User talk:Joseph165

Hello, Joseph165, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Hello, I'm Paleontologist99. I noticed that you recently removed content from Millennials without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Paleontologist99 (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Millennials, you may be blocked from editing. This is the third time that you have removed an RfC consensus text without an explanation why: 1 2 3. Please be reminded that Wikipedia articles are based on WP:Reliable sources, not your personal opinions. Some1 (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Research clearly show that generation ranges and descriptions differ since generation labels are made up descriptions. Exact ranges based on personal view points are meant for the years and range section of the Wikipedia page down below. I will make sure to give descriptions before editing next time. I believe I have in the past. I'm not exactly sure I mean have thought so but probably did it wrong. Joseph165 (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are different ranges, but there are widely accepted/typically/commonly used ones backed by a plethora of WP:Reliable sources which gives a particular range WP:Due weight to belong in the lead, and the lead follows the body of the article. Not to mention, the text you're removing is a long-standing RfC consensus text which hashed out all of the arguments like the one you're trying to make. Please read those policies and guidelines that are linked and stop with the "one removal every couple of months" slow-mo WP:Edit warring, because it's getting disruptive. Some1 (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't personally going slow mo I would see that what was posted witch wasn't always there before would be back so I would remove it. I wasn't always going on the page going fast because I'm not always on like I have a job. Yes there are widely use ones for years to this day of course based on personal view point of a certain demographers who all point out these things are ill define(because these things are factually not real). Me being able to look up certain ones and fine posts using it to this day but that's what the date and range section is for which it's usually there. Blantly posting a range when it's already been in the section makes no sense. start and end dates move around depending on what people think they are as well as key events and other stuff. This is why the date and range section is for while the summary in the top of the page gives out the more exact range description based on all view point used by demographers and researchers not cherry picking one popular one by one. Joseph165 (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also posting random articles from individual article writers is not the full news or site saying they define ranges its just the individual Arthur of the one quick read cherry picking a range for his own article based on one's that we already have posted. I'm not going to look up a random article and just post it as if what they wrote is what that the whole article "site" defines because they don't like you can find multiple ones being used in websites. I remember this one site that having articles posted weeks from each other using a different range for each post because it was personally the individual writers choice nothing defining. There is definitely issues with these generation wiki pages from what I see. Lol Joseph165 (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my grammar error I'm writing fast because my phone is almost dead. Joseph165 (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again: "there are different ranges, but there are widely accepted/typically/commonly used ones backed by a plethora of WP:Reliable sources which gives a particular range WP:Due weight to belong in the lead." Please see WP:Lead, WP:Due weight, WP:NOR, and WP:Reliable sources since articles are based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines and not personal beliefs or opinions. Some1 (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly ignored a lot that I said to now its just contradicting and your just repeating yourself. The date and range section is what that's for... I can't help you. Bye is all I can say for now. Joseph165 (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Lead is based on the body of the article, which I already stated above, and to repeat myself a third time: "there are different ranges, but there are widely accepted/typically/commonly used ones backed by a plethora of WP:Reliable sources which gives a particular range WP:Due weight to belong in the lead." So please follow the links given to you to learn more about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, since your arguments are based on personal opinions (WP:OR). Some1 (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to repeat yourself I got you the first time. It seems like your clearly have this bias since you determined for your own personal self what gets to be you say in the lead even on what you believe thought it's clear as day generational labels are completely based on different view points by demographers not hard fact but you have your opinion. That is why there is a date and range section of the page to point out these ranges that have been used. I'm simply erasing something that already is posted and wasn't there before until from what I see someone randomly put it there and not the date and range section were it belongs. Joseph165 (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before (yes, I keep repeating myself because you didn't seem to hear it the first time), the text is based on an RfC consensus, which is why it's there: the lead of the article follows the body of the article per WP:Lead and WP:Due. The disputes on these articles are mainly from editors who either try to 1) POV push fringe theories against reliable sources and due weight or 2) want to identify with a certain generation or don't want to identify with a certain generation so they POV push against reliable sources and due weight. It's obvious from your edit-warring based on IDONTLIKEIT and comments above that you fall into the latter category. But again, these articles aren't based on personal opinions and beliefs or what category you personally think you fall into (WP:NOR), the articles are based on WP:Reliable sources and what reliable sources have to state per WP:Weight. Some1 (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's pure bias to post that but I'm not deleting the who thing because it's simply were it belongs in the date and range section of the Wikipedia page not at the top. Generation labels and years are based on opinions by view points not fact because they technically not real things. Having a bias tords one and placing it on the top because you fine others have that personal bias is misleading being very cherry picking. The date and range section clearly has this range posted already explaining it being used many time in article posts but holding something crown over other when its "demographers" who define year ranges with many equally having their own ranges it's no good to post this on the top of the page when it belongs in the date and range section of the page just like any other(between early 80s and mid 90 to early 00 is all that need to be said) . looking at the RfC the talk page were this was discussed most opposed to placing this in that summary. Clear bias shows though of course that specific range is already shows in the date and range section. Joseph165 (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC consensus is: (here) where every editor supported the lead text. It is the long-standing RfC consensus text that faced little to no opposition, besides your edit-summary-less "remove this once every couple of months" slow-mo edit-warring (hence the warnings on your talk page). I recommend that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, because all of what you wrote here to remove consensus text did not cite any policy and are based on IDONTLIKEIT and your personal opinions (which constitutes as WP:Original research). Some1 (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that you have your own view. Looking through the RfC again and it shows that many have "opposed" to putting that exact description on the top. It's belongs in the date and range section. It's seems your just posting based on your personal opinion with what you view is I guess the right view even though it's already been opposed not to post this.

remove this once every couple of months" slow-mo edit-warring lol you do realize I'm not on this every day. You have already brought this up so I ones will explain to you again. Rfc clearly shows it was opposed to post that specific range at the top of the page. Knowing that it's not suppose to be on there.Im not always on which is why you see me changing it those other times and I'm very slow speed more than ones. It's because you or somebody keeps posting it when it's already been opposed so I deleted whenever I run across it which isn't every day but when I go on.

Posting stuff that's has already been denied to mostly is going against guidelines. I think you need to keep your bias to yourself. The range you posted is already in the date and range section were it belongs.  Joseph165 (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the RfC link again: Talk:Millennials/Archive_14#RfC_about_the_date_range_in_the_lead_section. And the "current" RfC on the talk page is about removing "early-2000s" from the lead, nothing about what you're trying to remove (which you should know by now if you've actually read what the RfC is about), and as you can see, I Opposed it. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! But now that you know that the text you're removing is an RfC consensus (which you also should've known after you were reverted back in March 2020), I hope I don't see you popping up once in every couple of months to slow-mo edit-war again. Some1 (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy edit war.... This was clearly something I thought you or someone else were doing for the past few months though this is very minor not much a war. I rarely here and there do go on like I've told you as you should know already.... I assume. It's clear that there was a discussion in the past on this and a disagreement with someone on it but other than that looking more through the wiki page I do believe that it's a bit slopy overall and clearly have a bias like posting any old article using say information on something that is already posted on the wiki page. Even especially like the whole range thing when it's demographers and all who come up and define these things not one or two quick posts from a media site article because there not defining anything just writing something on it. If I post anything though I will let it be known as well and point out things that don't or do make the page look at least decent more. Though I can care less right now to do that of course. I'm working physically and working here and there on billboard music Wiki pages lately so it's all vaguely up in the air for all I care lol.

Go and work on some other page I guess now Some1. Don't have yourself or me wasting each others time when there's wiki pages laying around lol Joseph165 (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]