User talk:Examining

Welcome!

Hello, Examining, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Some1 (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cusper Page

Hey Examining. I think this FBronco is being overly nitpicky/critical about the Cosmo source/range of 1991-2002 because he just doesn’t like it. This user’s account is only 3 days old, and it was made shortly after someone complained on Reddit about the source being included on Wikipedia. I ran it by Scarpy and Someone before adding it, as I do in good faith/collaboration. You have also now taken a look at the source, and you have seen people trying to vandalize the page since it went up. What do you think? I don’t think this FBronco is genuine at all. Centennial357 (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Centennial357 Hey there! I was willing to give the user benefit of the doubt at first (and still want to), but the recent comments about the source and its usefulness to the page don't seem to be all that constructive.

The Vice source and the Fortune source both seem to offer just as much information about zillennials as the Cosmo source (as they specifically relate to each topic to which the articles pertain). They don't explicitly explain the reasons for their ranges either.

It seems like the user has more of an issue that the source is included at all rather than including 1990, like they originally argued. This user isn't nearly as bad as the user from our previous talk almost 2 years ago. Examining (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also agree that it is odd that his initial push to include 1990 borns has done a 180 to wanting the source removed completely. And yes FBranco is better (more calm & collected) than the last debate we got pulled into a while back. I appreciate you talking with him. Centennial357 (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, already found a post on Reddit by a user trying to find others to support them in getting this Cosmo source removed from the Wikipedia page. Again, purely because they are not a fan of the range. Not surprised Centennial357 (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cweb, I have not put up any Reddit thread myself on that, nor do I plan to. However, like you two, I am on the generation subs as well and came to here from there. I would not be surprised if most editors of the page are from those subs as well. Fbronco (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]