User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:GeneralizationsAreBad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Can you please stop reverting my edits on

Alright. Sorry for the trouble. GAB^Hello! 21:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello: why did you reinstall the user page which contained description of a movie called Revolver (User:Vallabh Nagampalli)? It is complete fiction, therefore my CSD. As well, it is not material for a proper talk page. So food for a discussion. Therefore I reinstalled my request. Cheers,Super48paul (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

GAB, You are confusing real edits with inexperienced editors. You put Don Turnbull's review of High Fantasy on your High Fantasy web page. Don was a competitor of High Fantasy. He worked for TSR and wrote competitive games, and additional materials for TSR. He worked hard to introduce D&D to the UK. In his critique he even explains his position as only a comparison to his beloved AD&D. You should not include competitor's reviews on the introductory web page. Particularly when it is such an outlier to the other reviewers. It is especially bad when you give it such a prominent position on your page.HigherOrder (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for page-stalking my talk page. I appreciate it! Keep up the good work! Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! GAB^Hello! 00:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that unwanted piece of vandalism on my talk page. I am very much opposed to editors without an account and username. Peter Horn User talk 01:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Any time! I've been really busy at Christian Academy of Louisville. The amount of disruption that can be caused by a bunch of kids is really ridiculous. GAB^Hello! 01:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi GeneralizationsAreBad,

This Wikipedia entry misrepresents Cardinal Sarah's position: "He is also a critic of... growth of LGBT rights" The term "growth of LGBT rights" is not used by Cardinal Sarah, but is projected by the editor. This misrepresentation betrays a bias that violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and amounts to slander.

I corrected the misrepresentation by replacing it with the Cardinal's direct quote in question, and provided a source.

Thanks, CR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr7777777 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for getting back to me. I appreciate it. I agree that the talk page is the best place to deal with this issue. Hopefully, we can work out a solution rather than continuing to edit-war. GAB^Hello! 15:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. In the meantime we should keep the cardinal's direct quote until this is sorted out. Ezium23 and Mean as custard had used the direct quote as well before Contaldo80 modified it with his own wording. Cr7777777 (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. When you get an attack page like the one just now, {{

@JohnCD: Thanks. I typically do, but I guess I just didn't for some reason this time. GAB^Hello! 20:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries! I pointed it out because some people aren't aware of it. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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^Hello! 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)

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)

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^Hello! 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^Hello! 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)

	The Civility Barnstar
	For staying civil, calm during personal attacks, and setting a good example on how to edit Wikipedia, I award you the Civility Barnstar! :) 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^Hello! 16:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read this notification carefully:
A

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as Metrojet Flight 9268, which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here

.

uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here

. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester — ☎ 21:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't sure if the Metrojet article fell under it or not. GAB^Hello! 21:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Anyone can issue notifications, as long as the procedure is followed, so feel free to notify others if they are not aware. RGloucester — ☎ 21:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, could you please provide another set of eyes for these sources and content? I would rather someone vets this before I spend the time inserting the content into the article. I'd rather not add to the glorification of the SS beyond what's necessary for encyclopedic reasons.

The situation is described here: Relocating ideology material from Schutzstaffel

Thank you!

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll look right now. Thanks for letting me know. GAB^Hello! 14:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current