Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:58, 15 November 2015

Welcome! Feel free to leave a message at the bottom, and I'll get back to you. If you're angry and stressed, try listening to this while composing your comment.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

If you feel that I have made a mistake of any kind, please let me know. I do make mistakes, and I am happy to talk it out. Uncivil comments will end up in my "Fun Insult Userboxes" section. GAB

Due to increased obligations, my daily Wikitime may be curtailed dramatically in the foreseeable future. GAB

MURICA4LIFE

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm De la Marck. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Morange, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Portal current event

Tom Pett

what are you doing? - I just restored sourced information that had been removed without explanation 94.0.75.192 (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@94.0.75.192: It violated NPOV -- calling someone "an infinitely more talented and successful footballer." The source also said nothing about it. GAB 21:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The source is all about him being together with Little, you moron. 94.0.75.192 (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't generalize!

Not all generalizations are bad, you know! 2A02:1810:519:9E00:7DB6:B2B8:B66A:6120 (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@2A02:1810:519:9E00:7DB6:B2B8:B66A:6120: Very true! If you don't mind me asking, on which article might I have run into you in the past? GAB 22:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

We've had no prior interactions (that I recall). But I took notice of your handle yesterday when you reverted another instance of vandalism in the "Normans" article. This article seems to be increasingly a target for vandals. I think this is because right-wing leaning elements are troubled by the notion that an ethnically and culturally diverse group played such a large part in Europe's history, and indeed founded one of the most multi-cultural societies of their time with the Kingdom of Sicily. It shatters many an illusion and fantasy which socially conservative types seem to harbor about European nativism and/or ethnic "purity". Hence the child-like anger that we see expressed in these vandalism edits. 2A02:1810:519:9E00:846F:375F:C229:DD8A (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@2A02:1810:519:9E00:846F:375F:C229:DD8A: I see. I revert so much vandalism that it becomes quite hard for me to keep it all in memory. My vandalism theory is that the most targeted articles are high-profile (i.e. viewed a lot by immature students), highly controversial (i.e. nationality or ethnicity related) or obscure niche topics. GAB 16:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the most likely explanation. 2A02:1810:519:9E00:1492:BFEF:7E1B:5A1C (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

edit in "Russians in the Baltic states"

Thank you for removing the generalizing description of Soviet-time immigration as "Russian". I see that you've also returned "colonized" for description of the Soviet rule in the Baltic states. Earlier, I'd requested sourcing for another use of "colonization" in the same article.

As I found after some research, the use of this term for this region and time even in the Western science is controversial, to say the least. The controversy is even admitted by proponents of using this term (an Ohio professor - "The idea that the Baltic States might be considered former colonies of the Soviet Union is clearly a vexing one—untenable in some quarters, irrecusable in others, but mostly ignored or deemed irrelevant"; an article in the Journal of Baltic Studies - the topic of Soviet colonialism has not (or not yet) become a dominant way to understand Soviet history. And I'm not even going into what academics from Russia might say about this approach.

See also "Continuity and Change in the Baltic Sea Region: Comparing Foreign Policies" (a 2008 book by authoritative Rodopi (publisher); p. 17) - "it is perhaps unfair to use a colonial status for the position of the Baltic republics in the Soviet Union. Colonialism involves a clear subordination between the ruling and the ruled, such as the extraction of resources. While one can see certain aspects of this in the case of the Baltic republics and the Soviet center, the term 'colonialism' is also misleading. The Baltic Republics were involved in the governance not only of their region, but also at the national (Soviet) level as well. It would be hard to make a case that Moscow purportedly extracted resources from the Baltic region without giving anything back")

So I suggest finding a better word for both times the root "colon-" appears in the article. In the first case, I suggest "Immediately after the war, major migration from other USSR republics, including much migration of ethnic Russians, took place in the Baltic region". In the second - if "affected" were not suitable (although I find it to be much better than "colonized"), one could use "impacted by immigration", "influenced by immigration", "had smallest immigration influx".--Fuseau (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me?

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For staying civil, calm during personal attacks, and setting a good example on how to edit Misplaced Pages, I award you the Civility Barnstar! :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Too kind of you. Not entirely sure if I deserve this, though. GAB 16:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)