User talk:Galassi

Welcome!

Hello, Galassi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me or a helper Commander Keane on our talk page. Again, welcome!

If you want to tell me something or if you just want to say hi, leave your message under the Talk Section of | My Talk Page

Have A Nice Day 08:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One question: You've claimed that the mandora was not an ancestor of the mandolin. What's the basis for this? What are the ancestors of the mandolin? Andrewa 06:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Тhanks for the PD tip. Mandora has nothing to do with mandolin. The latter is simply a soprano or sopranino lute of the 18th century. Mandola/mandolino family is a later Neapolitan invention incorporating violin tuning. Galassi 11:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandora and mandolin

True, the mandola and mandolin came later, and use violin tuning. Are those the only reasons that you think that the mandolin is not a descendent of the mandora? Andrewa 15:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. In technical terms modern mandolin is a NEAPOLITAN hybrid of MANDOLINO (a 6-course soprano lute of Vivaldi's time) with a VIOLIN. The MANDORA/GALLICHON subfamily is of a different geographic realm (Austria, Germany, Bohemia. This group is made of much larger instruments, with a lot more strings, and its descendant is the German Wandervogel Laute, still seen occasionally. Galassi 15:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly sound knowledgeable on the subject. The old Grove I have describes two forms of mandolin or mandoline (It. Mandolino), the Neopolitan with four courses tuned in fifths, and the Milanese, with five courses tuned G C A D E or six courses tuned G B E A D E. I have always known the four-course violin-tuned mandolin as the Neopolitan mandolin (I've been playing it for thirty years).

This Grove also states that there is a larger and scarcer instrument called Mandora or Mandola, but gives no other details.

Tell me more about the Wandervogel Laute and Mandolino. Andrewa 05:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Тthere were many types of Mandolini in Italy before the Neapolitan type came along, Milanese/Lombardo, Bresciano, Veneziano, usually with 6 double strings. You might want to contact Davide Rebuffa for info, he is a real expert on them. Wandervogel Laute is a German contraption, sort of a guitar-lute with 6 to 10 strings, associated with German folk revival in the 19th century. You can see one in LADYKILLERS by the Cohen brothers. Galassi 12:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:1711kupetzky.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1711kupetzky.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chitarrone

Hi there - general scholarly consensus that the Chitarrone is identical with the Theorbo, being an earlier name for the same instrument. They have the same size, tuning and function, and are built identically. I refer you to Robert Spencer's article in Early Music, available here: http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/spencer/html/spencer.htm - this is considered the definitive work in sorting out the hitherto confused usages of 'Theorbo', 'Chitarrone' and 'Archlute'.

Are you thinking of some other instrument perhaps? The Chitarrone has 14 double or single courses, is usually tuned in A, and has both top courses down an octave.

They are similar but not quite. Theorbo OFTEN was double-strung, while chitarrone was always strung singly. Really these are 2 different instruments that became extremely similar in the course of evolution, but it is important to emphacize the subtle differences. The Spencer article is a little dated, its high quality notwithstanding.Galassi 20:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Meucci notwithstanding - the general scholarly consensus among lute players and makers is that Robert Spencer's definitions still hold, and I know of no luthier who believes that Chitarrone and Theorbo are not synonyms. InfernoXV 00:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted, Have you read the Meucci article? Ask on the lutenet.Galassi 00:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine Portal

Hi there! I see you have create some Ukraine-related article. May I ask that you announce them at the Ukrainian Portal New article announcements board so that other Ukrainian users may see them?. Thanks, —dima/s-ko/ 02:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lute pictures

I uploaded some lute pictures you posted at Lute, on Commons so other wikis can use them. Hope it's all right with you..--Dardorosso 15:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fallo pure.Galassi 21:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scenic design

This is a subjective opinion and not a reason to place him before Franco Zeffirelli, among others. By the way, why don't you announce your new article on Portal:Russia/New article announcements? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsypin is an American desighner born in Kazakhstan. In the US he is considered to be #1 in our field, same in Europe.Galassi 19:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ps. Zeffirelli is mainly a DIRECTOR (i.e. rezhisër), not a designer.Galassi 19:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prosper Mérimée

Цыганы шумною толпой по Бессарабии кочуют... - Introvert • ~ 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Boris Pasternak

Pasternak's father, Leonid Pasternak, did not convert in his lifetime. He himself states this in his reply to the famous article by Bialik (reprinted in almanac "Год за годом", Moscow, 1989). Documents on Boris Pasternak's circumcision in Jewish tradition and on his and his parents belonging to the Jewish faith (иудейское вероисповедание) at the time of his admission to Moscow University have been published more than a decade ago (originally in collection of documents "Лица" [www.vestnik.com/issues/2003/0806/win/shalit.htm cf see details]), then in two detailed biographies of Boris Pasternak (by Natalia Ivanova and by Dmitry Bykov). Letter by Boris Pasternak to his father from Marburg (1912), where he discusses the very impossibility of conversion from Jewish faith is widely known. --SimulacrumDP 16:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will check on this.Galassi 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russia

I tried to reply to your email, but it bounced back. I don't know anyone on the Russian Wikipedia. However it should have something like our Wikipedia:Admins' Noticeboard. I suggest you post something there about your issue. Good luck. -Will Beback · † · 20:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Russian Wiki is rather peculiar....Galassi 23:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonist

So far I did not have much luck in ru:wiki. They adopted weird wild policies there and many people are not interested in making a serious encyclopedia.

Thanks for an interesting fact about Lutheranism in Imperial Russia. I understand it's a tragedy for a person of any faith to be forcefully converted.

Re Cantonists: I am going to separate Russians from Prussians, hope it's not controversial. If it's not too hard, could you provide a context for the 8 officers? Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be difficult to control: Habad fairy tales are now appearing.Galassi 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were all rich kids who bought their commissions......... Galassi 11:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uprising

Rather than blind reverting, read the current section, which clearly and fairly discusses what the sources say, and notes the progression in terms of estimates of casualtie. Keep in mind that the unsourced and emotional descriptions of various sources cannot stay, by policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no trustworthy source other than Magocsi. There a A LOT of anecdotal "sources" that made their way into legitimate scholarship.Galassi 16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subtelny's not reliable? Stampfer's not reliable? I understand you like Magosci a lot, but that's not in accord with WP:NPOV. The current version provides a very neutral view of what the sources say, without straying into the emotionalism you attach to the topic. It clearly shows that the estimates have come down, and that the earlier high figures are not considered accurate today. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No NNPOV. Subtelny is considered as insensitive toward Jews, although a lot less than Grushevsky.

And what specifically do you disagree with in the current presentation? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this time- a few minor points.Galassi 16:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find my latest post with references interesting. It is really difficult to argue with people who consider numbers of secondary sources more reliable than works of modern academic experts... sight, this is something that makes me think again about Citizendium, where such amateur dabbling is not permitted.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 06:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But Wiki is closely connected to Google, and these people can do a lot of harm.Galassi 23:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

Estimates from 2002, 2004 etc. cannot be "earlier estimates", and estimates from 1988 can't be "current" estimates. To minimize conflict, avoid original research, and use the Talk: page rather than reverting. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they can. It is called OVERLAPPING. Current runs from 1988, and earlier still get used, out of ignorance or political expediency. Galassi 13:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've violated 3RR on the page. Please revert yourself. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and yes, I'd love it if you could send me the PDFs. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did it MANY times more than 3. Galassi 17:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm very careful about that; please point out where I reverted more than 3 times in the past 24 hours. Not edits, reverts. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, please list the 4 reverts here for reference - it helps users to learn to see what exactly they did wrong. Galassi, let me agree here with Jayjg: 3RR should be avoided (please read WP:3RR), Jayjg is certainly showing good faith here asking you to revert yourself instead of reporting you to WP:ANI/3RR.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Here they are:[reply]

Galassi was kind enough to mark each of them as a revert. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the last rv as removal of SIMPLE VANDALISM, and a smug one at that. However I promise to be careful, as I was previously unaware of that.Galassi 18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People often try to get away with reversions claiming vandalism, but it rarely washes. Warning the reader about material that has been cited but unread is rather important, since the material could say almost anything. This was especially important in this case, since you've made false claims about sources before. I would indeed appreciate it if you would send me the PDFs, you can email me from the "E-mail this use" link on my User: or Talk: pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I never made a single false statement on Wiki. Intellectual integrity, you see... 2. The last one was "RVV"- i.e. Reverted Vandalism, if you care to notice. Galassi 19:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical demography of Poland

If you have any numbers about Commonwealth population that are not discussed there, I would be very appreciative if you could add them there. The current discussion led me to a wealth of interesting publications already - thank you!--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panie Piotre, drop me an note to maven13c@yahoo.com and I'll send the PDFs. You see, we Jews are not all that stupid.Galassi 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I send you an email through Wikipedia account. Btw, please leave replies (or copies) on my talk page - I don't check talk pages of other editors (and if something is left on mine, I get the nice orange notification about it).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to CC talk pages.Galassi 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy your reply to a relevant section on my talk page, or start a new section.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Jews in Poland

Another unrelated note: this FA-class article I once helped to write is not grossly outdated (primarily because of lack of inline citations). If you could check it at some point, review and add some refs, it would be much appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it before, but nothing came to mind off the bat. My lnowledge of CWealth is limited, but I know a bit on Ukraine especially post-1709.Galassi 23:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Ukraine

Запрошую Вас до вдосконалення українських сторiнок uk:Українська музика та uk:Українська архітектура. Шаблон edited поставив я, редагуйте смiло. --RoteArmee 11:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Bit by bit it is taking shape. --Bandurist 23:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket reversions

If you have an issue with any of my edits, that's perfectly fine; and everything is up to discussion. But that doesn't give anyone a right to revert the other 20 or so changes because they don't like part of an edit. Itzse 00:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodoxy

The dictionary definition of Orthodox is: Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.

Therefore Judaism practiced 500 years ago is technically Orthodox Judaism. But the term Orthodox Judaism as opposed to Reform Judaism came into being much later then Hasidism. So to use a term that wasn't in use at that time doesn't make sense.

In addition Hasidism never split from Orthodoxy not then and not now; Hasidim are Orthodox Jews.

But I cannot understand your attitude. I had made many other changes in that edit including enhancing the prose; so why if you don't like 3 words you delete the other 30? Blind Reversion without the responsibility of editing is irresponsible. Itzse 00:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with Litvak vs. Hassidic wars???Galassi 01:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to chime in here. I think Itzse's corrections were all good and on the mark. I am following this debate and I will stand by Itzse's corrections and help revert back to them if Galassi does not relent. The use of the term "Orthodox" before Itzse's corrections was anachronistic, and your reversions reek of modern Orthodox ideology. Regards, warshy 11:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's orthodox ideology, modern or otherwise?Galassi 11:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Orthodox ideology, for example, is believing that 18th century Judaism was "Orthodox" Judaism. A more appropriate term for that period may have been Rabbinic Judaism, but Rabbinic Judaism was not a monolith in the 18th century, and it was very different from Rabbinic Judaism in the 17th century. Rabbinic Judaism, even before the modern period, changed and evolved in history. It was very different in the 17th and 18th centuries from what it had been in the 15th and 16th centuries. Also, there were other groups of Jews in those periods (up to the 18th century) that had more of a presence on the inter-religious scene in Europe than in the modern period, such as Karaite Jews. warshy 12:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question if I'm familiar with Litvak verses Hassidim; familiar is not the word, I actually breathe it. I'm a descendant of the leaders of Hassidim and the leaders of The Mithnagdim, what someone would call multi-cultured and it has served me well as I have absolutely no animosity to any Jew of any background. To top it off I'm also an historian and I am very carefull to edit correctly.

Ok, so you didn't know that, that's fine. But had you only edited what to you didn't sound right that wouldn't have bothered me. What bothered me is that you're trigger happy, but what's even worth is that you were shooting in the dark.

Having said this. Don't take it personal; this is my MO of speaking my mind. I like to be blunt but polite if I could.

Now regarding the issue at hand; you seem to have knowledge of history; but I must tell you that regarding this you are terribly mistaken. It would be too lengthy to go into detail to explain all the nuances of the term Orthodoxy; its use and history, but take my word for it that my edits were absolutely correct. In a nutshell religious Jews of 1750 wouldn't have an idea of what that word "Orthodox" meant and to give them that name now is like calling Rashi a Hasidic Jew or a "Litvak" or a "Yekke". Itzse 18:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order № 270

Is there a reason you redirected Order № 270? I believe that was a separate order from 227. Most of these orders should probably be put on one page, with subheadings for each of them though, as they are all relatively small... --Fxer 05:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they merit separate pages. They do need to be sourced properly though, especially since the Stalin quote is from an entirely different incident.Galassi 10:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What incident is the quote from? Order 227 was about surrendering land, Order 270 was about surrendering people...--Fxer 16:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Stalin quote stems from the capture of one Stalin's sons, and the German offer to exchange him for, I believe, Paulus. The reply was as stated.Galassi 16:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"His infamous order no. 227 said that no one could retreat, even for tactical reasons, and order no. 270 prohibited any soldier from surrendering: 'There are no Russian prisoners of war, only traitors,' he declared. When his own son Yakov was taken prisoner, he announced: 'I have no son called Yakov.'"[5] --Fxer 16:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually both quotes are incorrect. Yakov quote reads: "I will not trade a fieldmarshal for a soldier". And the POW quote came up during a diplomatic exchange apropos whether USSR would honor Geneva POW convention.

Galassi 17:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Could I get your support on this Category:Musicians born in Ukraine, has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007_July_31#Category:Musicians_born_in_Ukraine. The discussion was opened on July 31, and will probably close in two days, so if you wish to make a case for retaining the category, Thanks --Bandurist 04:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Oborona_petrograda.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Oborona_petrograda.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Hi Galassi. You asked for help, what did you have in mind? I have tried to fix that article (see its talk & history) but found that I don't have additional time for ru:WP. Also it is too wild for my taste: they don't even have 3RR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have an insidiously antisemitic article that gives a possibility that blood libel was not groundless, under the pretext of being encyclopedic. What do we do?Galassi 09

58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I tried - practically alone - and was frustrated to see a number of editors and admins taking the wrong side. Some of the info I added is still there, but some was repeatedly removed. So I ended up creating Gavriil Belostoksky. I don't know what can be done if more people are not going to show up there. My resources are limited. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-n-Paste Moves

Please do not make copy-n-paste moves as you did with Martin Hoffmann to Martin hoffmann soccer player (since renamed to Martin Hoffmann (soccer player)). Copy-n-paste moves shouldn't be done as they disassociate the edit history which causes GFDL compliance issues. If you cannot move the page yourself, you can request admin assistance at WP:RM. I have fixed this case. If you have further questions, let me know. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 02:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Kreisler

...what's a musical hoax? --emerson7 | Talk 21:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovsianniko-Kulikovsky%27s_Symphony_No._21 for an example.Galassi 02:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death penalty for harboring Jews

Regarding this: the sources I've read noted Poland's uniquness in that regard. Perhaps the confusion stems from issues seen in Administrative division of Polish territories during World War II and Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany - i.e. that what you call Ukraine and Belarus where in fact territories like District Galicia, created after Barbarossa, pre-war Poland, post-war USSR? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not just Dist.Gal. the law in question was specifically designed for Generalgouvernement, but not for the annexed part POland. Galassi 02:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luthier

regarding your edits to Luthier. although i agree, in principle, with your sentiments, i'm just wondering if it's a good idea to remove even valid links to wiki articles. --emerson7 | Talk 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, for fairness' sake. A presence of a Wiki article is not a guarantee that a luthier is considered iconic.Galassi 18:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol...or even the least bit relevant. --emerson7 | Talk 02:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berehynia

Hi, I noticed that you are interested in topics related to Ukraine. I would appreciate if you offered your opinion on the subject of the article Berehynia. The discussion takes place at the article's talk page. Thanks in advance. --Hillock65 11:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more or less OK, except that one should point out the fakeloric nature of such revivals, due to the loss of the authentic tradition.Galassi 11:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vundo question

I apologize for asking a question that's not actually about editing Wikipedia, but I noticed that you made this edit: [6] to the Vundo page. Would you happen to know how to undo the administrative changes that Vundo made? Cogswobble talk 03:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AVG takes care of that, I think.Galassi 16:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toaff and Passovers of Blood

I have noticed only now that you have removed the deletion proposal tag from Passovers of Blood: The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murders. The problem with this article is not the fact itself that it is about a single book: this is fine in itself. The problem is with the history of this particular article, as I tried to explain in the proposal. An editor began expanding the section about the book in Ariel Toaff, another editor transferred the section in a separate article, while the first editor continued adding material in the first article. So "Passovers..." is just a partial duplicate of a section of "Ariel Toaff". This is why I proposed its deletion and why I'll propose it again in a couple of days, unless you object. Bye and happy editing, Goochelaar 13:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie, ho appena rimosso tutto superfluo.Galassi 01:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

К правке статьи о Сковороде

Вот что пишет Б. Ефимов об Украине. Он провел детство в Киеве, родился в 1900 году, поэтому знает, о чем говорит.

"– Вы достаточно долго прожили на Украине... – Да не было тогда никакой Украины! Это была та же Россия, а Киев – мать городов русских, вот и все. И над мовой тогда все насмехались: «Самопер попер до пупоризьки по мордопыську». Знаете, как перевести? Мотоциклист поехал к акушерке за фотографией. Это уж потом Украина появилась..." http://www.peoples.ru/art/painter/efimov_b/interview1.html

--Moscvitch 15:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is idiotic, not to mention insulting.Galassi 23:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

File:Zasluhy-3.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)[reply]

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

nonsense

I see you reverted my removal of part of a sentence in the Babi Yar article, choosing to call it nonsense. I removed the the phrase "of whom a significant number were Jews" from the following paragraph:

In the months that followed, thousands more [Jews] were seized and taken to Babi Yar where they were shot. It is estimated that more than 100,000 people, mostly civilians, of whom a significant number were Jews,[4] were executed by the Nazis there during the Second World War.[1][5]

The reference [4] links to a source which says:

In the months that followed, many more thousands of Jews were seized, taken to Babi Yar, and shot. Among the general population there were some who helped Jews go into hiding, but there were also a significant number who informed on them to the Germans and gave them up. After the war, the officer in charge of the Sipo and SD bureau testified that his Kiev office received so many letters from the Ukrainian population informing on Jews - "by the bushel" - that the office could not deal with them all, for lack of manpower. Evidence of betrayal of Jews by the Kiev population was also given by Jewish survivors and by the Soviet writer Anatoly Kuznetsov.

Babi Yar served as a slaughterhouse for non-Jews as well, such as GYPSIES and Soviet prisoners of war. According to the estimate given by the Soviet research commission on Nazi crimes, 100,000 persons were murdered at Babi Yar.

The first sentence in the para clearly links to the first sentence I have extracted from the source, referring to Jews. The next sentence seems to link to the second para about non-Jews. The phrase "significant number" is extracted fron the first paragraph, and refers to informers, not to victims. No indication at all is given in the source as to the proportion of the "more than 100,000 people" who were Jewish - though it was obviously more than 33,771 out of 100,000. That this is a significant number is not in doubt, but that the source does not say that is also clear. There is no need to have this phrase, since the information is already given - making the phrase "significant number" virtualy meaningless. I suggest that this whole sentence be rephrased to avoid the impression that a source is being misquoted, since the expression "significant number" clearly does not refer to victims. Paul B (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original wording was NOT a quote from the source, not does it have to be. The sentence makes perfect sence, given the significance of the Jewish aspect in the event.Galassi (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nestor Makhno

Recently, an anonymous IP removed uncited slander from this article. You reinserted the material, and put in your edit summary that you were reverting vandalism. But removing uncited material is NOT VANDALISM, and can be removed at any time. This material has been tagged as "citation needed" for four months now, a very reasonable amount of time to allow somebody to find a citation for the questionable material. If you would like to re add the material, please find a reliable source that confirms the information. Thank you. Murderbike (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not slander, and the paragraph clearly states that the promiscuity myth (often cited) is unfounded. I have seen the proclamation in question 30 years ago, but is is extremely difficult to get a permission to reproduce from the museum that holds it. Therefore I will revert it until bettter times.Galassi (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this museum has, but make sure that whatever information you provide is not only cited, but VERIFIABLE. If other editors dont' have access to whatever you're citing, it is not acceptable. This means that the information should be coming from a secondary source, such as a book, a newspaper, a magazine, or a journal article. Murderbike (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Drach2.jpg

I took a look at this image, and to me it looks like it came from the internet or that you scanned it or something like that. It appears as a commercial image. Are you sure you are the creator ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and I processed it for an antique look. Bedanckt for your concern.Galassi (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Parajanov

I left comment on the talk page, please reply. Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Denial of the Holodomor

Check out. See what you can make of it. This Relata person has been thowing materials out there and adding tags as well. Bandurist (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just tell that jerk that denial IS cover-up. Galassi (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. Read it. Relata refero (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:Civility, 3 Revert at Babi Yar

You accused me of vandalism in an edit summary: antiUkrainian vandalism rv. Vandalism involves "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (WP:Vandalism). Vandalism is not: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered." Clearly none of my edits to the Babi Yar article have been vandalism. However, "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" constitute incivility. Please refrain from tossing around accusations casually.

You reverted the Babi Yar article to your preferred version 3 times with no attempt to discuss the changes on the Talk page. You have already violated the spirit of WP:3RR. Please do not revert again -- it will become necessary to bring the incident to the notice board, and you may be blocked. Jd2718 (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale deletions of legitimate materials WITHOUT PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS is vandalism. Sorry.Galassi (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed the 3RR Report. Jd2718 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]