User talk:Galehautt

January 2023
Hello, I'm Mellk. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Seven Sisters (Moscow), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Seven Sisters (Moscow). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Mellk (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023
Your recent editing history at Joseph Stalin 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mellk (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Partial block
 You have been blocked from editing List of European cities by population within city limits for a period of one week for edit warring. You cannot give up on the discussion but continue edit warring. Note that you are only restricted from the article itself — its talk page remains unrestricted, so you could still continue that discussion (@Talk:List of European cities by population within city limits) at any time, if you so wish. If you wish to discuss this block further, please WP:PING me here, or reply at the ANI thread, just not my talk page, please. Thank you. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. El_C 06:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)



Block converted to site wide
Due to continued aggression and attacks during the block, from the last sentence in the above unblock request: Perhaps he is Romanian and feels hurt by the results of the latest census, I do not care, ordnung muss sein!, to some of the latest at ANI: Being right settles the discussion. That's how it works with normal people, at least. FromCzech clearly strays from normal. This isn't an acceptable manner in which to conduct oneself. I've converted your block to site wide and reset the timer. Please note that any further hostility and personal attacks on your part may result in having your access even to editing this talk page revoked (which in fact I considered doing) as well as the seeing the block possibly extended (possibly for an indefinite duration). Please follow the steps outlined in WP:DR to resolve any outstanding disputes. That's what everyone is expected to do. No one gets a special pass due to... reasons. Thanks. El_C 01:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * My apologies. Perhaps it would be good to know that English is not my first language. I can certainly fault my native language for my blunt register as it was never my intention to offend. Galehautt (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Warning
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Poland, you may be blocked from editing. Merangs (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

TVP World moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to TVP World. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation at Talk:Jedwabne pogrom
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It is not poorly referenced. The image is real, the people there (among them Adam Michnik vel Szechter) have people in their family who worked for the Stalinist regime. Zygmunt Gross was a party member during Stalinism and onward. Galehautt (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * First, you should read WP:RS to understand why this image, which you yourself uploaded on Commons and described as "own work", does not qualify as a reliable source. Who says that the people there depicted are the ones you claim? And where do you find the information on them being Jews who work for the "Stalinist regime"? Secondly, and most importantly, that biographical content is totally irrelevant on that talk page. You can't undermine a source (Gross) by describing their ethnic background (Jewish) and the political views (communist) of their parents. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nowhere is it claimed they were "Jews who worked for the Stalinist regime." They are of Jewish descent and their parents were involved in the Stalinist regime which ruled Communist/Soviet-occupied Poland between 1944 and 1956. The image is real and depicts a group known as Komandosi. I would be glad if you did not deem yourself the final judge who somehow has the right to edit war and delete neutral good faith discussions at will. That is bad faith. Galehautt (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The conflict of interest may be such: (1) inclination to whitewash Stalinism due to ties to the regime which existed before the deck got reshuffled in 1956, at the same time, (2) feeling unjustifiably purged as a result of yet another reshuffling in 1968 causing enhancement of nationalist (Jewish) feelings and enhancement of bias against the Polish nation which the subject considers guilty at large
 * All this causing a portrayal of the Kielce pogrom as above
 * Also, hasn't Grabowski been funded by Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor, the leader of an organization named European Jewish Congress and at the same time one of the most trusted pals of KGB-man Putin?
 * Galehautt (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is an irrelevant and hateful WP:BLP violation. Please stop posting fringe theories about the biases and unreliability of professional historians based of their ethnicity and their parents' political views. This kind of comments are WP:DISRUPTIVE and could get you sanctioned. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The same at Kielce pogrom Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not posting anything on the page. Only asking questions on the talk page. I have the right to do so. Piss off! Galehautt (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

3RR
Your recent editing history at Talk:Jedwabne pogrom 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You are engaged in an edit war. You are also Jewish. I am Polish. I am accusing you formally of anti-Polonism right now (see: Gross wiki page Controversies section). There is no BLP violation. Piss off. Galehautt (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 20:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "Piss off" may not be, but accusations of anti-Polonism, Stalinism, and harassment campaigns are personal attacks. You might have a point about the content, but it is your conduct--in particular your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality--that has you blocked. Unless you address that conduct and explain what you will do different and better in the future, it is unlikely you will be unblocked. —C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What am I supposed to do when the Talk page on Joseph Stalin has been open for the whole past month and already 2 users Support the point (and my edit isn't even as far-going as the one Supported in Talk, it's just Wikipedian formatting cosmetics) and it's just getting repeatedly rolled back by one and the same user? There's also a topic started by another user with I think all users agreeing that the current pic of Stalin in the article is presenting him as a "folksy" type and cultivating the cult of personality rather than showing him as the war criminal he was. Someone has been behind this, I don't know who. But Mellk has been adamantly forcing through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact -> (generic) non-aggression pact euphemism. This is actual propaganda revisionism of the Russian state today. Hence my accusation (not a personal attack). As for anti-Polonism accusation, this is not a personal attack, it is an accusation like antisemitism and Wikipedia has hosted Anti-Polonism accusations since its creation. Furthermore, what concerns that case aren't even edits, just my questions on the Talk page (!) that keep getting deleted and silenced. This is absurd. I have not met with such absurd and arbitrary behavior on Wikipedia ever. I am blameless here, everything I do is good faith and not trying to attack. Merely defend against the silencing campaign targeting me and not attacking but accusing, which I am allowed to. Galehautt (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 Just asking a question here, not forwarding a discussion about my blame: what precise counter-arguments are you using/what precise rationale are you following in your decision to decline my unblock request considering the lengthy statement presented by me above? I just want to know, I am trying to follow good faith and want to know how to be the best version of myself and a good Wikipedian, please help a brother out! Galehautt (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you read Jonathan Swift's Thoughts on Religion? I read your u/p and a certain line might be of interest to you: Violent zeal for truth hath an hundred to one odds to be either petulancy, ambition, or pride. Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a violent zeal. I am a skeptic. I do acknowledge things like objective truth and objective reality though. I am also a fan of objective morality but that's a murkier subject, I know. That's all. Truth exists. Philosophically, I subscribe to Plato. Have you read the Republic? Galehautt (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd hazard a guess that doing the opposite of WP:GAB has something to do with it. Jay D. Easy (t) 22:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not exactly sure what happened since I haven’t read through the whole thing on the Stalin talkpage & I’m just browsing as a bystander, but from what you say here, “What am I supposed to do when the Talk page on Joseph Stalin has been open for the whole past month and already 2 users Support the point (and my edit isn't even as far-going as the one Supported in Talk, it's just Wikipedian formatting cosmetics) and it's just getting repeatedly rolled back by one and the same user?”, I think a course of option would be to create a WP:RFC or to report their behavior if you found it rule breaking. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * As I said, you weren't blocked for "piss off". You were blocked for comments like this. I said "don't attack other Wikipedia volunteers", and I meant it. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 13:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * What personal attacks toward what users? Beg your pardon? You told me to attack ideas. I request a return to the previous stage. I'm a man of my word. Galehautt (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Galehautt (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Please place new posts at the bottom for proper discussion flow. The Reply function is not designed for making unblock requests(certain formatting issues are introduced like duplicating your signature), it would help if you opened the edit window directly. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you don't think that calling other volunteers as "Stalin fanboys" constitutes a personal attack, then there's really nothing else we can do. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 03:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't that attacking ideas? Personal attacks by definition are... personal. Am I not allowed to say for example that Hitler fanboys are bad? Or is fanboying Stalin allowed? Weird double standards. Galehautt (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would think I would be allowed to be outraged that someone fanboys Stalin. Without even naming names, just the mere thought of it. Doesn't that outrage you? Galehautt (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 331dot, before Gordon's block, he posted screeds against multiple reputed Polish historians accusing them to be unreliable/biased because their ancestors had collaborated with Stalin. A Tban that goes "Stalin and broadly construed" is infeasible due to its sheer breadth and will lead to a lot of wikilawyering in edge cases. We have someone with a profound lack of situational awareness and that is not a good trait, independent and irrespective of the area they edit. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did not mean to suggest that should be the only prerequisite, just that it should be part of it IMO. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I asked questions in the Talk pages of two articles. I thought that was allowed but apparently not. Once some nebulous RS Council that doesn't exist decides that something is RS, it cannot be questioned. Sure. Well I question them, and am allowed to do so, and you're not allowed to silence me. Galehautt (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * There's no misunderstanding. As I said before: If you don't think that calling other volunteers as "Stalin fanboys" constitutes a personal attack, then there's really nothing else we can do. You don't have to say XXX is a Stalin fanboy; it suffices to say "the people who I disagree with are Stalin fanboys". --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 21:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is perhaps time to revoke t/p access and shunt to UTRS. I'm a fully exemplary Wikipedian now and request unblocking, no particular person can feel attacked is trolling. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't call other particular volunteers Stalin fanboys. I attacked the very idea of being a fanboy of Stalin and noted that it just appears that the article attracts mostly (notice this word, mostly) their attention and not a more diverse group's of editors. That is a valid remark and I don't know how you can claim otherwise, it's what Wikipedia needs, a diverse group of editors of different backgrounds. This is speech that is legal. Galehautt (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever heard a worse case of WP:IDHT. Talk page access revoked. Enough is enough.

 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. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 00:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)