Hello, I'm TechnoSquirrel69. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Frutiger Aero, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jw00231. I understand your revert regarding the Gen Z date range. I used Repsol as the source for information, which is not an original source, link, and it states Gen Z is 1996–2010. I’d like to discuss whether this should be reflected in the article, so we can reach consensus rather than keep reverting. "And something which is more widely know or more widely accepted does not mean that it is more accurate or is true as compared to something not widely stated."

Thanks!

Niralbhatt (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repsol is a gobal energy company. They do not specialize in generational research. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, my fellow Wikipedia dude. I wanted to ask if you could revert all of the bad-faith edits and vandalism that were made by @Niralbhatt towards all the generation articles such as Millennials, Generation Z and the others? I believe that his edits involve the ledes, as well as the succession boxes that are found below in each article page (this is very easy to miss, as its at the very bottom where it says s-start and s-end in the edit source. These succession boxes are very important because they contain the date ranges as well. They are found directly above the Authority control databases section right at the bottom.) I believe that Niralbhatt was trying to be sneaky about it, for example he changed the Millennial succession box so that it says "Succeeded by Generation Z 1996–2010" and "Preceded by Gen X 1966–1980. He wasn't just targeting the leading paragraphs. Best to revert all of his recent edits just to be safe. I would do it myself, but its 3 AM in the morning where I live. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ChicagoGirlD,

I wanted to clarify that my recent edits to the generation articles were not made in bad faith. All my edits were based on reliable sources, such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Repsol, which support the date ranges I edited (e.g., Gen Z 1996–2010).

I understand that Wikipedia’s policies prioritize consensus, so I’m happy to discuss these edits constructively to reach agreement. My intention has always been to improve accuracy, not to mislead or vandalize.

Since the pages have been reverted, I will not make further changes until consensus is reached. I hope we can collaborate to ensure that the articles reflect verifiable sources while following Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Thank you

Niralbhatt (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repsol is an energy company. They do not specialize in generational research. The source even contradicts itself because Repsol uses Pews 1997 definition for Gen Z in the same article. Did you even read it? The Australian Bureau of Statistics is not even mentioned. The 1996-2010 range is not popular at all, in fact there are over 25 sources in the main body paragraph that use the Pew 1997 start date. You had also removed the Library of Congress citation without permission, which is in bad-faith. I assume that you have a bias towards Gen Z starting with 1996. However, the only two date ranges that matter at this point are Pew's 1997–2012 range and Australia's McCrindle's 1995-2009 range, with Pew being the consensus. 1996 is irrelevent. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Australian Bureau of Statistics (link) in their 2021 report stated that the Generation Z, stated the start and end years of all the generations. This is also accurate by the "Gregorian Calendar", the calendar which we use in our daily lives also, it says that 1BCE was directly followed by 1CE, so if no year "0" then any year starting from "0" in any range is not possible, and thus this research corrected the 1995-2009 range. The 1997-2012 is far more inaccurate, but due to its wide acceptance it is considered as the range for Generation Z. And if we look at Gen Alpha now it says 2013-2024, that includes only 11 years so inaccurate. If we check 1996-2010, it has 15 years in it, it also satisfies as an "Arithmetic Progression", which is taught as early as Class 10th, in our country. Now try to see the range 1996 to 2010, and do let me know what you think after this.

Thanks for readin'!

Niralbhatt (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current vandalism and bad–faith edit attempts over at the Wikidata project for Generation Z and Millennials. It has been fixed for now, however the Wikidata project requires constant maintenance and surveillance ChicagoGirlD (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence or reference saying boomers might have been born between 1944 and 1965 were marked as irrelevant and these dates in question were declared as hardly used for baby boomer cohorts. Can anybody please clarify the reasons for such Sir or Miss? Angela Kate Maureen Pears 17:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the inclusion of 1999. As I've said in the edit notes, I still think that 1993 is safely the first Zillennial year. Most importantly, I highly recommend that you keep looking for more credible sources that include 1999 for Zillennials, preferably utilizing the 1993–1999 range, and then adding these sources to the birth date/date range sections. This is to give credibility and back up the range, and to prevent other editors from excluding the date. Currently, I have updated the Zillennial range over on Wiktionary with the new date, however I'm having trouble fixing the chart located there. If you have time, feel free to go to Wiktionary and see if you can update the chart. Thanks. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I think while 1999 fits Zillennial, 1993's inclusion seems like it's rather outdated. It feels like it's taken from the Deon Smit definition, which was in 2017 long before "Zillennial" was particularly popular. On social media like TikTok and X, you'll hardly see 93 included. Zillennial is usually 1995-1999 or even 1997-2002 on there.--Jw00231 (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. If you need any help, feel free to contact me. I am always happy to help. I was attempting to look for more 1994–1999 Zillennial sources, however all of them cite Reddit for the range, sadly. I will wait and see when more research is done on Zennials.

I also have a quick question, for the Millennials page, you edited that adoloscents and young adults were in the mid–2010s. While I understand were you are coming from (1995 and 1996 became adults in 2013 and 2014), I have to disagree a little bit here. Most people think that young adulthood includes your early and mid 20s. Technically the last Millennials were still in their young adulthood throughout the 2010s, which includes the late 2010s, possibly even the early 2020s. However, I'm most likely overthinking it. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Serge, an Admin on Wikipedia. Please be aware of the concept of WP:GENREWARRING on Wikipedia. Music genre need to be according to what reliable sources directly state - see WP:V and WP:RS. If you're just here to POV-push your personal beliefs on music genre, you'll likely see your edits undone and your account in trouble. As such, please don't remove sourced content just because you don't personally agree with it. Please take some time to learn some of the basics at WP:5P. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment here, I have no objections to genre like power pop or alternative rock, because they (or can be) properly sourced. My objection is to your removal of reliable sourced instances of post grunge just because you don't personally agree with it. They should all be listed if there are reliable sources directly stating it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Memphis Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBR. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You appeared to have removed WP:RS information from History of WWE article without proper consensus. Please do not do ot again. This is your second warning after the previous November one. If you continue disruptive editing you may be reported and blocked. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next time please seek proper WP:Consensus on article talk page. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]