I can assure you that I am not a "sock." As for you reverting the edits I made, I removed a reference to the publisher, Arktos Media, that relied solely on a description in an article by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is not a reputable scholarly source, and replaced it with one from an article by Mark Sedgwick, who is a well-known and respected scholar who specializes in the subject of Traditionalism and the New Right. Therefore my edit is entirely justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmorgan4 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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]
You have introduced into the "Chopin" and "Mickiewicz" articles, assertions that the mothers of both have been proven to have been descendants of FrankistJews. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Exact quote- "сама графиня до замужества принадлежала к сословию мещан и была дочерью банкира Фингера".Galassi (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please accept my profound gratitude. Nihil novi (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.ruGalassi (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PLease read the Gimpelevich article before reverting.Galassi (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It IS in English, and it lists MANY scholarly opinions.Galassi (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why the attacks on my edits? These are all historical facts...--Львівське (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Whatever you wrote had a strong anti-Mazepa flavor, IMO. Words like "turncoat" etc.--Galassi (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [1] 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."
This [2] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 BeetstraTC 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And it was explained, twice actually: diff and diff. Please find an alternative free image. --Dirk BeetstraTC 16:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case - delete it AFTER the file is deleted.--Galassi (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no reason to delete the file. --Dirk BeetstraTC 16:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 BeetstraTC 16:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 BeetstraTC 16:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gelassi, since the previous image was removed, would you be kind enough to place a new one [4]? I cannot edit the Georgian people page as it is protected.--Gioreteli (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've inserted this image in the three cases where the other image could not be used. Thanks! --Dirk BeetstraTC 07:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please go to discussion page ...--SeikoEn (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Kitezh is in fact a LITERARY FICTION. The legend is entirely fakeloric.--Galassi (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
LEft the ame mesage with Marek. Very interesting. Parts of this book are on-line: [5].
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article [[6]] is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
The article will be discussed at [[7]] 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)[reply]
User:Galassi: Oh, that's awesome. If you saved the source for this article, I'd recommend redoing it. However, reinstate the article as List of killings by Muhammad, instead of List of killings of Muhammad. "By", not "of". But keep it entirely encyclopedic – avoid weasel words.
In response to the people who said, "No one else has 'List of killings of ...'," I'd recommend pointing out that there are Wikipedia pages listing killings by people.
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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?
What problems you think have caused this dispute to require mediation?
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.
What do you hope to achieve through mediation?
Thank you very much for your participation. — Mr. Stradivarius♫ 06:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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?
What problems you think have caused this dispute to require mediation?
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.
I hope you're not endangered. Will Bebacktalk 05:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I mention you briefly here [8] though you're only tangentially involved I think. Volunteer Marek 17:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstanding!--SeikoEn (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have not provided a single citation. Citations must include author, title, date and page##.--Galassi (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that user Rolusty33 exceeded the 3RR, and used a sockpuppet as well.--Galassi (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 Bebacktalk 21:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Unencyclopedic tone.--Galassi (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were two of my edits you reverted, and of my edits was fixing a sentence fragment[9], 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)[reply]
The wording of the BYar article was reached by consensus. Check the talk page archive.--Galassi (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Cyrillic searches yoeld nothing of the sort pertaining to neopaganism. You must stop.--Galassi (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't have a slightest idea of what you are talking about.--Galassi (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Is that so? The tag was for copy-edit, wasn't it?--Galassi (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think in your aim to remove weasle words in this edit [10] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Exactly: do not add Antisemitism categories to biographical articles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. They may be inappropriate for BLP, but are essential in articles of DOCUMENTED antisemites.--Galassi (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Whose desisions? Yours?--Galassi (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate: that policy is for BPL articles, not for dead individuals. READ IT. --Galassi (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not sure in this particular case. It would certainly be appropriate in Ezra Pound though.--Galassi (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Since we are not on Ukraine-related articles: stick to Solzhenitsyn, if you please.--Galassi (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Тhanks for heads-up.--Galassi (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There, that wasn't so hard now was it? :) 69.121.17.200 (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that in lieu of thanks?--Galassi (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Take it to ARBCOM.--Galassi (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I doubt there could be a consensus, since the subject is a sore one for chauvinists.--Galassi (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please feel free to offer your thoughts there. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
why are you still reverting and pushing this POV? You're usually pretty level headed...--Львівське (говорити) 00:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The page is in construction.--Galassi (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi Galassi, I don't know if you're aware but this whole issue was discussed several times, most recently here [11]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, it is a content dispute.--Galassi (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry - the Zolotaryov article[12] 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)[reply]
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: [13]
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)[reply]
Stop wasting my time. THe Zolotaryov article is about the 66% list. Good bye.--Galassi (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No notability for this musical composition. The only webpages about it have the composer discussing or writing about it. No third party notice whatsoever.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[reply]
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
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk 18:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry, I've been away for the past month. Is this still an issue? Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes. A Japanese IP keeps trolling there.--Galassi (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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)[reply]
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
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 [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29], which is edit warring on a massive scale, not to mention smaller scale edit warring at [30][31] and [32][33][34], 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)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just do not tell that Don Cossacks are not Cossacks and do not edit articles about Don Cossack writers [35] (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).
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)[reply]
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?
"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).:
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.
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Could you please answer the question above instead of edit warring? Mvaldemar (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
There is no evident connection between the Kaltenbrunner order and RKMoskowien. It is irrelevant here.--Galassi (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Likely yes. Otherwise too many wiki rules are violated.--Galassi (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please check your edit[36], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Flat-backed, for starters (like citterns). Lutes are bowled.--Galassi (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your assistance! I do agree that classifying citterns as lutes is etymologically confusing and a good illustration of the muddy waters Hornbostel-Sachs classification can end up in. I think it's worth pointing out that 'chitarrone' was used in Italian sources (and again confusingly so) extensively along with 'tiorba'; as the article is connecting the English word with an instrument that originally developed in Italy it does need more clarification. User:Pupsikon Pupsikon 05:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True - so why is it there? This is indeed the mystery... Quite possibly the Thirty Years War had something to do with it - an eloquent theory I find appealing. As Lenin reputedly said, "...you never know." (my italics) User:Pupsikon Pupsikon 16:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meucci's reference is to the kimozzle of names; pandore, mandore, etc. that get applied somewhat indiscriminately to 17th and 18th century varieties of small round-backed lutes or the chitarra Italiana. James Tyler wades through it too, all fascinating stuff - but what is the connection to the long-necked 'lutes of antiquity', apart from a general supposition that everything lute shaped has got to be descended from something. Which comes first, Greek pandouras, Persian tambur and so on? Boatloads of Greek speaking refugees from Constantinople (before and after the fall) in Italy, Greek is lingua franca in Calabria and neighbouring areas up to the 17th century - and the only long-necked Italian lute we get is the colascione (the one Kircher describes, not the later ones). Pandore (or whatever spelling is used) gets booted onto all kinds of things 'Pandore en luth' (Diderot's encyclopedia) without anybody really being sure what it's about. Pandora opened the box, but how many strings did she have to tune? Rubbish joke - but sort of illustrates the confusion. Thanks for the inspiration - and before I forget... Theorbo - Swedish basslaute - 30 Years War - Gustavus Adolphus and Co.? I need all the help I can get... User:Pupsikon Pupsikon 03:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly do not edit war. User:Pupsikon Pupsikon 06:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption the gittern was always 'solid' doesn't fit the historical evidence. Agricola's instrument is depicted with ribs, and similar small surviving instruments from the 'Renaissance' - Italian citterns for example, were constructed using both techniques. Campi - (carved), Virchi and da Salo (constructed). Out of all the milliards of gitterns that must have existed all over Europe over the centuries, there are two survivors resembling depictions of the instrument. They tell us important episodes of individual history, but not the whole story.
We have no idea what Playford's gittern looked like, it's possible it was a flat-backed instrument like the only slightly earlier fashionable French instruments - and if you think that might be absurd, remember Henry VIII's 'four guitterons called Spanish vialles'? It's important to keep an open mind when looking at historical evidence and not assume that just because one thing is true at one place and one point in time, it's true of all things that look like it everywhere else. Although I am going to take some persuading the Duke of Ferrara was hanging out on a Friday night in the piazza during the summer of 1440 with something that looked like the Elbing gittern. User:Pupsikon Pupsikon 07:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
With respect to your edit to Julian calendar, please put the citation in a proper format with full bibliographic information so that readers who do not read Russian can understand what kind of publication it is. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, the only reason the Soviet Union was in the lead of the article was that an editor introduced a claim that the USSR adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1929 or 1930, which would have made it the last country to switch. But since no citation has been produced to back up that claim, there is no reason for the sentence to remain in the lead. The situation with the USSR is described later in the article, but it is called "Russia" rather than the Soviet Union. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, by removing the reference to Downton Abbey from the Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire cultural references section raises the question of whether you're familiar with Downton Abbey's audience and impact. By introducing the facts of the Odessa Pogroms as a main storyline, Downton Abbey has introduced the history to a worldwide audience had no prior access to that history. It's an important cultural demarcation point, given the number of viewers worldwide. In the U.S., the episodes have over ten million viewers. Worldwide, the numbers are exponentially greater. This makes their choice to include the facts of the pogroms as part of their storyline a significant cultural reference. Oakbranch (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Galassi, with respect, we note that you've been blocked by Wiki recently for edit warring over issues like this. Can you please provide a more reasonable explanation for deleting the cultural reference or we'll ask Wiki to decide. Oakbranch (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DAbbey is utterly irrelevant to pogroms. The latter mentioned in all sorts of trivia, and trivia is discouraged here. How 'bout that? In any case: you would have to source the relevance of DAbbey to pogroms.--Galassi (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs[edit]
Thank you for your recent articles, including Fiorenza Calogero, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See above. That was a rather profoundly antisemitic claim. Undocumented as well.--Galassi (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Narodnaya Volya which was led by Vera Figner, Aleksandr Ulyanov, and Andrei Zhelyabov. It is a fact this organization was led and the murder of the Tsar instigated by Jewish people. If you would like to reflect on any possibility of your historical erasure considering your ancestry, please see WP:BIAS. This site is for the truth. --Sιgε|д･) 00:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you learnt anything from getting blocked multiple times for edit warring? If an edit consists of 50 statements, and there are some you don't like, FLAG and DISCUSS. Don't revert the entire edit. Chi Sigma (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My edits to the Laúd were not about the wrong instrument. The laúd does indeed have a larger body than the bandurria, and there is ideed a larger version of the laúd called the archilaúd. Yes, I know that archilaúd can refer to what is in English called the archlute, just as laúd can refer to the lute. But archilaúd is also a large version of the laúd español. You can see Javier Mas play one on youtube. Cheers, --Ericjs (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. The spanish Laud is not a lute, but a Cittern family instrument.--Galassi (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it was a lute, either in my edits or here. However the Spanish word laúd is used both for the lute and for this instrument. I referenced this in my comment here, thinking that you must have reverted my edits because of the word archilaúd which likewise has two meanings and you may have thought my adding mention of it to the article was a matter of confusions with the archlute, and so I tried to explain that it was not. So would you please explain what is wrong with my edits? I assure you I am not confusing the laúd with the lute, nor do I believe it is a lute. I agree that is more related to the cittern. I think if you look at the edits of mine that you reverted, you will see I am not in anyway saying it is a lute. The archilaúd I am mentioning looks exactly like a larger version of the spanish laúd, with a flat back, and that peculiar shape with the two extra angles projecting from the upper part of the body. Look, for example, at the fourth picture from the left on the top row here.--Ericjs (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
THis is English wikipedia, and LAUD in English means spanish cittern in question. The arcilaud is a spanish word and has no place here.--Galassi (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We use LAUD in English for that instrument, yes, because the instrument is not a part of anglo culture, does not have an English name, and so we adopt the Spanish word. I don't think you will find LAUD in many English dictionaries with a definition for this instrument (you will not find it in Merriam-Webster Unabridged, for example, except for entirely different meanings). Likewise, if we are to talk about the larger version of that instrument in English, we are going to borrow naming in spanish and use (adopt, if you will) the word archilaud. See the first link I gave which is English text referencing archilaud. I am happy to drop the accute accent over the u if you think that helps. --Ericjs (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish Laud does NOT have and arch-version.--Galassi (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because you have never seen one, you KNOW there cannot be one? Did you look at any of the links I gave you? For example the text and pictures of Javier Mas, a Spaniard, who plays one (and who also plays laud and bandurria)? --Ericjs (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have played lutes for 25 years. There is no Spanish arch-laud.--Galassi (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer my question. Did you look at any of those links? Here are some more:
There is no arch-laud in any of these links.--Galassi (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)11:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every one of those links uses the word archilaud, and shows a flat-backed cittern, a large version of the laud. I am incredulous that you deny it. --Ericjs (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ans also- this is wikipedia, and any source must explicitly mention what you want it to mention.--Galassi (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and if you were dissatisfied with that, it would warrant asking for references, not reversion. --Ericjs (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case - lets see a citation of Javier with an archanything.--Galassi (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The source is unreliable and just wrong. This is archilaud = Archlute.--Galassi (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I created a section in Talk:Laúd about this. That is really where we should be discussing this. Would you please post your objection there? --Ericjs (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually advise you to stay away of this page and other similar pages if it comes to prolonged content dispute(s), as opposed to something that can be quickly discussed and resolved. This is obviously up to you, but you know that you can be very easily sanctioned, although I would rather not elaborate on this point. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I closed the section. I don't see any indication that the 2013 topic ban has been removed or is limited to modern Ukraine or anything in that area so I'm telling you to stay away from the topic broadly. If you disagree, you should ask User:Sandstein for clarification or at ARE and show evidence that your editing there has been productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am staying away from that topic entirely, but that doesn't mean that I have to stay out of Europe because Ukraine is in it. That would be ludicrous.--Galassi (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT covered by the topic ban, accordign to the admistrator who imposed it!--Galassi (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, in the event of serious content disagreements with someone who is really entrenched and an experienced contributor, you should simply go edit something else, rather than resort to prolonged dispute. This is not because he is right and you are wrong, but because you can not "win" such disputes. And this is frequently obvious even before you start editing the page. Consider a page where someone constantly reverts other contributors, dominates discussion with walls of text and reports others to administrative noticeboards. I would rather avoid all such pages. My very best wishes (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Galassi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I noticed your thank and checked out your userboxes. I'm curious, were you born in Ukraine or the US? And how did you become native in both languages? You say you live (part-time I assume) in Kiev Kyiv, is that your ancestral town?--Monochrome_Monitor 07:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are 2 diffent texts that are "as one". So this is a forgery.
If you want prove me that i am wrong with the correct page as i am asking.
Sorry about my bad english, but i think it's obvious that is a forgery.
I changed the photograph in the infobox to one that isn't grainy. In no way is "NPOV" a valid edit summary. Please self-revert. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the photograph. I'll assume it was an error, but in future please check what you are reverting. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Galassi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I'd like to explore your view (see here) that the killing of the imperial family was an "execution". In English, that word implies that it was lawful and followed some proper process. But it wasn't, and didn't, as even the Soviet authorities did not claim either. As you know, a criminal investigation was begun after the end of the Soviet Union. Do you have some reasoning for your view that the words used should be "execution", "executed", and so on? Moonraker (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed to death on the main Romanoffs' article. CHeck the archives. In any case - the execution is sufficiently neutral, and the murder opens the doors to the current russian POV of "ritual murder by Jews etc".--Galassi (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But your answer is a kind of appeal to authority, and all such topics remain open. The word execution is plainly not neutral, because it means a lawful killing. I do not understand why you believe the word murder "opens the door" to ritual murder by Jews. Murder does not imply ritual or Jews. It would be appreciated if you would give me some actual reasoning for your view that the words to be used should be "execution", "executed", and so on. Moonraker (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. The WP:CONSENSUS has overwhelmingly tilted toward execution.--Galassi (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Galassi here you are making another argument from authority, apparently claiming there is a consensus for your view somewhere, but how do you in fact justify the word "execution"? What due process ordered the killing of the Czar, let alone the whole of his family? That is the nub of the question. Moonraker (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary here says "no good reason to dilute that", but as mentioned in my edit summary the reason is neutrality. As currently written, the article takes it for granted that anything said by any critic of Solzhenitsyn must be an established fact ("notes" rather than "claims", and so on). Your word "dilute" appears to mean you see no good reason to dilute unquestioning condemnation of Solzhenitsyn. Is that it? Moonraker (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have been gathering sources to rework the barbat article. This article (along with the oud article has been somewhat controversial (or even political)), and I want to flush it out with sourcing to make it clear where the thinking behind statements originated. I noticed you were the source of the image that is now the article's main identifying photo and wondered if you might tell me more of the pamphlet that you scanned. The image I am talking about. Jacqke (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir. You have reversed that edition on the article Blood libel. David Patterson's book is inaccurate also his source Trachtenberg. They attributed the quote to Democritus, the pre-Socratic philosopher of the 5th Century, and his lost book Maxims. This is incorrect. The quote is actually some later character also named Democritus, in a lost book called "On the Jews." We only know about this attribution because the 10th century Suda refers to it.
The same story of human sacrifice appears in Josephus, Contra Apion, Book Two, but that book makes no reference to either of the Democrituses. Josephus is apparently quoting Apion, who may be quoting Democritus "the historian," but if so, it isn't cited by Apion or Josephus.
So, no "blood libel" was known to exist to pre-Socratic Greek philosophers. The "blood libel" legend can be definitively traced only to the First Century CE via Apion and Josephus, who may be drawing on a slightly earlier Greek writer named Democritus. The Jewish Encyclopaedia points out: "In the polemic of Josephus against the Alexandrian grammarian Apion ... the latter is charged with having accused the Jews of annually fattening a Greek in the Temple, killing him, offering his body as a sacrifice, eating of his internal organs, and swearing an oath of enmity against all Greeks... Similar in import is the following statement of a certain Democritus, which the Greek lexicographer Suidas (tenth century) has preserved: "Every seven years the Jews catch a stranger, whom they offer as a sacrifice, killing him by tearing his flesh into shreds" (0151τι κατὰ έπταετίαν ξένων άγρεόοντες προσέφερον καί κατὰ λεπτὰ τὰς σάρκας διέξαινον καί οὓτως ἀνῄρουν). Nothing further is known of Democritus. Perhaps he drew his information from Apion's book."
The original tex from Democritus you can see it here: https://archive.org/stream/fragmentahistori04mueluoft#page/376/mode/2up
I ask you, then, to reverse the reversal. Thank you--Gustavo Rubén (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It may be true, but there is the WP:OR rule.--Galassi (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again,
I am writing because I know you have taken special interest in the Lute article. I seek an opinion for article development.
All the writing I have done about various lute family instruments (Citola, Cythara, Barbat, Oud, Mandolin, Pipa) is starting to coalesce, and I can finally see a pattern for a comprehensive world-wide history of lutes. I have been striving to keep my writing within the Lute article focused on a history that comes around to the development of the European-Lute. It is getting harder however.
I am increasingly concerned about the designation of the Lute as a Level 4 Vital Article. It seems to me that an article on this list should not be limited to a narrow instrument; consider the Level 4 Mandolin article that shows an entire family of instruments worldwide, and begins to touch on ground that should be the lute's; instead of using a larger "lute family", editors have added the Greek Laouto, the Irish bouzouki, the Cittern and the Waldzither to the "mandolin family". Partly this is a trend outside of Wikipedia, that the article is only reflecting. Instruments are often called a kind of mandolin.
But if one looks to the academic works, to sources such as Curt Sachs or Francis William Galpin, all of these instruments, including the mandolin, and also the long lutes should be incorporated into a single larger lute family. That is what I feel the the Level 4 article should be.
I ramble; I was about to ask for advice as when to spin off this history section into a new article. I realize that I need to just do that, because what I intend to write now is outside the scope of an article about the simple European Lute. So a new question...once I get a comprehensive lute-family of instruments article developed (timeline, over the next year), would you be willing to support its addition into one of the levels of Vital Articles?
Jacqke (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, you were put on a general revert limitation back in 2011 (see Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2011#Eastern Europe and [39]). It looks to me as if you have been routinely disregarding this most of the time ever since. Can you point me to any decision where this limitation was lifted? Fut.Perf.☼ 12:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My sanctions were on Ukrainian topics, not EastEu. I am staying off Ukrainian topics entirely.--Galassi (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's the one I was referring to; I remember it because it was me who imposed it. It didn't come with a restriction to any specific topic, so at a minimum it would apply to all articles within the scope of the discretionary sanctions (i.e. Eastern Europe), if not to all articles. Fut.Perf.☼ 14:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the claim that you observed the revert limitation at least on Ukrainian topics is also demonstrably false. You were reverting in breach of it on The Holocaust in Ukraine as recently as March and April this year [40][41]. Fut.Perf.☼ 15:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To enforce an arbitration decision and for long-term pattern of edit-warring, disregarding existing AE revert limitation for years, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Hello. If you find a RS for this statement - Mikrokosmos, a collection of nearly 800 Renaissance-styled pieces - I will respectfully insert it into the article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I saw you put back the COI tag in the article Astrith Baltsan after I removed it. Past edits have, indeed, been written from a non-neutral point of view, but the the article now seems to be objective. I think there is no need for the tag. AvivBn263 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article again, and it did seem to have some peacocky claims, which I removed. I removed the conflict of interests template, as now I think the article is quite neutral. AvivBn263 (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list needs some sources and actualisation. The current list may misinform.Xx236 (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it needs refs, as none of the entries are redlinks.--Galassi (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Fiorenza-Calogero.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Fiorenza-Calogero.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you own the copyright to the text, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the copyright but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 04:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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)
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)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:George_Balancine_in_his_twenties_.jpg){kind=link}
