User talk:Scarpy/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Scarpy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
January 2019
Your recent editing history at Template:Generations Sidebar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.DynaGirl (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Related discussion
Hi, I'm trying to avoid an edit war, so I'm hoping everyone involved in the disagreement over edits of the Xennials article can try come to a consensus in the talk page. My last comment in the talk page is at the very end. Thanks! --Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, just to clarify, I saw your discussion with DynaGirl on the Template:Generations Sidebar talk page, but I thought it would make sense for us to discuss these issues on the Xennials talk page. Thanks again. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Do you have access to "When Generations Collide"? I just see that the author states that "Generation Xer/Millennial Cuspers" were born from 1975 to 1980. This is the same concept as Xennials, so it should put the debate to rest if we can get quotes from the book. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I bought an ebook version when it came up previously. It's all there in chapter 3. - Scarpy (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Great! Will you have a chance to cite that information in the Xennials article? --Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- hopefully sometime soon. I may go through all of the hits from Google Scholar and see what I can do to improve the article. - Scarpy (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Excellent. It might make sense to add "Generation Xer/Millenial Cusper" to the terminology section. Also, I have a copy of "Xennials: a microgeneration in the workplace" if you would like me to email it to you. Dynagirl reverted most of my citations from that article as I discussed in the talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- There are some very old versions of Wikipedia articles that discuss the XY cusp generation but were forgotten. The article "MTV Generation," which "XY_Cusp" linked to. [1] And "Cold Y Generation." [2] I've only looked at a few versions of the articles though. I took a quick look at some archives. More XY Cusp talk in a Millenials archive. [3] and the MTV Generation archive. [4]
- hopefully sometime soon. I may go through all of the hits from Google Scholar and see what I can do to improve the article. - Scarpy (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Great! Will you have a chance to cite that information in the Xennials article? --Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- One of the best versions of the MTV/XY cusp article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JCDenton2052/mh5
- I'll have to add this info to Xennials talk; I was just writing it here as I was finding it.
- --Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for these! People have for sure been discussing the XY Cusp for a while now. Am working on a bit of a rewrite and will have to take a close look at this material as well. - Scarpy (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Kolya Butternut: Going through those old article pages and talk pages, these are ones that struck me as potentially relevant (probably not directly, but may point in the direction of things that would):
- https://web.archive.org/web/20070311190854/http://www.tomorrowtoday.biz/mindthegap/genscusper.htm - I believe this is Graeme Codrington who is also cited in Taylor's paper, e.g. Codrington, G. (2008), “Detailed introduction to generational theory”, Tomorrow Today, pp. 1-15.
- https://web.archive.org/web/20070316032442/http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/working-life/WL00045
- https://web.archive.org/web/20050407133219/http://www.humancomp.org/candy_wei/memories/the_therapy_generation(printer-friendly).htm
- https://web.archive.org/web/20060221024523/http://sll.stanford.edu/projects/tomprof/newtomprof/postings/320.html
- https://web.archive.org/web/20080520035309/http://www.edb.utexas.edu/faculty/somers/911/gen_%20911_ver3.htm
- https://web.archive.org/web/20060811211815/http://www.utexas.edu/features/2005/generation/
- https://web.archive.org/web/20060329021358/http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=19325
- https://web.archive.org/web/20060526194806/http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=17249
- https://web.archive.org/web/20061017092940/http://www.generation9-11.co.uk/2.html
- https://web.archive.org/web/20070929121110/http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-04-2001/0001607931&EDATE=
- https://web.archive.org/web/20071224211117/http://www.tweeners.org/
- https://web.archive.org/web/20061014235658/http://www.bulletin.uwaterloo.ca/2000/jun/15th.html
- https://web.archive.org/web/20060407092150/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/01/MNGTRI1V2A1.DTL&feed=rss.news
- https://web.archive.org/web/20060908080331/http://www.newpolitics.net/reports/comingamerica/millennials/
- https://wordspy.com/index.php?word=generation-9-11
- - Scarpy (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Exciting to see the history of the concept! -- and so many new names for it. I'll add the research I found to the talk page. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Scarpy: Eeesh, there's so much I disagree with on Xennials I can't keep up...and now Generation Jones. Do you find the anonymous editors on Xennials to be suspicious? I read about sockpuppeting but it looks like the standards are really high for reporting someone. Both of the editors seem to be from Greenwood Village, Colorado...if I know what I'm looking at. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- They'll sure see any dicussion we have here about it. :) You can use this like if you want to email me. But yes it does seem suspicious. - Scarpy (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- This article from The Washington Post supports your opinion that most of the generations articles shouldn't use the words "demographic cohort". I think the words could be accurate depending on how we're using them, but it sounds like in this case it would be best not use them because most generations other than Baby Boomers do not describe a "demographic event." Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Kolya Butternut:This is a great article. Sometimes I think I'm pretty good at researching, but then I encounter someone like you that really gives me a run for my money. :) It does seem to be saying a very similar thing to what Emma Parry and Peter Urwin said about the lack of "demographic cohortness" (or the predefined cohortness) of Gen X onward. I haven't fully formed an opinion on it yet, while I think generational differences and micro-generations are a real thing, I don't think they explain as much as about someone's personality as the the Big 5 or 16PF do, for example. Reading a lot of the material on generational differences and descriptions I do sometimes sense pareidolia and apophenia creeping in. - Scarpy (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! If only I could get a job researching. Yeah, I think they are a real thing too, but they are discussed pretty sloppily. I'm afraid that a big part of the problem on Wikipedia may be the cult of Strauss-Howe. The most damage to public knowledge through Wikipedia may be that The Greatest Generation cohort is incorrectly called the G.I. Generation, which is of course the name used by Strauss-Howe.... I'm curious to see what creative arguments will be used to thwart my move request.
- I forgot where it was that I read that their alt-light theorizing distracts us into talking about generational differences instead of talking about class and capitalism. I would have thought it was here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! If only I could get a job researching. Yeah, I think they are a real thing too, but they are discussed pretty sloppily. I'm afraid that a big part of the problem on Wikipedia may be the cult of Strauss-Howe. The most damage to public knowledge through Wikipedia may be that The Greatest Generation cohort is incorrectly called the G.I. Generation, which is of course the name used by Strauss-Howe.... I'm curious to see what creative arguments will be used to thwart my move request.
- @Kolya Butternut:This is a great article. Sometimes I think I'm pretty good at researching, but then I encounter someone like you that really gives me a run for my money. :) It does seem to be saying a very similar thing to what Emma Parry and Peter Urwin said about the lack of "demographic cohortness" (or the predefined cohortness) of Gen X onward. I haven't fully formed an opinion on it yet, while I think generational differences and micro-generations are a real thing, I don't think they explain as much as about someone's personality as the the Big 5 or 16PF do, for example. Reading a lot of the material on generational differences and descriptions I do sometimes sense pareidolia and apophenia creeping in. - Scarpy (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- This article from The Washington Post supports your opinion that most of the generations articles shouldn't use the words "demographic cohort". I think the words could be accurate depending on how we're using them, but it sounds like in this case it would be best not use them because most generations other than Baby Boomers do not describe a "demographic event." Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- They'll sure see any dicussion we have here about it. :) You can use this like if you want to email me. But yes it does seem suspicious. - Scarpy (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Scarpy: Eeesh, there's so much I disagree with on Xennials I can't keep up...and now Generation Jones. Do you find the anonymous editors on Xennials to be suspicious? I read about sockpuppeting but it looks like the standards are really high for reporting someone. Both of the editors seem to be from Greenwood Village, Colorado...if I know what I'm looking at. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Exciting to see the history of the concept! -- and so many new names for it. I'll add the research I found to the talk page. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)