Talk:Johnny Galecki/Archive 1

Recent photo...
Can anyone come up with a cleared recent close-up photo for the info box?

trezjr 20:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Place of birth ?
in the french article, it is written that he was born in wezembeek open (district of Brussels) in belgium. Here, it is written that he was born in Bree, flemish region, Belgium. Which is the right place ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.137.135 (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Role in American Dad!?
I can't find any evidence that Johnny Galecky had a part in the episode Irregarding Steve. Can anyone prove this alleged cameo? If not, I'll delete it for now. Andy Pipkin (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Career
The last paragraph in this section says less about Galecki than it does about other actors with whom Galecki worked on other projects and who, coincidentally, now work on The Big Bang Theory. Seems to me such information is more appropriate to the article about the show itself, which, in fact, does cover the same information.

--Mfwills (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal life
Didn't he date his Roseanne co-star as well? 84.152.59.141 (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation?
How is "Galecki" pronounced? Is it "galekki" or "galetski" (like Penderecki)? SpectrumDT (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has ever seen his birth certificate!
The current bitter battle over whether Galecki was born in Wezembeek or Bree is heating up as we reach the Belgian presidential election year and must determine his eligibility. Some people maintain that Galecki was born in Indonesia and ineligible. Others say that he is simply embarrassed to have been born in a place with a name as silly as Wezembeek. Profhum (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Xmas Vacation in Intro?
Galecki is inarguably known for his roles in Roseanne and The Big Bang Theory. But, Christmas Vacation? Why is his role in that film any more notable than any of his other roles in films? I could see if it was a recurring role for him, but it wasn't.--Largerockstyle (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Galecki statement on fire
Regarding, I think Galecki's statement to CNN actually informs the reader regarding the subject's reasoning behind owning 380 acres of property in wildfire-prone San Luis Obispo County, and what the subject values in terms of a rural living environment. Both are relevant to the subject's personal life, the section in which they appear. Frankly, as you pointed out, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this information is perhaps more valuable in terms of understanding the personal and long-term motivations of the subject than the "raw news" concerning the fire itself. Please reconsider your removal.  General Ization  Talk   15:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're probably right about the second sentence ("The threat of which we live with constantly, which may seem crazy to some but we do so because living in our beautiful, rural area makes it worthwhile."), though the first — which is just general "my heart goes out to" sympathy toward neighbors that anyone would have — doesn't strike me as notable. Thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree, but the phrasing of the second sentence made it awkward to omit the first without substantially modifying the second, since it a) was a fragment, and b) would have been unclear what threat he was referring to. I thought it best just to include both sentences. Also, CAL FIRE refers to itself that way (in all-caps).  General Ization   Talk   15:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since per WP:BRD that edit wasn't supposed to go back in unless consensus was reached, and there was no consensus for the first sentence, I'm reworking the passage to address your concern. I really wish you had waited until consensus had been achieved either between us or among other editor who might have come here to discuss. Also, factually, the statement was given to multiple media outlets, not CNN exclusively.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Revert under WP:BRD is appropriate when a given edit "cannot be immediately fixed by refinement". In our discussion, you seemed to agree that inclusion of the quote actually was appropriate and that refinement was entirely possible, so I assumed that BRD did not apply. The source I cited indicated that the statement was given to CNN; I didn't think it necessary to poll other sources to see if they also received it.  General Ization  Talk   17:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All due respect, that's not quite accurate. I said the first sentence was non-notable and was inappropriate. It turns out refinement was possible, and I made it, so perhaps the better way to have done this was to have discussed that refinement here on the talk page before reverting without consensus. But no matter — past is past, and a consensus version appears to have been reached. All good. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)