User talk:DynaGirl/Archive 1

Generation Z
Please see the talk page regarding your Original Research statement on the Generation Z page. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:7145:1EF9:F87F:4DF9 (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn’t original research because all the references provided explicitly support the text which says that Generation Z is predominantly comprised of the children of Generation X. Please see artilce talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Generation_Z#Original_Research_2 --DynaGirl (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

help request
How can I address disruptive IP edits? I notice the page Generation Z was previously restricted so that only auto-confirmed users could edit there. That restriction was recently lifted and there has been a string of disruptive edits from multiple IPs and new accounts.--DynaGirl (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * To me this looks like a content dispute. That's no reason for page protection. If you cannot find a resolution on the talk page, see WP:Dispute resolution. Huon (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link to dispute resolution, it looks like it has a lot of good information, but this actually isn't only about that most recent IP's edits. There have been different IP's and a couple different new accounts removing sourced content, and not just sourced content I've added. Seems to be an ongoing thing.--DynaGirl (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:ElectraWoman&DynaGirl.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ElectraWoman&DynaGirl.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:DYKWYCA.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:DYKWYCA.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I added a non-free use rationale for both images using the template on that page you linked, but I did not resize images. If I understand correctly, the template you added will cause a bot to resize it automatically. Is this correct? Thanks for letting me know about this issue with the uploaded images. --DynaGirl (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello DynaGirl, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Generation Z has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the info. I will paraphrase more thoroughly or re-add that text as direct quote. However, I'm a little apprehensive to edit the article as it currently stands, because it looks like something strange has happened to the edit history. The last 30 or so edits have lines through them and are not available for view.  This includes edits of mine that had nothing to do with the recent addition, minor edits, and also the edits of multiple other editors who do not seem to have added any copyrighted material. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The copyright violations have been revision-deleted. What this does is remove from view all edits from the first insertion of copyvio to but not including the last removal of copyvio. All intervening edits have to be hidden from view, because all the intervening diffs contain the copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I added the text from: http://www2.staffingindustry.com/row/Editorial/Daily-News/India-Generation-Z-professionals-start-out-better-in-jobs-market-than-Generation-Y-37865 today at 23:57, but it looks like about 25 edits below that have been affected, including edits by multiple different editors. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The first edit that is affected is, where you added copyright content copied from http://time.com/4130679/millennials-mtv-generation/. You later added added a second copyright violation, which was the content you added from http://www2.staffingindustry.com/row/Editorial/Daily-News/India-Generation-Z-professionals-start-out-better-in-jobs-market-than-Generation-Y-37865. — Diannaa (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see that you already edited/paraphrased the text from time.com. Thank you. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Generation Z page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=724546059 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F724546059%7CGeneration Z%5D%5D Ask for help])

The Citation in the lead sentence is acceptable in the Generation Z article.
I added it because the majority say a millennial is from 1980-2000 but if generation z is 1995-present then that doesn't make sense the reason for the Gen Y/Z cusp is because 1995-1999 are apart of both generations but mostly apart of generation. While those born after 2000 are most definetly generation z. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.24.93.190 (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not say the citation was unacceptable in the Generation Z article. I asked you to please add it to the date range and defining section instead of adding this text to the lead. The dates in lead are suppose to represent what's reported in the body of the article.  Also, please be careful that the text you add matches what the source actually says as your initial contribution didn't seem supported by the reference cited. --DynaGirl (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Might have already occurred to you, but I've raised an SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/Wwwma, concerned that this IP is the same editor who was blocked for disruptive generational-cohort edits last month. --McGeddon (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I am reverting it for reasons. 1.To keep things up to date 2.Trying to get the feel of things as i'm new here. 3.I make mistakes. 4.There is still disagreement on the range. 5. Its too early to define gen z so early 2000s for now since millennials last from 1980 to early 2000s. 6. I want my privacy. 7. I am not aware of all the rules. 8. I want to keep things accurate. 9. I don't know my account name since its too lomg to remember and i just use Ip adress. 10. Want to make the reader understand such subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.24.93.190 (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Millennials
In the lead section of the Millennials article, can you change "ending dates ranging from the mid-1990s to early 2000s" to "ending dates ranging from the mid-1990s to MID-2000s"? Strauss and Howe consider the Millennials to end in 2004 (a mid 00s year), and I've seen many demographers and researchers go with their '82-'04 figure.

Also, the Gen Z article says "mid-1990s to mid-2000s as starting birth years", so I think the Millennial article should be put "in line" with the Gen Z article.--98.237.40.132 (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * User:98.237.40.132, You can make a semi-protected edit request on talk:Millennials. See WP:SEMI. Personally, I don't know if I support this change because 2004 does fall under early 2000s and its also an unusually late ending date for the cohort. The latest given and the demographer has described it as tentative. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We can debate this all we want, but I feel that 2004 is widely considered a mid-2000s year along with 2005 and 2006 (and sometimes 2003). It's definitely not early 2000s.--2601:980:8000:F92:2986:5C15:C68:5C2B (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, but the place to have that debate is talk:Millennials not my user talk page. --DynaGirl (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Commenting on my talk page is not allowed unless you have something good to say. Reply
Your reply was undone due to spam. {Wikiman8999} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman8999 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That comment wasn't spam: . Being aware of Wikipedia's talk page guidelines regarding other editors comments, specifically regarding not editing their comments to change their meaning is good advice. It's also wikipedia policy. --DynaGirl (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, DynaGirl. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit war
Hi DynaGirl, please stop WP:Edit warring on Special snowflake and see the talk page. Thanks. MHP Huck (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * MHP Huck - It is disruptive to redirect a page which was recently linked on another talk page discussion, where the discussion involves other editors being able to link to that page and see the edit history there. Others can't link there if you keep redirecting it. Can you please stop? --DynaGirl (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop what? You were the one who reversed my edit! MHP Huck (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Which you have reverted again. Please follow BRD and self revert the redirect. Your redirect has been objected to and there is no current consensus to make that redirect. Most significantly, your redirect prevents editors on talk:Generation Snowflake from being able to use the link I provided to access edit history on that page. --DynaGirl (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi DynaGirl, it seems you have violated the 3 reversion rule. Please avoid revert other peoples work just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please also edit in good faith. MHP Huck (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * MHP Huck, I have not violated 3RR, but it appears you have. I made 3 edits to that page. Your need 4 to be in violation of the 3RR. You made 4 reverts to that page in 24 hours. Your initial redirect undid the results of the AfD which was soft redirect to Wiktionary page, then when challenged, you reverted 3 more times. Honestly,  I try to make it a policy of only reverting once, but your redirect was particularly disruptive, because it made the link to that page on talk:Generation Snowflake no longer work. It now just redirects back to Generation Snowflake. There's a current active discussion regarding possibly recreating the Special snowflake article, as the AfD left that possibility open, and linking directly to that page provides easy access to edit history over there. This has nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please self-revert your 4th revert on that page.  --DynaGirl (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Keeping it cool

 * thanks! --DynaGirl (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I second that motion :) With regard to a related matter, thank you for your recent edit; I am aware of the matter, but feel under no obligation to respond. The Snowflake article was always going to be a difficult one, but I've believed from the beginning that, given time, thoughtful and careful editing will shape it into a decent form. Keri (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Generation Snowflake
Please see the closure of the complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you make any further revert that does not have a prior talk page consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , could you please specify which edits of mine were problematic on that page, so I can avoid any such mistake in the future? I believed all of my reverts were in accordance with talk page consensus and under 3RR. What would you advise i do differently next time? The page has been very disruptive and frustrating, and I would appreciate any assistance. --DynaGirl (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that both you and MHP Huck were edit warring. Huck broke 3RR and you were close to it. If both of you refrain, then the war will stop and that is the goal. A classic reason for edit warring blocks is that people refuse to wait for the talk discussion to finish but revert anyway. You may believe that your edits accord with talk page consensus but when you do so your reverts still count against 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ,I know you are busy, but can you provide diffs. I believe i only made 2 reverts to that page in past 24hrs, both in accordance with talk page consensus. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to understand what I did wrong and what I should do differently in the future, if I see an edit that goes against talk page consensus and/or against consensus of wp:rsn.  --DynaGirl (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I found four reverts by you over a 49-hour period, beginning with 02:09 on 19 December and ending at 02:36 on 21 December, though you weren't always reverting the same material. This was a pattern of edit-warring though it did not break WP:3RR. As WP:EW states: "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable." EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you but can you please take a look at the recent editing history on Generation Snowflake? After page protection was lifted, the disputed content was removed by another user in accordance with talk page consensus and also RfC. But MHP Huck has restored it again  Normally I'd revert, as this seems so clearly against consensus, but I'm trying to avoid editing that article for awhile and I don't want to get pulled into another disruptive revert war with that user. In the past, Huck has come right out and said he doesn't need consensus. I think he plans to keep reinserting this indefinitely.--DynaGirl (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I see issue has been addressed at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:MHP_Huck_reported_by_User:Keri_.28Result:_Blocked.29 . Thank you --DynaGirl (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)