User talk:Peregrine981/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Space Seperators

Hi Peregrine981 :) One little thing, you don't need to use _ as space-seperators in [[] links. You can use spaces, and they look much nicer that way :) Dysprosia 23:15 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind Peregrine981 02:23, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Technical problems km2

Hi. Why are you changing the format in country articles such as South Africa from "km2" to "km2" and from "m2" to "m2"? --snoyes 21:26, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is a very good question. I haven't done so intentionally, but it seems to happen when I make an edit. All I did for South Africa was to insert the Danish wiki link, and a side effect seems to have been the m2 change. I suppose this has to do with some sort of technical character set problem that I am unaware of. Sorry for the inconvenience, I would appreciate any advice on how to prevent this problem.

Peregrine981 23:32, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's still happening. What browser are you using? --User:Docu

I am using IE 5.0 for mac. I have recently been led to believe that this will cause problems with UTF-8 text, but I don't know why it causes trouble on the english wikipedia. I also have mozilla, so maybe I should just use that when on wikipedia. Peregrine981 01:33, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi

Nice to still see you working here after so many months, even if mostly at the Danish wiki. I spend some time at teh French one and it reminds me of what the English encyclopedia was like when I first arrived, with many gapping holes, but also much easier to find a non-specific topic to work on. So I understand the 981, but why the Peregrine? - SimonP 20:02, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

---

Sociobiology

Nice work on Sociobiolgy. Have you read Ullica Segerstrale's Defenders of the Truth? orthogonal 00:46, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I have read "Defenders of the Truth." I have been consulting it for my update on that page, although I fear I still haven't done the controversy full justice. Its an improvement, but there's still work to be done. Especially in clarifying the scientific objections. PS, what's the etiquette on posting these discussions? Do I post on my discussion page in response to your question, or on your page? Peregrine981 00:56, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think probably on the page where user you're responding to posted. (But for personal messages, you're right, it's a toss-up. I've done what you've done, ans posted "courtesy copies" on the other user's talk page, but it's probably unnecessary if the other use has selected "watch this page" when posting the comment) Also, it tends to be convention to indent each follow-up post. orthogonal 01:03, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for applying my suggested update to Sociobiology; I agree it reads much better now. In case you missed seeing it, note my expansion of the NB section at the end of Naturalistic fallacy. -- Alan Peakall 18:16, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Billede:Cetina-omis-croatia.jpg

I was wondering, is da:Billede:Cetina-omis-croatia.jpg fair use or public domain or what? I'd like to make a page about Omiš on en.wiki and copy it there... --Shallot 20:41, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Sorry for deleting one of your votes on Article of the Week, don't know how that happened! TPK 14:43, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, your vote concerning Media:Sun SOHO image.jpg

I see a vote signed by you under that image, but there is no indication of Support or Oppose. Since the voting is "tight" on that one, I'd like to see as many votes as possible one way or the other! Thanks! - Bevo 03:08, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

The pictures seem to have turned out quite well. - SimonP 22:22, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Yes that is the church. - SimonP 23:59, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

---

Speaking of your pictures, for some reason I can't see any of them, and after I go to a page that has one of your pictures, I cant see any pictures of any kind unless I open IE again. I really find that odd. Earl Andrew 18:40, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The picture on your user page works, but the others just pretend their downloading. I'll try a different computer to see if they work. Thanks anyways. Earl Andrew 20:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Instead of just taking out that paragraph (which happens to be true for most pre-industrial societies most of the time) on the Hobbesian nature of pre-industrial society you could have added another one qualifying it and stating the nature of the exceptions or you could have done an amalgalm. Right now, you have just impoverished Wikipedia. If you do not have the time to explain why there are or were exceptional pre-industrial societies with regular food surpluses and how they manage (the ones I know about had extensive canal systems and ingenious manpowered equipment in addition to exceptional pre-industrial agricultural techniques) the right thing to do is to put back exactly what you took out. AlainV 06:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are many debatable issues around industrialisation and around the industrial revolution, which started in England in the 18th century and is still going on around us. But the question of chronic famine and scarcity in pre-indutrial societies is not one of those. Specialists in the History of Technology agree that pre-industrial societies (like the Netherlands in the 17th and 18th centuries, and certain parts of China for certain centuries here and there, and a few others) who managed to beat the cycle of famines were rare exceptions. Like wise, they agree that industrialised economies who have regular famines like present-day North Korea (or Stalinist Russia and a few others) are extremely rare exceptions. If you know economic historians or historians of technology who hold the opposite view please put them in the references, and state their views in the body of the text. And while you are at it please put back the paragraph you have taken out (or rephrase a better one taking into account the nuances which, I agree, are missing from the original) because it represents the view of most (if not all) the specialists in this domain, such as Bernal, Derry, Hobsbawm, Kranzberg, Landes, Pursell (whose references you will find at the bottom of the artcile) and many others. AlainV 05:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

about Talk:Yoko Ono

Someone has posted a legitimate concern about your entry on the Yoko Ono page that you have put the content about the feud bet'n Paul and Yoko without giving any references, so the credibility is questionable. Can you please respond to that. If you have a good reference to that text it would be great if you add a reference link there. Please respond to this on the Talk:Yoko Ono page. Spundun 22:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Suicide

Something seems to have gone radically wrong after your edits to this and the last part of the article has fallen off the cyber cliff! As a newbie I am guessing that the article reached the limit and dropped the end. That means the reorganisation I discussed in the talk page is now critical. I have been able to add the end of the older version to your current version but the whole article will need to be split pretty soon. --CloudSurfer 08:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am starting to get an idea of the way things work here now. The 32K limit is obviously notional and not a real restriction. Given that, I am less interested in breaking up the article. There are many articles that exceed this arbitrary limit and suicide might as well be one of them. There must have been some glitch to drop the last part of the article so I wouldn't worry about it. I guess it points out that it is worth checking the entire article to make sure it looks OK. All the best.--CloudSurfer 20:14, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I came across this article on "How to edit an article so long that you can't edit". It explains how some browsers truncate long articles which may well have been what happened to you. It goes on to say how you should upgrade your browser. Hope this works for you. --CloudSurfer 18:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It seems the article comitted suicide Rich Farmbrough

Photos

YOu have uploaded some great photos "released under GNU". Is this [[GFDL}}? If so I'll tag them as such. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough 15:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) OK I've done what I can find (I thought there were more), including some fair use and noncommercial but there are some queries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:K%F8gebyvaaben.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Swissair-md11-hb-iwp.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Habsburg_Flag.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Afr.jpg (I have labelled this Public Domain, but I'm not sure.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Schildoh.png

As you probably know, noncommercial pix will not make the cut for the Mandrake distro of wikipedia, and will in time need replacing.

Rgds, Rich Farmbrough 09:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vestigial organ

Thanks for the link to the Furlow/Thornhill Psychology Today article on female orgasm, mentioning Gould's thesis that the clitoris (and by extension, its function) are vestigial. xoddam

and the edit citing references on orgasm. "Weasel words"! Hmph ;-) xoddam 23:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Weird coincidence

It's the weirdest thing. I am new to Wikipedia, but find it very cool and have been browsing around and even made a few edits here and there, mostly minor ones. So today I decided to click on a username, just to see what would happen.

Since I work for Peregrine Systems, I somehow decided to click on your name, Peregrine981, and found... Someone who has lived in both Canada and Denmark - just like me. We even both lived in Ottawa! What are the chances of that?? You haven't also lived in the UK, have you? :)

Anyway, I just wanted to say Hi! :)

Speaking of which, I made some minor edits to your Old Ottawa South article. I suspect we're both residents. I'm on Glen. User:Paul From Ottawa

-- amertner 21:53, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CSB reminder

If you nominate or vote for an article, this is taken as a commitment to contribute to it This fortnight, the Second Sudanese Civil War is the CSB collaboration of the fortnight.- Xed 08:34, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nice work on the Andong article

Hi, just noticed your work on the Andong city article. Nice job!

I'm a fellow expat EFL teacher, living way out in the sticks in Mungyeong-si. I'd like to bring all the S. Korean city/county articles up to the standard you've done for Andong (or maybe even higher). I hope our paths will cross again.

Cheers,

Visviva 15:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CSB

Hello, how are things in Korea? Are you still interested in redesigning the main page of Countering systemic bias? I think a redesign would be a great idea. Personally I feel the focus of the page should be much more on what can be done to correct CSB. I also feel that the various areas in which systemic bias exists are different enough that it might be a good idea to have subpages for each of the major ones. E.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias - geography could include a discussion of the cause of the geographical bias, an analysis of its extent, proposed solutions, and a list of open tasks. - SimonP 16:13, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your ideas but I understand your hesitation. CSB seems to be plagued by interpersonal disputes, which adds an extra layer of difficulty to everything.

One thing I did the other day was compare the relative coverage of Canada and Nigeria in Wikipedia to other encyclopedias. Wikipedia had 27 times as many article that mentioned Canada as Nigeria. Encarta has a 19 to 1 ratio, for Columbia it was 12 to 1 and for Britannica it was 5 to 1. Category:Nigeria and its sub-categories has 98 articles. For Category:Canada the number is too high to count but is certainly several thousand. - SimonP 04:27, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

A test page would be a good place to start. - SimonP 04:37, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I started a test CSB geography sub-page at User:SimonP/Geography.

Good improvements to the geography page. It is still not perfect but I am fine with others seeing it. - SimonP 15:55, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

CSB Geography

Is the Geography section a new section or a replacement for 'Developing World'? Or should they be merged? Is the top list going to replace the bottom list on CSB? I'm confused. - Xed 14:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject SK Cities & Counties

Hi again,

I've put up a very rough draft of a WikiProject page to work on South Korean cities & counties: Wikipedia:WikiProject South Korean counties and cities. Please drop by, and feel free (of course) to monkey with it. Any help you can give is much appreciated. --Visviva 16:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bog bodies/people

Thanks for the note on the controversy. The evidence seems to favor "bog body" as the more technical description, but both terms clearly refer to the same thing. In fact I hadn't heard the "bog people" term until this recent merge... by joining the two perhaps you have united two separate lines of research! --Pontifex 18:22, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Image:ArgyleSteetHalifax.jpg

Hi. The image Image:ArgyleSteetHalifax.jpg you uploaded is invalid (length = 0 bytes). Either re-upload the image or mark for deletion by adding {{delete}}. Thanks. RedWolf 05:51, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Notice the missing "r": Steet instead of Street. RedWolf 00:58, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Danish parliamentary election, 2005

Good work :). Thue | talk 15:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Korea

Please see Talk:List of military occupations -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Folketinget.dk

Hi,

thanks for your work in uncovering the exact licence of pics from folketinget's website. Do you think that we can assume that old pictures are also covered by the PD licence? For example, the older pic of Anders Fogh Rasmussen originally came from the website, can we label it PD?

PS. thanks for the encouragement you sent my way a month or two back! Thanks for all your hardwork.

Peregrine981 03:25, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Actually the image comment at Image:Afr300.jpg says "coutesy Danish Foreign Ministry", which is a different website. I asked the webmaster of folketinget.dk, and he said we would have to ask each ministry about their copyright policy. Thue | talk 08:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Meetup

Hey there! I wanted to invite you to join the Ottawa Wikipedia Meetup. We meet once a month, the first was today, and we compare notes on Wikipedia, etc. So stop on by the website, and find out more! --Spinboy 23:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's really cool. I got the impression you lived in Ottawa from the vast amount of photos you have! Also if you're interested, we've started a WikiProject Ottawa. --Spinboy 03:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Email Message

Hi, did you get my email message? – J M Rice 21:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image Copyrights

Look . . . I'm going to be perfectly honest with you. For one thing, I haven't even logged in to Wikipedia for months now because of school work and other hobbies. Before, when I actively edited on Wikipedia, I uploaded a lot of images that were probably not in the PD or Fair Use or anything. So, being honest, just about every image I have uploaded I am unsure of the status of it. If you must, feel free to have them all deleted. However, this summer, when I start using Wikipedia again, I promise I will replace all the originals with new better ones that I swear will be allowed to be displayed here. Sorry for the trouble, MattSal 15:28, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright redux

If the person took the picture or has otherwise contacted teh original creator, then yes. Otherwise, no. Burgundavia 02:52, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Causes of WWI

The Okhranka-Black Hand link I beleive can be made. It is however not very well known since the Okhrana went out of business and didn't really survive WWI, so investigators have tended to ignore it. Google search yields only this reference [1], and that author appears to have a good understanding. In wiki User:Mikkalai might be a good source to ask for assistance. Will get to work on your sources. Nobs 15:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Commons images

OK, thanks for commenting! I will mention creation information when uploading images here for now. When I have enough time, I will put these information in the images that I already uploaded. Leslie ^Msg 03:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Automatic Archival Notification

Hi, by the suggestion of User:Radiant!, I am in the progress of programming a bot that will remove any project listed within Category:WikiProjects, and place {{inactive}} at the top of the page should the page has not been edited within a period of 6 months and the discussion page has not been edited for 2 months. If you have any objections, please let me know on my userpage. This notification is because you have a WikiProject that resides on your own User space. As I prefer not to touch people's user spaces, I would very much like your input in the matter. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page: User:Peregrine981/Testing2 has the category Category:WikiProjects. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Morten Frost image

Hi, thanks for the reminder on the copyright. I have emailed DBF (www.badminton.dk) were the image was found. Hopefully they will ok it or I'll have to take it down. --SVTCobra 21:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They haven't gotten back to me yet. Please take a look at what I did at the image [[2]] and let me know what you think. Did I go overboard? --SVTCobra 22:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CAP, moved paragraphs.

Hi, wanted to ask why you moved the two paragraphs in common agricultural policy up to the objectives section. I did not write it, but the original objectives section seems to be a short summary of the official original objectives of the CAP. The piece you have moved is a rather more detailed description of just one aspect of it. Possibly an aspect which the original creaters of the CAP did not really intend.

If you really want to expand on the 'objectives' section then you would need to put much more in it about all the objectives. In fact, much of what is in the other sections below. You would end up with half the article in that one section. The piece you moved is really not an official central plank of the CAP, which is much more straightforwardly aimed at shovelling money into farmers pockets so they do not go bust. Even after recent reforms.

What do you think about putting it back?Sandpiper 22:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wel, critique originally read criticisms and did not have a balancing advantages or whatever. It was a very negative article. Tried to rearange it and give a rounded account for and against in each heading under critique. Which is not to say that I believe all the negative figures currently in that section. They are probably correct in principle, but exact amounts are rather subject to change as conditions change. Also depending on how you count things... Thanks for getting back.Sandpiper 08:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to critique but I don't really like it as a title. Don't know exactly what is good form here , so I just put something which was better than what was there before. I am getting bolder at editing.Sandpiper 12:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello again

Good to see your edits in Korea-related articles again. I just wanted to invite you over to the notice board for Korea-related topics. Also, I'm going to try to breathe some life back into the SK Counties & Cities Wikiproject... stay tuned. Happy editing! -- Visviva 16:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month

Dear WikiProject South Korean counties and cities member,

Starting this July, we will work to get one article as close to featured article status as possible. Please please please please please help! Below is the information message for this collaboration. Feel free to post it on your user page. Cheers! -- Visviva 06:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The current collaboration of the month for WikiProject South Korean counties and cities is Gyeongju. Please help bring it up to Featured Article standard.

Calvin & Hobbes

Hi, I see you originally voted for the removal of featured article status for Calvin and Hobbes. There has been an attempt to address your concerns by adding more references. I was hoping you take have a moment to review (and hopefully change) your vote, or give feedback on how the article can be further improved. -- Norvy (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration again

Hello Peregrine981,

This is just to let you know that voting is open in the vote for August collaboration. Nominations also welcome, of course. Please drop by if you have time. I've started us off with three cities in the southwest, in the spirit of countering systemic bias. Cheers! -- Visviva 13:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

commons:Image:2004-tsunami.jpg

The original uploader was user:Etxrge to the Swedish Wikipedia, so you should ask him or mail the mysterious mr Rydvik. On the image's FPC page, Etxrge claimed that the location was Khao Lak. --Salleman 10:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: In the media

Your sister and the rest of the gang were over last night and she told us you had been sent a copy of the article. It's unfortunate that the article is in the pay section of the Citizen web site, so most Wikipedians are unable to read it. Feel free to add it to the Wikipedia in the media section. I would have done so myself, but the article is so gushing it would have been somewhat immodest. - SimonP 12:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Halifax and HRM

Hey there, Halifax, Nova Scotia and Halifax Regional Municipality have been merged, moved, re-written. I saw your post on HRM talk and if you can, your views and more importantly edits would be appreciated.WayeMason 23:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Vasco da Gama

An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 02:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

You moved "Farum municipality" to "Farum Municipality"

Hi Peregrine981. You just made an article name change by moving "Farum municipality" to "Farum Municipality". Were you actually thinking about moving the other 270 articles to new names also? Or was only this one municipality targetted. If you are not planning on moving all the other municipalities, so that we can achieve some consistency, then I would suggest that this be moved back. Personally I am not in agreement with this name change at all. So before you go any further, can we please discuss this. There might also be others that have an opinion on this subject. SFDan 14:08, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Based on what you wrote me we do not have any difference of opinion on this subject! I thought you moved "Farum municipality" to "Farum Municipality", and my objection was over the capital M starting Municipality (and it still is an objection, since all the others are spelled with a small m). So, I will move the article to "Farum municipality" and it will consistent with the others. As for converting all the names to include the word municipality at the end of the article name-- its not top on my list of priorities, but when possible I do so, and I have already done so with a couple here and there. My first priority is seeing that all kommuner have articles of a decent standard, and in a basic format that can be expanded upon. Thanks.SFDan 14:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada#Nova_Scotia page as living in or being associated with Nova Scotia. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Nova Scotia for instructions.--Rmky87 05:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

E. O. Wilson

I have reverted the para you have just added, because it just trails off and is not complete. Can you check what you intended? Noisy | Talk 10:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Richard Parker

Hi- I saw your first edit on Richard Parker and was intrigued and so googled and found the Yan Martel interview and started writing an expanded version and went to save and saw you had expanded on it also, but went ahead and saved. Didnt mean to steal your thunder so to speak, feel free to change/edit anything. Thanks. --Stbalbach 04:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

NS Communities Project...

Would you like to join the Nova Scotia Wikipedia project I am about to start with PlasmaEast? We are planning on launching a NS Community templates for Counties, Towns/Municipalities, and HRM, similar to the template that started appearing this week on county pages Halifax County, Nova Scotia. Also, have a bi-weekly "Nova Scotia Project Page" to focus efforts. Interested?WayeMason 11:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Corel Centre

Thanks for the comment about the Corel Centre. I would appreciate it enormously if you could incorporate this information into the article itself. (Which had incidentally been vandalized in recent weeks without being recognized). Cheers, Peregrine981 01:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Will do, if I can source it properly. Thanks. Skeezix1000 22:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

do you agree

with [3]? i ask because i want to transfer the picture to commons and it is not clear wether you meant GPL or GFDL. please confirm the GFDL. thx --BLueFiSH ?! 21:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

thx for the fast answer! best regards --BLueFiSH ?! 22:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

be careful with moves

Wrt your Nicolai Grundtvig move recently: I am trying to clean up but please be a little more careful next time. -- Egil 20:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad Drawings

What-Up dude, hey why did you revert to "Former Danish ambassadors critisize the Danish Prime for" instead of "Danish Prime Minister" and to "The Egyptian parliament encourages to boycott Danish products" from "The Egyptian parliament encourages boycotting Danish products"

I think the other way is better, less confusing. Unless there is some difference between a 'Prime' and 'Prime Minister' Peace --M4bwav 03:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool, maybe I read the changelog wrong, or something else happened.--M4bwav 03:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Good addition about Irshad Manji! Could you cite where she said that? Also the second second isn't grammatically correct, needs a subject. Ehlkej 02:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Check out [[4]] I would cite it like the "Web sites and articles" Its okay if the URL will change -- its better to at least documents the reference at the time than have no reference. In the future, I'd use non-pay reference if possible, but its okay to use pay references. After all, people cite books that you have to buy all the time.

You were accused of vandalism

I think it was a false accusation. What's up with Netscott anyway? [5] PaxTerra 06:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing of the such occurred! The edit comment was (Vandalism?) but it was a quick question without any research. This explains it a bit better. Netscott 06:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wallace Stevens

Because you have edited the article, you are invited to participate in an Editors Poll on the Wallace Stevens discussion page. --Halcatalyst 18:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Anthropology of Sleep

Thank you for your contribution in the sleep article. It was a great addition, and a subject that many people are not aware of.

MrSandman 15:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Economy of Africa

Hi, you were a contributor to this article, which is on the verge of being delisted as a FA. Can you return to help? Urgently requires inline citations and enhanced information in a few places. It's been copy-edited nicely by Peirigill. Tony 04:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Maraba Coffee

Hello! As you're a Wikipedian interested in African topics, I'm writing to notify you that the Maraba Coffee article is now a 'Featured Article Candidate'. Please feel free to evaluate the article and write your support or opposition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Thanks — SteveRwanda 15:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Quebec bashing

Greetings, fellow wikipedian, friend. Thank you for helping on Quebec bashing.

On English Canadian reaction: With regret, I feel we cannot imply an outrage of equal proportion in English Canada, for the simple sake of information and cold truth. One might feel it is close to it, but it is not quite the exact situation. What has seemed to be apparent is that before the Wong incident, for more than a decade, in English Canada, little attention to the idea and sometimes a deafening silence have been observed (and many comments in the deletion debate have seemed to corroborate this). That is probably attributable in a major part to simple unawareness of it. But, even if it is your firm opinion that, as English Canadians, it is to be denounced (which I would fraternally salute), it sadly can't be translated to the article only because of that. I feel stating something similar to "it has seen criticism in English Canada as well" is on the track to a right compromise, although we could try to find a better word than "criticism", perhaps a bit stronger. I agreed to put that phrase because: there was indeed political reaction in the cases of Jan Wong and Late Night with Conan O'Brien, they cannot be denied, and the comments section of Jan Wong's article on the Globe, and Mail internet website had criticism (but also approval).

On Mordecai Richler: I denote many problems with the option of excising the major part of Richler's section to put it into his actual article. On Richler's article, we now have more on the Quebec controversy than Richler himself and his work as an author of fiction. I have usually followed the rule of not making a controversy swallow up a biography article; it seems unfair. This is the approach that was adopted for Jan Wong's article, where the controversy is the sum-up, and the whole story external. Also, we now have copied (i.e. identical) text in both articles, which rarely looks good for Wikipedia, in my humble opinion. And do keep in mind that the text will be much harder to control on Richler's article, where even more people will frown upon such a representation. On the Quebec bashing article, we now have one of the most notorious examples of the asserted phenomenon take one of the most diminutive spaces upon it. This inserts a disconcerting distortion. If the Richler information is to be moved, it would have to be to its own article, and I am not convinced this is now warranted. The first to hypothetically deserve such a treatment would be the Jan Wong and Barbara Kay sections (which would actually establish a better balance on balance, regarding importance, than having Richler cut). --Liberlogos 17:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV issue

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! --Deenoe 00:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but the text you are adding to the article is clearly not adhering to the neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia. You cannot qualify something bad by yourself. There's nothing that proves they are bad. You could ask Joe Blow in Texas if he thinks they are bad, he might say yes, but you could ask Ronald in Québec and he might say no. --Deenoe 11:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but saying a team has earned a bad team reputation in playoff is cleary POV. It might of been in 2001, but for some people, it might not have that reputation anymore. And newspaper sports editorials are not an NPOV source. --Deenoe 19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lansdowne Park 3.jpg

I'm assuming you took this image? Just checking, because I would like to upload it to commons. Thanks, heqs 17:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Notice

NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT the scope of WikiProject Ottawa is being debated. Your input is requested. Thank you. GreenJoe 20:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh Canada! Oh Quebec!/Mordecai Richler

I've just posted entries on the talk pages of both Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! and Mordecai Richler. As both concern edits you made, I thought it only right to bring these to your attention. Victoriagirl 18:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to say that I think you're doing very good work on the Richler article. Victoriagirl 16:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Concerning a reference as to how many articles Richler wrote on Quebec, I know I read a number somewhere (seven seems to stick in my head), but cannot for the life of me remember where. The obvious solution would be to look through indexes to American, British and Canadian magazines, but I suppose that would be considered original research. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.Victoriagirl 22:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I found one source saying that he had written 7 major articles in the US media (out of 8 on the topic of Quebec!). However, the source for this is Guy Conlogue (Conlogue, Ray. "Facing up to both sides of Mordecai." Globe & Mail (Toronto, Canada) (July 25, 2001)). What do you think? Can the source be trusted on this? Peregrine981 00:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether Conlogue is correct. What I can point out is his piece in The Gazette, 26 September 1991, asserting that Richler wrote pieces on Quebec for American magazines "[e]very two or three years". In the book Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! Richler points out that the 1991 article of the same name, while his fourth in fourteen years, was his first in seven years (see p. 259). Did three more major pieces dealing with Quebec follow? I cannot say. Victoriagirl 20:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're correct... and, as you wrote on my talk page, it all depends on the definition of "major". Confusing the issue the Geo piece which, I bellieve, was for the British edition. Anyway, I like what you've done. Good work! Victoriagirl 22:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research

I'm posting my reply to your remarks about original research at Controversy over criticism of Quebec society here because the discussion is getting general and less related to the article. Thanks for the answers. The following comments may not seem to demonstrate it, but I do appreciate them. This is an important issue, and i think we're getting to the nub of the difference. I do not expect to continue bothering you about this issue. I'm jut glad to have an answer other than "The rules is the rules, and the rules say the rules is to be followed."

First, you say that "reading from the legal code is essentially an act of synthesis," implying that reading an editorial is not. However, editorials are written to require acts of synthesis. Editorials rarely are simple statements of fact but appeals to principles, emotion, interest, etc. laws, on the other hand, are often immediately comprehensible. If a law says it's illegal to refuse service to someone because of their race, no inference is required to conclude that refusing service to someone because of their race is illegal.

You say that "inferring amounts to original research." Logically that implies that you cannot report in Wikipedia that Quebec has a larger surface area than Ontario simply because the areas reported in the articles about the two provinces are different, but instead must find a published source who makes the inference.

I was asking not about your view of the demerging but of the accuracy of Landry's comments. However, the question is superfluous given your answer to the first question.

Reports in major Canadian papers are not fact checked. A month or two ago the National Post published as its headline story a claim that Jews in Iran were going to be forced to wear Stars of David. Fact-checking would have established that the claim was not true. Last Thursday an article in the Globe and Mail published an article claiming that supplemental insurance was not available for Canadian reservists. The readers of the website post quickly demonstrated that the assertions in the article had not been checked (supplemental insurance is available). The Globe is an endless source of articles like that. Then there are those endless claims about the accuracy of opnion poll results, which are simply wrong – you can't estimate the accuracy of a non-probability sample, and opinion poll results come from non-probability samples.

Anyway, that's my position. As i said. I'm not going to hound you about this, but I would be happy to hear what you think of the points i have made here. Now I'm going to go and post a different concern about the Westmount section, asking that it be brought up to your standards. John FitzGerald 20:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the informative reply. If we have accomplished nothing else, we have established a problem area at Wikipedia. As someone who makes his living evaluating evidence, I have grave misgivings about this approach to verifiability. I'll have to think and inquire further before doing anything about them, though. John FitzGerald 17:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, those policies are deeply disturbing. I can see removing references to scientific research which hasn't been published in a refereed journal (and have done so). However, the idea that newspapers constitute reliable sources of the same stature as refereed journals (which themselves aren't all that reliable) is simply silly. And the whole analysis of drawing inferences is wrong for reasons I've already discussed here. I have more thoughts about it, but will put them on the talk pages for the policies.

Anyway, I have applied the Wikipedia policy about NOR to the Westmount section of Controversy over criticism of Quebec society and posted a suggestion on the talk page for the article. Since I am attempting to apply the policy as written, I would appreciate your opinion of it, if you haven't already expressed it (haven't checked yet). And I'll stop taking up your time with these issues and discuss them on the talk pages for the policies. Thanks for your time and help. John FitzGerald 14:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bob-Marley-in-Concert Zurich 05-30-80.jpg

Hey, could you please send the permission you have from the website owner to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org along with a link to the image? If you don't the picture will probably have to be deleted. Thanks, Yonatan ^talk 07:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver

Please discuss all changes you wish to implement into a featured article as per the message on the top of the article. Fred Herzog is a notable photographer, but there are many famous people from Vancouver and his work is not that significant to the 'Culture of Vancouver', compared to someone like Arthur Erickson who has designed most of the University facilities for SFU and buildings for UBC along with other such landmark places like the Palm Court downtown. A famous photographer mainly has his own contributions than city-wide credits. On another note, please choose your words carefully. As the successful nominator for the article Vancouver to become featured and with over 5,200 edits to Wikipedia, a member of the WikiProject Vancouver and one of the editors for the Portal:Vancouver, my edits could hardly been seen as vandalism. I'm happy to talk about all changes to the article and per concensus will go along with new additions as is the protocol to featured article expansion. Mkdw^talk 18:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Rideau_Hall04.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Rideau_Hall04.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 15:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Køgebyvaaben.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Køgebyvaaben.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Common Agricultural Policy - globalize

You tagged Common Agricultural Policy with globalize back in October. If this objection is still valid, please indicate how much more the France-Britain dispute needs to be downplayed or overshadowed to meet your requirements. Thanks! ~ MD Otley (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dk-df-logo.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dk-df-logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dk-el-logo.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dk-el-logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dk-sd-logo.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dk-sd-logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dk-rv-logo.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dk-rv-logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dk-sf-logo.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dk-sf-logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dk-krf-logo.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dk-krf-logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dk-cd-logo.png

I have tagged Image:Dk-cd-logo.png as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Rettetast (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dk-kf-logo.png

I have tagged Image:Dk-kf-logo.png as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Rettetast (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dk-df-logo.png

I have tagged Image:Dk-df-logo.png as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Rettetast (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dk-sf-logo.png

I have tagged Image:Dk-sf-logo.png as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Rettetast (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2004&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=61&pr1.y=10&c=122%2C136%2C124%2C137%2C172%2C138%2C132%2C182%2C134%2C961%2C174%2C184%2C178&s=BCA_NGDPD&grp=0&a= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.154.28 (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Board Games.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Board Games.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Board Games.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BJ^Talk 11:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Board Games.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Board Games.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MHLU^talk 05:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Future enlargement of the European Union

Hi there,

Let me start by saying that I do respect the hard work you have put in the article Future enlargement of the European Union, specially your recent changes. However, after reading it carefully, I think the article requires a lot of references. I have placed several requests for references in places where I think you have worked recently and sources are seriously needed. There are some strong sentences there that without sources can be vandalism or simply not true. Let me know if you need help adding the references.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

no problem.... I have added a bunch. The sources for Croatia, I don't know so much about. Also, some of the statements are hard to find single sources for due to their expanisveness. The Croatia stuff seems to me to be referring to the "road map" proposed by the commission. However, the road map is unlikely to be followed in any seriousness, especially given the attitude of Slovenia, so I'm tempted to cut some of the more speculative portions. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Baby Boomer

I have made a pitch for some language on the baby boomer article that is intended to solve the stalemate with the Generation Jones consortium. If you want to weigh in...? --Knulclunk (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Generation Y Consensus starts 1982

I have sent over the information to Wikipedia administrators. For some reason, people keep deleting this information that was originally part of the article. You deleted all my sources and took out the dates. Millennials refers to people who graduated at the beginning of the Millennium, hence the term. It's posted in the majority of the demographics, and is generally universally accepted by universities, newspapers, researchers. Why is this so hard to grasp by some people?

The other person posted a blog source for his dates. No one believes Generation Y started in 1980 or 1981. It just doesn't make any sense. When articles mention The Millennials in regards to the job market, they talk about those born in 1982. The end date maybe be approximate - mid-late nineties to 2001, but it is GENERALLY accepted that 1982 is the START date. The Millennium Generation/Class of 2000? I mean, it's all over. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge what you say, and I agree to an extent, which is why I left the part about 70's to 2000's in as an overall guideline, but the Class of 2000 has always been referred to as The Millennials. I graduated in 1999 and we were the last of our generation, before the Class of 2000 became seniors and the school had a little celebration for Millennium Generation. It doesn't make sense to start the Millennium in 1999.

Every source I listed has 1982 as a start date. If you read the sources written by universities, you'd see. They even discuss the difference between those of Generation X, who ended with 1981, the last of the Reagan era. The Millennials have a whole different outlook on life. People can say they might not relate that much to their peers, but for the most part, in demographics, they use 1982 and Class of 2000 as a guideline. I think that should be left at least in the section on Strauss and Howe. I think it's important that 1982-2001 be left at least there because they are highly influential authors who are cited all the time. My links show their books, and my link on the demographics back this up. Leaving this information out, I think, is misleading. I left a ton of sources, but that bit was deleted. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you are trying to incite another date war when this was already decided upon and the article reflects the correct dates without it being set in stone. Please stop making edits to the dates. 1982, 1983 are early 1980's and are NOT part of Generation X and never have been. The last date used is 1981. No established researcher uses 1982 or later dates to reflect Generation X. Sorry. Again, this author is the only one using 1983 as an end date. The article reflects this and should be left alone. This discussion is closed. Please stop. If you cannot respect the outcome of discussion on this website, I will be forced to report you.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Money2.jpg

In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. Otherwise, it may be deleted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Money2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Money2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Peregrine981: I was your work with the images on 'Causes of WWI' and wonder why you removed the caption wordage? StevenWT (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please respect the outcome of discussion

Hello. The merge discussion at Generation Y lasted for 1 month. Talk:Generation_Y#Proposed_Merger_of_MTV_Generation_into_this_article. The consensus was clearly keep. Please respect this, even when you disagree with it. Consider improving Wikipedia instead of destroying the works of others. You are free to nominate it for a merge again. However, perhaps your time would be better spent improving the current article? --Law Lord (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur. You are not respecting the outcome of discussion on the Generation X and Generation Y pages. Please refrain from inciting date wars on these pages. Thank you. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't threatening you. It was a reminder. I can see that you haven't made any edits. However, this message was to you and another poster because it was reached by a consensus that the dates on these pages be left alone. I see that others have asked you to respect the outcome of discussion. Only ONE source shows 1983 as an end date and that is already left in the article at the bottom of the paragraph where it belongs due to it being a more recent source. This is not a widely accepted end date. Being part of the MTV Generation does not automatically make one Generation X. MTV Generation is a subgroup of both Generation X and Generation Y. Respected researchers use 1981 as the last date due to it being the last year BEFORE the Millennium. It just seems to me that you are re-starting something that was already put to rest. The page has just come out from under protection and it is a little warning so it doesn't start edit wars again. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to join the discussion?

Hi. I noted you edited the Generations. I invite you to the discussion I had with another user on the Talk:Generations page. I questioned the addition of the new generation as well, and the order. Maybe we can get others in on the discussion. Thanks for your contribution. Happy New Year. Let's hope 2010 is better than 2009.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Personally, I don't care about the changes. I think it still looks okay, but I guess we'll just leave the discussion open. Did you mean to leave the = sign on the Other Generations Section? And the text is too big. I am going to try to fix this. Let me know what you think. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Yeah, I know I can be a bit of a stubborn mule at times, but I like to recognize real effort from others. I invited you on the discussion on the addition of the Beat Generation for the reason that I noticed your other contributions. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Generations Page

You changed the wording from World War I to First World War, when the article reverts to a Wiki article titled World War I. Let's keep it the same throughout and leave it as World War I. Good call on the Silent Generation section - grammar fix. Re-edited the Generation X paragraph to what was decided on in the consensus. The television part stays. I don't mind the mentioning of the possible end for Generation Y being the 2000s, but many articles have it as mid-90s. See Generation Z page. The latest date I have seen for Generation Y is 2000. 2001 is generally considered the start of Generation Z, at the latest. I will try to figure out how to reword this a bit better. Reverted Strauss and Howe changes that were decided in a consensus. Otherwise, okay. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I say leave the date as 2000. The date 2004 is a bit of a stretch. The general end date used is 2000. Starting from 2001-onward is definitely Generation Z. Also, I could use some feedback from you regarding the 2010s page. See my comments here ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢. I added this on another user page, too:

• The article needs lots of references, and people keep adding back information on Generation Jones on here as well. Is there no way to nominate the deletion of such an article page? I have only heard of this generation on Wikipedia. I'd hardly recognize it like I do the Beat Generation. I know how to use the templates for 'needs reference' or something like that, but I guess I had some trouble with the rest of the templates. Let me know what you think. In the meantime, I am re-reading the citation articles on Wiki.----CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The sentence was left in for an explanation of the significance of the Class of 2000. There is nothing contradictory here, only an explanation for a Generation, and the term Millennials which is applied to the high school class of 2000. Please respect the Consensus.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't nix the edit you made. I edited back what you deleted. I left what you wrote. I ask that you not delete the information again. The Millennial Generation/Generation Y is defined in the same article and the Strauss/Howe explanation needs to be left included in the paragraph because it includes both uses today. Most demographers TODAY use the Strauss and Howe model. I gave my explanations for why 1982 births/Class of 2000 are the start of Generation Y. You seem to be ignoring this. MTV Generation is a SUB generation and has it's own page. People seem to be confusing Generation X and the MTV Generation, which encompasses Generation X members and early Generation Y. Please do not delete this again. I realize a couple of people may differ on this, but the generation article pages reached a consensus on dates and content. The Strauss and Howe information is an important definition used today by researchers and MUST be included in the definition. Millennials are used interchangeably with Generation Y. I ask you again to please respect the consensus that was reached. Just because you disagree, does not mean the general consensus has changed. A couple of people do not make a consensus. Also, as I mentioned, Strauss and Howe are important to how the term Millennials is used today by not just demographers/researchers, but media today. I guess this page will be considered for protection again. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have said over and over why that information must remain AND added that a larger consensus had already been reached (see the archives where Strauss and Howe were discussed - it goes back at least 6 months to 1 year). Two people are not a consensus. But that is NOT the reason the information stays on the article page. You insist on bringing this up after I have cited the information and stated that it is part of the Generation Y article page. Strauss and Howe are important researchers and MOST media, demographers, and researchers today go by their standards. That bit of information is part of the DEFINTION of Generation Y and Millennials, and therefore belongs in the definition under the Generation page. Also, I said they were researchers not demographers. Others are demographers who use them as references. I have stated the reasons, references, research, and citations are provided. You have not shown any reliable sources or citations that show that MOST researchers don't go by the standard definition. The article pages show the origins, various uses, and definitions. Millennials and Generation Y are used interchangeably. The Strauss and Howe information stays.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not provide the information on the boomers. I added that back in because it was deleted. That information is also pertinent to the article on the boomers. I can work with you on better wording, but the information and sources has long been a part of the article. Many, though not all, boomers are associated with environmentalism, the counter culture, feminism, and civil rights struggles. I'd say that the generation is associated with them. Maybe I'll start a new section on my page for that, or on the generations page. I think I know a couple of other users at least who would like to participate on that discussion. There is no harm in clarification or better wording regarding that subject.

I have addressed the issue of the Class of 2000. I have stated that most demographers and media today use the Strauss and Howe definition. Millennials ARE used interchangeably with Generation Y. I did not make that up. When the twentieth century was drawing to a close, the term gained momentum and was used for the Class of 2000. I graduated in 1999 and was NEVER a Millennial. I realize my example is original research, but I'm only clarifying what I'm saying. Universities, media reports, researchers, etc. describe the Millennials as the Class of 2000 - most do. It is a part of the definition of Millennials and part of the term on the Generation Y/Millennials page. You can't re-define a term that has been in use for over a decade. Sure, there will be more important events this decade that have yet to occur, but that doesn't change the definition of the Class of 2000. As to the links, they are very far back in the archives, when the discussion on Strauss and Howe took place; their section in the generation articles was moved. I'll try to go through the several hundred pages to find the changes, but the discussion occurred because the sections were deleted or vandalized. The researchers' contributions are now included in both the Generation X and Generation Y articles. The clarification on the authors' terms were moved from the opening paragraphs to the terminology section and the 13th Generation section (since that particular term is coined by Strauss and Howe). The definition of Generation Y and Millennials were addressed. It is worded now in the introduction and terminology paragraph as such because a consensus was reached. Millennials is at the top of the opening paragraph, but only in by what other names Generation Y goes by. It is not until the section on terminology that the definition is clarified. Strauss and Howe will remain in that paragraph. The article already clearly shows the various uses; the same goes for the other generation pages. The Generation page has a list of generations by definition, and should include the Strauss and Howe definition because Millennials is also a term used interchangeably with Generation Y by media today; it is widely known.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't contradict myself. I never said Strauss and Howe coined "Millennials". That term was already starting to be used by Generation Y members themselves. I said they coined the term "13th Generation", which they use in their books. I am not denying their most recent research by my own definition. I said they DEFINE why the term 'Millennials' is used to describe Generation Y, and why the two terms are used interchangeably, which is all mentioned in the Generation Y article under terminology. Thus, the definition belongs in the list of generations on the Generations page, where each generation is define. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a claim. They DO say this in their research. It is properly sourced. If you go to their website, you might be able to read it in their articles. I also have their books. All of this is sourced in both article pages. I feel like I am repeating myself here. I am going through my Millennium book later this week. I'll get back to you on your page. On a completely different note, I think some of the pages we both watch are being inundated with vandalism. Have you noticed anything recently? There were a couple of recent users (guessing one was a sock puppet?) who have been blocked or banned. I will let you know if I hear anything.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)