User talk:John Ralston Galt

February 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Kim Jong-un, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. Safiel (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The day is not far off that Wikipedia will be considered a valid primary source. John Ralston Galt (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012[edit]

Dude, knock it off. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 21:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Homotopy Haskell[edit]

The article Homotopy Haskell has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Software that does not meet the WP:GNG -- zero Google hits except this article, no references.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Wikipelli. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Gravity (film), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wikipelli ^Talk 18:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Bill Cosby, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spacey[edit]

Being gay is not what he's notable for. If you want to write about that go to the personal life section but I think you'll find it's already covered along with the allegations of today. Jenks24 (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the thousands of homosexual children who look up to him as a role model would disagree there. Nevertheless, I will move add a discussion of his homosexuality to the "Personal Life" section. John Ralston Galt (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Alex 21. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Star Trek: Prodigy seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Alex_21_TALK 08:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

John Ralston Galt (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

nonsense John Ralston Galt (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

John Ralston Galt (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block" The ostensible reason was "persistently making disruptive edits". Take the trouble to view the history of this account, and you will see that "nonsense" is an understatement. If you are an honest person, that is. John Ralston Galt (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your post to Alex 21 was deeply offensive and that combined with your edits displays a battleground attitude incompatible with this collaborative project. Since you deem this "nonsense" and don't see any problem here, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

John Ralston Galt (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

At the risk of repeating myself: the initial stated reason for my ban was “persistently making disruptive edits”. “Disruptive” was false but subjective. “Persistent” was objectively false: I rarely edit wikipedia more than a few times a year. As for this totally different reason someone has hot-swapped in: battleground attitude, you should probably consider that my original ban was done because some editor—whose handle escapes me—was really mad that a Star Trek cartoon had been cancelled and apparently chose to take it out on other editors.John Ralston Galt (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So, "disruptive" is a "False but subjective" characterization of your edits ... then why were several dozen from this one on reverted? Persistence is about how you edit, not how much you edit; when you devote the limited amount of time you spend editing Wikipedia to making the same edits regularly, you're persistent.

As for your response to the battleground mentality, as if this request hadn't amply demonstrated it, well "it's an orangy sky, alwaaaays it's some other guy ... it's just a broken lullaby".

You needn't worry about further repeating yourself, though. I will be revoking talk page access after I save this. Have a nice day. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]