this please. As I said it's an interesting article and subject and I would hate to have to delete the work ppl have put into it simply because they refuse to add references. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Ukrainian sentiment[edit]

I do not wish to engage in an edit war with you simply, because you made a bad faith edit to begin with. However, I'm taking this matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents with a formal complaint. Labeling living scholars as Ukraino-phobic (or similar) without any wp:rs reference is not only insulting, but also illegal. This message is to inform you about my course of action. Who complied that slanderous (half-red) list is less relevant, but you brought it back using false summary so it's your responsibility. — FoliesTrévise (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and I doubt they would take up the matter. Also the list in question consists of long dead people, and thus BLP is not applicable.--Galassi (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating Stuff[edit]

LEft the ame mesage with Marek. Very interesting. Parts of this book are on-line: [10].

Resisting Occupation: Mass Schooling and the Creation of Durable National Loyalties My second book, Resisting Occupation: Mass Schooling and the Creation of Durable National Loyalties, to be published in 2011 by Cambridge, provides an explanation for the origins, durability, and effects of national loyalty. Drawing on a nested research design and a broad range of primary sources, the book argues that the national loyalties instilled in a population during the introduction of mass schooling—when a community shifts from an oral to a literate mass culture—produce a powerful and durable national tie. Once initially established through the schools, national identities are preserved and reproduced over time within families and reinforced by local communities in a way that makes these constructed identities virtually highly resistant to significant change or substitution over time. Even as material or political incentives change, or as states attempt to assimilate these populations for the purpose of securing their allegiance, schooled populations show a remarkable tenacity in sustaining this initial national identity; and they will vote, conceal, kill, or die if need be, to insure that they and those like them are ruled by those they perceive to be their own kind. As a result, if one knows the national content of the initial schooling in a community, one knows the most basic political loyalties of that community. This gives one remarkable power to predict how that community will align even more than a century hence.

Empirically, the book traces political development across Eurasia to show that the national content that a population was originally taught can predict which regions of a country will try to secede, which will engage in insurgencies or resist foreign occupation when others acquiesce, and why some areas vote for nationalist parties when in other districts appeals to nationalism fail to mobilize popular support.

---Came across this, thought of you and that you'd be interested. best regardsFaustian (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism of Edward321[edit]

Hi! I noticed that you undid the vandalism of Edward321 on article Crimean Karaites. This user consequently reverted all my contributions. I reported in Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. However, I am beginner, not practiced in the Wikipedia. Please, help in protecting these contributions, which are important for both the Karaite Judaic people and the users of the Rovas scripts (writing systems used the the Khazars, Avars, Onogurs and Hungarians). More information can be obtained in the page Alsószentmihály Rovas inscription of a Karaite leader and other related pages. Thank you vry much. --Rovasscript (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Also, the inscription of a Karaite leader from the 10th century is very notable. The problem is that this result was published several times but only in Hungarian from the 1990s. That is the reason why I put this information into the appropriate article of the Wikipedia. If you need more information about this topic please, let me know. BR, --Rovasscript (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

David Duke[edit]

Please stop edit warring. BLP articles cannot use 'unreliable sources' or 'no sources'. further your edit history is proof you are editing on personal basis against another editor. Now knock it off please. Vexorg (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Your dislike for an inconvenient source doesn't make it unreliable. You may want to discuss that on the talkpage, to demonstrate WP:GOODFAITH.--Galassi (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The Wikipedia guidelines on reliability are well documented. Articles that are BLP are especially sensitive to this. Further .... an editor like yourself who restores information that is either non-sourced or unreliably sourced is hypocritically lecturing about the talk page? Vexorg (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
With regard to the above, the information you restored in the edits discussed in my post below was unreliably sourced, and I would be most grateful if you would examine the sources, and either revert your edit, or discuss your reasons on the talk page for the article. Thanks! 93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Communication Problems[edit]

Hi! I can't understand the abrieviations you used in recent reverts to my edits at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_exist&action=history . Please could you explain them. I would also be most grateful if you would discuss on the discussion page as requested. Thanks! 93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

2nd Nomination of [List of Killings of Muhammad] for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article [[11]] is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

The article will be discussed at [[12]] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Alefeb (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation[edit]

Wikipedia-Medcab.svg

Dear Galassi: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Steven Zhang, at their talk page.

Second request re MedCab[edit]

We would very much appreciate it if you would respond at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/02_October_2011/Holodomor even if it is to say that you do not care to participate in the mediation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) (as co-mediator) 14:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for catching it![edit]

Hi Galassi! I posted the Cossack book in the wrong section of the article. Thanks for catching it. Have re-posted with more specific quote from book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.12.9 (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your newest addition is inappropriate, as a COATRACK and POVfork. I had to delete it. The book you cited is already included in the Civil war section.--Galassi (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism/Solzhenitsyn[edit]

Hello there. Thanks for your contribution to the section I added on the Jewish Bolshevism page concerning Post-Soviet Russia, in particular Alexander Solzhenitsyn. I have some concerns about your addition, "as well as perpetuating numerous anti-Semitic claims" at the end of the last sentence, and before the citation I added. First, placing it there seems to imply that the accusation of Solzhenitsyn's anti-Semitism (a direct, POV claim) is to be found on page 505 of The Solzhenitsyn Reader. To my knowledge, it is not (please correct me if I'm wrong). Second, I discussed the reaction to Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together (specifically the charges of anti-Semitism) earlier in the same sentence, and this reaction is cited separately. So now, the sentence not only mentions the charges of anti-Semitism twice, but has also become even more long and unwieldy than when I first wrote it (my apologies). If you found what I wrote to be an inadequate expression of the reaction to the book, I would be happy to discuss it (there's certainly a lot of room for debate there, as evidenced by the criticism and support of the book). However, in the future, I would appreciate it if when you add something new and POV, you make sure that it is line with the current citation or add a new one, and also, explain your edit in the "Edit Summary" or on the Discussion page. I believe this would prevent future confusion. Thanks again!--Icetitan17 (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected a large POVfork. The para previously diverged significantly from the main 200 Years article/--Galassi (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I used the 200 Years article as a guide for writing that section. Would you care to go into how I diverged significantly from it, and how your revision corrects said divergence? And regardless, your current revision still does not address the problem of the citation at the end of the sentence in no way corroborating the statement "as well as perpetuating numerous anti-Semitic claims."--Icetitan17 (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
To resolve the citation error, I have moved the citation back and added a dubious tag to your statement. Now there is no confusion over what statement The Solzhenitsyn Reader is being cited on, and you are given a chance to cite your own statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icetitan17 (talkcontribs) 14:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor mediation[edit]

Hi there Galassi, this is just a reminder to submit your initial statement at the MedCab Holodomor mediation. We can't get the mediation under way until we have statements from each of the participating editors, so it will be very helpful if you could post it on the mediation page when you next have a chance. As a refresher, the statement must be no more than 250 words, and should answer the following four questions:

  1. What are your interests in regards to the Holodomor articles? How did you discover and start editing the article? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?
  2. What problems you think have caused this dispute to require mediation?
  3. What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible.
  4. What do you hope to achieve through mediation?

Thank you very much for your participation. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor statement deadline[edit]

Hello again Galassi, this is another reminder to submit your initial statement at the MedCab Holodomor mediation. The other mediators and I have decided to impose a deadline for initial statements of 00:00, 23 October 2011 UTC. If you have not submitted your initial statement by this time, then you will be excluded from the mediation. Thank you for your understanding. As another refresher, the statement must be no more than 250 words, and should answer the following four questions:

  1. What are your interests in regards to the Holodomor articles? How did you discover and start editing the article? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?
  2. What problems you think have caused this dispute to require mediation?
  3. What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible.
  4. What do you hope to achieve through mediation?

Thanks again — Mr. Stradivarius 16:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Luthiers: The Latest Endangered Species[edit]

I thought of you when I saw this article:

I hope you're not endangered.   Will Beback  talk  05:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind thought. Luckily I am not a luthier, but a customer. and I prefer moderate clime tonewoods (such as bird's eye maple)!--Galassi (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

AE[edit]

I mention you briefly here [13] though you're only tangentially involved I think. Volunteer Marek  17:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Dziekuje. Russavia is a large problem. I did some poking around the web, and found out that he was an Australian aviation expert who died some years ago, and his account was hacked/taken over by a Russian, I suspect with ties to Putin "structures".--Galassi (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

My intentions are to make an objective page about Ukrainians (including Ukrainian citizens), and nothing else. Thank you for your support!--SeikoEn (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Discuss![edit]

When will you finally learn to participate in discussions? Or does this exceed your IQ? --Voyevoda (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Revert limitation[edit]

Because of the recent multi-party revert warring on Ukrainians, I have imposed several new sanctions under the discretionary sanctions rules of WP:DIGWUREN. I am placing you under a renewed revert limitation. Please see Talk:Ukrainians for more details and explanations. Fut.Perf. 21:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding!--SeikoEn (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please review the conditions of your revert limitation once more. You have been breaking it with several recent edits of yours. Fut.Perf. 07:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Cantonist[edit]

Hi. I see you have come back to this article. I'd like to ask you about the sentence "As kosher food was unavailable, they were faced with the necessity of abandoning of Jewish dietary laws." First of all, there is something awkward in the phrase "abandoning of". Perhaps say "to abandon". Also, perhaps it is better to leave the initial sentence "As kosher food was unavailable, they were faced with the choice of either abandoning Jewish dietary laws or starvation."? It isn't much of a choice, but it's a choice after all. Debresser (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is with "starvation". No one was starving cantonists, but the army had no special dietary obligation, naturally. So starvation falls into the WP:SYNTH category. Furthermore it is my understanding that in the extreme situations of survival even the ulraorthodox would eat anything.--Galassi (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that is what the halakha says, although there are people who would rather starve then eat non-kosher (and people who did so and died because of it). Just comes to show, that the choice remains even then. Well, whatever you decide. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
That very well may be the case, and worth including - if there would be a documented case of even a single cantonist dying of starvation... Otherwise it looks quite inappropriate. --Galassi (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor mediation spokespersons[edit]

Hello Galassi, this is Mr. Stradivarius from the Holodomor Medcab mediation. The mediation has been going slowly recently, and as you might have seen from the mediation page, we have been talking about appointing spokespersons for each other to get things moving along. The other mediators and I have decided that it's best to impose a deadline for deciding spokespersons, otherwise it really doesn't look like this mediation is going to progress. So, we would like you to authorize another editor who you trust to be a spokesperson for your viewpoint, by 12am, December 1st, 2011 (UTC). If you do not decide a spokesperson by this time, then we will proceed with the mediation even if you provide no input. You can find more details on our ideas for spokespersons and on what has been discussed so far at the spokespersons section on the mediation page. Thank you again for your cooperation. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, here's User:Steven Zhang's outline of how the spokesperson system will work, for your reference:

Basically how this works, two, three or four editors are appointed by the rest of the editors as spokespersons for their collective viewpoints. This spokesperson should be the only one who presents the views of the collective people he/she represents. I'm going to ask each of you to consider nominating a spokesperson, or who you would like to represent your viewpoints, and if you do not wish to do this, to provide an explanation and a commitment to remain active throughout the mediation case. We're still on the first issue and need to crank things up a gear.

So please leave your username and who you would like to nominate as your spokesperson here; or if you do not wish to nominate a spokesperson, please leave a commitment that you will remain active throughout the rest of the Holodomor mediation. Thanks again. — Mr. Stradivarius 12:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a note to let you know that the deadline for deciding spokespersons has passed, and that we will be progressing with the mediation without your input. You are, of course, free to comment or to nominate a spokesperson at any time. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 11:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update[edit]

Wikipedia-Medcab.svg

Dear Galassi: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In Tablature, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Django (software) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Toccata and Fugue in D Minor Article[edit]

I have spent quite some time correcting this article and have adequate citatations, yet you have a penchante' for blindly rushing in and reverting all of my work using the old WP:OR argument, which is no longer the case since I now have listed the author and book wherin the relevent information is found. Now that I have read the rest of this discussion page, I notice you have done the same to many others as well. Honestly, is this what you're supposed to do, or is this just something you do to get your kicks out of it? Also I do not appreciate my work being capriciously called "Amateur" without naming the reasons as to why it is thought to be such in the talk page. Your actions have been disrespectful, and making unfounded critiques on an article's author with no relevant information is nothing more than a sly jab at ad-hominem. 20:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolusty33 (talkcontribs) 20:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You have not provided a single citation. Citations must include author, title, date and page##.--Galassi (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


Please note that user Rolusty33 exceeded the 3RR, and used a sockpuppet as well.--Galassi (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


Galassi: Thanks for your note. I was away from the computer at the time. It looks like user:Swarm has dealt with the sock-puppet issue and protected the article. I've added the article and the user page to my watchlists, and if further assistance is needed please let me or another admin know.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor mediation issue two[edit]

Hi Galassi, this is a boilerplate message to let you know that we have moved on to issue two of the Holodomor mediation, victim estimates. At the moment we are accepting statements from all participants, so if you want to make your position on this issue known, then now would be a very good time to contribute. Your statement should be no longer than 200 words, and should include both your opinion on the issue and what you hope will be addressed in the mediation. We will be accepting statements until 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC), or until we have statements from all spokespersons. Please note, however, that even if you miss this deadline you are free to contribute to the mediation at any time. You can find the appropriate section on the mediation page here. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 06:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Mark Kopytman COI[edit]

Multiple times, AriBenami has admitted a conflict of interest on this article: see this, this, and this. As long as the page is functionally the same as their text, the COI tag needs to remain. Do not remove it again. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"Functionally" is not an issue, as long as it not verbatim. Also the deceased subject preempts all COI.--Galassi (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hogwash - the editor is related to the subject, and still controls the subject's online profile - that's as clear a COI as can be. Any further removals of the COI tag without valid reasons will be treated as vandalism - this is not a "silly" issue. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Babi Yar revert[edit]

Hi, please just explain why you reverted my edits at Babi Yar. Discuss in the talk page. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic tone.--Galassi (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
There were two of my edits you reverted, and of my edits was fixing a sentence fragment[14], so it ain't really simple enough to explain with two words on your talk page. Please just goto the Babi Yar talk page and explain in the section I created there. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The wording of the BYar article was reached by consensus. Check the talk page archive.--Galassi (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Can't you tell me where in the archives? I can't find where in the archive it was decided to leave a sentence fragment unfixed. And please explain that in the section I made at the article's talk page. It's hard for me to remember going to your talk page to see what you have to say. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
You should go to the talk and discuss again... wonder if u'd read this considering how long this page is... 173.180.202.22 (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

report[edit]

I reported your persistent adding of incorrectly referenced information, deleting my tabs about it, and pushing a non-NPOV (on Slavic Neopaganism) that borders on gross incivility on the incidents page for admins. It says I should have discussed it here, but I had nothing more to say that I had not already, and I am saying it here now.--Dchmelik (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: reversions[edit]

I had added reliable third-party citations before you reverted. Please include those, cease the usage of discussed pejoratives and pejorative sources, and your misrepresentation of sources that admins have already concluded you are at fault using, WP:OR/obscure terms such as 'amalgamation' and do not do any further reversions that are against consensus.--Dchmelik (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Slavyanstvo[edit]

Cyrillic searches yoeld nothing of the sort pertaining to neopaganism. You must stop.--Galassi (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The term in more standard English is Slavianstvo, and you made some grammatical mistakes that make you hard to understand. Please clarify. I do not really like my talk page being used for hasty, misspelled statements pushing fringe views, but I will leave it to show you have one.--Dchmelik (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Material you added to the Russia section of 'Slavic Neopaganism' contains a nonexistent or misspelled word. Please correct it, or I will remove the statement, and please complete your (or other) URL-only citations so the potential link-rot tag can be removed.--dchmelik (t|c) 01:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a slightest idea of what you are talking about.--Galassi (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you do now, except a link-rot tag is used when WP:references only contain URLs, and not publication information required in academic writing, like encyclopaedias like Wikipedia. It was probably a violation to remove the tag when you have not properly cited sources.--dchmelik (t|c) 03:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Is that so? The tag was for copy-edit, wasn't it?--Galassi (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure if I used that tag, but I often use various ones for citation problems.--dchmelik (t|c) 06:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

simplicity and language usage[edit]

Have you read 'WP:words to avoid (WTA)?' It lists neologisms and pejoratives. 'Quasireligion' is not in any English dictionary at http://www.onelook.com/, the biggest site of English dictionaries (which includes the public part of M-W,) nor http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/, a subset of the OED, which means it is extremely likely 'quasireligion' is a neologism. It can mean the same as 'pseudoreligion,' a pejorative. As I said on 'Talk:Slavic Neopaganism,' 'cult' (on WP:WTA) is a pejorative (a strong one.) 'Pagan' is also a strong non-slavic pejorative; it is best not to use such terms. It is not forbidden, but neologisms show sources are unreliable (and make people think you are a crackpot,) and strong pejoratives can get you accused of gross incivility (as you maybe noticed.) 'Amalgamation' is also confusing OR: it means Slavianism is united. It is not: there is partial overlap, but different Slavianist religions use different pantheons (as you may see in the articles on the sects and certainly 'Slavic mythology,') different ideas, are independent in authority, and Slavic countries still recently had wars. It is much clearer to say it is philosophy/religion and then state the focuses. All religions have a philosophy, and so are a philosophy, even if some do not do proper, reasonable philosophy.--dchmelik (t|c) 06:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Besides that 'quasireligion' is a neologism, I think our recent introductions to the article make clear Slavianist religions include 'quasireligions' (if I get the meaning right,) because the religions include cultural and philosophical aspects, and of course some people in probably any religion are fools with bizarre philosophies, i.e. quasireligions. That does not mean everyone is, and any source that makes a blanket generalization about entire multiple groups of people (and even more separate individuals) is clearly prejudiced and unreliable.--dchmelik (t|c) 06:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You are making a large mistake. I use no such words. However these words are used in the reliable sources cited, and as such they can be used even if they were pejorative. Which they are not. Now it is clear that you simply dislike any critisism of NP. And QUASI is not a neologism, it comes from Latin. If you want to use simplistic language: there is a separate WIkipedia for that. This one calls for precise vocabulary. As to slavianism: I stress it again, it has NOTHING TO DO with NP. It is a type of ethnocentrism. You may need to acquire some fluency in Russian in order to understand that.--Galassi (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
HAHA: your usage of 'cult' and (quoting) 'quasireligion' is logged. Maybe you do not want others to see, but why waste time telling me? 'Quasi' is contained in both accepted words and neologisms. I am in favour of criticizing everything--certainly the pejorative, connotative term 'neopagan,' and I stated I am against fakelore: I want it exposed. For any article, fanatic statements are quickly deleted by consensus: one does not find fundy loon, Islamist, terrorist, anarchist, Communist, Nazi, KKK, racist, vulgar, other prejudiced views on general pages (except maybe ones on those extreme topics) for long. A few, even prominent, academics--perhaps your source--have such views, which only cranks take seriously, and you or your source or both are prejudiced, or uninformed and prone to lack of critical thinking--which enables your rude generalizing (which you do use by using a source) that appears bigoted. Why do you repeatedly deny 'Slavianstvo' is also a religous term? I cited a mainstream third-party source as well as a pagan (not exclusively Slavainist) source. It is debatable whether that is third-party, but it is evidence, and in Google, etc., you can certainly find usage (not as much as a few years ago.) You need proto-slavic fluency; 'Slavianism' would have translations from all Slavic languages. There are tens/hundreds of ethnic religions whose names have multiple meanings.--dchmelik (t|c) 01:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

talk pages[edit]

If you want people to read replies and consider you polite, it is best to reply on their talk pages. I will not always receive notifications about yours, though I do for article ones, which it is polite to participate on more than arguing with admins.--dchmelik (t|c) 02:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: your talk on admin page[edit]

Your charges are groundless and frivolous. This is a CONTENT DISPUTE, and it is totally inappropriate for ANI. If you unhappy - go to MEDIATION. Your edits look like an attempt to whitewash groups that are known for their antisemitic and racist extremesm.--Galassi (talk) 9:28 pm, Today (UTC−8)

I have been waiting for an informal mediator a day or two. As for extremism, actually, I completed all your reliable (IMO) incomplete citations, including one/some on xenophobia/antisemitism. Could you cite something like 'Russian neopaganism in general is a highly politicized religion with extremist tendencies?' Other reasons to not over-generalize are: 'Old World'-based paganism includes Western, ecumenical, anonymous pagans, and Jewish pagans (I am friends with some,) whom in some or all cases are sometimes non-xenophobic Slaviansts.
At some point I altered your contributions in general and was unfriendly, because you seemed also to do so, but I have been trying to collaborate, and I apologize for being uncooperative and for perceived personal attacks. When people have NNPOV I have anger somewhat, but when I write, it subsides: I proofread several/many times and reconsider and shorten many statements. If one is against collaboration and consensus, I may be argumentative, but I do not intend impoliteness and I avoid writing in all capitals. Wikipedia says to present most topics 'in a positive light' (and to include non-bigoted criticism.) Are you willing to? Do you want me to get a mediator?--dchmelik (t|c) 08:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

terminology enables consensus between us on Slavic 'NP' article! :)[edit]

I had forgotten what citations I was editing. I changed 'stresses' to 'alleges' to 'claims;' you reverted to 'alleges,' my NNPOV. 'Claims' or 'argues?.' Slavianism as culture (like as you said: civilization) & religion implies religious pan-slavism. Are you not saying religious nationalism is pan-slavism? You document Nazism, which was pan-germanic; clearly, any Nazi Slavs must be pan-slavic, which your sources might say, and I could find more. My changes helped both of us. We are citing xenophobic right-wing nationalism, which my cited term 'Slavianism' can imply. Would you call Orthodox Judaism and a non-monolatrist Judaism even the same religion? Surely a reformist/secular Jewish atheist is unorthodox. Likewise, if a Slavianist disbelieves or hopes gods exist, or is pantheist/panentheist, or only cares about other religiosity, (s)he is not very Rodnover at all (unless pantheism counts.) Please define 'quasireligion' in [Wiktionary]. Removing 'a' before the 'quasireligion' quote retains your main meaning (the intro says religions: either it or your statement must change.) I am done editing for many hours; have I been relevant? I hope this approaches consensus for us.--dchmelik (t|c) 17:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

1.It is not my (or your) prerogative to define QUASIRELIGION, it is a word used in the SOURCE. 2. Panslavism is a POLITICAL/CULTURAL idea, not a religious one. Ditto Slavianstvo, an ethnocentric subset of the former, more often than not russocentric.--Galassi (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Since it is hard to find 'quasireligion' in dictionaries, of course it is good to define in wiktionary, a site of Wikimedia Foundation that runs Wikipedia. Is the source translated? Do you know what the source meant? Do you think anyone will understand your quote, rather than making up their own definition? If not, why would you even not want me to cite a source to define it? I suppose you are right on pan-slavism, but I misunderstand about 'Slavianstvo.' You said it is pan-slavism but not that it is not all of pan-slavism. So, I thought you meant 'Slavic "neopaganism,"' but you said it is not religious, but the article says it is.--dchmelik (t|c) 18:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Whatever quasireligion is - it is not for us to define, although I have my own definition (a system of religion-like ethics that doens't require faith). We merely report what scholars say. Panslavism is, again, a utopian political idea of a unified FUTURE Slavic civilization under the leadership of Russians in general, and their Tsar in particular. --Galassi (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Panslavism, Slavianstvo, Slavophilia are cultural/political entities, while Rodnoveriye is a (quasi)religious one. Make no mistake about it.--Galassi (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update[edit]

Wikipedia-Medcab.svg

Dear Galassi: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Slavic Neopaganism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nativism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update[edit]

Wikipedia-Medcab.svg

Dear Galassi: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Cyrano de Bergerac, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aristocrat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update[edit]

Wikipedia-Medcab.svg

Dear Galassi: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Federico Maria Sardelli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conductor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

POV of "state-owned" and "state-funded" reverts[edit]

You've reverted my edits twice without responding in the Talk page for RT (TV network). In accordance to Edit warring, please participate in the pages Talk page to explain your reasoning.

Beilis[edit]

On the Mendel Beilis article, you removed the edit that Beilis was "fairly religious," and restored the statement that Beilis was "not religious himself." This is clearly false, as can be seen from his memoir. See also the The New York Times story on Beilis’s funeral, dated July 10, 1934, which begins: “Orthodox Jewry paid tribute yesterday to one of its leaders when more than 4,000 attended funeral services for Mendel Beiliss.” Malamud made his protagonist in The Fixer completely non-religious, but that was quite different from the actual Mendel Beilis, as has been noted by a number of critics.

Also, by the way, Beilis ceased using the first name "Menachem-Mendel" when he came to America, and I don't believe he ever referred to himself as "Menachem Beilis." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MemoryOfMendel (talkcontribs) 21:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:V[edit]

Hi, I think in your aim to remove weasle words in this edit [15] a change was made that no longer corresponds to the source. Please see: Talk:Josephus_on_Jesus#WP:V_correspondence_to_source for an explanation. Your help in going back to an earlier version that corresponds to the sources will be appreciated. I would suggest: "are important non-Christian historical documents that may shed light on", using "may" that is neutral. The issue of authenticity and disputes is explained in detail in the rest of the lede anyway. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for reversing a user's removal of Alexander III of Russia from category:antisemitism. The user in question told me that because he had a discussion with five other users who agreed that biographical entries should be removed from category:antisemitism he can delete the biographical entries of genuine anti-Semites from the category.Iss246 (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up[edit]

Perhaps you can help me. I have a dispute with User:Pieter Kuiper. He insists that nobody can include biographical entries in the category:antisemitism. He referred me to a discussion he had with 5 other Wikipedeans in which they supported that view. You reversed the change in the entry on Alexander III of Russia, and included it in the antisemitism category. I don't see the value of such a view, nor do I see that individual's right to impose that view on other Wikipedeans. I think that if the individual in question played an intimate role in the advancement (or the combating) of anti-Semitism, that individual belongs in the category. Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, with the proviso of a more specific category, such as "Antisemitism in Russia". Do you have the link for that discussion?--Galassi (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


Here is part of the discussion to which Pieter Kuiper referred me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_12#Category:People_accused_of_antisemitism .

Here is a second, longer discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories .

You can also see the dialogue I had with Pieter Kuiper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iss246#Antisemitism Iss246 (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly: do not add Antisemitism categories to biographical articles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. They may be inappropriate for BLP, but are essential in articles of DOCUMENTED antisemites.--Galassi (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
You are perfectly entitled to you opinions, but do not sabotage the category system by disregarding decisions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Whose desisions? Yours?--Galassi (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
To reiterate: that policy is for BPL articles, not for dead individuals. READ IT. --Galassi (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Not true, read it. And read Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 12#Category:People accused of antisemitism. The problem is greatest for living people, but most arguments against these categories are valid for biographical articles in general. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
So, would you try to remove the cat. from the Hitler/Goebbels/Rosenberg articles too? --Galassi (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

More follow-up on Category:Antisemitism[edit]

I had added Category:Antisemitism to the T.S. Eliot Wikipedia entry. Another member keeps removing the category. He/she gives me the same old scholastic explanation that individuals should not be covered by the category. I pointed out that an implication of such a ban would be to remove Wilhelm Marr, the individual who coined the term anti-Semitism, and Adolf Eichmann. I also pointed out that Eliot would remain a great poet. I don't dispute that he wrote great poetry (Bleistein with a cigar notwithstanding).Iss246 (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure in this particular case. It would certainly be appropriate in Ezra Pound though.--Galassi (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ya'akov Gil[edit]

Добрый день, увидел что вы с Украины и подумал, что вы поймёте меня на русском. Насколько я понял, депутаты всех парламентов значимы здесь. Но вы мою правку отменили, поясните пожалуйста, в чём я не прав? Zooro-Patriot (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This is English wiki, so we'd have to communicate in English. The subject of the article in question has no demonstrable notability, and no documentation.--Galassi (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't speak English very well. Ok, but in rule WP:POLITICIAN write:

Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.

Gil was member of Knesset. What's wrong? Zooro-Patriot (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:POLITICIAN:"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"."--Galassi (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
ok... I'm understand, sorry. Zooro-Patriot (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Smile![edit]

A Barnstar!
A smile for you

You’ve just received a random act of kindness! Mike Restivo (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Solzhenitsyn[edit]

Hi, Galassi! Do I understand correctly that you suppose to discuss first, wait six hours, and only then make reverts, according to your editing restriction? If that is the case (and this author is apparently related to Ukrainian subjects), you suppose to self-revert to comply. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That refers to a specific article, "The Ukrainians". As to AS - I know well what PRAVDA is, but the edit in question in rather noncontroversial.--Galassi (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
According to this, The other participants (Galassi (talk · contribs), Bandurist (talk · contribs) and Lvivske (talk · contribs)), all of whom have had prior sanctions and/or warnings under the "Digwuren" Arbcom rules, are placed under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion.. Not a specific article, if I understand this correctly. Of course one can always ask the administrator who issued this restriction. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Since we are not on Ukraine-related articles: stick to Solzhenitsyn, if you please.--Galassi (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Obviously, the mentioned book ("Gulag Archipelago") includes a lot of materials about Ukraine. As about the "non-controversial edit" it tells that the Nobel Prize winner allegedly "declared that the Hitlerites were 'lenient' and 'kind' to the enslaved peoples" and that he "was choking with pathological hatred for the country where he was born". Honestly, I do not understand why you do not want to self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
That edit simply transmits the Soviet media reception of the book. I see no POV problems there.--Galassi (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This is not about POV, but about your editing restriction. I am not going to report anything, but there are many people around... My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Тhanks for heads-up.--Galassi (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Tombeau, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lully and Forqueray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Schutzmannschaft Batallion 118[edit]

Hi, I located the PDF file that is a free download here:

Take care. JunoBeach (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi, we have no idea if the information after 1944 is the truth. He just claimed it in Court. It should be under the Federal Court of Canada section. The Federal Court of Canada confirmed him as a liar and the new evidence is supporting he lied even more to the Court. I don't think we should have a separate section, this could be a complete fabrication. Thank you. JunoBeach (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The Foreign Legion claim is impossible to fabricate, as it is easy to check. I'm inclined to believe it.--Galassi (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Pogrom[edit]

In your recent edit at Pogrom part of your revert accidentally removed text being used in footnotes. Your edit summary suggested you thought the text was saying "pogrom is not a riot" - if you look closer here you can see that that information is only in the footnote as a direct quote. If you didn't mean to revert that, would you mind self reverting that part of your edit? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2012 (

Dear Galassi - please restore my page - There is no need to remove 70% of the page that has been documented and that has been here on Wikipedia since 2008- are you now denying me the right to say that I have founded my own ensemble - or that I have composed the music I have composed - Please allow me to remind you that this whole thing started when I tried to add all the necessary references - I was not trying to spam or anything, but to help validate the information... I do beg you to return the things the way they were...and I will remove the acclaimed reference...is that ok?

12text12 (aka Aleksandar Simic)

Aleksandar Simić[edit]

Dear Galassi, I have done everything to document absolutely every part of the text in this article about me...and keep it objective, and leave out any subjective qualifications. I do - sincerely appreciate your input...and you were right about many things. I also hope that you are now satisfied and will allow the article to stay like this...I will not touch it any more... Cordially, 12text12 (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

please join[edit]

Can you please join the discussion at Talk:Babi Yar #"retaliation" implies provocation responsible by the victim too? thanks, 173.180.202.22 (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David Garland[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article David Garland has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Joseph Steven (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Once more Albinoni's Adagio[edit]

What makes you think that I am Nicola Schneider?? Schneider is one of the most common German surnames, and I can assure you that I'm NOT Nicola Schneider. By the way, you're also wrong in assuming that Nicola Schneider is a woman. -- Schneid9 (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Needing Wiki contribution assistance![edit]

Hello Galassi!

I am looking for an experienced Wikipedian to contribute an article for our band Mr. Meeble. I have checked and we meet the Wikipedia "notability" guidelines for a band. We have a very basic Wikipedia article written already, but I know that someone like yourself may be able to point out our formatting errors and critical omissions. You can hear our music and see our videos here:

http://youtube.com/mrmeeble
http://soundcloud.com/meeble

Let me know if you would be willing to help!

Regards,
Devin
mm @ meeble.com

Devbot (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No Renaissance music outside of Europe?[edit]

So you say that there was no Renaissance music written outside of Europe? I find that a little surprising, since I remember hearing a Renaissance composer from Mexico (or something like that) being discussed on the radio. Also, as a side note, the Spanish first established colonies in the New World during the early 16th century, so the presence of a New World Renaissance composer wouldn't be too surprising. I'm curious to know what you know. 69.121.17.200 (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No response, eh? If you do not respond to this topic within 24 hours, I may have to change the introduction to Renaissance music back to include the Western world rather than just Europe. It doesn't look good at all on you if you don't explain why "Western world" is incorrect, or to justify your position on the matter when asked... 69.121.17.200 (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

All renaissance music is European. There was no renaissance outside Europe. There was colonial baroque music in latin America, but hat was later.--Galassi (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
There, that wasn't so hard now was it? :) 69.121.17.200 (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Is that in lieu of thanks?--Galassi (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Eustace Mullins's b-day.[edit]

Much as it pains me to admit it, the SPA editing under the name of User:Sutton48Mullins seems to be right on this one, at least according to the obit cited in the refs: http://www.meaningfulfunerals.net/fh/obituaries/obituary.cfm?o_id=507110&fh_id=11274&s_id=57E949326E5A7553E1207370C18AEBAF . Maybe I'm missing something?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Aleksei Losev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Formalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The Moldau and "tea pot"[edit]

Yes, I know about providing proper citations. Which is why I suggest on the talk page that the section be left with a "citation-needed" tag, a perfectly-good alternative to removing the section entirely, particularly since the whole article is thus-tagged. Drjem3 (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Turkic Karaites/Crimean Karaites rename dispute[edit]

It seems that Kaz's move of the article entitled Crimean Karaites to Turkic Karaites was a controversial move. I propose to revert it so that it can be discussed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I am sure you will wish to give your opinion there.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Patrick O'Brien (musician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Rutherford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


October 2012[edit]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to The Pink Swastika. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

What POV?--Galassi (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Binksternet. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page New York Bandura Ensemble, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. It appears you have a conflict of interest, repeatedly inserting (spamming) torban.org into Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a mistake, assuming WP:GOODFAITH.--Galassi (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Galassi. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Pop music in Ukraine, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Do not keep inserting torban.org into the encyclopedia. It is unreliable, with no authors. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Eduard Drach. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Cossack Mamay. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Julian Kytasty, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Take it to ARBCOM.--Galassi (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Warning edit warring[edit]

I see that in the article on Little Russia you are engaged into edit warring with two more editors. The edit warring includes removing reliable sources at will and claiming PoV in the edit summary. Please stop edit warring, go to the talk page and discuss the issues properly. Edit warring does not belong to the dispute resolution procedures, and should not be used as such. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You are hasty and incorrect. I included BOTH SIDES of argument, with a ref of actual Soloviev paper in PDF. Revert yourself.--Galassi (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
You should have not edited the article in the first place if there is no consensus. Take it to the talk page, if there is consensus that everything is fine, I will revert myself over a couple of days.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I doubt there could be a consensus, since the subject is a sore one for chauvinists.--Galassi (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, then you must seek for mediation, and I guess I can assist with seeking or providing one if this is acceptable to all sides. But it should start from the talk page discussion. Edit warring is a no-go, it will just lead to the page protection and/or editing restriction of the sides.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Galassi, I've been asked to look at this situation, and I've protected the article from editing as a result. This note is for your information only, but I'll elaborate further on the article's talk page later today.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 18, 2012; 12:12 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ivan Khandoshkin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

прошу высказаться[edit]

Тут обсуждение списка на ЛС участника воевода.--V.ost (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source noticeboard discussion[edit]

I initiated a discussion about torban.org and related websites on WP:RSN:

Please feel free to offer your thoughts there. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Torban. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Svoboda[edit]

please use the talk page. we've butt heads here before, but usually figure something out. you know i'm reasonable...--Львівське (говорити) 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


why are you still reverting and pushing this POV? You're usually pretty level headed...--Львівське (говорити) 00:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The far-right is sourced and will have to stay.--00:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
It's opinion, not lede or intro sentence worthy. I'm sure there's a MOS rule about things like this. While right-wing is universally applicable, and broad, far right isn't unanimous, and you need something to be unanimous if you're not not going to attribute it, and rather present it as wikipedia fact.--Львівське (говорити) 00:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Automated tools[edit]

This edit was clearly not vandalism yet you tagged it as vandalism when reverted it. Please be more careful when using semi-automated tools. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 02:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John-Paul Himka[edit]

Hello Galassi,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged John-Paul Himka for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Cdtew (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The page is in construction.--Galassi (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at John-Paul Himka[edit]

Hi Galassi, you recently removed a deletion tag from John-Paul Himka. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with John-Paul Himka. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Conrad[edit]

Hi Galassi, I don't know if you're aware but this whole issue was discussed several times, most recently here [16]. The current wording (the one that I reverted to) is the one which gained consensus the last time this came up. It was proposed by User:Vacarme and pretty much everyone was satisfied. If anything a note with the little "<---" arrows should be put in the text so that this stops being a perennial problem.Volunteer Marek 22:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Khazar[edit]

What are you doing at Khazar? If I make an edit and explain it on the talk page, you can't just revert it without comment. Zerotalk 00:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring / 3RR[edit]

Hello. You are in danger of violating 3RR at Khazars. What is more, your edits appear disruptive and contrary to the developing census on the talk page. Please cease.Jeppiz (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is a content dispute.--Galassi (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Content disputes are no excuse for edit warring. And unlike Nishidani, you have not explained your edits at the talk page. It's very hard to find any factual reason for including a blog.Jeppiz (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Holodomor + Jewish Bolshevism[edit]

could you supply a source for 66% being Jewish. this is not stated in the source given.Joel Slovo (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a CLAIMED #. The actual published list has 9 Jews on it - http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%96%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B2_%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83.--Galassi (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Is this number given, or is it based on a personal name count? Using google translate for ref. you put on the article, I can't see lists of people by nationality. Recall that the JTA states that the lists show that most of the organizers were jewish: http://www.jta.org/news/article/2009/06/15/1005888/jewish-group-objects-to-holodomor-lawsuit
It states "The nation's security service is pressing the case against a list of former Soviet officials accused of committing the Holodomor, which caused the deaths of millions in Ukraine in 1932-33. Most of the names on the list were Jewish. ... Last July, the Ukrainian Security Service released a list of high-ranking Soviet state and Communist Party officials -- as well as officials from NKVD, the police force of Soviet Russia -- that essentially blamed Jews and Latvians responsible for perpetrating and executing the famine because most of the names on the list were Jewish. ... The Ukrainian Jewish Committee called on the secret service to revise the list"Joel Slovo (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
You should take a Russian course. Googletranslate is full of pitfalls. The list refers to the second item discussed in the Zolotaryov book.--Galassi (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Where is dikiy cited as a Solzhenitsyn source here?: http://www.vestnik.com/issues/2002/0415/win/reznik.htmJoel Slovo (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - the Zolotaryov article[17] does not mention anywhere the list of 9 that you brought up - this is in direct contradiction to the JTA article. The JTA cited fears of the list creating "inter-ethnic hatred". cover-ups create much more inter-ethnic hatred.Joel Slovo (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The google translate of the article you linked to on the Jewish Bolshevism page refutes your premise. References are taken from the source provided. As translated, it states: [18]

Alexander Feldman , chairman and organizer of the Russian human rights organization "Ukrainian Jewish Committee," arbitrarily expressed their concerns that the publication of such lists is biased attempt to conceal the real perpetrators of Holodomor. [1] Along with these uncertainties UYEK noted in the published document and what was not mentioned In his opinion "the real culprits Famine - Peter , Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet; Chubar , chairman of People's Commissars of the USSR; Prikhodko , the Prosecutor General of the USSR; Skrypnyk and others. " With the application UYEK [2] : ' Ukrainian Jewish Committee states that published recently by the Security Service of Ukraine on the basis of archival materials first "List of Party and government leaders, senior staff GPU and GPU of the Ukrainian SSR, and documents that are the legal basis for the policy in Ukraine Famine-Genocide and repression "actually puts ethnic responsibility for the tragedy of the Holodomor on Jews and Latvians. ' Ukrainian Jewish Committee noted the importance of the Security Service , which was carried out, and called on the leaders of the agency "carefully and responsibly approach the preparation and publication of such documents serious." Representative SBU Sergei Kokin in interview BBC BBC called the accusations of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee for ethnic bias Security Service unfounded. [3][4] Sergey Kokin says SBU filed documents in a form in which they are stored in archives [5]: ' We came out of those documents that are in the archives of the Security Service of Ukraine. There's a lot of security officers. Among the leaders were so many people of that nationality, which is referred to. And there is no bias. It's there. This was particularly characteristic of the central office of the then public safety. Because these people appear in these documents, as they were in the list. If in our documents have appeared in such as Grigory Petrovsky, he would also have been in this list. But then there is no order in our documents.

This seems to be a very clear case of WP:FAKE on your part. I do not want to be aggressive, but what you are stating directly contradicts what is stated by the relevant sources about this list.Joel Slovo (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time. THe Zolotaryov article is about the 66% list. Good bye.--Galassi (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is obvious, but it has nothing to do with the 9 out of 47 organizers you claimed, where the other sources report it as much higher than that minority number.Joel Slovo (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad[edit]

I'm glad we were able to come to a compromise in the Jewish Bolshevism article, even though our views on this are divergent.Joel Slovo (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Lenin[edit]

See [19][20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel Slovo (talkcontribs) 04:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And where is "strong Jewish identity"?--Galassi (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll change it to Jewish identity - though he made some statements that could be construed as meaning that.

Also, on the Kaganovich page, there are links to several sources referring to Kaganovich having a sister. This confluence of sources satisfies WP:REDFLAG. The NYT obit on Kaganovich even talks about his sister: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/27/obituaries/l-m-kaganovich-stalwart-of-stalin-dies-at-97.htmlJoel Slovo (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll finish this later, after coming to an agreement with you, as I don't want to violate WP:3RR.Joel Slovo (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300168608 emphatically recommended. --Galassi (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to revert the Kaganovich sister comment?Joel Slovo (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation, by the way - I'll look into it.Joel Slovo (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup[edit]

Edit-clear.svg
Hello, Galassi.

You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mikrokosmos (Turovsky)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Mikrokosmos (Turovsky) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No notability for this musical composition. The only webpages about it have the composer discussing or writing about it. No third party notice whatsoever.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Mikrokosmos (Turovsky) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mikrokosmos (Turovsky) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikrokosmos (Turovsky) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kjeld Tidemand-Johannessen[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kjeld Tidemand-Johannessen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 07:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yuriy Fedynsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haydamaky (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yuriy Fedynsky[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Jurij Fedynskyj a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Yuriy Fedynsky. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. It was not a move, but there were 2 articles, with the older one poorly translated and erroneous translit.--Galassi (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mykola Shmatko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oligarch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Joel Slovo = Blastikus ?[edit]

You might be interested in this page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blastikus. Jayjg (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That explains it...--Galassi (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Rus' people[edit]

I am not sure why you are edit-warring and returning to the article a fringe theory introduced by a single-purpose account who is avoiding consensus. There is discussion going on at Talk:Varangians, if you have arguments why the theory should be in the article please bring them there.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Galassi. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 21:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Multiple reversions of corroboration of Giazotto's account (Albinoni)--why?[edit]

Please explain why you are reverting multiple times an interesting addition for the Albinoni page that had already been discussed on Adagio page: discovery of possible corroboration of Giazotto's account. Still working on refining the language there, but it is: 1. NOT original research, but taken from a scholar that had access to the primary material, from Giazotto's assistant. 2. NOT Wikipedia. The translation from the Italian is on Wikipedia but the source is a publication. We are trying to get a more balanced view on this; please refer to discussion on Adagio page if you have comments to add (link below). Thank you for your cooperation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adagio_in_G_minor

50.52.141.226 (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Peacedove.svg

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Tomaso Albinoni, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adagio_in_G_minor".

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement discretionary sanction: Indefinite topic ban[edit]

The following sanction now applies to you (in accordance with the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions):

You are indefinitely topic-banned, as described in WP:TBAN, from making any edits related to Ukraine, including any edits related to Cossacks.

You have been sanctioned for the reason(s) set down in this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision. This sanction has been recorded on the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a topic ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal. If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  Sandstein  11:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Your note[edit]

Sorry, I've been away for the past month. Is this still an issue? Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. A Japanese IP keeps trolling there.--Galassi (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
You state on the Talk: page that this Japanese IP is opposing you there because of an unrelated conflict. Where did this Japanese IP first come into conflict with you? Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Not sure exactly, but that multiple Japanese IP is following me around for a while. The IP keeps changing, so it is impossible to track it. Also I would need help with the Alexei Losev article. User Binksternet is retaliating there for an unrelated edit on Pink Swastika. --Galassi (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Would definitely appreciate an opinion on Alexei Losev.--Galassi (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aleksei Losev. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring at Aleksei Losev and personal attacks at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Binksternet. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Galassi (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

There is no edit war, I support Binksternet's edits (with a few provisi). The edit war is conducted by the user "My Best Wishes".

Decline reason:

Let us leave aside the strange contradiction between "There is no edit war" and " The edit war is conducted by the user...". You say "There is no edit war". Do you actually know what "edit war" means??? We have [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34], which is edit warring on a massive scale, not to mention smaller scale edit warring at [35] [36] and [37] [38] [39], and more. I see that in the edit warring notice board discussion on this, you make numerous off-the-point statements, which indicate that you don't understand what "edit war" means. For example, you said "This is not an edit-war, but a long term content dispute". A content dispute in which one or more editors keep posting their preferred version of the disputed content is an edit war. Again, you said "The arguments for my edits are equally valid", but believing your edits are right does not justify edit warring: in fact, almost all people who edit war believe they are right. As for " I support Binksternet's edits", that is totally irrelevant, as the block reason does not refer to disagreeing with edits, it refers to making a personal attack. Since you do not seem to have the remotest understanding of either of the reasons for your block, and since the edit warring extends over a period of at least four years, I am doubtful whether a 48-hour block will be enough. Moreover, considering that you have a history of blocks for edit warring, extending over a period of more than five years, I am very surprised that this block is so short, but for now I will leave it as it is, in the hope that you will avoid similar problematic editing when the block expires. Do expect, however, to be blocked for much longer if you continue to be disruptive. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

I came here to warn Galassi that I think he violated his topic ban in removing the word "Ukrainian", but I did not know he was already blocked. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
His entire editing of Losev could be considered a topic ban violation because Losev was born in a family of Don Cossacks (see topic ban notice above). My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
That's BS, My Best. Don Cossacks are not Ukrainian. As to Segodnya newspaper - it is not the CURRENT one from Kiev, but a defunct one from Moscow.--Galassi (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree about Segodnya and fixed it. Why did not you tell this on article talk page? But Don Cossacks are Cossacks, and they are historically related to Ukraine through Don Republic. This is probably something to clarify with admin who imposed your topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Kuban Cossacks are closely related to Ukraine. But the Don Cossacks have a very loose and obscure connection, at best. They are ethnically Russian, but for a few months they controlled territory in the eastern edge of Ukraine.Faustian (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this sounds reasonable to me, however the notice by administrator simply tells "Cossacks" and gives link to Cossacks where Don Cossacks belong. Better to ask. Just a thought for the future. My very best wishes (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A couple of comments from the peanut gallery. First, I did not block Galassi for violating his topic ban. Second, my sense from the highlighted edits and reading the details of the ban is that he did in fact violate it by both edits (remember, bans are broadly construed). Finally, any editor may seek enforcement of the ban if they wish to. I haven't decided what I'll do, if anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

A comment from the ring: 1.at the time of my last edit on the Losev article it had no mention of his his DISTANT Don (non -Ukrainian) Cossack origin. No ban violation there either way. 2. Removing the qualifier "Ukrainian" from a non-Ukrainian item - no ban violation. --Galassi (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Just do not tell that Don Cossacks are not Cossacks and do not edit articles about Don Cossack writers [40] (claiming that Sholokhov is not related to Cossacks would be like claiming that James Willard Schultz is not related to Indians). Also do not make personal attacks like here. OK? My very best wishes (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atahualpa Yupanqui, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Criollo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Jews, Khazar hypothesis[edit]

Would you mind explaining your revert and why you consider peer-review scientific studies as "Pro-Palestinian POV" on Talk:Jews? --bender235 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It is common sense, you see. Elhaik is a charlatan, as he is bent on pushing a theory that proposes that a Caucasoid ethnic group descends from a Mongoloid one. 'Nuf said.--Galassi (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Sylvius1.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Sylvius1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Khazars and Antisemites[edit]

Why would someone who believes that there is Khazars genes in east-europeean Jews need to be antisemetic? Why would he need to hate the Jews? Can't he simply be scientific, or an historian? It's not even debated that the Khazar nobility became Jews at some point. What is, is the extent of that conversion movement. You seem to like the use of the "if x says it, and you say it, then you are x" fallacy, but are all vegetarians like Hitler? Are all alcoholic Churchills? That some antisemites, as vile as one likes to picture them, believe in something doesn't automatically make that thing "evil". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVictorP (talkcontribs) 15:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Khazar[edit]

This is your only warning. If you continue to edit war without discussing and gaining consensus on the talk page, you will be blocked. Thanks. —Dark 15:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Caravaggio[edit]

Hello Galassi, this is Mr.Braudel. Nice to meet you. I am a History researcher with a passion for Arts.

I noticed that you reverted the edit about Caravaggio's family name. Why? Was there any formal mistake in the edit? Is it necessary to put in the notes any document in which both the last names Merisi and Amerighi are mentioned?

I understand the need for a certain research rigor in an Enyclopedia such as Wikipedia, I just assumed that the transcription in these two alternative Italian forms of Caravaggio's surname was quite common knowledge even on the net.

Indeed, in lots of ancient and modern writings we can find the common translation of Merixio, Caravaggio's family name, in Merisi or Amerighi.

In fact, since during the 16th century Milan and the Marquisate of Bergame and Caravaggio were Spanish dominions, subject to Charles V and his son Philip II, the last name of the artist, of his father Fermo and grandfather Bernardino was written in the official writings in the idiomatic Spanish vernacular form Merixio, whose Italian translation was Merisi, Merigi or Amerighi (the letter X, indeed, was not used in common Italian in other regions of the Peninsula, with the exception of the other Spanish dominions in the south of Italy and Sardinia).


Thank you for your help and attention,

FB Fernand.braudel (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


Yes. This needs to be documented to a scholarly outside source, otherwise it would be WP:OR.--Galassi (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


Hi Galassi, thank you for your quick reply.

May I ask you an advice in order to contribute at best to the Encyclopedia? I have several sources that cite the actual family name of Cavaraggio, should I support the edit with one or more sources? Technically speaking, should I put an apex number on the family names and add a footnote or put the sources directly in the references?

In case, which among these ones would you suggest me to use as a reference?

"Descrizzione completa di tutto ciò che ritrovasi nella galleria di pittura e scultura di sua altezza Giuseppe Venceslao del S.R.I. Principe Regnante della casa di Lichtenstein", Vincenzo Fanti, 1767. p.21 Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). : http://books.google.it/books?id=_dROAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA21&dq=%22caravaggio+per+molte+scuole%22&hl=it&sa=X&ei=RoHoUZbdMaTK4ATs_4GQCQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA

"Southern Baroque Art: A Study of Painting Architecture And Music in Italy and Spain", Sacheverell Sitwell, Kessinger Publishing, 2010. p.286 Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). : http://books.google.it/books?id=OdP1n7TfaDUC&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq=caravaggio+amerighi&source=bl&ots=M5RMPXIYZX&sig=4g-lGyoOWqwPhB3J6j7Vg8VtAGU&hl=it&sa=X&ei=OWLoUbe7AsTeOKClgfgF&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=amerighi&f=false

"Encyclopædia Americana: a popular dictionary of arts, sciences, literature, history, politics, and biography, brought down to the present time; including a copious collection of original articles in American biography; on the basis of the seventh edition of the German conversations-lexicon, Volume 2", Desilver, Thomas, & Co., 1835. p.508 Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). : http://books.google.it/books?id=OdP1n7TfaDUC&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq=caravaggio+amerighi&source=bl&ots=M5RMPXIYZX&sig=4g-lGyoOWqwPhB3J6j7Vg8VtAGU&hl=it&sa=X&ei=OWLoUbe7AsTeOKClgfgF&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=amerighi&f=false

"Guida od indicazione sommaria dei quadri e capi d'arte della Real Pinacoteca di Torino", 1884. p.45, 69, 113 Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). :

http://www.omeka.unito.it/omeka/files/original/35330abf0b13cf253b756ba7451e67d6.pdf

There are also many other research and books that display this family namily name as the original one; since I have been to many Caravaggio's exhibitions all over the world, particularly in France and Spain the painter was more often called Michelangelo Amerighi than Michelangelo Merisi.

Thank you for your help.

FB Fernand.braudel (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


Hi Galassi,

I finally modified my edit with the references and using the conventional format. Could you please give me a feedback on my work? Did I use the right procedures?

Thank you for your suggestions,

FB Fernand.braudel (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

File:ReinassanceLute.jpg[edit]

Please, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:ReinassanceLute.jpg. An OTRS-confirmed explicit licensing of the photo for any usage (including commercial) would be needed. --Eleassar my talk 07:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Himmler & JW[edit]

Hello Galassi, here is a direct quote from the source I used: "In July 1944, in a long letter, Himmler therefore ordered the then-head of the Reich Security Main Office, Dr Ernst Kaltenbrunner, to export the religion to the occupied eastern territories (which by this time were no longer occupied): 'In the case of all Turkish peoples the Buddhist faith is suitable but for other nations the teachings of the Bible Students [Jehovah's Witnesses] are the appropriate ones.'" Mvaldemar (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact refers to planned "eastern policy" of the Nazis in general. In a similar manner, the future replacement of Cyrillic alphabets was to take place not only in Russia but in Belarus and Ukraine as well, just like the Nazi semantic regulations concerning the word "Russia". Do we really need a general "Planned Nazi policies for the Soviet Union" article for the gathering of all these tidbits? Mvaldemar (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Could you please answer the question above instead of edit warring? Mvaldemar (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I read WP:COATRACK and this does not seem to apply. It describes a case where biased material not related to the subject is inserted to the article. I don't see the bias here. Could you please clarify? WP:SYNTH would apply, if the article stated something akin to "Himmler ordered Kaltenbrunner to convert the Soviets to JW. Thus, the Nazi goal was to destroy the Orthodox Church and Russian nationalism." This is not what the article says, however. Mvaldemar (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no evident connection between the Kaltenbrunner order and RKMoskowien. It is irrelevant here.--Galassi (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The order specifically refers to Russia (see another source here). The Nazis often used "Russia" as a synonym for the Soviet Union, though. As I wrote previously, none of the planned policies in the article refer specifically to RKM except for the Wetzel memo. Should we then remove everything? Mvaldemar (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Likely yes. Otherwise too many wiki rules are violated.--Galassi (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I moved all the material to the more general New Order (Nazism) article. Hopefully this is acceptable. Mvaldemar (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Well done!--Galassi (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ivan Elagin (poet) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • '''Ivan Elagin''' (December 1, 1918 – February 8, 1987; {{lang-uk|Иван Елагин}}, {{lang-ru|Иван Венедиктович Елагин}},

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

New Orleans Protocol[edit]

Moved to Talk:David Duke. Please respond there. – Smyth\talk 20:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Igor Markevitch[edit]

Do you have a source that mentions the 17th century Jewish merchant? I removed it but feel free to re-add it with the source. Thnx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.49.175 (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Pogrom[edit]

Following your revert, i expect Jayjg won't bother any more, He can be very lazy - he'd rather fight than actually improve the article through constructive discussion. I don't disagree with the point in your edit comment, I just want to ensure the article is consistent in the way it chooses whether or not to list an event. At the moment it is not, and if you see how dysfunctional the talk page is you'll understand why. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

RT revert[edit]

Would you mind giving me an explanation for this revert? Oh, wait, was it just because you wanted to revert this? --bender235 (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes.--Galassi (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Slavic neopaganism[edit]

Please check your edit[41], you reinstated the IP's deletions of material they didn't like. I don't think you meant to do that. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Will check/--Galassi (talk)
Bladesmulti replaced it. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Revert any possible socks recently? Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Haven't noticed. Where?--23:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I'm wrong, ignore it. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Your revert[edit]

So you think that conferences "conclude" things? You've ever been to one? When someone goes to the trouble of starting a talk page section about disputed text you should go there instead of reverting. This material is unpublished and the sentence about it is factually false. Zerotalk 00:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Sometimes they do. I see absolutely no reason to disqualify that (succinct) abstract, unless WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Galassi (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Definitions of pogrom for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Definitions of pogrom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions_of_pogrom_(2nd_nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Nomination of List of events named pogrom for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of events named pogrom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of events named pogrom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

AfD[edit]

There has already been an SPI.[42] TFD (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hava Nagila and Ajax[edit]

Hello Galassi, regarding your reverting some recent changes that I had made to the Hava Nagila page. I have provided a good reference from a New York Times article stating exactly that which is stated. I can add plenty more references, which I will do now shortly to solidify it even more. Those other Olympic events in the same sports section have no references whatsoever, I think some citation tags for those events might be called for. The fact is that AFC Ajax have strong ties to Jewish symbolism, due tot he fact that Amsterdam was a Mokum city, and Ajax played in a Jewish neighborhood for quite a while in Amsterdam. This is a very common song often heard in the Amsterdam Arena, and is definitely noteworthy in terms of usage in Sports. I seriously doubt it is used anywhere more then in Amsterdam. Sincerely, (Subzzee (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That is trivia. And trivia is discouraged here.--Galassi (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
It is not merely trivia it is a big part of Ajax culture and lore and is definitely noteworthy of mention in the usage of the Sports section of the very page. There is not a single sport or association with stronger ties to this song then Ajax, except for maybe Maccabi or Haifa in Israel. But the association of Ajax to the Hava Nagila song is very well known and well documented, and should be made mention of on the main article. Especially if you are going to have a segment dedicated to sports. There is not a stronger association to sports with the Hava Nagila song then that of Ajax Amsterdam. If you cross reference almost every song which has become integrated so deeply into the culture of a sports association, it has a noteworthy mention on the main page of the song. The cause for the association in the case of Ajax, dates back about 80 years, is a standing tradition, and is deeply rooted in the geographic location of the former Stadium/ The song is strongly tied to the club from Amsterdam, which happens to be one of the biggest and most successful clubs in the sport. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC))
WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK.--Galassi (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding me, this is by no means a minority view, and coat rack? Try all the mentions of the song on the article that cite no sources whatsoever. I have cited sources ranging from the Financial TImes, to New York Times which state and address the exact usage of this very song, and plenty more, while you let several unsourced references to this song stand on the article uncontested. I really don't get it. If there should be mention of this song in regards to sports, the usage by the two clubs I have mentioned are beyond noteworthy. They are both clubs who have played in Jewish neighborhoods of their respected cities (Amsterdam and London) and the mention of their usage of this song is really undeniable. Please give me substantial evidence as to why these sports teams and the usage of this song is not not noteworthy and I will give you plenty of references that state otherwise. As mentioned earlier, you will be hard pressed to find a more prevalent usage of the song in sports then that of these two football clubs, and the relation of the two is undeniable. (Subzzee (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC))
In a nutshell - this is trivia. The inclusion in the HNG article is absolutely unwarranted. Take it to the talk page. --Galassi (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
You got it, I'm bringing in more Wikipedia members to debate this issue. I think you are wrong. There have been several feature films released where the chanting of Hava Nagila at the Stadium, takes up a whole 5 minute section of the movie, see Superjews, also various press houses have reported on it, i.e. New York Times, Financial Times, etc. I think it is in fact noteworthy on the main article of the song, particularly if you are going to include a section on sports. There is no usage of the song in any sport more prominent then that of these two football clubs. Sorry if that does not appeal to you, but I have included countless records of it from various credible sources as mentioned earlier in this very debate. I will raise this issue on the talk page,I have made several points to validate the inclusion, while you have reverted these changes without really validation or engaging in any form of discourse. I have been polite and courteous and have offered several explanations to justify the inclusion. The adoption of this song by both teams is known, very well documented and warranted, having been a staple at both clubs for over 80 years now, the Ajax website at one point even offered the song for download and had ringtones of it available on their main website. Sincerely, (Subzzee (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC))
Galassi, could you please reply on the discussion thread, so we can wrap this up? You called for the discussion and your participation would be appreciated. Thank you. (Subzzee (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC))

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Hava Nagila". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Citterns, mandolins and lutes[edit]

Hi. I won't edit war since it isn't worth it, but since Waldzither as a cittern belong to the lute family, as for the rest of this list of instruments, what is the point of removing it in particular (and let the others stay, if you adopt a restrictive definition of what "lute family" is)???--Phso2 (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Citterns are metal-strung and as such - a separate subfamily in the guitar one.--Galassi (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
You have your own personal definitions of family instruments. How would you define "guitar family instrument" for example?--Phso2 (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Flat-backed, for starters (like citterns). Lutes are bowled.--Galassi (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You haven't been notified[edit]

but you are being discussed at WP:ANI#Disruption and malicious editing. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Hello - just to let you know that I mentioned you in an AN/I discussion -[43].Smeat75 (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Caravaggio[edit]

I've requested dispute resolution via Third Party Opnion. I hope you can support that approach. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)