User talk:Galassi

I can assure you that I am not a "sock." As for you reverting the edits I made, I removed a reference to the publisher, Arktos Media, that relied solely on a description in an article by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is not a reputable scholarly source, and replaced it with one from an article by Mark Sedgwick, who is a well-known and respected scholar who specializes in the subject of Traditionalism and the New Right. Therefore my edit is entirely justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmorgan4 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viki11rodno (talk • contribs) 17:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

You have introduced into the "Chopin" and "Mickiewicz" articles, assertions that the mothers of both have been proven to have been descendants of 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Galassi, your continuing attempt to include material on Losev in Stalin and Anti-Semitism appear to be misrepresenting the actual facts of Losev's case, as various other editors have argued on Talk:Stalin and Anti-Semitism and Talk:Aleksei Losev. Your revert here [1] is unjustified, since this very subject has already been repeatedly discussed at the aforementioned talk pages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

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

This [2] is entirely unacceptable. I have given you appropriate sources and all you do is revert without discussing. Moreover, I have already told you that the consensus on the talk pages has always been against you. I can see that three editors -- Miacek and Alex Bakharev and Anti-Nationalist -- every one of the editors to weigh in -- have already called your reading of Polivanov tendentious, and that's as good a consensus as any. (Not that a lack of consensus is deemed justifiable to blindly revert.)

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Ekh, Moryak, [3]... Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Objects Vles-Books that have no explanation in modern science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Russian (and Ukrainian) Wikipedia:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Gelassi, since the previous image was removed, would you be kind enough to place a new one [4]? I cannot edit the Georgian people page as it is protected.--Gioreteli (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is your basis for "nationalist POV"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEft the ame mesage with Marek. Very interesting. Parts of this book are on-line: [5].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article [[6]] is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

The article will be discussed at [[7]] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

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

User:Galassi: Oh, that's awesome. If you saved the source for this article, I'd recommend redoing it. However, reinstate the article as List of killings by Muhammad, instead of List of killings of Muhammad. "By", not "of". But keep it entirely encyclopedic – avoid weasel words.

In response to the people who said, "No one else has 'List of killings of ...'," I'd recommend pointing out that there are Wikipedia pages listing killings by people.

• List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine
• List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States prior to 2009
• List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, October 2014
• List of killings by law enforcement officers in Canada

... and many more. All of those have pages dedicated to them; why shouldn't List of killings by Muhammad? Go for it!

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 07:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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

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

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

I have corrected a large POVfork. The para previously diverged significantly from the main 200 Years article/--Galassi (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the 200 Years article as a guide for writing that section. Would you care to go into how I diverged significantly from it, and how your revision corrects said divergence? And regardless, your current revision still does not address the problem of the citation at the end of the sentence in no way corroborating the statement "as well as perpetuating numerous anti-Semitic claims."--Icetitan17 (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To resolve the citation error, I have moved the citation back and added a dubious tag to your statement. Now there is no confusion over what statement The Solzhenitsyn Reader is being cited on, and you are given a chance to cite your own statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icetitan17 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of you when I saw this article:

• "Luthiers: The Latest Endangered Species" New York Times

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

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

I mention you briefly here [8] though you're only tangentially involved I think. Volunteer Marek  17:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem here is with "starvation". No one was starving cantonists, but the army had no special dietary obligation, naturally. So starvation falls into the WP:SYNTH category. Furthermore it is my understanding that in the extreme situations of survival even the ulraorthodox would eat anything.--Galassi (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is what the halakha says, although there are people who would rather starve then eat non-kosher (and people who did so and died because of it). Just comes to show, that the choice remains even then. Well, whatever you decide. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That very well may be the case, and worth including - if there would be a documented case of even a single cantonist dying of starvation... Otherwise it looks quite inappropriate. --Galassi (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Functionally" is not an issue, as long as it not verbatim. Also the deceased subject preempts all COI.--Galassi (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwash - the editor is related to the subject, and still controls the subject's online profile - that's as clear a COI as can be. Any further removals of the COI tag without valid reasons will be treated as vandalism - this is not a "silly" issue. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unencyclopedic tone.--Galassi (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were two of my edits you reverted, and of my edits was fixing a sentence fragment[9], so it ain't really simple enough to explain with two words on your talk page. Please just goto the Babi Yar talk page and explain in the section I created there. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the BYar article was reached by consensus. Check the talk page archive.--Galassi (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you tell me where in the archives? I can't find where in the archive it was decided to leave a sentence fragment unfixed. And please explain that in the section I made at the article's talk page. It's hard for me to remember going to your talk page to see what you have to say. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should go to the talk and discuss again... wonder if u'd read this considering how long this page is... 173.180.202.22 (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't have a slightest idea of what you are talking about.--Galassi (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you do now, except a link-rot tag is used when WP:references only contain URLs, and not publication information required in academic writing, like encyclopaedias like Wikipedia. It was probably a violation to remove the tag when you have not properly cited sources.--dchmelik (t|c) 03:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? The tag was for copy-edit, wasn't it?--Galassi (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I used that tag, but I often use various ones for citation problems.--dchmelik (t|c) 06:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You are making a large mistake. I use no such words. However these words are used in the reliable sources cited, and as such they can be used even if they were pejorative. Which they are not. Now it is clear that you simply dislike any critisism of NP. And QUASI is not a neologism, it comes from Latin. If you want to use simplistic language: there is a separate WIkipedia for that. This one calls for precise vocabulary. As to slavianism: I stress it again, it has NOTHING TO DO with NP. It is a type of ethnocentrism. You may need to acquire some fluency in Russian in order to understand that.--Galassi (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA: your usage of 'cult' and (quoting) 'quasireligion' is logged. Maybe you do not want others to see, but why waste time telling me? 'Quasi' is contained in both accepted words and neologisms. I am in favour of criticizing everything--certainly the pejorative, connotative term 'neopagan,' and I stated I am against fakelore: I want it exposed. For any article, fanatic statements are quickly deleted by consensus: one does not find fundy loon, Islamist, terrorist, anarchist, Communist, Nazi, KKK, racist, vulgar, other prejudiced views on general pages (except maybe ones on those extreme topics) for long. A few, even prominent, academics--perhaps your source--have such views, which only cranks take seriously, and you or your source or both are prejudiced, or uninformed and prone to lack of critical thinking--which enables your rude generalizing (which you do use by using a source) that appears bigoted. Why do you repeatedly deny 'Slavianstvo' is also a religous term? I cited a mainstream third-party source as well as a pagan (not exclusively Slavainist) source. It is debatable whether that is third-party, but it is evidence, and in Google, etc., you can certainly find usage (not as much as a few years ago.) You need proto-slavic fluency; 'Slavianism' would have translations from all Slavic languages. There are tens/hundreds of ethnic religions whose names have multiple meanings.--dchmelik (t|c) 01:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I have been waiting for an informal mediator a day or two. As for extremism, actually, I completed all your reliable (IMO) incomplete citations, including one/some on xenophobia/antisemitism. Could you cite something like 'Russian neopaganism in general is a highly politicized religion with extremist tendencies?' Other reasons to not over-generalize are: 'Old World'-based paganism includes Western, ecumenical, anonymous pagans, and Jewish pagans (I am friends with some,) whom in some or all cases are sometimes non-xenophobic Slaviansts.

At some point I altered your contributions in general and was unfriendly, because you seemed also to do so, but I have been trying to collaborate, and I apologize for being uncooperative and for perceived personal attacks. When people have NNPOV I have anger somewhat, but when I write, it subsides: I proofread several/many times and reconsider and shorten many statements. If one is against collaboration and consensus, I may be argumentative, but I do not intend impoliteness and I avoid writing in all capitals. Wikipedia says to present most topics 'in a positive light' (and to include non-bigoted criticism.) Are you willing to? Do you want me to get a mediator?--dchmelik (t|c) 08:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

1.It is not my (or your) prerogative to define QUASIRELIGION, it is a word used in the SOURCE. 2. Panslavism is a POLITICAL/CULTURAL idea, not a religious one. Ditto Slavianstvo, an ethnocentric subset of the former, more often than not russocentric.--Galassi (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is hard to find 'quasireligion' in dictionaries, of course it is good to define in wiktionary, a site of Wikimedia Foundation that runs Wikipedia. Is the source translated? Do you know what the source meant? Do you think anyone will understand your quote, rather than making up their own definition? If not, why would you even not want me to cite a source to define it? I suppose you are right on pan-slavism, but I misunderstand about 'Slavianstvo.' You said it is pan-slavism but not that it is not all of pan-slavism. So, I thought you meant 'Slavic "neopaganism,"' but you said it is not religious, but the article says it is.--dchmelik (t|c) 18:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever quasireligion is - it is not for us to define, although I have my own definition (a system of religion-like ethics that doens't require faith). We merely report what scholars say. Panslavism is, again, a utopian political idea of a unified FUTURE Slavic civilization under the leadership of Russians in general, and their Tsar in particular. --Galassi (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Panslavism, Slavianstvo, Slavophilia are cultural/political entities, while Rodnoveriye is a (quasi)religious one. Make no mistake about it.--Galassi (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, I think in your aim to remove weasle words in this edit [10] a change was made that no longer corresponds to the source. Please see: Talk:Josephus_on_Jesus#WP:V_correspondence_to_source for an explanation. Your help in going back to an earlier version that corresponds to the sources will be appreciated. I would suggest: "are important non-Christian historical documents that may shed light on", using "may" that is neutral. The issue of authenticity and disputes is explained in detail in the rest of the lede anyway. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly: do not add Antisemitism categories to biographical articles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. They may be inappropriate for BLP, but are essential in articles of DOCUMENTED antisemites.--Galassi (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly entitled to you opinions, but do not sabotage the category system by disregarding decisions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whose desisions? Yours?--Galassi (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate: that policy is for BPL articles, not for dead individuals. READ IT. --Galassi (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, read it. And read Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 12#Category:People accused of antisemitism. The problem is greatest for living people, but most arguments against these categories are valid for biographical articles in general. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, would you try to remove the cat. from the Hitler/Goebbels/Rosenberg articles too? --Galassi (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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