Talk:Mikhail Diterikhs

Pazhevsk cadet corps

Pazhevsk cadet corps is a mistake. I would simply remove the word Pazhevsk that I think does not exist, but I am afraid I may lack knowledge of English-language names for Russian military schools of the era. — tar-ba-gan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.246.104.209 (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Reznik's opinion

Dear User:Galassi, let me explain again the reasons of my changes. I have written a comment: "Adjusted awkward wording. Moved Reznik opinion closer to the book, Monarchism is natural for a person who gave him an oath, it is not worth mention" I meant:

1. Please note that your wording "noted in particular for his noted in particular for his" (sic!) is an errorneous duplication you have ignored to notice. I have adjusted this error. Intentionally keeping broken English, removing correct, might be considered vandalism unless my believe in your good intention. Please refrain from having such duplicates.
2. Opinion of some arbitrary, not even notable person is generally not very interesting to general public. E.g. <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Book_Bush_told_reporter_Jews_are_0902.html">Brook says G.W.Bush is antisemit</a>. So what? This fact should go into article about Brook, not to Bush -- right? The same is true for Reznik. His opinion on book's author do not define author's personality.
3. I have intentionally left your fact in this article. Please note that I did NOT deleted "cited material" as you claim in your revert comment -- I just have moved it in appropriate section related to the book.
4. I don't understand why you stress so much on his monarchism. Dieterichs is not a head of monarchist party, his views are usual for a citizen of monarchy. All of British citizens have monarchic views (or they are in jail), does it means something?

Please assume good intentions of other editors. Volodymir k (talk)

His views are far from usual. Dieterichs is an important figure in perpetuation of blood libel.Galassi (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are talking rubbish. Please note a difference between being monarchist and being an anti-semit. Second, please quote Dietrichs' where he tells what you wrote he tells. At opposite, chapter "ВДОХНОВИТЕЛИ ПО ЛЖИ" tells that Jewish people is usual ethnos and is quite respectful, and that possible sects don't stain Jewish people. Curently, your materials are not proved.

Also please keep in mind you are making edit wars and have violated 3RR many times. Volodymir k (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but your English is too incomprehensible.Galassi (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "noted in particular for his noted in particular for his monarchist and anti-semitic views [1]." Don't you anything strange here?

Thanks for discussing my personal English abilities. I hope other editors will clean my typos and mistakes. So far I have no such changes to learn from them. If you'll find, let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volodymir k (talk • contribs) 11:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Whilst there hasn't been a revert in a few days I am going to step in and say: 'Stop. Any more reverts will result in a mass revert (so no one can have their preferred changes), full protection, and/or blocks. This edit war has gone on long enough. Discuss it here (Feigning that someones English is too incomprehensible is not an excuse). Nothing else. No more reverts. By the way, on a side note, "rvv" is used primarily for reverting vandalism, that's what the extra v is for. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If fact Users DonaldDuck and MPowerdrive not only rv without discussion and explanation, but they don't even bother to give a summary. Galassi (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)