User talk:CherokeeJack1

February 2020

Hello, I'm FlightTime. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Rush (band), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on Template:NeXT Computer. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tymon.r. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to M. A. Wetherell—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 09:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, CherokeeJack1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
How to add those all-important references
Simplified Manual of Style
The Signpost, our newspaper.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Sm8900 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Sm8900 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Trap Queen. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Retro style, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Davis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Gene Deitch

On 20 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gene Deitch, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Q788771, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

PKHilliam (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Hip hop music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Usher, TLC, Ashanti, The Game and Terror Squad

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Gangsta rap into Hip hop music. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Bouncing Off the Satellites. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm GoneIn60. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Blockbuster LLC, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GoneIn60 (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June, 2020 Comment

Hello, I'm Netherzone. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Atomic Age (design), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional explanation

Regarding your edit here, please do not make massive changes to the section's long standing status quo text and organization without consulting the talk page first. You did this exact same thing back in February and there was already a talk page discussion regarding that.

The current version of the section is organized the way it is for the following reasons:

The first paragraph of the section introduces Oxford Living Dictionaries' general definition of Millennials and what the widely accepted definition of Millennials is.
The second paragraph focuses on the Pew Research Center: Pew's definition of millennials is presented, along with the reasons why they chose the date ranges they did, the importance and widespread use of Pew's definition by the various media outlets and statistical organizations that cite Pew's definition (secondary sources), and ends with Pew's general observations.
The third paragraph lists different organizations and news outlets and what they use. These are all different organizations. And since they are using the same date ranges, these are combined into one paragraph. Multiple different organizations using the same date ranges is not "overciting"; it's just what they are using. And no, this should not be combined with Pew's paragraph; Pew's paragraph focuses on Pew's definition.
The rest you can probably tell why it's organized that way. Fourth paragraph is basically what other organizations use that are not the widely accepted definition. The fifth paragraph is about the two authors. The sixth paragraph ends the section with information about the cusp. Some1 (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC) (Edited: Some1 (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Taking some of your suggestions into consideration, I moved [1] two sentences that were originally separate paragraphs up, and further moved another one up [2]. So now there's a total of 5 paragraphs: First paragraph is the introduction, second is Pew focused, third and fourth are different organizations/news outlets/authors date ranges, and fifth is about the cusp. Let me know your thoughts. Some1 (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Unrelated to the above, but do you think the 2014 US Pirg report is notable enough to be included? 2014 seems a bit outdated and it's only used once in a transportation report. Some1 (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the U.S. PIRG source doesn't seem notable enough to include. It's outdated, and as you said, just for a transportation report, not an in-depth sociological study on millennials. Would it be alright with you if I removed it?

It should be noted that, in the third paragraph, the LA Times source and the PBS source actually cite Pew Research, not just using 1981-1996 on their own whim like the Federal Reserve Board or ABC Australia. Should I move those particular sources up to the second paragraph?--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm alright with that; and regarding LA Times and PBS, ctrl-F "Pew" on those two articles doesn't show anything for Pew. How'd you know they are citing Pew? (Let's keep the discussion on your talk page and no need to ping.) Some1 (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the LA Times source, when it says "By next year, millennials, born between 1981 and 1996, are projected to outnumber baby boomers," the line "projected to outnumber baby boomers" links to a Pew source. In the PBS source, the first two paragraphs contain links to both Pew and People-Press.org (which is part of Pew).--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I'm fine with your proposed changes. Some1 (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to move the Jonathan Rauch source into the second paragraph, as it directly cites Pew, while the Reuters source can go in the third paragraph, as it uses 1981-1996 seemingly on its own whim. Would that be alright with you?--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why was the Business Insider source removed?--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really... Rauch and Reuters do a great job at introducing the paragraph and section. Oxford starts off with the most general definition of millennial, then Rauch and Reuters gives us the "widely accepted" definition. It flows well. Some1 (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Business Insider isn't as important as the other outlets listed (and it's yellow here: [3]). ~~But if you disagree, feel free to add Business Insider back in.~~ Some1 (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Actually, scratch that, I don't think Business Insider belongs in there because they are not on the same level as Time, BBC, New York Times, etc. etc. that's why I removed it. Some1 (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, shouldn't Jean Twenge's definition be mentioned too? She's mentioned so many times in the article in other sections. I can't seem to find a source for her, though. Some1 (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CherokeeJack1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How was the information I added incorrect/unsourced? In the second source on the very sentence I edited, it cites "Nason, Leslie J." as the author of that 1963 Daily Press article. In fact it's a direct link to the article.CherokeeJack1 (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Firstly, you appear to be referring to one incident, apparently not having taken in the fact that the block was not for one incident: it was for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. You are unlikely to be unblocked as long as it seems you do not understand what you were blocked for. Secondly, you give no indication what edit you are referring to, apparently expecting administrators to search through your editing history to find out what you are referring to. It is entirely likely that that is one of the reasons your unblock request has not been dealt with before. Thirdly, you appear to be referring to an edit you made in the article Baby boomers. In that edit you said that The first recorded use of "baby boomer" was by Leslie J. Nason. The cited article does not say, or even imply, that the use in question was the first recorded use, and you did not cite any other source which does say that; thus your claim was unsourced. Again, you are unlikely to be unblocked as long as it seems you do not understand what you were blocked for. JBW (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Calling All Stations Tour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Banks.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add bogusly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Baby boomers. Toddst1 (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Neon sign. SolarFlash^Discussion 03:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Retro style. SolarFlash^Discussion 16:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Bis (Scottish band). SolarFlash^Discussion 17:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hip hop music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Snap.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint notification

Hi CherokeeJack1 and/or administrators viewing this talk page, a complaint about recent edits was created, and declined without any action for now, at Special:Permalink/973700878. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional explanation... again.

As a reply to your question and regarding your use of WP:SYNTH ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"):

The lead of the Millennials article does not contain WP:SYNTH because if you actually read the Brookings Institution and the Reuters sources, they literally use the phrase "widely accepted" in the articles themselves, hence "widely accepted" is able to be put in the lead of the article. And the lead sentence matches the body of the article itself.
Your edit to the lead of the Generation Z article contains WP:SYNTH, because "widely accepted" is not used anywhere in the article and nor did the three sources you added in that same edit support the use of "widely accepted." Hence, the WP:SYNTH.

And this is not the first time you added WP:SYNTH to articles; you did the exact same thing over at the Generation X article: here, here, and here, and were reverted every single time by multiple different editors.

Also, please take the time to familiarize yourself with WP:BAREURLS. Some1 (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I understand your points. However, don't "most often understood", "most experts", and "usually defined" have similar connotations to "widely accepted"? It's not the exact wording, but the meaning is similar.--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but WP:SYNTH says to "not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Some1 (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again.

Before making massive changes to the structure and organization of the section, please do it edit by edit so editors can actually see what you're trying to change. The diff view [4] is not that great for trying decipher and compare the old vs the new version, especially when sentences are being moved around or changed.

Also copy and paste the message you left on my talk page here so we can discuss those changes on your talk page instead. Some1 (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to the restructure, no sources were removed. Rather they were regrouped in a way similar to that of the Date and age range section of the Millennials article: dictionary dates, Pew dates, other media dates, Howe dates, non-U.S. dates. This made the section a lean five paragraphs, compared to the current eight paragraphs which seems like overkill to me. Should I first seek consensus on the talk page, or can I go through with the edits piece by piece?

My other question: since sources by Forbes, Business Insider, and Goldman Sachs were removed from the "Date and range definition" section of the Millennials article, should they also be removed from that section of the Generation Z article? Reason being is that these aren't sociological institutions that give in-depth reasons for their date ranges; rather they're more focused on the business side of things, and create ranges based on marketing. Forbes isn't even consistent with their definition, using 1996-2010 in a September 2019 article but then switching to 1995-2007 in an October 2019 article.--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you want consistency considering all of the WP:SYNTH you tried to add to these different articles (see that discussion above we just had). But just because one section is organized one way on another article doesn't mean this section should be organized the exact same way. Millennials and Generation Z are two different articles with completely different set of sources. And you don't need to start a talk page discussion regarding the changes. Just make your changes edit by edit so people can actually see what you're trying to do. But I grouped a bunch of them together now, so let me know your thoughts here. Some1 (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way it's organized now is: 1) Dictionary definitions 2) Pew's definition 3) Those that start Gen Z at 1997 (or after 1996, same thing) 4) Those that start Gen Z at 1995 5) Those that start at 1996 6) And definitions that use different names for Generation Z ("Children of Baby Boomers" and "Homeland Generation"). Some1 (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like your restructuring. Now, should the date ranges from Forbes, Business Insider, and Goldman Sachs be kept or can they be removed? As I've said before I feel their definitions are more business-oriented than sociological.--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes can be removed. They also cite Pew on a different article in 2020. Some1 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Insider source is actually decent on this Gen Z article, since they are doing their own research on Gen Z (unlike the Millennials Business Insider source where Business Insider was listed only because they cited Pew). Some1 (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can Goldman Sachs be removed? They did imply a Gen Z range of 1995-2005 in 2018, as they called them "today's teenagers through 23-year olds", yet in a June 2020 report they defined Millennials as 1980-1999, which I think indicates they change date ranges on a whim for marketing purposes.--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feelings about Goldman Sachs either way, so do what you prefer. Some1 (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not use my username in edits in the future, such as this? [5] That's just weird. Some1 (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's fine. I wanted to be courteous since I felt like I had wronged you before, and felt like I needed your permission to fully proceed with the edits. But if namedropping is weird to you, I do understand.--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't "wrong" me per se. Judging by your talk page right now and all the warnings you've received and the amount of cleanup others (including I) have to do after 98% of your edits (unsourced, WP:SYNTH), don't be surprised that your edits need frequent re-checking, not just by me on the articles I edit myself, but by others who also edit the other articles you edit. Hopefully you'll heed the advice of others given to you above. Some1 (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing for the three paragraphs where the gen starts in 1995-1997 to be grouped into one, what do you think? The millennials article had a similar thing going on where sources that ended the generation around 1994-1996 were grouped together. Yes I know it's a different article with different sources, but I think this new grouping would make things tight and compact; the 1996 start dates paragraph in particular looks rather stubby and could easily be merged into another.--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]