Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::First, PLEASE READ my comment and YOUR text. You made just a mistake in English. Second. His works are not peer-reviewed and he is neither scientist not scholar. This is secondary source as per wikiperdia standards, but you didn't provide neither English text not a quote from it supporting this point. Third, it's not logically correct to count on single opinion of one critic. Please provide more links (and better higher-level quality) if you insist. ] (]) 16:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
::First, PLEASE READ my comment and YOUR text. You made just a mistake in English. Second. His works are not peer-reviewed and he is neither scientist not scholar. This is secondary source as per wikiperdia standards, but you didn't provide neither English text not a quote from it supporting this point. Third, it's not logically correct to count on single opinion of one critic. Please provide more links (and better higher-level quality) if you insist. ] (]) 16:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
::: AFAIK- Reznik is a respected historian, in particular of ]. As to your edits - they are often written in bad English and incomprehensible.] (]) 18:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
::: AFAIK- Reznik is a respected historian, in particular of ]. As to your edits - they are often written in bad English and incomprehensible.] (]) 18:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
::::{{uw-3rr}}
==]==
==]==
Revision as of 11:43, 4 February 2009
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 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.Galassi16:05, 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 16:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No NNPOV. Subtelny is considered as insensitive toward Jews, although a lot less than Grushevsky.
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)
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 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.
Galassi13:58, 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 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:
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.Galassi18:05, 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 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. Galassi19:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
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 maven13c@yahoo.com and I'll send the PDFs. You see, we Jews are not all that stupid.Galassi17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I send you an email through Misplaced Pages 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)
Hi Galassi. You asked for help, what did you have in mind? I have tried to fix that article (see its talk & history) but found that I don't have additional time for ru:WP. Also it is too wild for my taste: they don't even have 3RR. ←Humus sapiens09:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
We have an insidiously antisemitic article that gives a possibility that blood libel was not groundless, under the pretext of being encyclopedic. What do we do?Galassi 09
58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I tried - practically alone - and was frustrated to see a number of editors and admins taking the wrong side. Some of the info I added is still there, but some was repeatedly removed. So I ended up creating Gavriil Belostoksky. I don't know what can be done if more people are not going to show up there. My resources are limited. ←Humus sapiens10:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
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. --Hillock6511:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
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, Goochelaar13:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
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.--Riurik08:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
This article has been deleted as a memorial. While you placed the hangon tag on the article, indicating that you would address the speedy tag on the talk page, you failed to do so. Please review WP:NOTE for more information. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Per the tag, the response is supposed to be immediate. Also, use of the hangon tag does not prevent deletion. In addition, please note that creation of the same deleted information under different titles is disruptive and may result in a block.
Look, I really think there's no hope of this article ever surviving. Memorials are not allowed on Misplaced Pages, however tragic the event. My advice is to try to incorporate the information on some of the well-known victims, if there were any, into the main article. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by IMMEDIATE? Not everyone has immediate internet access. My opinion re the nature of this article is in its discussion page.Galassi (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Please don't confuse the two pages. You have now started a new article, which has also been listed for speedy deletion. Please check the tag on the article page for further information.
I made no threats. You are being UNcivil. Give TIME to the concerned editors. In the meantime you have no moral right to meddle in this,Galassi (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Saying "Any attempt to delete it will be considered anti-semitic and anti-Ukrainian vandalism" is incredibly uncivil. Do not attack the "moral rights" of other editors. I'm not sure what the link to Talk:Babi Yar is supposed to mean, but you have been here long enough to know to that insulting other users simply should not be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see my response at Talk:Notable victims of the Babi Yar massacres. The way it is currently being done is the problem. There are other similar articles (Category:Lists of victims) which is the way I'd suggest you do it. Besides, I think you'd find it much more helpful to create separate articles on the individual victims. You'd get much more help if the work was spread out and it would be a lot more interesting for people to read. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Uncivility is putting in frivolous tags and not giving any response time. This article was created in part as a compromise to alleviate inter-ethnic "strife" that occurred on the main "Babi Yar" article.Galassi (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The tag was not frivolous. As has been explained to you, the way you're creating this page isn't really acceptable. It will be listed for AFD shortly, so you can make your argument in favour of keeping it there. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Galassi, putting tags isn't uncivil. Your response was though. Recreating the article does not help the situation. Next time, you should contact the administrator and ask for help. It was just a matter of how the article is organized, rather than the purpose of it. Please remember to assume good faith. Given the nature of the article, being quick to judge the intentions should be the last thing on your mind. I might have mangled a few names, so please go look at it now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 1 March 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)
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)
This article was cluttered with an enormous collection of links to non-notable lute players. I removed them according to the guidelines provided in WP:EL. In addition, the abbreviation "rvv" is short for "reverted vandalism"; such an edit summary is not merely incorrect but highly incivil in the case of a good-faith editor. --Orange Mike | Talk14:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope my most recent changes constitute a reasonable compromise. External links of the sort you were restoring can become outright spam; whereas I'm the first to admit that there may be notables out there who still deserve articles. --Orange Mike | Talk14:56, 30 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)
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 Misplaced Pages? Volker89 (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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 Misplaced Pages: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. OsamaK17:41, 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 FrankistJews. You cite as your evidence "M. Mieses, Polacy–Chrześcianie pochodzenia żydowskiego, I–IV vol., Warszawa, 1938." Could you please give me the respective volume and page numbers, and the pertinent quotations?
You have also introduced into the "Chopin" article an assertion that Countess Skarbek was likewise of Frankist Jewish descent. You cite as your evidence an article in the Russian-language online publication, Kaskad. Could you please tell me approximately how far down in that article this assertion is made, and would you be so kind as to quote the relevant passage for me in English translation? Nihil novi (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. 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.
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)
On Misplaced Pages, 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 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)
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)
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.ruGalassi (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)
Hi -- why did you revert my removal of the article from Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)
Use of term "disruptive edit rv".
You have reverted the following edits with the comment "disruptive edit rv".
00:14, 19 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (Undid revision 264959090 by Jonundrvv/disruptive edit rv)
07:15, 12 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Mikhail Dieterichs (disruptive edit rv, restoration of cited material)
None of those edits, by three different editors, are "disruptive" as Misplaced Pages uses the term. They reflect point of view disagreements. --John Nagle (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
You are incorrect. Disruptive edit may be a doggedly repeated one that gives undue weight to a marginal opinion, as well as the one that disrupts orderly editing.Galassi (talk) 22:28, 21 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. --Tom16:17, 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. --Tom16:32, 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, --Tom16:47, 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 01:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
PLEASE PLEASE READ article's talk page. Please explain me your edits war. I don't understand why you are so insistent on low-quality sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volodymir k (talk • contribs) 11:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
First, PLEASE READ my comment and YOUR text. You made just a mistake in English. Second. His works are not peer-reviewed and he is neither scientist not scholar. This is secondary source as per wikiperdia standards, but you didn't provide neither English text not a quote from it supporting this point. Third, it's not logically correct to count on single opinion of one critic. Please provide more links (and better higher-level quality) if you insist. Volodymir k (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Jd2718 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
