User talk:Galassi

Montaigne edit

Dear Galassi, Just wondering if you could offer some reasons for undoing my edit of Michel de Montaigne? I had a look for myself and could not corroborate anywhere this story about him living with peasants, except through copy-and-paste jobs of the Wikipedia page. In an essay Montaigne wrote about childhood, referenced in this article, he discusses his childhood, mentions the doctor tutor who only spoke Latin and so forth, but as far as I can see makes no mention of this peasant upbringing. Moreover, this part of the article had been flagged as "needing a citation" for three years! Within which time, no citation had evidently been found. It seems, all in all, a pretty fair call to delete it. MaxWeberJr (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That is the reference given for the same info on Italian wiki. Maybe there are translations differing in completeness.--Galassi (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe, but should we assume your possible but not exactly convincing explanation is correct, and leave this completely unverified piece of information in to confuse high school students and interested readers all over the globe? My previous experience with Wikipedia editors is that they are not prone to giving contributors who can't verify their edits the benefit of the doubt based on a tendentious theory of their own creation. MaxWeberJr (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Uprising

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silvestrov

The Ukrainian spelling I supplied is the one used by Silvestrov himself on recordings etc. Best regards--Smerus (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note I provide an actual reference for this spelling. Unless you have evidence which you can reference supporting a different spelling, please do not revert this spelling. The Ukr WP does not provide any reference; however 'strict' it is, physical evidence takes precedence.I would add the Slvestrov himself suppports this spelling, but that of course would be WP:OR. Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The more accepted spelling is SY-.http://www.dt.ua/3000/3760/53548/ Galassi (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

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

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

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

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

Historical demography of Poland

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

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

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

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

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

Death penalty for harboring Jews

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

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

Berehynia

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

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

Toaff and Passovers of Blood

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

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

Award

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

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

Nestor Makhno

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

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

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

Talk:Denial of the Holodomor

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

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

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

Lokot Autonomy/Republic

Due to undiscussed page moves I've locked the page. Please use the article talk page to find a consensus with other editors on the best name for the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated.Galassi (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I place another warning on the user's talk page. Then, on checking his recent edit history I found he'd recently vandalized another user's page, despite several warnings about that behavior in the past. On account of that activity I've blocked his account temporarily. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Fedir

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

Great Moravia

Would you mind providing a citation for "Slovenes" that you have added to the lead of Great Moravia? It would be also nice if you could fix the grammar after your edit. Thank you in advance. Tankred (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It is further down in Boba paragraph.Galassi (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fedorovych

Could you add refs for the changes you made to the Fedorovych article? --Irpen 19:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would. He is figured prominently in the 1968 30year War study, BUT I have to get hold of that book.Galassi (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. I couln't format inline refs though.Galassi (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Ukrainians

I already removed the questions about the photo's at Talk:Ukrainians, it seems I was wrong, however I would have liked to have heared that from you in a more constructive way. Words like:"you are so wrong" are not constructive. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rurikids.

Dear Galassi,

I would like to point that "Family Tree DNA Rurikid Dynasty Project" is amateur one. There are no authoritative sources known to me that trace Rurik to Uppsalla. The link that you provided to forum is unfortunately even less auhoritative... If you don't like word "amateur" (despite it look to best describe the study you referred), let's find another word. But it is definitely not scientific study, due to faults in the methodology. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 00:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC) PS. Кстати, наверное, легче будет обсуждать на русском языке :-). Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 00:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC) PPS: Ссылка про Ольговичей: http://www.runewsweek.ru/rubrics/?rubric=science&rid=2286 - впрочем, это широко известно. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 00:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't find anything particularly amateurish about that study. And I haven't seen any scientific refutation thereof in the West. Whatever its alleged "faults of methodology"- they have to be cited, preferably in English, as the post-Soviet science in Russia is not 100% reliable.Galassi (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The Family Tree DNA Rurikid Dynasty Project is not a study in the scientific sense at all. It's some random classification undertaked by the community, nothing more. Scientific studies should be published in peer-review magazines. This one is not published there, so it's not scientifically reliable. It's done by amateurs. Therefore it's amteurish. (By the way, I don't have any agenda here: for me, it doesn't really matter if Rurik has fenno-ugric root or not.) Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Flag of the Lokot Autonomy

If the Russia tricolor is not the flag of the Lokot Autonomy, than what is? Is the flag even available on Wikipedia? Volker89 (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not known what flag, if any, was used in Lokot.Galassi (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship and ethnicity

Two months ago I requested that a citizenship and ethnicity parameters should be added to Template:Infobox Writer. I has been requested again at Template talk:Infobox Writer and I think if several users will support it, It can added. In the case of Ukrainian writers such a Gogol and others this is important. Please join me there Bandurist (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Musical Instruments roll call

Hello, this is an informal roll call of past participants of WikiProject Musical Instruments. I'd like to revive the project and start bringing some musical instrument articles up to featured article status. If you're interested in joining us, please sign your name here and we'll discuss what everyone wants to do. --Laser brain (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:1711kupetzky.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:1711kupetzky.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 17:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankists

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

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

I don't have an access to the library right now. Look for word -Фигнер- in the Kaskad article.Galassi (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Exact quote- "сама графиня до замужества принадлежала к сословию мещан и была дочерью банкира Фингера".Galassi (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the text in question from the Chopin article. Please see the discussion page there for more information.

Nihil novi, thank you for vicariously bringing this to my attention by commenting on it, both here and on the Chopin discussion page. I love that you're protesting its inclusion but I believe we can protest using much simpler (and more powerful) grounds (the criteria for which I believe you'll agree are more than appropriate). I will be watching the article even more closely than I normally do to make sure the text is not reposted. It's my opinion that you shouldn't waste your valuable time debating with this person about this particular piece of text. Sugarbat (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my profound gratitude. Nihil novi (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why do you vandalise my edit? [5] I added interwiki and you removed it. --Dezidor (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Which edit? I didn't vandalize anything.Galassi (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your interwiki is still there.Galassi (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you removed cs.interwiki without any reason and later bot restored it. --Dezidor (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Nothing to do with your edit. I was reverting a vandal who removed the Racism category.Galassi (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Carvaggio

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)

Frédéric Chopin

Thanks for your input on the article. I have one question, though: if we're focusing on the likeness of Chopin, do you think we should add his photograph on the top, instead? Regards, —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 16:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to the top. He doesn't look like a happy camper in it....Galassi (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, yeah. So what do you recommend? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

End of the bio section maybe?Galassi (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I should have been more specific. I mean, which painting should be in the lead? There's a discussion on the talk page here. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 04:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Blue Mountain's seems to do the job very well.Galassi (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Galassi -

I think everybody knows that "Pasternak" is a name of Judaic origin. There are, however, actual questions about his background; see the talk page. Moreover, if you believe that his "ethnicity" should be mentioned in the introduction (keeping aside the fact that ethnicity is in some ways a later construct), it would be best if you gave other sources - sources that you consider reliable. Feketekave (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Do not assume that anyone knows anything.

2. I see no reason not to mention P's ethnicity in the intro. It is standard in all wikis.Galassi (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

1. If you consider anything about the origins of his name to be important, add such information to the relevant section, towards the end of the article.

2. You seem not to have read what I have written. Feketekave (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, "Pasternak" is a common Ukrainian and POlish herb, and it gives no clue as to ethnic origin of a bearer of such surname. Having said that BP was an ethnic Jew with nothing "Judaic" about him, except his nose.Galassi (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Django (program)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Django (program), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Django (program). Thank you. Schuym1 (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Django (program)

It wasn't a junk edit. Please read WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFY, and WP:RS. Schuym1 (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It was also a DISRUPTIVE EDIT.Galassi (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, removing unsourced info and unreliable sources is not considered disruptive. I am not trying to act like a jerk so please stop acting like I am. Schuym1 (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You obviously know nothing on the subject in question. I recommend that you study the tabulature and the lutes first, before getting into edit wars.Galassi (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that you add reliable sources to the article that shows notability. Schuym1 (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you add at least one reliable source that shows notability, I will withdraw it. Schuym1 (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am done watching this talk page. If you want the article to be kept, read the links above and get to work on the article. Schuym1 (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Join me at Medzhybizh Bandurist (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

David Duke

Hello

Why did you remove my work on David Duke? I study the question Jewish Supremacy and my article was fully based upon David Duke's work and referenced to his book. Don't do it again, I have all the right to base his work under Jewish Supremacy.

Duke explains that his book is not anti-Semitic, but that it examines and documents elements of ethnic supremacism that have existed in the Jewish community from historical to modern times. And presents how nations are taking national and cultural damage when organized Jewish elements both inside and outside Israel exercise its supremacist agendas for the benefit of Israel. He defends himself with whenever a person examine and document Jewish ethnicity he falls victim to anti-Semitism. He further adds that Jewish Supremacists have greatly damaged both the Jewish and gentile world. - - Duke finds the issue important to discuss and a reason why he wrote the book. The book addresses the issue of Jewish Supremacism and how this ideology has a dramatic and increasing effect on world events. How it has reached the roots of this approach is from separate elements from the religion of Judaism. One standpoint for Jewish Supremacism is that Judaism teaches it's followers that - they are "chosen of God," which may be the ultimate expression of ethnic superiority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoliani (talk • contribs) 11:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dmytro Klyachkivsky

Hi Galassi. Please read those sources carefully as in both of them Dmytro Klyachkivsky is clearly mentioned. Please do not delete sourced information. Thank you. Tymek (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Babi Yar

Hello. Could you explain a little bit more which part of my editing of the article Babi Yar was disruptive? I was trying to translate the article into Japanese and found it very hard to follow, so I tried to sort them out. I didn't think I changed the content very much, and cannot understand why it had to be compeletly reverted. --Aotake (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to write successively. I just came to make an excuse of the restoration to my version I just made. I clicked the "restore this version" link by mistake. I wanted to hear your explanation first and didn't mean to begin an edit war. Sorry for that revert and please understand that it was not my original intent. --Aotake (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you had read carefully, you would have realized that the "Perpetrators" section was just moved up to the beginning of the "The massacres of September 29-30, 1941" section, also incorporating the commented out paragraphs. But I will try to edit once more step by step so you can see what I am doing. --Aotake (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Pogroms and Kozhinov

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

kozhinov is not just rabid, but he is also a holocaust denier. a simple google search elicits quite a bit of that- http://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2+%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B8&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:ru:official&client=firefox-a Galassi (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually read his books? Because the whole "holocaust denier" dealie that you attribute to him is based on what he views as problems with statistics, as well as certain things that haven't been decisively proven (ie. the collaboration between zionists and nazis). In dealing with pogroms, Kozhinov makes a point in using mostly jewish sources, and from those he derives that the jewish self-defence(1) against "pogromshchiki" was more succesful than is usually admitted, as well as that the government's role to suppress the anti-semitic riots has been largely underplayed in modern historiography. Of course, we should get to primary sources... but it's not that easy... (1)-Note that weapons were rather freely sold in the Russian empire. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have perused several. They are pretty insufferable, and the author is pretty odious. If you ever find reliable stats of "casualties inflicted by the Jews during the pogroms"- then we would happily include such salient bits. Until then....Galassi (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Firearms: but not freely carried: "В виду встречающихся в последнее время ходатайств священников – членов Союза Русскаго Народа о разрешении им держать огнестрельное оружие, министерством вн. дел разъяснено, что ходатайство подобного рода удовлетворению не подлежат, в силу положения совета министров, утвержденного 25 ноября 1905 г. и разъяснения мин. вн. дел о том, что самое призвание священнослужителей возносить бескровные жертвы у алтаря Божия препятствует им прибегать в каких-либо случаях к оружию убийства." ~from http://starosti.ru Galassi (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning

If you label some author as a judaeo-masonic conspiracy theorist or proponent of blood libel theory, you should provide references to this particular athor works.DonaldDuck (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Avec plaisir.--Galassi (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't make fake references in Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy theory. Most of your references don't mention this conspiracy theory at all.DonaldDuck (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

They do, just rechecked.Galassi (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

I looked in one article but didn't see anything. Can you give me a diff or two to illustrate the problem? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

GA nom of Kosher tax

Hi -- why did you revert my removal of the article from Wikipedia:Good article nominations? I provided an explanation on the article's talk page and marked the nom as failing there, so putting it back in the nom list can only cause confusion. If you believe I acted improperly, please discuss the issue either on the talk page of the article or at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. I have no intention of edit-warring about this, but for the moment I am going to "revert your revert" just because of the confusion it is bound to cause. (Feel free to respond here; I will watch this page.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not restore articles to the GAN page that have been failed without attempting to act on the issues pointed out by the reviewer, as you did with this edit. Also, please be careful in your edits to the GAN page as you changed the status to two other reviews at the same time you were re-adding the Kosher tax article. Looie496 is correct in saying that there is a reassessment page to which you can take articles you feel were improperly failed, or you can go to either the talk page of the GAN page or the talk page of the article. Please do not readd the nomination again without discussing it somewhere. Dana boomer (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

200YT

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

If its in English I will take a look. I am no expert on this material and don't even know what the "truth" is about this. Its more about the use of POV terms like "considerable" or "widely", ect terms. Sources should specifically say this or its open to interpretation or POV. --Tom 16:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It IS in English, and it lists MANY scholarly opinions.Galassi (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess that is the rub. This is one authors review that includes some analysis taken from other scholars and pieced together. The overall tone seems pretty neutral, but again, I am NO expert on this material and just stumble by. --Tom 16:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit of an expert, and have the benefit of having been able to appreciate AS's tract in the original tongue. It is pretty inflammatory, really.Galassi (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that it is. The last source you added, again, doesn't really support the material however. The author questions the intentions of AS and asks why the West media hasn't picked up on percieved anti-semetic motifs in his books. Its more of an anaylsis of other peoples view points. It sort of presents both "sides" and makes the reader think. Anyways, --Tom 16:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the other talk, AS is considered a PHILOsemite by neonazis and ultranationalists, but wiki has rules against marginal views.Galassi (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Sorry for the delay in responding. The problems seems to have calmed down at this point, is that correct? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully there are grounds for cautious optimism.Galassi (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

History of Christianity in Ukraine

Please express your opinion at Talk:History of Christianity in UkraineBandurist (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir Horowitz

Great edits to the Vladimir Horowitz page! The uncovering of the birth document in Kiev seems to settle the Berdichev vs. Kiev document once and for all. Perhaps his family was from Berdichev an moved to Kiev shortly before Vladimir was born. Regarding his father's name, Samuel (with an "e") would be the standardized English spelling. I believe the Russian would be Samiliovich or something of that nature. Also, perhaps we should make mention of Samuel's brother Alexander, who was a pupil of Scriabin (and whom Vladimir strongly resembled), and how Alexander arranged the young Vladimir's meeting with Scriabin. Your thoughts?THD3 (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Normal translit is SAMUIL, the patronymic is SAMOYLOVICH. The rest would be fine, if properly sourced.Galassi (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your revert of my edit adding the Byron Janis source regarding Horowitz's sexuality and efforts to change it. (Please remember that the removal of sources is considered vandalism at Wikipedia.) Certainly, no one would assert that Janis, who was part of the Horowitz inner circle for decades was either politically or otherwise motivated to spread rumors for their own sake. This more than meets Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing, and there is no need for qualifying language such as "so and so said that Horowitz was homosexual." Between Plaskin (who you apparently disregard), Schonberg, Janis, Dubal, and a host of others, this paragraph has been cited ad-absurdum and should satisfy both yourself and the other editor. If it doesn't, then that's your issue, not Wikipedia's, and I will contact an administrator for arbitration.THD3 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to locate a confirmation of Horowitz's Kiev birth. Notes on the article's talk page refer to Municipal Birth record #725, but I can find no confirmation of that via google. Not to seem like a birther, but there needs to be something more concrete or the issue will have to be raised again.THD3 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Your most recent revert of za'atar

Please do not be so hasty to label editors as vandals. While the editor you reverted appears to have been a little keen to apply our policy on sourcing, his edit was not an act of vandalism, especially when he took the time to explain his reasoning thoroughly in the edit summary. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 00:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That was a sneaky attempt to reclaim the spice from the Israeli clutches on the pretext of a dead url. My good will assumption level is getting a bit low.Galassi (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

And by reverting it blindly you restored the dead reference. I, on the other hand, put one whole minute's effort into it and fixed the reference.

This edit you subsequently made is unacceptable. There is talk page discussion going on regarding the location of the Hebrew translation, and for you to undo an edit that simply moved it as "vandalism" is not good enough. This is your final warning; if you make another "rvv" reversion like that to the article for anything that is not actually blatant vandalism (such as deleting content without an edit summary) you will be temporarily blocked from editing. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 14:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't do hasty. And I've been here long enough to have seen a fair amount of political vandalism. And that I like a lot less than mere expletives and blankings.Galassi (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Perov's sketch

"Disputation about Faith (a scene in a railcar)", sketch by Vasily Perov (1880)

Hello! You've commented, when removing the image from History of the Jews in Russia "rm of Perov scetch, which depicts an orthodox priest, not a rabbi". I don't know if there are any rabbis there (or, for that matter an Orthodox Christian priest). But it looks to me like the person sitting in the center left, facing to the right, is an Orthodox Christian monk; the two gentlemen in top hats on the right are Orthodox Jews (and the dress and hairstyle of at least one of them certainly looks much like you can still see in Williamsburg, Brooklyn every day); the hat-less man in the center with something that looks like a butterfly net behind him could be e.g. an ethnic German Protestant (or a really "westernized" ethnic Russian? or a very secularized Jewish person? in any event Perov may have meant him to represent an atheist of sorts, perhaps); as to the three people on the right, I can't say. So overall, I thought it was an interesting depiction of the types of Jewish and non-Jewish people of Russia as of 1880 (right before the start of the pogroms, I guess...) and their interaction. It would add some useful diversity to other images in that section, which are mostly either pictures of individuals, or cultural artefacts, or evidence of persecution. Care to restore? Vmenkov (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, these look like intellectuals-razochintsy, and their ethnic background is definitely not discernible in the sketch.--Galassi (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

kobza

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

You are mistaken. KOBOZ must redirect to COBZA with a C, an entirely different instrument, and a separate article.Galassi (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think I was mistaken, since you have created that page since I posted but have not moved the information you deleted nor provided links to related pages. You have not supplied references to back up your contentions either. So this new page looks like a continuation of the vandalism so far. Please do the job properly or else restore, thanks. Note that "koboz" is closest to the Turkish - historically relevant.Redheylin (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

WHy don't you move that data? I've created the stub, feel free to add there anything you like. I am not an expert on Koboz/Cobza, so take it away. My area of expertise is Ukrainian music and instruments.Galassi (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are not an expert on Cobza, how do you know it is the same as Koboz? If you are an expert on Ukrainian Kobza, why can you not provide reference material showing the relation of the two instruments? Either way, you are vandalising wiki. You seem to be saying that Ukrainian things must be separate from all else. That is a political POV for which you are damaging the prospects of a well-referenced music history. You have jettisoned the material and so it is up to you to find the right place for it and link correctly if you are not to be a vandal. Please do so. Redheylin (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A google of kobza-cobza and romania shows that the k spelling is far more common in Romania.(talk) 02:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[[6]] does not mention a specifically Ukrainian kobza, just that the Romanian and Hungarian may be the direct descendant of the "Northern Slav" kobza. [[7]] says the two are identical. The importance of the instrument as a national symbol is one thing - it is also said in wiki to be true of the komuz and the tamburica - but to insist upon cutting all links with history and geography is to turn this instrument into an icon of ignorance and racism. Please produce comprehensive sources and do the work. Redheylin (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop kvetching and do your homework. There is no letter K in Romanian - http://www.omniglot.com/writing/romanian.htm, only in loanwords. You might want to read http://torban.org for the history of Ukrainian music and instruments.Galassi (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The link you provide shows the letter K present in the modern Romanian alphabet. The search "Kobza and Romania" gives some seven times more results than "Cobza and Romania". Kobza IS a loanword from Turkey via Ukraine according to the Romanian sources I gave. But those sources do not support your idea that Romanian kobza is "entirely different" and always spelled with C. Rather, both are designed after the oud but named after the komuz. It is hardly likely that this would happen independently in two contiguous territories. Your claim is not holding up. I am copying this discussion to the talk page and shall request other editorial input. Redheylin (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Read: "K" is FOR LOANWORDS ONLY. Rear the descriptions of both instruments. They have different shape, tunings, techniques, construction, usage, area. Look up Hornbostel-Sachs classification #, also different.Galassi (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please respond on the talk page. Please supply references. Redheylin (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

When did the Khmelnytsky Uprising end?

Comments needed to stop edit war at Talk:Khmelnytsky_Uprising#Dates. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Galassi. Sorry for having a kind of dispute with you. We have a lot of highly opinionated people here... What do you think about this? Thanks, Biophys (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Am for EMPHATIC KEEP.Galassi (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So, we can agree on that. But why do you think this controversy deserves such a prominent place in biography of Solzhenitsyn? It did not play an important role in his life. This is basically a content fork.Biophys (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Because he was a "very complicated" individual. Slandering a colleague is not an uncommon thing, and I we have no right to censor it out anyway. Both ways: MS's opinion of AS was equally lovely.Galassi (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that an opinion about AS belongs only to article about AS (and you are welcome to cite the MS opinion in proper context). However an opinion about MS belongs only to article about MS. Is not this fair and logical?Biophys (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The Sholokhov debacle was a rather huge intellectual faux-pas for Solzhenitsyn.Galassi (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the worst part of the article about Solzenitsyn is "Gulag's Influence" because it describes opinion of a single person as truth. The article gives a lot of undue weight to incidents of secondary importance. This man is largely known for his "Gulag Archipelago". Would you agree that article should be more focused on that?Biophys (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But not at the expence of the things he did to compromise his own moral integrity. Wikipedia's purpose is not in whitewashing anyone.Galassi (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

But this is also not a place to prove that someone has lost his moral integrity. Any way, criticism of a person belongs only to his own biography. OK, maybe I will fix something else in this article.Biophys (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I forget to ask: User:Lute88 - is not it you? Biophys (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see this. No further questions.Biophys (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, he was a Jew, was not he? There is such thing as Jewish assassins. He was one of the most famous.Biophys (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've missed that article. He was of Karaite descent. As to the previous, I hope you saw my user page, where everything is spelled out. USercheck (disregarded) was a retaliatory act from user DonaldDuck, who regularly engages in antisemitic semi-vandalism.Galassi (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that you was right and therefore removed my comment. This was also described in book by Birshetein ("Perversion of knowledge"). I think your edits are fine except placing too much about Sholokhov in biography of Solzhenitsyn. Biophys (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation

I asked you to provide direct citation (text) that support claims currently made in this article. Please also provide English translation; so other users can see what it tells.Biophys (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I believe you have serious multiple account issues. Please do not do that. You are a good contributor, so it would be pity to see you banned. No need to reply, you know what I am talking about. Sorry if this sounds frank.Biophys (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I have no "account issues". As to your edits - they verge on censorship. Citation in foreign languages ARE PERMITTED here, but I will translate some relevant bits, in due time. And so can you, BTW.Galassi (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that you do not have this issue. It means someone else has. I will then investigate the problem.Biophys (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not have any personal bias against you, but I do believe that you hold too strong opinions and sometimes support them using poor sources. Please keep in mind that WP nick names do not correspond real names of people. I have no intention of discovering real names of people who edit here, since that would be WP:Outing.Biophys (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you get the message about R.?Galassi (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My email is working. I am not going to discuss this, but everything you sent to me remains your private confidential business. As about your another question, see WP:SPA.Biophys (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just making sure you received it. I did save the relevant obituary at one point, but cannot find it now. 2.DD definitely fits the SPA description, thanks muchly.Galassi (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to make myself clear. You can send me whatever you want, but I will never reply over the email and may comment about legitimate questions and policies here.Biophys (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

'Tis clear. I sent that off-list, because that issue is a huge legal matter, and without tangible evidence in hand one might look like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.Galassi (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Editorialising?

See Talk:Pogrom#Unsourced claim Nil Einne (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Also Talk:Pogrom#Natural Nil Einne (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

R U Back

R U Back or r u doing this from honkland. Bandurist (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Two Hundred Years Together

Вы читали хоть раз те книги и статьи, ссылки на которые приводите? --Borealis55 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I left a message to Boreali55. Sorry for my mistake about socks. But I kept my promise to find out everything about Kupredu (he is blocked by now). Looking at your last edits, I would like to ask: do you understand the difference between anti-Zionism (anti-Israel), Anti-Judaism (the religious issues) and Antisemitism (anti-national sentiment)? I am not talking about AS (who quite possibly was an antisemit in the last years of his life), but rather about Losev who was against Judaism as a religion, but not against Jews as Ethnic group. I believe such distinctions are important.Biophys (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe I do. Losev uses the word еврейство rather than иудаизм~in the satanic context. And he puts иудаизм in the ethnic context "Марксизм есть типичнейший иудаизм, переработанный возрожденческими методами; и то, что все основатели и главная масса продолжателей марксизма есть евреи, может только подтвердить это". Sounds pretty mean and nasty to me...Galassi (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this statement by him was wrong. But there is a problem here. It should not be you who decides if a person belongs to "antisemits" based on statements by that person. You should have a reliable third-party source that tells: "person X is an antisemit". Would you agree?Biophys (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. That's why I say that "his writing contain" certain 6things, rather than "he is" that way. Common sense.~So his statement is not "wrong", but simply indicative.Galassi (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem then. We suppose to provide some factual information rather than attach labels (like "he was an antisemit"). For example, you could say "this White Army general ordered a pogrom in the city of...", instead of telling "he belived that October revolution was a Jewish conspiracy" (the latter was nothing notable among white army officers). Or you could tell: "this philosopher claimed that Marxism originated from the Jewish Kaballah teaching" (I wonder - why?). That would be more specific and informative.Biophys (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to elaborate that. I am now severely jetlagged from a trip in Ukraine.Galassi (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Have a nice trip. What do you think about this? It looks like DD is back.Biophys (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The trip was fantastic, thank you! 2. Indeed smells like waterfowl....Galassi (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Took me awhile to notice that DD is banned for good for keeping a dozen or so sockpuppets. Interestingly MPowerdrive, Borealis and a few other monarchists have stopped editing too!Galassi (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Any particular reason for removing those pictures? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ideally these should be in a separate article about the conflict. In such quantity the fellow who originally incerted them really has put Undue Weight onto the atrocities, which is a serious issue, but not the overwhelming UPA characteristic. I am not sentimental about the latter BTW, being form Kyiv.Galassi (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Storm

What's the short version of what's going on? --Львівске (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No idea. There are also some feverish discussions in Polish on individual talk pages....--Galassi (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert Wilton

Could you translate and quote some parts of the Vestnik.com article which show that Robert Wilton is an anisemite and put them in the Wikipedia article. I tried Google translate but that diddn't work well. Juvarra (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Re. Black 100

I'm sure you're right, but it's good to have sources: most westerners who ever heard of them never heard of the Black Hundreds except in the context of antisemitism. I would appreciate if you could help. Placing the issue of inciting pogroms alongside activism against Taras Shevchenko is another issue: certainly it belongs in the article, but the question of implied priorities is at the center here. PasswordUsername (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a real contemporary source. The priorities are not endangered. As to weight: TSh for the Ukes is what king Solomon is for the Jews.Galassi (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you have just put the references to the "Union of the Russian People" and the pogroms. Perhaps I was not expressing myself correctly about the references when I removed them. It is unquestionable that the black hundreds were actively participating in the pogroms - it is indeed well documented (although your reference to the NY Times is rather astonishing as it is hardly an authority on Russian History). However the link between the "Union of the Russian People" and chernosotintsy needs some serious confirmation (note I am not, again, disputing it - I say it needs documented confirmation). I shall shortly be re-writing this article (completely) and I hope that your contribution will be scholarly. There is no need to go and turn an article on Russian history into a zionist propaganda or support of the fact of the pogroms - nobody in their sound mind would dispute pogroms, but the article is about a political party, not anti-semitism in Russia.--Kotovasii (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should mention "zionist propaganda". As to a "political party": URP's record testifies mainly to various anti-semitic acts, both in press and in the street. You would REALLY have to prove ohtherwise. It is known for little else, both before the revolution, as well as its current incarnation. And please, don't cite Kozhinov.--Galassi (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Ukrainian Polish conflict

Check out this article

http://narodnapravda.com.ua/history/4a6a9b518ccfd/

Bandurist (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Check out Władysław Siemaszko

Fair use rationale for File:Solzhenitsyn-Vetrov.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Solzhenitsyn-Vetrov.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This document is in Public Domain in its country of origin (Russia). I am not sure how to change to an appropriate license.Galassi (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Tonewood

Hi. I see you're keeping busy. If you're ever bored and looking for a project, I see that there are long-standing problems with Tonewood. In particualar, some editors have complained that it is oriented too much towards guitars made in the U.S. Since I know your expertise is quite different, it occured to me that you might be able to help. It's no big deal, so don't worry if you don't have time or interest.   Will Beback  talk  06:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks for helping.   Will Beback  talk  17:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What's up

What's your deal? You've generally been an even keel editor in the past and have contributed well to other articles we both worked on, but your blatant biases on the JB article are a little apparent, don't you think?--Львівське (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You've got your administrative answer re PEJORATIVE. As to bias: you have betrayed at least 2 instances of promoting canards, such as- Jews inflate their wartime casualties, and more recently- Jews ruled USSR, neither of which is corroborated by Reliable Sources, needless to say. THis doesn't quite fit the description of good faith.--Galassi (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lucía Topolansky

Ms. Topolansky is the spouse of the President-elect of Uruguay, and I was wondering what her national origin is. Do you know anyone who could read Spanish well enough to find out? Thanks. -Jwkozak91 (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear. Her mother is Spanish, and her father could be equally either Ukrainian or Jewish.Galassi (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Konotop

Please stop your revertings of sourced information and ignoring the discussion! --Voyevoda (talk) 08:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You simply cannot keep inserting the Babulin "scholarship". It just doesn't hold water.Galassi (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Konotop

On advice and with further consideration, I think it's best to simply lock the article rather than handing out individual blocks. Edit warring is never fruitful. Please work towards consensus on the talk page. The article should reflect all sides of the issue in a neutral fashion. Please avoid making repeated reverts. In the future, ask for help or page protection sooner.   Will Beback  talk  10:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Would you roll it back to the last decent version?Galassi (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting source requests

Hello, please do not delete "citation needed" requests as you did here. These requests are only made to make Wikipedia a better and more reliable source of information. Such requests are not intended to directly question the verisimilitude of the claim, they only request that an independent third party confirm the claim. Wikipedia would be better served by finding a trusted source than by deleting such a request out of hand. Please have a pleasant day and happy editing. (I would recommend responding here as IP addresses tend to shift) 76.222.121.22 (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Glad to have you on board! --Ludvikus (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Damien Hirst

Re. your edit,[8] see Wikipedia:REFB#Information_to_include and following section for how to format refs properly. Date format should follow that in existing refs in the article. Ty 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Slovo o Polku

I don't refuse to believe it, but I honestly don't know much about transliteration of the Old East Slavic. Sorry!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:03, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Simple - Г is transliterated as H, (a bit like in modern Rusyn and Ukrainian). That's the phonetic convention.Galassi (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review these proposed changes

See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music#Proposed_changes_to_lead_section. Thank you. --Jubilee♫clipman 16:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Losev again.

Galassi, for umpteenth time, could you please stop your crusade against that respectable Russian scholar (and against me, btw, too). Your edit summary was a clear personal assault against me; besides, it's clearly a straw man argument to label all your opponents as antisemites, just because they don't support your fringe theories of this or that person being a damn antisemite.
The intellectual level of your arguments on X, Y, Z being bloody antisemites despite the extreme scarcity of the supporting evidence (only fringe theories or passing-by remarks you've managed to cherrypick) warrant a comparison with the IP troll [9], [10], who is keen on trying to emphasise Iron Guard was first and foremost a shabby club of homophobes :D. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You edits show a certain Russian-nationalist whitewash pattern. As a test of your good faith I am inviting you to contribute to the Kharchikov article. Lets see how you handle that.Galassi (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on Kharchikov (is it the guy who wrote 'сегодня мы - НАШИ', dedications to heroes (!) of Riga OMON etc. ?), I'll try to contribute, on the condition that you'll let the article on Stalin's antisemitism stay on a stable version, and wait until third opinions appears. After all, it's not me who has to prove good faith and neutrality, being an Estonian who has contributed a great deal to articles on Russian politics, without any partisanship, I hope. See my contributions to 1993 Russian constitutional crisis or Albert Makashov, if you please. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A good sign of good faith is not removal of sourced data. POlivanov is a serious scholar, and that will stay. You may instead expound on Stalin's and Losev philosemitism, naturally, if properly sourced.

Most definitely, Stalin wasn't a philosemite. Certainly, we both dislike commie-nazi scum. What I also oppose, is using this article on Stalin's antisemitic traits and operations as a vehicle to incriminate Losev, who you claim was a great inspiration of Stalin's! This is not much better than the modern thesis of certain Russian nationalists, who argue that Stalin, well, murdered, robbed and yet remained a true Christian orthodox person who aimed at freeing Russia of the serfdom of 'Jewish Bolshevism'. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And BTW, why did you remove antisem. cat. from Kharchikov's German wiki?Galassi (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't do slander here. We report what scholars say. Many historical figures have had unsavory opinions, and we merely report sourced noteworthy instances thereof. Losev was not the worst to be sure. Take Shafarevich for example.Galassi (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable sources at battle of Konotop

Hello. I have no idea whether the link you removed here is an unreliable source. Most probably is if it's a webzine. But so long as this webzine appears in an inline ref, which it seems to, probably it is better to use the {{dubious}}, {{verify credibility}}, or similar tags and/or discuss the question on the article talk page. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It is too disgusting to be a source. That all refers to one "historian" named Igor Babulin who slanders Ukrainians at evry turn, claiming that they infiltrated Chechnya in order to kill Russians etc. He is considered unreliable and unacceptable on Russian wiki.Galassi (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Then shouldn't you also be removing it from the inline cites as well? But as I said, best to discuss this first. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried, but there an anon edit warrior active there now, and that would take me beyond 3RR. As to Babulin- none of his "writings" are available in English, so that discussing him would make only a pissing match. Galassi (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, you are aware that with your renewed revert of the Babulin source on the Battle of Konotop article you have broken both the planned 1RR regime (to which you seemed to agree) but also the normal 3RR, right? I'll let it pass because maybe the 1RR thing hasn't yet been put "formally" into force, and I have the suspicion the IP was a block-evading sock of somebody, but please be aware that this kind of revert is really included in what the new measures are meant to prevent. Just saying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted.Galassi (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Uhhhhghh. And right after saying this, I see you also have been breaking 3RR on Stalin's antisemitism. Now, that clearly is an unambiguous 3RR violation. And that's only counting the four identical reverts of User:Anti-Nationalist and User:Miacek ([11], [12], [13], [14]); ignoring this, which technically is actually a fifth, but where the reverted text is so obviously unconstructive I personally wouldn't normally take action (although it's not safe to rely on such edits being exempted from 3RR). Oh man. And you were previously revert-warring against Miacek just a few days ago on the same article too. Oh man, just when I thought I'd found a few people that could at least be talked with, but I can really find no good reason not to block here. 48hrs due to prior history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That was a hot-headed move indeed, I'll self-revert.Galassi (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, seems I was too quick for that. I was going to come back here anyway in the next step and slam a WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions warning about an impending general 1RR restriction on your page too. Perhaps, since you were already willing to self-revert and we were sort of talking, we can shorten things a bit and talk about an unblock in return for accepting an 1RR right away? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take it, with the official request that you restore the deleted legitimate and cited text so it could be discussed. Anti-nationalist deletes with no chance of discussion, and that type of impatience breeds editwarring.Galassi (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry, as far as I can see there are good-faith objections against that passage by several people. Though I can't read the Russian, Anti-Nationalist's argument on the talk page looks prima facie plausible, plus, if Anti-Nationalist and Miacek(!) agree on something, there must be something to it. If you want to continue discussing it, nobody is really losing out if you do so in the absence of the paragraph in the article. So, my offer, 1RR/d on all Eastern-Europe-related pages for 6 months, and please as a sign of compromise revert yourself on that page first thing when you're unblocked, for the time being. You know, the thing about impatience goes both ways. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

ОК, even if 6mos is quite excessive.Galassi (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, unblocked, under the conditions laid out above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Hi Galassi, I am becoming increasingly concerned about your edits to our articles on Russian topics. To be blunt, I think (and I hope I am wrong) that you have strong opinions and are editing articles accordingly. WP:NPOV is central to the tenets of this project. I have discussed this with you earlier with regard to Solzhenitsyn. Although I value non-mainstream interpretations of history, Wikipedia is not the medium or forum for these IMHO. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. To protect Wikipedia, I am seriously considering restoring my colleague's block on your editing, because you seem very reluctant to listen to us. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand, frankly. Are you referring to the Solzhenitsyn infobox? What is the problem there? A lot of A.S' works were written when he was no citizenship whatsoever, officially stateless for 16 years (I was stateless for 7 years myself). There is no POV of any kind here. The POV/OR/SYNTH of Borealis et al can be summarized as "AS was so anti-Soviet that he and the word "Soviet" cannot/mustnot/shallnot appear in the same sentence".Galassi (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Blood Libel

Greetings. How does supposed human sacrifice in ancient times differ from supposed human sacrifice within jewish or christian communities? What exacly is blood libel compared to "allegation of human sacrifice". 79.102.129.44 (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

BL is a patent slander made to induce a discriminatory action against the blamed as a class.Galassi (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Khmelnytsky an Eastern Catholic Christian?

Could you tell me... is Khmelnytsky an Eastern Catholic Christian? Please write on Talk:Bohdan Khmelnytsky. --Kinno Angel (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination

You say "a haredi source is not scholarly, and cannot be reliable" Don't you see how much you are out of line with that statement? Debresser (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I have a proposal. Let's try and get bring our case to somebody we both don't know, and let him decide for us. Debresser (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What "discrimination"? It is simple common sense to to prefer a positivist source over a metaphysical one. I will add this to your ArbCom case, if you like.Galassi (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

By all means feel free to do so. That does not, however, in any way diminish the discrimination inherent in and the logical fallcy of your assertment that "a haredi source can not be reliable". Debresser (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you say about my proposal to ask an uninvolved party about our disagreement? Debresser (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I already did that, bedanckt.-Galassi (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bedankt. Thanks for the attempt at Dutch. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Problematic WP:BLP editing on Paolo Zamboni

Kindly refrain from attempting to assign therapeutical theories (ie: Chelation therapy) to this doctor. Articles on living individuals need to be as accurate as possible. Your editing on this article is problematic relative to a lack of accuracy as explained in in this talk. If you continue to edit in this manner you will be subject to sanctioning including blocking of your account. 87.231.131.227 (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your last edits on this article are definitely an improvement. There are still a couple of issues with your edits that need work specifically on this article but it is good that you have taken on board what has been explained to you and have made edits accordingly. 87.231.131.227 (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss or keep the Chabad editors case

Hi Galassi: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. As someone who has been involved in the discussions leading up to this ArbCom case and presented evidence you should be informed of this motion and have the right to explain if you agree or disagree with this proposed motion and why. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Contemplated motion to dismiss. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Translation question

I just created Person of Jewish ethnicity. Do you know how to better translate to English Russian expression "zidovskaya morda"? I am asking because Sarnov made a point that "Person of Jewish ethnicity" is a precise linguistic copy ("calca") of "zidovskaya morda". Indeed Russian word "Litso" has two meanings: (1) face (the "morda") which is the meaning in normal folk's language and (2) a person - in the bureaucratic language. The rest you understand yourself. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a tough one. Morda would be a muzzle or a mug. There is no commonly familiar word for zhyd in English, with the Southern word "kike" fairly obscure. Probably a "kike-muzzle" is the most logical equivalent. I doubt it is a calque though.-Galassi (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making corrections. Then let's not mention the "calque".Biophys (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Sarnov wrote another interesting book, "Stalin and writers", 3 volumes. 200+ pages are about Stalin and Sholokhov. There are already several books by different authors about the problematic authorship of Sholokhov (quoted by Sarnov, along with many others). The conclusion is certain and very convincing: both Sholokhov's books, And Quiet Flows the Don and "Podnjataja tselina", represent a combination of texts written by three different authors with very different styles, one of whom was Sholokhov. This is basically a consensus among independent researchers. The problem comes when people are trying to identify two other authors whose writings were used. The Krukov was obviously disproved. The most probable version: one of them was Sholokhov's farther in law, and another one (if I remember correctly) was Lavr Kornilov whoes diaries were confiscated by "reds" and never completely published.Biophys (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I generally take conspiracy theories with a large grain of salt. [15] is pretty accurate in my opinion.-Galassi (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly did you read about this? One can easily pickup any number of refs supporting the authorship of Sholokhov in Russian newspapers. But books by professional philologists who have no reasons to take any sides tell a very different story. Same with many other controversial subjects. But this is simply a matter of sourcing and NPOV. Nothing special.Biophys (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Kike" is a Southern word? I thought it allegedly originated on Ellis Island? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD on Communist antisemitism

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

Is there anything unclear about it? -Galassi (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think so, as you have removed content from the AfD page.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A tech. error.Galassi (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OK.  Cs32en Talk to me  04:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Samovar

Thank you for your contribution to the Samovar article, which had eventually helped to find an interesting real fact. It the future please be critical to sources which give pieces of information without any references or context. What happens in internet today is very similar to the game of Chinese whispers, only on a huge scale. And finding the true story is actually part of fun of writing wikipedia :-). - Altenmann >t 16:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Rus

Would you stop your ignorant trolling? The Grand Duchy of Rus was never ratified and that's what is claimed in the article History of Kiev. Who cares about the castrated ratification? --Voyevoda (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the defense of historical truth. In reply, I have just written to Voyevoda:

"Talk about important facts, please. The Treaty of Hadiach was signed by representatives of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Cossack Hetmanate in 1658, and ratified by the Diet, in the presence of the Ukrainian delegation led by Yuri Nemyrych, in 1659. So, the Duchy of Ruthenia within the Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth was established. As a matter of fact, Russian military occupation of Kiev was illegal. I am afraid that you do not understand the principles of international law. Fortunately, I know a lot of sources, not only Russian or post-Soviet ones."

In that case, User:Voyevoda seems to be a Russian nationalist. -- Warm regards, dr Mibelz (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A mildly rabid one at that, more so on the Ruwiki. Czesc! -Galassi (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Imagine, I have just received such a "pearl" from User:Voyevoda:

"Are you dumb? It was ratified, but in a limited version, without Grand Duchy of Ruthenia! The presence of Yuri Nemyrych doesn't change anything. I brought you a source. BTW, prof. Tairova-Yakovleva is not Pro-Russian, she was even awarded by the nationalist Victor "Failure" Yushchenko. Look here. Look here. Please, respect the rules of Wikipedia! My source is very pointed and concrete. Either you can disprove it with another source or not. Simply deleting or calling it Russian POV is surely not enough and won't be accepted.--Voyevoda"

His language and pseudo-arguments are typical for ideologists, both ignorants and illogical ones. We ought to fight against such persons in Wikipedia. -- Best wishes, Mibelz (talk), PhD, 00:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your vigilance!-Galassi (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! A Russian wikipedist, Voyevoda, is still removing the most important facts and solid references, both Western and Ukrainian (not post-Soviet) ones, from the History of Kiev. I think, it is time to stop him. Do you know who is the admin of the page, and how to contact with him? -- Regards, Mibelz (talk), PhD, 11:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no specific admin attached to the page. You can ask any of them. Try one "Future Perfect At Sunrise". Or I'll ask him.-Galassi (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Make sure you add as many citations as possible, and make comments on the talk page, as editorial behavior is greater priority here than content policing.- Galassi (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and activity on it. I have already received the following information from Mercurywoodrose (talk) ":i dont know whats been going on, as ive only done gnomish, minor edits to this article, and have very little connection to it, but User:Alex Bakharev is an admin who has some connection to this article. I would encourage you to ask for some form of mediation, and not just try to prove your case. i have let him know you requested an admins help. hopefully you can show a neutral attitude once your block is removed. good luck, im assuming good faith here." By the way, the "Future Perfect At Sunrise" blocked me for 12 hours. - Mibelz (talk), 07:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Quite some revert-warring going on over at History of Kiev, indeed. Seems you were part of it, however, and you broke your 1RR limitation. Blocked for 24hrs, and I'll see what else is needed to stop this situation from further escalation. Voyevoda has been bocked for longer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Historicist composers

Hello, Galassi - Would you be good enough to provide a concise sentence describing the inclusion criteria for Category:Historicist composers? It's not immediately apparent who should be excluded from this category. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Vysotsky

Hi, Galassi. While Vysotsky did have a Jewish father, unless one's mother is Jewish as well (or unless one converts to Judaism), merely having a Jewish dad (or any other paternal relative) is not sufficient to be considered a Jew (please see the article Who is a Jew?). Please try to use the talk page before reverting and do not revert as vandalism ("rvv", etc.) edits that are clearly not vandalism.

You also reverted this clearly-explained edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Vysotsky&action=historysubmit&diff=359657890&oldid=359657447) without any stated justification. A cn-tag has been in place for the tensions surrounding "ethnic impurity" in the Taganka theatre since July of last year. As far as I know, anti-semitism had an ugly social presence in the Soviet Union and may have been noticeable at the Taganka, but it's a little silly to boldly assert that "ethnic purity" as such was ever a value of the Soviet Union; after all, Brezhnevite anti-semitism and the chauvinism at the time wasn't like the Nazis' doctrine.

It's very clear that any poorly sourced and disputed material may be challenged and removed. The link to vysotskiy.niv.ru/vysotskiy/monologi/059.htm, alleging that Vysotsky referred to himself as a "dirty Yid" also doesn't work. (If you look closely at the diff where this sentence was reverted, you can see that this was also challenged before, but if you can find a a link that does assert it, go ahead; disputed unsourced material doesn't just get to land back in the article after being challenged multiple times on someone's initiative.)

Having now rationalzied every single change from a-z, I'm now going to revert your changes, which quickly undid the edits I made to the article.

Since you so insist on categorizing Vysotsky as part-Jewish, I'll add him to Category:Russian people of Jewish descent (about as much as we can say about his background.) I will now ask you to stop de-escalate and stop edit warring.

Lolicon69 (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

File:1711kupetzky.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:1711kupetzky.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Caravaggio

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

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

Blood libel

First, I would like to point your attention to the top of your userpage; you are fairly active for being on a Wikibreak. Second, you have been here a long time and should know that the burden of proof lies with the one who likes to include something, not the one who challenges it. Third, in the United States untruthfulness is a prerequisite for a libel and thus might be part of the definition found in a dictionary. However, a libel does not have to be false in Great Britain nor much of Europe, and the word libel rather meant "a small book written with malicious intent" in the beginning. I don't know where or when the term "blood libel" originated, but I would not surprised if it originated under influence of old English rather then being affected by modern US law. So, find a reliable source that do say that blood libels are defined as being false before reverting it back. Thanks. Steinberger (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Libel is an ACT OF DEFAMATION, according to the American Collegiate Dictionary. And defamation is CALUMNY, or uttering FALSE CHARGES, in the same book. There you go. Revert yourself, per WP:3RR.-Galassi (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not good enough to verify that all "blood libels" are false. Steinberger (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Only if you have the agenda to insinuate so.-Galassi (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Insinuate what? That all blood libels are true? Grow up! Steinberger (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So, which blood libels ARE true? -Galassi (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So if I can't provide an example of a true blood libel, then all blood libels must be false? That way of reasoning is faulty, it is called argumentum ad ignorantiam. Steinberger (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Potentially. That's the logical mess you've got yourself into.-Galassi (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Check out Polish Auxiliary Police - Bandurist (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Polish Auxiliary Police

What do you mean by "already cited"? The text completely lacks inline citations for the most part. Please restore the tag which you have removed.  Dr. Loosmark  12:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There are 12 inline ci6tations in the article, last counted.-Galassi (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, the first half of the article doesn't have citations. I have reported the issue to ANI board. Please comment there.  Dr. Loosmark  14:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Akhmatova

Galassi, please see Akhmatova discussion page. Spanglej (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ukraine population

Exam; Year 1991. - Population 52,000,000 > Y 2009. - P 46,000,000 and 2,000,000 more Kuban Cossacks! ... 45,000,000 Ukrainians is very funny number! Best regards! --78.1.190.110 (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard Yary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a seemingly excellently researched biography of Yary:

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

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

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

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

Hi Galassi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

OstapBender1900 (talk)

WP:Harassment

Please read Wikipedia:Harassment. I accept that there is an ongoing discussion relating to the Caravaggio article; however you have also tracked and specifically amended edits I have made to the articles of Cyrano de Bergerac, Donatello, and Brunetto Latini. I am asking you politely to stop. If you do not then I shall refer this matter to the administrators. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HA#NOT .-Galassi (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Black Hundred

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

BOTH singular and plural are legitimate.Galassi (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

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

• Done. -- George Serdechny 08:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

New Questions on Richard Yary

Hi Galassi,

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

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

Penitent Magdalene (Caravaggio)

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

Reznick

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

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Post-minimalist composers

Category:Post-minimalist composers, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Aphorists

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

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

UKRwiki

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

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

Ukr-wiki

I give a glimpse there now and then. What is up? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Check it out - http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%86%D1%96%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0:Contributions/Nikkolo--Galassi (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, but I only now noticed your answer. I, however, looked at uk:Обговорення:Табір смерті, for example, and it seems that there plenty of people on the subject and their discussion is pretty constructive. There are some good pointers even from ones who you claim to be as the Holocaust deniers (such as Nikkolo). Their contribution do not seem to be denying Holocaust, but rather clarification of certain details connected with it to avoid generalization that, of course, might be just my perception. I really could not be of any help there. Some of the suggestions provided by Nikkolo and others seem to have solid grounds for discussions and in my opinion users such as Lute are on top of it. Best regards, Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There is more than meets the eye. Look at his Sobibor, Treblinka, Cyclon B and Holocaust edits, some may be reverted already, some not.--Galassi (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello and Response

Hi! Sure, which page are you talking about, and what do you need help with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarikaYkrainka (talk • contribs) 23:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to warn you: this is a real doozy. There are 3-4 editors (Nikkolo, Helgi and Zenko Kohutyak) and at least one admin (Deineka) that are proMAUP, proBloodLibel and pro HolocaustDenial. Some of the articles are protected and rolled back, but the admins that actually edit cannot take any adninistrative actions, even with 4-6 reverts in a row. Take a look at Nikkolo recent contribs - http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%86%D1%96%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0:Contributions/Nikkolo . --Galassi (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

even more discussion?

Hi. Re [16], and in particular the edit summary of "needs discussion prior". Please note that this already has been discussed extensively on the article talk page as well as other venues. See especially Kotniski's comments. In fact, if anything this has already been over discussed. If you have something new to add to the discussion then of course please do so.radek (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Galassi. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 03:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Galassi. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 20:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mazepa

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

The tone was utterly unencyclopedic, and the position expressed was utterly pro-Muscovite. For a nice summary of the latest MAzepa research see Olga Kovalevska, "Ivan Mazepa, in questions and answers" Tempora, 2008, Kyiv.--Galassi (talk) 11:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Tone perhaps, but I can guarantee you that there is nothing pro-Russian about those facts. Even the Russian narrative fails to bring up his plotting efforts to preemptively side with Poland against Russia.--Львівське (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you wrote had a strong anti-Mazepa flavor, IMO. Words like "turncoat" etc.--Galassi (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, turncoat seems milder and ostensibly more accurate than traitor, which Russian sources seem more fond of. Mazepa chose the side he could get the best deal from. He was Peters lapdog for the longest time, and after finding out he was to be replaced (and given some cushy title but no military power) he looked into alternatives. He tried to swing a regime change in Poland so he could unite with the Poles against Peter, and when that fell through and Poland was looking threatening (and he couldn't get Russian support to defend) he sided with the Swedes to save his own skin. His own men didn't support him for the most part, and the people he was "defending" didn't support him either as the Swedes were equally as brutal to the peasant population as Russian troops. He was a political opportunist at most, and since he rigged his own election as hetman, the trend in his career held through.--Львівське (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You wouldnt' attribute M's action to the undue influence of his Jewish supporters, perchance? Claims of "Swedish atrocities" already smack of Russian POV. You'd have to have pretty slick sources. BTW, the more encyclopedic term would be "renegade". --Galassi (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read nothing about Jewish influence and Mazepa? I think the actual quote was "equally as brutal as Russian troops" and something to the extent of ravishing the countryside, killing peasants, raiding, and so on, but I might have to double check. The sources are all pretty respectable people, I don't POV push on this matter, both sides engage in blatant applied history here and conveniently leave out facts.--Львівське (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding 3 reverse/rule policy on WP

Hi Galassi,

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

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

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

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

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

Addition to ukrainian people's militia

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

Germans apparently armed it, and disarmed it a week later, repeatedly, many times over.--Galassi (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source? I've been reading up on this subject and it's pretty gray. One author points out that the Soviet word for police was "militsiia", and "One witness suggets that Soviet Ukrainian policemen [...] left behind by the Soviets formed the first nationalist Ukrainian militsiia in Lviv at the end of June 1941." Maybe there's more overlap between this group and the aux police due to this translation, confusing militias with police.--Львівське (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It is all in Patryljak. Read it.==Galassi (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

will do,thanks --Львівське (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the Bandera article. There is a new participant that has a massive ukrophobic bias on RuWiki.--Galassi (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Check this out

I added info to this article which is getting blanked like crazy: Carmelite Church, Przemyśl.Faustian (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is outside my area of expertise. Anyway, here's where Jo0doe gets material for his mis-citations: http://litera-ua.livejournal.com/12950.html .--Galassi (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainians

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

Oops. Meant WP:COATRACK.

"pejorative"

I've seen it called a stereotype in texts, but do you have a source for describing it as "pejorative"? That seems to push a certain POV--Львівське (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Pejorative by definition. However the more precise qualifier is antisemitic.--Galassi (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi . Have a look at Peter Deriashnyj and help me remove the peacock terms and make it more encyclopedic so that they don't delete the article.Bandurist (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Babi Yar

You restored the duplicate paragraph:

"The crowd was large enough that most of the men, women, and children could not have known what was happening until it was too late: by the time they heard the machine-gun fire, there was no chance to escape. All were driven down a corridor of soldiers, in groups of ten, and then shot."

"All were driven in groups of ten down a corridor of SS soldiers, and then shot at the edge of the Babi Yar gorge. The crowd was large enough that most of the men, women, and children could not have known what was happening until it was too late: by the time they heard the gunfire, there was no chance to escape."

There's no point in saying this twice. Gigs (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman Shukhevych

You just reverted [17] my edit in this article with a comment that the decision is not binding. But the sources say that the presidential decree was annulled and cancelled. Can you please explain.--MathFacts (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently that decision cannot really be implemented, because the law does not stipulate reversals, and the decision contradicts a few other laws as well. See Ukr-wiki.--Galassi (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

MF reported us over this, 1--Львівське (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Chmielnicki, First Crusade, other possible genocides

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

Interestingly enough, I use "Chmielnicki" because I learned of his "massacres" (pogroms, genocide, ethnic cleansing, revolt, rowdiness, rioting, whatever) through books on Jewish folklore. Perhaps Sholom Aleichem. I'm not sure offhand, but someone wrote about "Chmielnicki's time" - never mind that there is a town called Khmelnytsky near Kamenets Podolsky and not all that far from Chernovtsy - both of which were where my grandma's parents came from. So that leaves two great-grandparents who came from "Hungary" and four other great-grandparents who came from "Russia", although they could've come from Galicia and other places from all I know. (The one from Chernovtsy insisted he was coming from Russia and spoke Russian, although at the time of his emigration - which almost certainly predates WWI - that town was probably in Austria-Hungary.) — Rickyrab | Talk 18:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem with folk-memory, it is not really reliable. Massacres are certainly different from genocide, and Khmlelnitsky era massacres as terrible as they were were NOT genocide, as I wasn't a war against Jews per se, unlike WW2. Basically, unlike in WW2 a conversion was a ticket to safety.--Galassi (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Your userboxes

They inspired me to return to using userboxes. :) — Rickyrab | Talk 18:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Riots vs. pogroms

Also, what's the difference between a riot and a pogrom? It's my understanding that a pogrom is a government-sanctioned or government-organized riot. Is that correct? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly.--Galassi (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainians

Hi there! Please consider two different words "Ukrainians" and "Ukrainain citizens". If you speak abou Ukrainians then you speak about nation. Speaking about citizneship like in USA or RF is sometnihg different. If you want to be precise you cant leave the statment like: *1) "or more broadly—citizens of Ukraine (who may or may not be ethnic Ukrainians)." or *2) "is significantly less homogenous than neighboring ethnic groups. Many ethnic Ukrainians, in addition to having been descended from Ruthenian stock, maintain various other ancestries, such as Russian, Belarussian, Polish, Greek, German, Romanian, and/or Jewish." "First sentence" is not correct beacuse there are national minoriteies in Ukraine. You can be Ukrainian Jew, Jewish Ukrainian or someting similar but you cant be Ukrainian and Jew at the same time as from ethnic ponit of wiev. "Second sentence" is very general and without facts. How much Jews or Germans were living in Poland and that is not mentioned. Speaking about Russians, some people believe they are not even slavic nation i their genetics but in general they are. - So speaking about Ukrainians it is simple as that, theay are slavic nation, not much different from other slavic nations, so it's not nice to distort some basic facts about theme. This mentioned interpretation is old russian propaganda in order to subordinate modern nation. It is not nice and it is not honest - it is only antiukrainian sentiment reproducted by old-fashioned ignorants. With respect to honest work on this Wikipedia! Best regards! --SeikoEn (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• I made some changes, I hope you will agree with that? Best regards! --SeikoEn (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Please consider this sentence: "Many Jews from mixed marriages interpret a ethnic line from their mother’s side, and unlike Ukrainians who interpret a ethnic line from their father’s side, they usualy also strongly perceive Ukraine as its own country and they indirectly interpreted state citizenship of Ukraine as ethnicity of Ukrainian nation. However, Ukrainians are a people whose roots are starting to form as todays modern nation in the 10 century, as part of the establishment of Kievan Rus’." This sentence is also more or less precises and objecitv, I think! Thanks! --SeikoEn (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

My sentence about BROADLY comes directly from the Constitution of Ukraine.--Galassi (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • I can't accept some of your sentences because they are not written in the objectiv context of the Ukrainians. If you want to write about "Ukrainian identity" your sentence must be clear and precise. I opened a new title "Ethnic identification in Ukraine" and there is clearly spelled out exactly what works when it comes to national identity. You can't make the Ukrainians a national minority in their own country, this is not wright! --SeikoEn (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

the Constitution of Ukraine is sufficiently objective, regardless of our opinions.--Galassi (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Honest work

I count on your honesty in future work!--SeikoEn (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism!!

You are erasing the sources and facts about Ukrainians - it is vandalisam Galassi! Your interpretation has no sources! Don't do it again because you obviously want intentionally to break the rules of Wikipedia.--SeikoEn (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't listen. Look in the discussion archives. The lede was approved by concensus. And stop that daft soapboxing. --Galassi (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Third warning for vandalism Galassi! There is new clear sentence especially written for you! I will not allow any unclear speculation about Ukrainian ethnicity. You can write properly and clearly, and do not delete my sources and facts. Citizneship and ethnicity are two different words and you know that! I allready wrote a special section on this issue. Don't use wrong sources for your sentnces! We can work together if you want to but I will not allow vandalism of any kind, to you or any of users! --SeikoEn (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hey there, I noticed in SeikoEn's contrib log that he was giving you a hard time too so thought I'd run this by you. He's inserting these photo collages of "ukrainians" (russians, jews, anyone who in any way had ever stepped foot or whose great grandparents were at one time in Ukraine) and putting up a similar fight as he did with you (accusations of me vandalizing, etc.) and refusing to leave these photos out. They are entirely unsourced and are classic WP:OR. What do you suggest I do? Since he has a pattern of this behavior should I report him or file something, or can he be reasoned with?--Львівське (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What rvv means

The shortcut "rvv" means revert vandalism. Admins tend not to vandalise Wikipedia. Just so you know. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

We have grounds for cautious optimism! They also tend to discuss drastic changes, don't they?--Galassi (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Blood libel: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Zachlipton (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but these "people" know what they are doing....--Galassi (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cossacks

Hello,

In regards to the numbers, the http://www.rusnations.ru/etnos/cossack/ source deals with both Ukrainian and Russian Cossacks (ПРОИСХОЖДЕНИЕ УКРАИНСКОГО И РУССКОГО КАЗАЧЕСТВА). It also talks about their origins in Ukraine, Southern Russia, and Lithuania. (южнорусский и украинский субэтносы, появившиеся в XV веке на литовско-крымском пограничьи (проходившем по реке Днепр).

Therefore, the information refers to all Cossacks and should rightly be included at the header or at least in the "Modern Times" section.

Please explain (state) your argument for not including the information in the header. Regards, --Therexbanner (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

7million refers to exclusively RUSSIAN cossacks, the Ukrainian ones are a lot more numerous. In fact the entire Ukrainian ethnos is claimed to be of Ukr. cossack origin. It is important not to conflate the issues.--Galassi (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

But it says all Cossacks, Ukrainian and Russian. If you have sources on there being more Ukrainian Cossacks, by all means use them, but that's no reason to remove this one. It clearly states "Ukrainian and Russian Cossacks" in Russian. You can use Google Translate to translate the information.--Therexbanner (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Also the site http://www.rusnations.ru/etnos/cossack/ is russocentric, and as such is not reliable on Ukr. matters.--Galassi (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you prove that the site is not a reliable source? Just saying it's russocentric website does not make it so. Also, this is not a Ukrainian matter, but a Cossack one, and Cossacks can be Ukrainian, and Russian.--Therexbanner (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the website is a project of Rosbalt (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%82) (as it clearly states there), which is a very reputable information agency. You make it sound as if it is some sort of OR nationalist website.--Therexbanner (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It mentions the Ukr.cossacks in passing, and all the details refer to the Russian varieties.--Galassi (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes the additional details section talks about various Cossack hosts, but the beginning talks about all Cossacks. This is a quote: "южнорусский и украинский субэтносы, появившиеся в XV веке на литовско-крымском пограничьи (проходившем по реке Днепр). (Cossacks) - are a southern Russian and Ukrainian sub-ethnicity, that first appeared in the 15th century on the border of Lithuania and Crimea (which was located on the river Dniepr)."

Also, "Казаками считают себя около 7 млн. человек в России и ближнем зарубежье. - About 7 million people consider themselves Cossacks in Russia and the near abroad."

The number includes all Cossacks. The paragraphs that follow are related to the hosts that were re-created in the 1980s and 1990s: "В 1980-х—1990-х гг. было воссоздано и создано около двух десятков казачьих войск, объединённых в Союз казаков России (кроме Донского казачьего войска)."

That is followed by a list of the hosts that were re-created and their related history. It is a separate section that does not influence the fact that the number of people who consider themselves cossacks in Russia, and the near abroad (former USSR) is 7 million.--Therexbanner (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

So, how the 50million Ukrainans figure into this? Especially considering that in the Ukrainan case the term "subethnos" is not really applicable.--Galassi (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean. Are you saying that all Ukrainians are Cossacks? If that is true (it may be, I don't know), and if you have sources stating that, I would encourage you to add it to the article.

All my source is saying is that 7 million people consider themselves Cossack. They may not even be Cossack, but they self-identify as such. Or there may be 50+ million Cossacks, if there is a source that claims that, then add it.

If you provide a source for the 50+ million claim, I propose adding something like: "The estimates of people of Cossack ancestry range from several million to 50+ million according to various sources."--Therexbanner (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Read the article on Ukrainians. As to 7million, that is unequivocally Russian cossacks, not Ukrainian. We must not conflate these 2 entities.--Galassi (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You have to explain your statements and the reverting of my sourced information. When you make a claim (all Ukrainians are Cossacks) it is up to you to provide proof.

Repeating that 7 million includes only Russian Cossacks goes against the direct statements from the source. I will ask again, please prove that the source only refers to Russian Cossacks. If you cannot provide proof, and will continue to resort to one sentence opinion statements, then I will make my edits and your continued reverts will be in violation of 3RR.--Therexbanner (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Concluding that ""7million" includes Ukrainians" violates WP:SYNTH, as your source doesn't say that.--Galassi (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It directly states "About 7 million people in Russia and the FSU consider themselves Cossack." It does not say whether these particular people are Ukrainian or Russian. The article is about Cossacks. The sources states 7 million self-identify as Cossacks. So where's the issue here?--Therexbanner (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You must be specific exactly which kind of Cossacks they consider themselves to be. At least specifying "Russian" would greatly reduce the POV issue. Certainly not Ukrainian. And this is definitely inappropriate in the lede. SHould be in the Russian section.--Galassi (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot specify them as Russian Cossacks because it does not say that. It says Cossacks. That would be WPSYNTH. Your claim "certainly not Ukrainian" does not hold any value until you back it up. It is appropriate either in the lead, or in the modern times section as it deals with the number of people who self-identify as Cossacks. And the article is about Cossacks, not Ukrainian Cossacks.--Therexbanner (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the source is so vague that it cannot be interpreted without WP:SYNTH- it should be disqualified. THere you have it. --Galassi (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The source is not "vague". It clearly states 7 million Cossacks. This is so silly that I am really surprised there is even a discussion about it. If you have nothing else to say and do not plan on providing any proof supporting your opinion, I will return to my edit, and if you continue your reverting you will be reported.--Therexbanner (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason I took up the issue with you here, is because I assumed good faith, but since you are giving nothing but opinion, I see no reason to continue with this discussion.--Therexbanner (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In the 1800's the prefered ethnonym for Ukrainians was "Cossack". In fact the Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko, although the uses the term Ukraine hundreds of times throughout hs works, never uses the ethnonym "Ukrainian". He always referes to Ukrainians as "Cossacks" or of "Cossack lineage" (Козацького роду). No other ethnonym is used. Other neighbouring peoples used other terms (Malopolak, Maloros etc), but Ukrainians refered to themselves as "Kozaks" as opposed to the Russian term "kazak". Bandurist (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can confirm that Ukrainians during the Great Northern War selfidentified as Cossacks as a separate nation. Russians usually called them Cherkasy though. Today Russians usually say khokhol which also is a reminder of the Cossack past. But the term Cossack really can have so many meanings. The broadest being all Ukrainians during the Cossack Hetmanate down to only the militaries during that time. In any case most Ukrainians today can say they are descendents of Cossacks but to say they are Cossacks is a different thing. Närking (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In the 17-18th centuries Ukraine was called Terra Cosacorum on European maps. But the questionable passagw has already been moved by someone where it actually belongs. --Galassi (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

New article you might be interested in

Jewish-Ukrainian relations in Eastern Galicia. Faustian (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking fine. Tkae a look at this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakiw_Palij --Galassi (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the topic is noteworthy but an article about an individual case is not (unless its someone like Demjanjuk). Sorry for the disagreement!Faustian (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

edit

Why did you revert my edit to joseph conrad? --121.220.25.36 (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

He was not Ukrainian.--Galassi (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

But he was born in Berdichev, in the Ukraine, doesn't that make him Ukrainian? --121.220.25.36 (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make him Ukrainian. JC was a Pole forn in the Russian Empire.--Galassi (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been here for a while...

...so you should know that you cannot just remove an AFD notice. I have reverted your removal at Jakiw Palij. It is clearly not nominated in bad faith. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The subject is bad faith prone.--Galassi (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yah, I understand. Syrthiss (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

response to your revert

I have commented at Talk:Blood libel regarding your recent revert. I would appreciate some discussion if you get a chance. Cheers. Ronnotel (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

reversion of your revert

Hi Galassi,

I undid your reversion of my edit to Jewish refugees since it violated WP:REVEXP. If you re-revert, please explain your reversion. I believe my original edit was sufficiently explained by the summary "NPOV", since characterizing Israel as "an ideal destination for voluntary Jewish immigration" obviously expresses a particular point of view whose statement as fact violates WP:NPOV.

Joriki (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That POV is NEUTRAL and non-controversial. Those who come to Israel are called repatriants there, they do not require any naturalization process.--Galassi (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

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

♠TomasBat 20:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Bandera

Hi there,

You have removed my edit [18] with the reasoning that it's "illiterate mistranslations and factual errors". I'll ignore the first part as you can fix grammatical errors instead of removing the entire text. This is what Wiki is all about. Let's concentrate on the second part of you comment. I don't believe we should hide the truth (even if one might not like it), so could you please explain what part/s exactly contain factual errors and based on what you were able to make such decisions so fast? (As a heads up I have spend a days of research to find the facts and cross check the confirmations).

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

There are a few problems with your edits. There is the question of attribution and origin of the material, as well as possibly tenuous connection to Bandera in view of his incarceration. There is is also the question of your edits on RuWiki, which show a large anti-Ukrainian bias and avid use of unreliable sources.--Galassi (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what I thought initially, but wanted to ask to ensure that I am not mistaken in regards to your grounds (and I see that I was not). Your answer has no facts - just generic statements (while my addition has every line backed by references). In regards to your answer, I agree that the best defense is offence. However one shouldn't try to offend by giving knowingly false statements (ALL my changes on Ru Wiki went through a discussion AND approval by the community and despite such a sensitive area my actions have never resulted in being blocked). Now let's get closer to the topic. One shouldn't try to cover all the criminal actions of Ukrainian nationalists against Jewish people during WW2 by labeling it "large anti-Ukrainian bias". I feel bad for you that you feel this way, but so far every addition on other Wiki was legitimate and true and backed by sources that were confirmed in separate discussions. I’ll ignore "large anti-Ukrainian bias", but I'd ask to retain from future insults. I do love Ukraine. (I don't want to comment on your migration from Ukraine to US as I am not sure how Patriotic this action is towards Ukraine, but unlike other people I don't like to judge others as it’s your own thing). Now let's get to EN Wiki. First you accused the changes to be wrong because of the content having grammatical errors. Then you have questioned one of the sources that were removed. Now, you try to make up some statements about the person who made the change (which is worse since those statements are not only inappropriate, but false). Let's discuss the content and not people. Would it be ok from your end? I hope it is. Until you can prove that something that has multiple references is wrong it will be in the article. Denial of truth and hidden anti-Semitic views are not a good strategy. Jews are equal people and they (and their memory) do not deserve being discriminated by anyone. I'd ask you not to begin a war of corrections until you have some facts. In such cases you should first provide alternative opinion instead of removing. I'd ask you to retain from removing from Wiki such large portions of text that has sources only because it contradicts to your personal believes. Wiki is not a sand box - people have to have very clear grounds for each one of the actions (both additions and removal). It has clearly defined rules for any action and I'd ask you to follow those. In addition, in the future, please feel free to correct grammar for other people if you see any mistakes and please don't remove the entire block. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. APTOC (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Read up on WP:COATRACK, and do read the discussion page before adding controversial material. Your edits on the Pidgajnyj article were preposterous, and are only possible on RuWiki, where the antiUkrainian sentiment is acceptable. You might be better off there.--Galassi (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that you are not capable of having a normal conversation. Have a nice life. APTOC (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

hidden anti-Semitic views are not a good strategy, Galassi ;) --Львівське (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. But an overt anti-Ukrainian is, to some , on RuWiki. ;-)).--Galassi (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

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

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

February 2011

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

Please use the talk page

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

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

Stalin, Losev, and anti-Semitism

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 [19] is unjustified, since this very subject has already been repeatedly discussed at the aforementioned talk pages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

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

This [20] is entirely unacceptable. I have given you appropriate sources and all you do is revert without discussing. Moreover, I have already told you that the consensus on the talk pages has always been against you. I can see that three editors -- Miacek and Alex Bakharev and Anti-Nationalist -- every one of the editors to weigh in -- have already called your reading of Polivanov tendentious, and that's as good a consensus as any. (Not that a lack of consensus is deemed justifiable to blindly revert.)

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

Hadrian and Antinous

Hi Galassi. I noticed your recent scrupulous work at these two articles. I thought you might be interested in more on the topic of Antinous, who I've researched only with reference to Imperial cult. To judge from your chosen areas of editing, it might be too far off-piste. But who knows. If you're interested in more on the matter, try Caroline Vout, Power and eroticism in Imperial Rome, illustrated, Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN 0-521-86739-8. [21]. Partial preview only, but she's a fine thinker, and what's there is very readable. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Georgians

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

Alexander Dyukov (writer)

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

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

CCSVI

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

Nikolai Yezhov

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

HI - re:DERIASHNYJ

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

Lovetinkle and the IP gang

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

Proposed deletion of Volodymyr Dzhus

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

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

Article ban: Battle of Konotop

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

Duly noted. Do me a favor and take a look at the recent content dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aleksandr_Kolchak&curid=170155&action=history.--Galassi (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ekh, Moryak, [22]... Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Дуже дякую.--Galassi (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

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

I would like to express strong disagreement regarding the fourth consecutive reversion of all my edits on the Adagio. See discussion here: [[23]] I would like to point out that it is not "universally agreed to" that this Adagio has "NOTHING" of Albinoni or is "no way" related to Albinoni. Substantially different yes; with post-Baroque techniques and a heavier mood or style than is typical of Albinoni, yes; entirely or almost entirely written by Giazotto yes; but the big, simple point is that this piece was for a long time widely believed to be from Albinoni. The Adagio, written by a Giazotto who admired Albinoni, has at least some imitation of Albinoni in certain passages. Unfortunately I can't find much of expert opinion on either side directly on this point (as opposed to the separate manuscript or hoax question), though I did find some lay musical analyses on either side (or in between: "pastiche" of Albinoni's and of modern styles is a common description). Overall, I think you are too quick to do complete reversions; and I cite previous complaints on this page and WP:NPOV in support. Thank you. 70.89.232.180 (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 --70.89.232.180

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

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

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

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

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

Pound/Mullins

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

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

Wiki has rules. POund info belongs in the Pound article, NOT in Mulllins. Read up on WP:COATRACK.--Galassi (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Book of Veles

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

Objects Vles-Books that have no explanation in modern science

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

You wopuld need a RELIABLE SCHOLARLY SOURCE that discusses this data. However, this is difficult to document as the book is a forgery, and there naturally would be no scholarly researsh on the subject.--Galassi (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

1) This fragment indicates "objects Vles-books that are not in Slavic mythology" - writen about all these features : Yatsenko, Asov, Slatin, all. I gave the reference to "State Research Institute of Ukrainian Studies" - what you have removed the link?

2) I made ​​reference to the fact that during 1996-2008 - Vles-book was in the school program in Ukraine. Why have you removed this?

3) The second part of your phrases - anecdotal: "As Vles-book is a forgery, the proof of mythology Vles Books - not in academic science. " That is it "fake without evidence"- then at least remove from the article "untrue statement of a thorough study history, mythology of Vles-Books"! Because you are your own contradictions.

4) I gave the sentence of Mr Rybakov relation to Vles Books. This scientist did not write a word about the "mythology Vles Books" (and he is "senior specialist in Soviet mythology of the Slavs" and director of the Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR). Why have you removed this? Then, at least among Rybakov off "opponents Vles Books", because it is outright false. --Vles1 (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You need RELAIBLE SCHOLARLY sources. Both Russian and Ukrainian wikis have unequivocally stated that the Veles book is a forgery.--Galassi (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What does "RELAIBLE SCHOLARLY", if the article contains "false information about the Rybakov's opinion"! Give a link to a "Rybakov's opinion", or remove Rybakov from the article!

Rybakov opinion is very important - he was a director for many decades, "Institute of Archaeology, USSR Academy of Sciences", a leading specialist on "Mythology of the Slavs". And if Rybakov silent 30 years — it is "loud silence" - Rybakov is not actually supported the persecution of Veles book. Give the answer to the question of Rybakov.

And secondly, all of my edits made from the "Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedias". The Ukrainian Wikipedia says:

— Veles-book more than a decade - has been incorporated into school curricula.

The Russian (and Ukrainian) Wikipedia:

— "Mythology" Veles book has several features that are not found in the mythology of Kievan Rus and Slavs in general, is:

• Bird-lightning "Mother of Glory" (also referred to as the "Mother Swa") - which is mentioned in Veles book "63 times (more often than any other deity);
• The above theme "Jav, Prav, Nav;
• Vles in Veles book "- has a much broader role (teacher of agriculture, crafts, moral commandments) than the" god of cattle Velez "in Kievan Rus".

These items are absolutely correct. Why do you think that in the U.S. — someone knows better about Vles-book than in Ukraine and Russia. My suggestion — provide a link between the various Wikipedia.--Vles1 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You should mnow the rules. No original research, no primary sources, no blogs etc. Secondary scholarly sources only.--Galassi (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I ask you about Rybakov, and the State Research Institute of Ukrainian Studies; about teaching Vles-books in schools. Have you read my question? Can you answer? --Vles1 (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I added information about the position of Professor Rybakov and Professor Peter Kononenko - I hope you do not challenge their authority.--Vles1 (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

THe sources you added are UNRELIABLE, and some of them are also UNVERIFIABLE, in violation of wikipedia rules.--Galassi (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In which of the facts you doubt it? In the position Kononenko, or "12 years of Vles-Boors in schools"? When you write about the facts? --Vles1 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File:George Ballanchine.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gelassi, since the previous image was removed, would you be kind enough to place a new one [24]? I cannot edit the Georgian people page as it is protected.--Gioreteli (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I've inserted this image in the three cases where the other image could not be used. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

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

Alexander Pechersky

Galassi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read up on WP:NPA. And the Pechersky entry in the http://www.eleven.co.il/article/13210.~ANd after that: apologize.--Galassi (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I read it. I just sent them an email to correct their info.

So do you plan to keep adding that information into the article despite obvious evidence the editor in 1978 made a mistake? I've read the pages and pages of complaints about your editing on this page, so decided to phrase my response different than the other 100 people above this post - I made it into a joke.

Since Pechersky didn't speak Yiddish, it would be better to link it from the middle than to ruin the flow of the article by inserting those factually incorrect sentences you are so keen on.

I take back what I said about spelling and apologize for that remark. I apologize for saying you wrote this lunacy. It is still an error though, just not yours unless you continue to knowingly force it into the article.

You did excellent edits in early April on the article. Yet that IP did not. I think generally I am philosophically on your side of the majority of your edit wars that I read above, yet not this one.

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Your apology in not accepted, Nick. I happen to know the meaning of the expression "skin flute", but as a civilized individual I wouldn't make a similar conclusion based on your expertise in gambling. As to the article in question: what languages AP knew or didn't contitutes origianal research (WP:OR), and here we have WP:RS, and the latter mandates the inclusion of the info you presumptiously deleted, from a false sense of WP:OWN.--Galassi (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

We on first name basis already? I am at a loss, never bothered looking yours up. After some sleep, and after re-reading my comments, yes, I should have kept away from the flute. My apologies. I was out of order.

You are incorrect about WP:OWN since any edits that bring value to an article, I support. I revert editors who include false information due to an obvious typo/mistake/carelessness on the part of the source. 2+2 is always 4. Either Pechersky wrote a book, or he didn't. There is no middle ground.

I am well familiar with (WP:OR) and thus I use multiple references to back up what I write. Purposefully exploiting a typo within a source to sabotage an article is vandalism. I know of another online encyclopedia article which has World War 2 ending in the year 945, while starting in 1939. By your logic, its important to now edit the Wikipedia article on WW2, and move the date a thousand years back? Deleting things like that is not called presumptuousness. Its called exercising good judgement. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Galasi's roll backEqual temperament is disruptive

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

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

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

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

Where is your basis for "nationalist POV"

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

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

Personal Vendetta

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

David Duke

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

Tolerant

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

1.You would need a RELIABLE SOURCE for that "true" statement. 2.Who I am is none of your business, and it is irrelevant here.--Galassi (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source it is! On the other hand, you don't have any source to say it is not ... so do not complicate things when you know that I am right! Which sentence in this passage is incorrect? You do not have the right to delete it if you do not have a different argument!--Vitaly N. (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainians

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

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

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

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

Categorizing at Kitezh

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

Kitezh is in fact a LITERARY FICTION. The legend is entirely fakeloric.--Galassi (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Anti-Ukrainian sentiment

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

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

Fascinating Stuff

LEft the ame mesage with Marek. Very interesting. Parts of this book are on-line: [25].

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

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

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

Vandalism of Edward321

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

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

David Duke

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

Your dislike for an inconvenient source doesn't make it unreliable. You may want to discuss that on the talkpage, to demonstrate WP:GOODFAITH.--Galassi (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guidelines on reliability are well documented. Articles that are BLP are especially sensitive to this. Further .... an editor like yourself who restores information that is either non-sourced or unreliably sourced is hypocritically lecturing about the talk page? Vexorg (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the above, the information you restored in the edits discussed in my post below was unreliably sourced, and I would be most grateful if you would examine the sources, and either revert your edit, or discuss your reasons on the talk page for the article. Thanks! 93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Communication Problems

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

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article [[26]] is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

The article will be discussed at [[27]] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

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

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

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

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

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

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

Second request re MedCab

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

thanks for catching it!

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.