Talk:Baltic Shield

message: :Why is Fennoscandian Shield redirected to this Baltic Shield page? I find this term confusing since the Baltic States are not on the "Baltic Shield". I am going to copy the relevant information to the link Fennoscandian Shield and change the terminology. Is this ok?
The "Baltic Shield" is the same as the "Fennoscandian Shield" and both terms are in use, depending on habit. However, the latter term has been forced by Finnish geologists only 10 years ago, but the former was entered in the literature already at the end of the 19th century. All the Baltic States 'are not' on the Baltic Shield. Formerly, the "Baltic States" only referred to those countries with access to the Baltic Sea. In any case, this is irrelevant as to what constitutes the Baltic Shield. 
The big confusion is the use of the term "Baltic Shield" to apply to all of the "Baltica Plate." See the note that I added at the end of this article. Valich 21:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: On the Kola Borehole page, it gives the thickness of the baltic shield at around 35 kilometers.  This agrees well with the estimates of crust thickness in the plate tectonics and continental crust pages.  The figure of 250-300 km thickness on this page looks like a typo to me.
:Yes, but on the other hand 35 km sounds too thin.--Jyril 19:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depth discrepancy? 

message: :"...five successive Pleistocene glaciations and subsequent retreats..."
There has been certainly much more than five glaciation periods during Pleistocene (see timeline of glaciation).--Jyril 19:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of glaciations 

message: A paper by A.C. Johnston, Science v. 274, 1996 Nov 01, p. 735 gives the depth as 48 km to the Moho.
-David B. Benson 22:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baltic Shield thickness 

message: This article appeared to be copyvio. I removed it. Please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130908. Please don't restore any content unless you are sure it is free of copyright problems. bobrayner (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A copyright problem 

message: This article has been reverted to an earlier version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement.  Text duplicated at least in part material from , which is clearly copyright reserved. Other content added by this contributor may have been copied from other sources and has been removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. Content added by other contributors subsequent to the introduction of this material can be restored if it does not merge with this text to create a derivative work. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. ----Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As a note in addition to the template, I'm sorry for those who have put time into improving the prior version of the article, particularly since the problem had been identified and the content removed five years ago. Had people not chosen to restore the content out of policy and process, a clean article might have been written which would not be a derivative work and which we could retain. I hope that you can help to improve this material, which preceded the influx of copied content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problem