User talk:Peregrine981/Archive 2

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Peregrine981! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Danny Finkleman -

Still reading . . . wish me luck
I'm still reading my books. I have a third Strauss and Howe book as well to go through (never ends). The Millennials book is so much better than the book Generation We (just awful) - annoying tone and in my opinion, lots of political bias. But I digress. I've got a lot of research for various Wiki articles, and I start classes again next week! Argh. Thanks for catching the vandalism on the Wiki pages. I just thanked someone for removing the vandalism from the Angie Harmon (my fellow Dallas native) page. There was some obscene words used. What is with some people! It's one thing to not like a celebrity, or disagree with another editor, but putting hateful messages on someone's page is disgusting! I also read somewhere on here that some editor's private information got published (have no idea how that could happen). I guess we should all watch for these types of vandals. Who has the time to vandalize so many Wikipedia pages? Don't these people ever leave their computers?--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I started school and things have been hectic. I have 3 Strauss and Howe books and am trying to pull out more page numbers and quotes. Please do not remove this information from the page. As I mentioned before and regarding the previous consensus, the dates are used because of how they are used in media. The trouble I'm having is that that particular information was mentioned in two books - which are a few hundred pages each at least. Also, the information stays on this article page because it is part of the other article pages. As it was mentioned before, Strauss and Howe are the forerunners in this research, and they are the most well known. Most universities continue to use their dates for sociology papers, etc. Some of the university links are included in the article pages. The class of 2000 is an important graduating class because of what they represent. They were the original Millennial Class. That term has never been used for the class of 1999, 1998, 1997, etc. The Baby Boomers, Silent Generation, etc. all have their dates included, so should Generation Y. It is an important part of the definition on this page when the generation is also called Millennials. A consensus was reached on how the introductions of these pages should be and in regards to definitions. There were a couple of people also trying to add sources by random authors with no experience on the subject - they were removed. A college drop-out wrote a random book (with a link to an amazon page) on generations; he had no credentials, and no background knowledge for what he wrote. His information was removed. Truthfully, it looked like a promo for the book.

So, anyway, I am probably going to add the sources and additional information later this coming Friday, February 5. I have some information to add on the Strauss and Howe pages, as well as sources to put up for other article pages. I will try to let everyone know where I am on that by Thursday night. I have the latest Strauss and Howe book on order - I think it was published 2006. Oh, and I have been finding a lot of vandals again - and I mean those putting curse words and hiding advertising (that one's new) on Wiki pages. Aren't we supposed to report it if the vandalism is excessive? I don't think administrators will put up a temporary protection unless the vandalism is every day. I could be wrong though. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Ugh! I have 5 assignments and a research presentation I'm working on for university all due Monday. The two sources I have now are the Millennium Rising book and Fourth Turning. I'll get those sources put up and a couple of quotes added. I'm still waiting on the other book since it's on back order. Oh well. I'll be adding one quote at a time, since I'm editing at the same time as well. It will have to come during my breaks from writing my papers. I will never understand how my hand hasn't been replaced by a hook yet - my fingers are cramped up from all the writing. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Citing
Hi. I was trying to contact a couple of other users on a citing question, but couldn't reach them. I've got my sources, but wanted to know where to find the info on here for formatting. I have cited all kinds of sources before in high school and university, but MLA formats have recently updated. Oh, and when you cite a source twice in one article, it shows up the same (as it's supposed to), but I just change the page numbers. Is there a way to make the citations stand out a bit better? You know, sources on Wiki pages sometimes look crowded. I admit, I don't know anything really about html.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Place Flagey and Laeken
Hi, I saw you moved the page to Place Flagey. Westermarck, the same user unilaterally moved Laeken to Laken, which goes against the consensus of the Brussels naming conventions, and stonewalled at the move request. Could you please move it back to Laeken? It's not technically possible for a non-administrator.  Oreo Priest  talk 06:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

NPA
Please redact your attack at the AfD. Fences &amp;  Windows  17:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Per, I would be the first to come to your defense if this were taken further. I watched you put up with three different assertions that you were "expecting others to do the work", that you had a lazy attitude, that you should "learn to search better", etc., before you had had enough. Mandsford 20:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologise for characterising you as 'lazy', I've struck a comment there (before seeing Mandsford's comment here). Can you please do the same? I recognise that you nominated the article with the best of intentions, but we should be able to criticise and take criticism without swearing at each other. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Millennials
Hi. I mentioned before that the Class of 2000 was always referred to as the Millennials or Millennial graduating class. Numerous articles at the time I was in high school discussed the importance of this "new generation" and mentioned the Class of 2000 as leading the way. My class, 1999, was referred to as the "last of Generation X" or the last graduating class of Generation X. This was very significant at the time the term Millennial was used and therefore belongs in the article. Most demographers, especially at universities, use 1982 birth years as the start of the Millennial Generation or Generation Y. The pages I was finally able to put up (for some reason my source wouldn't take on the page) are the most significant pages that discuss this. Although the next few pages continue the discussion, it doesn't focus on the terminology and usage of the term. I am still looking through the other two books for more pages. Anyway, the authors are the most notable researchers on generations and are always referenced by new authors cropping up. That is why they are highlighted on the generation pages. I'm sure you can find the books at the library or order them from their website. I highly recommend reading their book Generations as well. It's an interesting read. I think there is another book coming out as well, but I'm still going through The 13th Generation. Have a good Fourth of July - that is if you celebrate it. Have a good one anyway. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Generations - photos
Hi. It was a good idea to keep the page as just summaries. Thanks. I wanted to point out that there is an editor who keeps adding photos to this page, which I think is inappropriate. Photos are okay for montages showing pop culture icons, etc. on the Generation pages, but doesn't belong on this page. Also, I think it's wrong to use photos of famous people to represent a whole generation. People aren't defined by Elvis, Ronald Reagan (though I love him, too), Madonna, etc. I keep reverting this guy's edits, but I think we all should keep a watch out for any more photo ads. Thanks for your contribution. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Generation X
Peregrine I agree with your changes. Believe me I am working on getting this changed. Increasing research has coined Generation X from 1965 to 1982. Please see my discussion on the Gen X talk page. Basing generations on classes instead of CULTURE is completely inaccurate research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs) 07:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support. I hope we can all come to a mutually acceptable agreement. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Peregrine981 please let me know if you desire to partake in my study on this issue. Once completed I tend to have it peer reviewed and publish. This is a passionate issue of mine and I would like to get to the bottom of it and present accurate findings. If you would like to contribute please email me personally at genxstudy@ymail.com. Frankly I am tired of the dictatorship type of environment on Wikipedia. Its not right. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs) 22:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Changes were made because those born in late 1981 who graduated in 2000 were objecting saying sometimes 1981 is used for Y (referring to late birthdays). That is the best way to clarify who is in Generation X according to recent research without adding several date ranges and birth dates, and thereby going against the consensus and causing edit warring. Sources who use 1982 say that those who graduated in 2000, who were part of the 2000 class growing up, are the first Millennials/Y. Recent documentaries by PBS and CBS News, as well as other articles make this clarification. I have added the sources as proof. It is mentioned on the Generation Y page that the Class of 2000 is generally considered the start of the Millennials. Even though 1982 is the beginning of the Echo Boomers, those born at the tail end, who went to school with the rest of the Millennials, are considered Millennials. Several people feel the clarification is necessary, so it stays. I have the sources to back the statement, so please do not erase them again. This page is also under protection to prevent further edit warring. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peregrine981
In case you missed it, I will repeat what I said over in the Gen X page here:

/START/ Gen Y, if we are to accept a graduation year of 2000, begins in 1981, not 1982 (as falsely stated). Here’s the proof that an academic start year begins in September the previous year through to August the following year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_term

"In most countries, the academic year begins with the start of autumn and ends during the following summer."

So, are any editors going to amend the 1982 error? You know, the one that uses the blanket statement that if you’re born in 1982 you graduate in 2000? It’s false because an academic start year begins in 1981 for a graduation of 2000. And those born after September 1982 would graduate in 2001, not 2000 also.

And can anyone quote Strauss and Howe to see if they account for an academic start year beginning in September 1981 and onwards for a legitimate graduation date of 2000?

IF they did not mention 1981 as a legitimate start date, then their 'research' needs to be criticized in the main article.

IF they did mention it, then whoever has been using the blanket statement of 1982 as a start year should simply alter the dates to reflect the facts.

If we are to accept Gen Y begins with the class of 2000, then we must also accept 1981 (after September) is the real beginning, not 1982. /END/

The reason I'm making this point here is because after CreativeSoul's tactics of deleting a couple of my posts earlier, I want people (like yourself) who are interested in the TRUTH to read this and form a better judgement.

Whilst I agree that we could use rough dates, 'i.e. early 60s to late 70s etc' for Generations, the problem at the moment is trying to get the truth to come out in regards to the academic years put forward by Strauss and Howe. CreativeSoul insists they do not account for 1981 as a start year for Gen Y, yet in Wikipedia itself (I provided a link a few paragraphs up) they state an academic year begins in September of the previous year! Making 1981 the TRUE start year for those graduating in 2000!

Do you understand this basic, but fundamental point?

If you do, I'd like you to say as much in the Gen X or Gen Y discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.201.205 (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for your message. I think that the whole graduation year thing is a total red herring. It just doesn't matter, especially to Gen X. Generations are not defined by their graduation year. It will be defined by the major social trends particularly during their youth, but also throughout their lives.

In any case, there are so many educational systems and personal differences that trying to establish a strict link between birth year and graduation year in a general article like this is doomed to failure.

As far as I know Strauss and Howe do not use graduation years in their definition, except PERHAPS as one element of the name of the "Millennials"... Strauss and Howe's whole theory is based on very long term social cycles that will not be influenced by little things like a graduation date.

So, in short I understand your argument, but personally favour completely axing the reference to grad years unless we can find much more substantial sources indicating how they are important to the definition of Generation X. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the date issue IS important IF we are to accept that Gen Y'ers are defined as graduating in the year 2000. The correct date is September 1981-August 1982. This is fact and I have backed this up with a link (from Wikipedia itself ironically).

But in case you missed it, I'll say it again: I HAVE NO PROBLEM with using rough dates, like I already said. In fact, I just agreed over at the Gen X page and supported the proposal that the dates be changed.

Because Gen Y is typically associated with the rise of technology and the internet (1996 is when it really took off) I would argue that there is overlap in the early 80s. i.e. some people MIGHT identify with more Gen X but others MIGHT identify more with Gen Y, because they would only have been teenagers when the 'net became mainstream and when social networking started to take off in the form of online forums etc. In fact, I'd say more people born in the 80s would identify more with Gen Y than with Gen X, but I think it's such a tricky generation to define, that rough dates are acceptable.

..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.201.205 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Hi Peregrine981 please go to the Generation X Talk page. I am proposing that the years be changed from 1961-1981 to the early 1960s to the early 1980s because the years are still in dispute. Please state if you agree or disagree for the proposed changes, give a brief reason why and add any sources if you like. I am not asking for you to agree with me. I just want to form a consensus. Thanks! Educatedlady (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal Change for Gen Y
Hi again, please go here to read my proposal for changing the definition of Gen Y: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Generation_Y#Whole_Article_Needs_Evaluating —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.201.205 (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Generation X
There was no valid reason for re-wording the introduction of the Generation X page. I explained why the consensus was reached and the reason for the mentioning of the Class of 1999, when most media refer to the first Millennials as having graduated in 2000. This is fact, not something I just made up. The ranges were decided upon because they are the most widely used. I don't necessarily disagree on 1965 as a better start date, but 1961 is the earliest used, and the sources cover the various date ranges. Also, the consensus decided to wait, even up to a couple of years, before making a more definitive clarification underneath the broader date range. There are plenty of popular and widely used sources to back up what I'm saying, and no reliable source to back up Educatedlady. Elwood Carlson is the only published source that uses 1983 as the start of the Millennials, and he is not even widely known, nor is his research widely accepted. His reasoning is best left on the Generation Y page - which could use a reference to September 11. Saying that Generation X ended in the early 1980s can mean any year: 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, or 1984. And that is not valid. The first Millennials graduated in 2000 - it's where their name comes from, and most of those classmates were born in 1982, which coincides with the start of the Echo Boom - hence the use of Echo Boomers on the Generation Y page. Please respect the outcome of the consensus. I will continue to monitor both generation pages, and I will reinsert the Elwood Carlson information if someone removes it again. But his research doesn't belong on the Generation X page. As an additional piece of information, I was looking at sources by the U.S. Army, and they have an article on the Millennials/Generation Y. That article also mentions those first born in 1982 who graduated in 2000. So, does the U.S. Department of Labor. So, I don't know why people keep trying to further broaden the definition of Generation X - it clearly ended in 1981 with those who graduated in 1999. The Class of 2000 wasn't called "The Millenial Class" for no reason. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So Creative Soul are you saying that there is no more room for further research on this topic? If so why? Because you were born in 1981 and graduated in 1999? And everyone else's research is wrong because you say so? Educatedlady (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Generation X
Normally I don't do this, but do you mind shooting me an email at genxstudy@ymail.com? If not that's okay, I just wanted to email you some information on this gen x gen y topic. Thanks! Educatedlady (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Strauss and Howe
Hi, I agree that right now there is too much redundancy between the theory page and the Strauss and Howe page. My suggestion to remove the turnings and archetypes sections essentially merges that part of the page with the theory page since Archetypes and Turnings are explained with multiple citations there. If an official merge of the theory information would be better, I also support that.

On the biographical information, here’s what I was thinking: both Howe and Strauss have whole careers apart from their generational work that I think warrant individual biographies (for example, Strauss probably merits a Wikipedia bio solely on the basis of his career with the Capital Steps, and Howe for his career as a demographer). On the other hand, it would be awkward/redundant to repeat whole paragraphs in both bios detailing the extensive work the two did together, and the history of their twenty-year partnership. Currently Strauss and Howe’s individual bios refer briefly to their work together in the context of the larger career of each, and readers are referred to the Strauss and Howe page for a detailed history of the authors’ long partnership and summaries of their books. The partnership history and book summaries are unique to the Strauss and Howe page, and therefore reduce redundancy, in my opinion. With my proposed edits, this page would be much shorter and more concise than it is now, and focused on this specific topic.

Just wanted to share my thought process on this page. Please let me know what you think. Corenabh (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and advice. As I think about it, it seems to me that it would be pretty confusing to put the history of the partnership into the theory page. The Strauss-Howe Generational Theory page is a detailed description of sociological and historical trends and theory. Adding biographical partnership and works info to this feels off-topic, and above all, the information would be lost in the theory for those who are looking for it. The editor CreativeSoul7981 suggested that having a separate Strauss and Howe page for author’s works would be beneficial as they plan to link to it from other generation pages. I am interested in what others think about the usefulness of this page. Assuming we keep this page, I would also love some input on the best way to remove the repetitive theory and bio information. Is it better to merge it or delete it? Thanks again for your help. Corenabh (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience
I appreciate your patience. I am feeling much better since last week--still a bit sick, but no fever. My doctor said I got the really bad virus that had been going around here. This is the first time in years that I've been unable to get out of bed when sick. I wouldn't wish this on anyone. I'll post everything on my page by tomorrow and Friday evening, and respond to the rest of the comments on the appropriate talk pages. I had posted something earlier last week, but I'm not sure if it's my computer or Wikipedia, but none of my comments showed up on my talk page. I will include as many links as possible, but some sources come from a database or print, so I will provide the author names and page numbers. Let me know if you have trouble opening pdf files. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have answered some of your old comments, but still adding and responding to your others. From what I have gathered, you have agreed with me that 1981 is a common ending date for Generation X and I have compromised on the wording of the article, but Educatedlady insists on using 1982 as the "usual" ending for the generation - which is blatantly false. I have shown that most noteworthy sources, including the Australian Census Bureau, Canadian Millennial Conference, and a variety of respected sources from the U.S., Canada, Germany, Ireland, U.K., and Australia use 1982 as the start of the Millennials. Even the source provided by Educatedlady (Jackson) said that though there are no definite dates for generations, most sources cite 1961 as the earliest and 1981 as the latest for Generation X. Most people (and sources) would agree with this assessment, despite there being no definite time frames. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think our discussion got moved back to the talk page. I asked the editor why he did this, and I'm waiting on a response. I didn't know others could move discussions off your own talk page. Oh well. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why I was not included or contacted in the discussion and why this was removed from the talk page to creative's page. I am not fighting to use 1982 as an end year in the introduction. My suggestion was to remove all references to years in the intro and place them later in the article. Thanks. Educatedlady (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey no problem. I wasn't accusing you of excluding me. I was merely trying to find out what happened. Creative had stated a couple of times, that discussion and mediation were going on, and I kept asking her where because it wasn't on the talk page, but she didn't respond to me. I asked an administrator if a consensus could take place outside of a talk page and he stated yes. He did some research and found the discussion on CS's page. Everything is cool with me. I am not trying to be the difficult one here. Again I think all references to years in the intro should be removed and that includes 1982 as well, because different people feel they belong to different generations. Have a great evening! Hope to speak to you soon. Educatedlady (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Panorama Kings 2.jpg
Much appreciated if you could confirm this is your own work, so it can be moved to Commons.

BTW I strongly suggest checking/updating other uploads you'e made :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Image:Habsburg Flag.png
Hey, Nice image! I've made a SVG version of the flag (Image:Flag of the Habsburg Monarchy.svg) and listed your PNG for speedy deletion. On it's talk page i've given you credit as the original uploader.

Proposed deletion of Marcel Zanini


The article Marcel Zanini has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four ♣ ← 19:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection Status
So you did not want to remove the protection status at all? Not even go to semi so we can edit? Educatedlady (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award
For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award. (Explanation and Disclaimer) ♠  TomasBat   20:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

just to let you know
Creativesoul has no reworded the generation x with more 1961-1981 dates. She added dates for canada and australia. I really dont know what to do with this user. 75.148.160.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC).

To anonymous: All my sources are valid and based on reliable sources. I have used official Australian Statistics. Stop trying to start an argument. You have no basis to remove my edits. The previous version of the Canada section was too definitive. I have sources to back up my claims, and they are also sources to support the dates on the Generation Y article page. These also include the official Canadian government tourism statistics, and the official Millennium Conference in Canada. If you remove my sources, I will take this up with an administrator. I have left the introduction of Generation X alone, and even included the Elwood Carlson source, as well as sources using earlier start dates for Generation Y on the article's page. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to say that I dont want to work on the article. I am looking at interest in other pages. I am tired of the debate on the page. 75.148.160.76 (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I was cleared by administrators by your accusations and was told that you could find yourself blocked if you brought such unfounded charges against me again. The administrators don't have a problem with my edits. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Generation X article
Link below to the article's Talk page CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ottawa images
Hello Peregrine981! Thank you for uploading a lot of Ottawa images. May I ask you, if you have time, to move at least some of them to the Commons, otherwise they cannot be used in articles about Ottawa in other languages. I've just started to do so using this bot, but there's still a lot of work ahead. --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

UOJComm (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Generation pages - Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for keeping an eye on the generation pages. We may disagree over the date issue, but I support keeping the article's current wording until another consensus is reached or if administrator's agree to change the wording. We may need to notify Educatedlady as well in case another editor questions how the statement "usually no later than" can be proved (regardless of the year, 1982). CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that is where another consensus may be needed, which is why I supported using the early 1960s to early 1980s as the intro to the article. This would cut down on the number of disputes leaving room to work on other areas of the article. This date drama has been going on for years now, so maybe we should look at alternatives. But I really would like to work on other areas of the article. Educatedlady (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Divorced Generation
Hi. A quick question to make sure I'm keeping up: Why is an editor adding "divorced generation" to Generation X? I am well aware of many children of this generation being impacted by divorce, but I have never seen a credible source use that label. Am I wrong? I think EducatedLady brought this up as well. Also, I have found some more sources to add to the current discussion. I think some even mention Generation Y/Millennials, so maybe we'd be able to use them as references for both articles. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Layton Pics
Hello. I was wondering if you had more pictures from Layton's procession in Ottawa. I was actually part of the honor guard, and I would love to see more pictures of that. Thanks! DarkFireTaker (talk —Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

That would be kind, thank you! I received that opportunity by serving with the Ceremonial Guard in Ottawa. I am a part-time member of the Canadian Forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkFireTaker (talk • contribs) 20:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

legal time v. local mean time maps
Hi,

i like your maps of legal time v. local mean time (ie. . I was wondering if you coudl share your source for them because I am interested in doing some further research. Thanks! Peregrine981 (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The source I used is the IANA Time Zone Database, I added this info to the image description page as well. Good luck with your research! · Naive cynic · 21:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
Hi. When you recently edited Villo!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flagey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Offence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Generation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cohort (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Venstre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specifically, it's this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject
I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do: Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech
 * 1) List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech.
 * 2) Add userbox User Freedom of speech to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
 * 3) Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 4) Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 5) Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thanks for your peer review of Lee Choon Seng!
I have made significant changes to the article and would appreciate a review of the new version. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi. Since you gave comments on articles that are currently listed at WP:PR, I was wondering if you could give some helpful comments to Peer review/Cher/archive1? Thanks, Lordelliott (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Generation article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation

Could you help with an edit over on the Generation article? If you look under Gen Z -- for some reason the references are listed under the term Gen Z as bullet points instead of references with a number (attached). I dont know why this can happen. Also, the sentence "The earliest birth is generally dated somewhere between 1989 and the early 2000s" has disappered in the edit box. Is this a programming glitch? Thank you. Media67 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

PR?
Please see question at Peer review/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/archive2. --Noleander (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2000 UEFA Cup Final riots, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:UEFA 2000 riots
Thanks, I have had a look for foreign sources for galatasaray reaction but I can't seem to find much on it, I checked some Turkish papers but there wasn't a lot more than what is already in there. When I get time I'll have a go at adding some more on the Leeds semi. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Latham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dossier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

General generations page
Hi, could you please fix the spacing issue on the general Generation page -- under the Gen Y catagory. Also, there are too many irrelevant articles under that paragraph. Its poorly written too. Could you look at it? Media67 (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. You're right, there was an absolutely insane number of articles, many from dubious sources (ie.. furniture today, pharmaceutical talent journal etc) I have cut the huge bulk of them. I don't think it is necessary to cite nearly so many, especially in that overview article, but even in the main article. It makes it very difficult to edit. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Your mistake
You made a mistake by writing that I removed another editor's comment on the Gen Y talk page. I copy and pasted that comment (on the Gen Y talk page -- under "Page should be called "Millennials", not Gen Y" to show you other editor's (previous) views on changing the page name from "Gen Y" to "Millennials". The only thing removed was my own copy and paste comment which is within policy -- especially if it doesn't make sense to the discussion. So please change your erroneous edit to reflect truthfully what happened. This is the comment that you claimed was erased from the Gen Y talk page:


 * "Also, people born in the 70s are most definitely Gen Xers. All of the cited articles/books for the 1970s birth start date are old, and more accurately refer to the later cohort of gen xers who were emerging at the time. Someone born in 1976 was 18 when Nevermind came out... how is that not Gen X? 99.234.70.158 (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)"

The ORIGINAL comment (above) was and still is in it's original place on the talk page -- untouched. See the section titled "Page should be called "Millennials", not Gen Y".

Our subsequent discussion on the Gen Y talk page took place under a different section titled "Page Name --- "Gen Y" or "Millennials"?

See your mistake edit at: 09:45, 16 January 2013 (diff | hist). . (+349)‎ . .Talk:Generation Y ‎ (Undid revision 533260246 by Media67 (talk) - not proper etiquette to erase others' comments on talk pages unless they are clearly inappropriate) (top)

ALSO, please notify the editor on their talk page when you make a claim like this.Media67 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Generation Y, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cover story (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Buddhas of Bamiyan
Fine, but references please. Johnbod (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Moon-eyed people
You mention academic articles about them, can you give me the details? I've also asked Til about the 'whole chapters' as we've been discussing sources for several days and this is the first I've heard him mention whole chapters. So far the sources he and I have been specific about have had at the most only a few sentence. Thanks.Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Heads up
Given your recent message to UrbanNerd regarding his incivility, you may be interested in my raising of his behaviour at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atlanticism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Realists (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atlanticism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page G 6 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Suresh 5 (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a thread on the talk page. Discuss it.
Bring up your concerns on the article talk page. I opened a thread at the time of my changes. Do not blindly revert without comment or discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=565869674 your edit] to The Young Turks may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 25 March 2012 |language=Armenian |trans_title=Lusardzak - Yerithayuhin}} born July 7, 1986 is the American co-host and producer for the online news show ''[[The Young

Disambiguation link notification for July 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sex at Dawn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blogger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that
Be ready for circular reasoning, consensus trumps every policy and guideline, personal attacks, and pretty much the bottom four in this.--Otterathome (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ana Kasparian
Your constant reverting on Ana Kasparian looks like edit warring. As you made the first "bold" edit to redirect and were then "reverted", it is you who must "discuses" your changes on the talk page and gain consensus. As far as I can see there is no consensus to redirect on the talk page at the moment. Consider this a warning, if you continue to revert I will report you and you may be blocked from editing. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Thanks! Let me know if you have any problems. Peregrine981 (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries; I've not seen any evidence of recent edit-wars so shouldn't have any problems, but I'll pop back if I do. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much User:Baffle gab1978. That is enormously helpful. I am on holiday at the moment, but will look into moving the article forward in September. Best wishes, Peregrine981 (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries; have a good holiday and I hope your FA nom goes well. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Downton Abbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Counterpunch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=574071709 your edit] to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Pig person.jpg|thumb|right|This picture of a French pig-squealing contest

October 2013
Hi Peregrine981, could you help me understand if it's a legit block -- on my talk page please? Thank you. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Social Democrats (Denmark) logo.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Social Democrats (Denmark) logo.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Millennial Gen talk page
Hi, Could you help with an issue on the Millennial Gen talk page please? At the end of the discussion about "requested name change" from "Millennials" to "Millennial Generation" only one other editor finally realized that we must follow the policy about title pages. I think it's important. In fact, at the top of the requested move inside the instruction box it says "Remember to base arguments on article title policy".

The editor wrote "Strong oppose. "Millenials" is precise, natural, concise, and recognizable. Four out of five. Consistency is no match for the other four combined. Red Slash 03:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)"

However, Red Slash editor doesn't answer the policy requirements at all, other than saying it is so.

The instructions at the top are clear "A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics":

(1) Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize. (2) Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject  is actually called in English. (3) Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (4) Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (5) Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles.

Article titles are important and given that this article gets between 60k to 80k hits per week, it's significant. I don't think it's wasting admins time to look at it.

Could you help by:

(A) Asking some senior admins who care about Wikipedia and understand policy to get involved

(B) Requesting an extension of time before the request expires

(C) Pointing out to the group that consensus on Wikipedia isn't a small group of 4 or 5 editors deciding amoungst themselves that they want to do something outside of policy because they achieved "consensus".

Thank you for your time. 128.125.62.76 (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure I follow exactly what your request is. Why not discuss on the page itself? There is no need to involve "senior admins", unless there is something I'm missing. As long as legitimate discussion is ongoing, I don't think that the discussion will be closed. What precisely is your problem with Red Slash's reasoning? I don't think that "millennials" is the best name for the article, but I can see that under the prioritization of naming conventions that exist, it may be the best available title. The only really strong argument against it is the consistency criteria. All the other criteria do arguably point to "millennials", which is why I've largely given up on "millennial generation". However, I do think Millennials is a stupid title, so if you want to give me some reasons why those criteria do not apply, please do, and I'll see if we can make a coherent argument... thanks for your interest. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Chris19231 and "his" images
Chris19231 is a liar and forger. is not his own as he wrote but. and are not his own but copyright violation. I added the source of this images in commons and requested speedy deletion. This images were always deleted see. It seems to me me that Chris19231 should be warned and / or blocked. Thanks --Frze > talk  14:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk: Peregrine 981
Thanks for your engagement on the page. I saw your comment in the history about speakers:"The given citation does not support this extensive list of attendees. really there should be a source for each, though it isn't that important. Laundry lists of speakers from old conferences are surely not that interesting." Have added speakers from the recent conference, with relevant citations, which is relevant and topical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallego2012 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * good stuff! Peregrine981 (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)