Greetings and welcome to my page!
I am a sociology reseacher who is currently studying Generations X and Generation Y and common characteristics and inaccuracies as it relates to persons born in 1982. I am currently conducting a research study and require a maximum of 1000 participants born in 1982. For more information please email email@example.com or visit my facebook "Like" page Persons born in 1982 needed for research study
What is the XY Cusp? The XY Cusp is a group of persons born roughly during the late 1970s to the early 1980s (around 1977-1983) who are not just part of Generation X or Generation Y, but have characteristics of both Generations, much like Generation Jones, which targets persons born in the late 1950s to the early 1960s.
- 1 An invitation
- 2 Gen X
- 3 Regarding Gen X and Y
- 4 Please Join Proposed Consensus on Generation X talk page
- 5 Gen Y Talk Page Needs Updating, Agree?
- 6 gen x talk
- 7 gen y updating
- 8 WikiProject Sociology membership
- 9 CreativeSoul is wrong
- 10 protection vote
- 11 gen y update
- 12 Elwood Carlson - regarding "New Boomers"
- 13 just to let you know
- 14 Disambiguation link notification for April 21
- 15 Your recent edits
- 16 Your recent edits
- 17 Disambiguation link notification for May 6
Hello Educatedlady. I stumbled across this talkpage while doing some recent changes patrol and felt inclined to comment. There are so many points an essay would likely be lacking in depth. Therefor I would like to invite you to our live chat here, where questions and comments can be addressed in real time. And yes, you are entitled to the same respect and civility as is expected of you. So let's perhaps proceed from this vantage point towards improving Wikipedia and away from misunderstandings which often deter from such a goal. Kind regards and please consider the invitation. My76Strat 16:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution, and especially for the concrete sources your have cited. I reverted your edit, not because I disagree but mostly as a sign of good faith while the discussion is ongoing, and because you erased a series of sources which were not referring to the graduation date. My personal preference is to drop all reference to the graduation years, certainly in the intro, and accept a more generalized date range, perhaps saying "about 1960-80" or early 1960s to early 1980s or something similar to be agreed upon. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sorry that was an accident didn't mean to erase the sources. I actually tried to revert it back but kept getting Internet Explorer Cannot Display Webpage. Thanks for correcting. I agree to drop all references to graduation years and add in a range of about the early 1980's to the early 1980's. I think that is an EXCELLENT idea. Educatedlady (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Gen X and Y
Hi educatedlady, I enjoyed our conversation regarding Gen Y start dates in the Gen X discussion page. But it seems CreativeSoul still refuses to accept the facts presented.
Here is what I wrote recently:
/START/ I actually took the time to search Wikipedia ITSELF for academic school years, and, like I said earlier, it appears I was right:
"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?
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 criticised 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. /END/
EducatedLady, is there an administrator or someone in charge here who will correct the errors, particularly in regards to the start year of 1982 and graduating in 2000 as being false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. What exactly is this project you are proposing? What would be involved?
- Also, please do not give up on Wikipedia. It can be frustrating when there are long disagreements over content, but it will usually be resolved, and there are in fact procedures in place to deal with disputes. Disputes are common, but the format is remarkably resilient in the end. CreativeSoul is stubborn, but not completely impervious to reason. I advise being patient, presenting your arguments and sources, and sooner or later a consensus will be found. Hopefully we can improve the article. And for goodness sake do not give up simply because you run into resistance to your ideas. If that happens repeatedly then the most stubborn will rule wiki rather than consensus. THanks, Peregrine981 (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi I am actually conducting a research study primarily on the year 1982 being placed in both Generation X and Generation Y. I am researching to determine where the year actually belongs involving participants who can attest to their culture as it relates to Gen X and Y. I agree I am not giving up on Wikipedia. Thanks for the encouragement! Educatedlady (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Please Join Proposed Consensus on Generation X talk page
I am proposing that the dates on the Generation X page be changed from 1961-1981 to the early 1960's to the early 1980s which gives a range of years but not specific because the years are still in dispute. Please write if you agree or disagree and provide a brief reason and note any sources if you would like. Please no aruging. I appreciate your assistance. Educatedlady (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I've agreed with your proposal of changing the dates EducatedLady.
If you could return the favour, would you mind posting in my comment in the Gen Y talk page?
Gen Y Talk Page Needs Updating, Agree?
Hi EducatedLady, please read this and post your thoughs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Generation_Y#Whole_Article_Needs_Evaluating
gen x talk
I did not intend to exclude you from the discussion. It just seemed to me that you and I were largely in agreement (along with others) so that the most productive way forward was to discuss personally with CS who was the only one really objecting to the broader outlines of our consensus. At that time the Gen X talk page was getting pretty unwieldy with lots of parallel discussions, and at least one admin remarked that it was starting to overwhelm the page. So I thought it best to try to address CS personally and try find common ground. This was not intended as a way around the main discussion or as a way to exclude anyone, simply as a step in the process. You should know that little has been discussed in the meantime, as CS has been quite busy and ill. Sorry, perhaps I should have notified the board. I am not opposed to your idea, you will remember I advocated it for a long time, but do not mind the "usually 1982" as a form of compromise. However, am open to discussion certainly. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
gen y updating
WikiProject Sociology membership
I see that within the last year you have made at least one substantial comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, but you have not added yourself to the project's official member list. This prevents you from, among other things, receiving our sociology newsletter, as that member list acts as our newsletter mailing list (you can find the latest issue of our sociology newsletter here). If you'd like to receive the newsletter and help us figure out how many members we really have, please consider joining our WikiProject and adding yourself to our official member list. Thank you, -- 13:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
CreativeSoul is wrong
There is no difference between people born in 1981 and 1982 other than a year. CreativeSoul is more interested in keeping 1981 as the "great grandparents" of those born a year later in 1982. I came of age with the internet and cell phones just like you. I am not going to re-edit anything but I am not going to give in to him like he wants me to. NO WAY! He can delete me from this site if he wants, won't change my mind and it is not like many people take wikipedia seriously anyway. This is just more proof that they are right. I have been texting and using cell phones for ages. Me and my friends have never had any problems with them. I don't care what CreativeSoul's and his friends experience was. People of all ages have been using this technology since around the turn of the century. Also, stuff like Ipods and Ipads have came out in the last few years almost a decade after people born in 1982 and 83 greaduated high school. Me and my friends were doted on and called future leaders all of our lives too. What, will it be where someone born in 1981 won't be able to run for public office in the future?? I mean be reasonable! The media pretty much paid as much attention to the classes of 1998 and 1999 as they did 2000. I mean how much of the 20th century was left when those classes graduated high school. The media was starting to focus on the new millennium starting about 1997. Pretty much eveyrone from about the class of 1996 on was mostly prepared for the new millennium since they would be the leaders and those coming of age and strting their careers and stuff in the new millennium(don't forget many go to college after high school). Be reasonable! Those born in 1982 are more concerned with the betterment of society vs. those born in 1981 he says?? I think older people are more concerned with the betterment of society. Most young people of any generation are usually more concerned with themselves until they get older and wiser. There are few who really care that much. Regardless, EVERYONE should be concerned with the betterment of society! This shouldn't be a generational thing. Also so many people born in 1981 and 1982 are good friends with one another and many are couples born on those two dates and many get married, etc. Again, it is all common sense!
On top of that if CreativeSoul is going to be 100% technical then you can't have the articles on wiki on the millenniums and centuries having 2000 listed as the last year of the 2nd millennium and 20th century and 2001 as the start of the new 3rd millennium and 21st century and then call people born in 1982 the first year of the millennials. That is contradictory, but like I said, who takes wikipedia too seriously? BTW, I have all of these news articles from big media outles that CreativeSoul is citing on my My Talk page now, and they do not put 1982 as the start date. They are from the last few years too. He is one person and he is wrong. I mean people born in 1981 and 1982 all went to school together for the most part. He ignores these facts and the articles I provide, but maybe you won't.Bjoh249 (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you, I responded to you on the gen x talk page. Email me your sources that you found if you don't mind. I would like to take a look at them. Educatedlady (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Bjoh249 is wrong, and I am offended that he has called me a liar. We have all acknowledged that writers (even working for the same newspaper, etc.) use different time frames to represent generations. I have only stated that 1982 is commonly and widely used for the start of Generation Y. There are other editors who agree with me. Why are we rehashing this again? All my sources are referenced and were posted on the talk pages. I do not lie. Wisegeek.com is not a reliable source, but he cites that as a "source" on his talk page. Businessweek has used different dates for Millennials. Here is just one that uses 1982. So I'm a liar, Bjoh249? The 2006 USA Today article I cited mentions 1982. The 2009 USA Today article clearly uses 1982. The authors of the Millennial Makeover were guests at Harvard - and I own their book. They use 1982. Read here. Their book uses 1982-2003 (page 66). The Harvard article can be read here. The CBS News source clearly states "1982-1995" for Millennials/Generation Y. I actually saw the news report a few years ago. Why on earth would I provide sources and lie about the information? Peregrine981 seems satisfied with the sources, and I'm sure he's checked them all out. Bjoh249 doesn't know what he's talking about. Like I told him before, I provided numerous reliable sources from a variety of countries, including official census statistics. And the media itself, including NPR and PBS, have reported on the Millennials being "civic-minded" as opposed to the previous generation. I did not make that up. There are numerous books by a variety of authors on the subject. And regarding the "Real Millennium," even Peregrine981 himself says this a "red herring" issue. At the risk of being repetitive, no one cares if the Gregorian Calendar is off. Society still continues to refer to the New Millennium as the year 2000, and it still uses the Gregorian Calendar. We have been using this calendar for hundreds of years, so I don't see why this would have any affect on the naming of a generation. Society and media put high expectations on those who would graduate in the year 2000 - and that doesn't change no matter what year you call it. Those born in 1982 and later were considered the new generation, and the attention on this group continued from that year onward. Regarding the rest of Bjoh249's rant, I already answered him on the appropriate talk page. Everything else is his own personal opinion and has no bearing on the discussion. In fact, some of what he has written is bordering on "getting on a soapbox," which is against Wikipedia policy. He also violated Wikipedia's rules about posting on numerous talk pages, so I moved his posts to the appropriate talk page. I have already warned him about engaging in such behavior.
- Despite an obvious difference in opinion, would you please see the talkback template below, and respond on my talk page. I have left a talkback for Peregrine981 as well. If I don't respond for several days, it's because I am busy with family. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The info about the "Real Millennium" is original research as it has not been cited in any source in regards to generations. I am using it in my own research however, to point out that if one is going to define a generation, they need to do it accurately. Regardless of what society states the real millennium did begin in 2001. However this is not related to generations and should not be used in the article until a reliable source refers to it. I did respond to your talk page Creative. Hope to do talk to you soon. Educatedlady (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi educatedlady, what I spoke of was not a rant. I have even e-mailed these sources to you and you recognised them. All of these same sources are ones that Creativesoul has named. These are even on my Talk page. Creativesoul is determined to be a big baby and push through what he sees fit. His opinion is wrong, but I am done arguing with him, he is worthless. I called him a liar because he is a liar. He is determined to keep his birth year of 1981 in the X generation on wikipedia because he thinks that somehow makes him better or something. He doesn't seem to understand that the millennial generation means those who came of age around the turn of the millennium, which includes the class of 98,99,00, 01, etc. He doesn't want to understand it because he wants to be a member of Gen X which he thinks would make him better or something. How have you been BTW, educatedlady?Bjoh249 (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
SOrry, I must have been unclear. I am in favour of semi-protection. I simply listed the against category so that those so inclined can list their names there.... Peregrine981 (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
gen y update
Elwood Carlson - regarding "New Boomers"
Several months ago, I edited the snippet on Elwood Carlson on the Generation Y page to put the term "New Boomers" in quotations rather than italics. I am now aware that using italics is also okay. I am checking with another editor regarding this matter, but since you are familiar with the text, can you tell me if the author created this term himself, or if he borrowed it from another source? I think the article looks better if terminology looks the same, but I know with Strauss and Howe, many terms are in italics. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I will check on New Boomers, I believe he created the term himself. I actually emailed him a while back about his findings, I can't remember if he told me the origin of the term or not, but whatever the case I will research it and get back with you. Educatedlady (talk)
- Sounds good. I think he coined the term, then we can make it stand out like the Strauss and Howe terms. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
just to let you know
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)
Hi. When you recently edited Rashida Jones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European (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.
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
@Educatedlady: You probably have customized your signature in "my preferences" (incorrectly). The fastest fix would be to delete the customization. Alternatively, ask at WP:HELPDESK for someone to spell out the WP:SIGNATURE requirements (I think it's the lack of a link and the fact that the displayed user name is not your actual user name that is the problem). Johnuniq (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victoria Rowell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (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.