User talk:CreativeSoul7981/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  ... (up to 100)

September 2008

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in User talk:Bastun, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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. Thank you.

Did you delete your comment on User talk:Bastun on purpose? or would you like me to put it back? Theterribletwins1111 (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop this now

Category:Irish Roman Catholics is for Irish people who are notable for being Catholic, not for people who happen to be Catholic. If you keep revert-warring over this, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – iridescent 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.  – iridescent 20:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on this issue on my talk page. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this has been resolved and agreed by a consensus, as I have shown that Enya is notable for being a Roman Catholic. The category has been re-inserted. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You Reported me for Vandalizing when I reverted YOUR vandalism

That's totally not fair. on the Gen Y page.

Mimzy1990 (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize, I accidentally edited an old page before I pasted the newer information. I went back and added that back. You deleted the original dates, with several sources. It is a general consensus that Generation Y starts at 1982 with the Class of 2000. Your sources are all blogs and a page from some lawyer. I have sources from university professors and researchers. Stop changing the dates. I don't know why an obviously 90's kid is trying to lump people at the end of Generation X (1980 and 1981, Class of 1998 and 1999, with Millennials. That doesn't make sense.

You have been warned and are now being reported again. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed you have been permanently blocked from editing on Wikipedia again, Mimzy1990 (talk). I can't say that I'm surprised since you have been vandalizing several Wikipedia articles. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Generation Y. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I am leaving this message on User:Mimzy1990's talk page also.

In addition, please ensure that you are logged in to Wikipedia when making your edits. Several of your edits over the past day or so have come from various IP addresses. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have only made edits signing in. One post was made accidentally before I signed in. I have not gone back and forth several times. I do not know what that is. I recently reverted Mimzy1990's edits because he deleted the sources I had put up and also after he was warned twice by other users from vandalizing various pages (Generation X, Generation Y, and 2008-2009). I accidentally edited on an old page, so I went back and added the information back, left some of Mimzy's contributions in the intro, but removed the ones where the date was changed from 1982 to 1980. His sources came from blogs and a lawyer's website. I added back my sources from university professors, marketing research, etc. I also deleted the random information about South Korea, India, Greece, which doesn't belong in the introduction at all. I am more than happy to partner up with someone interested to add some information or put it up for discussion in the talk section. I found an article from Emory University about Millennials in the workforce, and am looking into some sources at the Public Library. I apologize for the trouble. However, the user I mentioned has been warned by other people, and he was told to stop or be blocked. He also has a history of deleting information and changing the original date from about a month or two ago. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Generation Y

Many sources do cite 1982 as a start date for Gen Y. But it is NOT generally accepted. Read through the sources we cite, and you will find a range of dates suggested, including the late 1970s.

We have been through these debates many times on a variety of generational articles, and it has been found to be almost impossible to cite single start dates for any given generation for three main reasons:

a) It is always possible to find conflicting sources, with slightly different years.

b) Cultural generations cannot be defined so precisely as to say anyone born in 19xx is a part of the generation, while those born in 19xy absolutely are not, and are completely different. It is inherently ludicrous.

c) As these generations are often international phenomena, the time span may be slightly different for different countries.

Read through the talk archives on Gen X, Baby Boomer, and Gen Y, and you should be able to find these debates hashed out many times.

I appreciate your efforts to work constructively, but I would suggest that attempts to define precise beginning/ending dates should be left to a later section of the article. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see why it is so important to be so specific as to say that it starts precisely on January 1, 1982. People from 1981 are not so different from 1982 that a stark difference can be drawn. I don't see how the article loses anything in just saying Gen Y are people born roughly from the late 1970s through early 2000s depending on your definition. It is more flexible and we can avoid fights about specific years. In a later section we can talk about specific arguments for specific dates, and WHY they are important markers to separate people of this generation.

Our very first two citations cite dates outside of 1982: # Shapira, Ian (2008-07-06). "What Comes Next After Generation X?". Education (The Washington Post): pp. C01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/05/AR2008070501599.html. Retrieved on 2008-07-19.

1. ^ a b http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-11-06-gen-y_x.htm

As to Class of 2000, I don't see that being cited very extensively in any of our sources. Not to mention the fact that it is only applicable in the American context, and appears to be an essentially arbitrary date.

The Strauss and Howe section can certainly mention whatever dates they have applied, and I did indeed move the info. about them from the lead to their section.Peregrine981 (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Religion categories

Hi, sorry for the delay in replying. Only noticed your post tonight. You asked "Shouldn't that same rule apply for all the religion categories then?" Yes, it really should. Nobody should be in a religious category, whatever their religion, unless their membership of a faith is notable. Just being famous and being an adherent of some faith shouldn't cut it. The reason I've only removed the category from "Irish Catholics" is because I've got that category on my watchlist - I don't have others because they're not my area. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cold Y Generation

An editor has nominated Cold Y Generation, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Y Generation and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. --Law Lord (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

References

{{helpme}}

I have started to edit some of the Harlequin Romance author pages on Wiki and RomanceWiki. I have some general questions about sources. I just edited Anne Hampson's page on Wikipedia for minor grammar and wording errors. I have noticed on author Sara Craven's page, for example, that the source for Fantastic Fiction is put under a second section titled "Bibliography". So I did the same for Ms. Hampson's page (with her link to Fantastic Fiction's website). Is that correct?

What should an editor do if the whole biography (or as in Ms. Hampson's case, at least several sentences) is taken from one website, like Fantastic Fiction? Obviously, other famous Harlequin Romance author pages and other romance author pages have references to articles from other sources, but I've noticed most of those authors have the Fantastic Fiction site listed as a link, and not a source, such as author Lynne Graham's page. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, close, but not quite. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information on how to do it. If the whole article is referenced to a single site, you need to find other sources. Try this: (

• wp
• g
• b

) <those links will give you some searches to find information about Hampson. If, however, the whole Wikipedia article is copied from a site, it needs to be deleted immediately and rewritten (see Wikipedia:Copyright violations). Any other questions, ask here - I'll be watching. Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 16:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I will read over Wikipedia's Citing sources and get back to you. I noticed however, on Anne Hampson's page, that practically every bit of information was from that Fan Fiction website. Sometimes, there's not a lot of information out there on people, events, etc. This author is a very old author and the first for the Harlequin Presents line. Therefore, everything must be cited. Okay, I'm just rambling now, so I'll follow your suggestion. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

re: your note

I received your post [1]. No need to thank me. To be honest, I looked at the Kelly article because I had just posted my disagreement with your adding a category to Jennifer Connelly and looked at a couple of your edits to see what you were editing and thought I could clean it up fairly quickly. Welcome to Wikipedia and don't hesitate to ask me if you have questions. Cheers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Gen-X page

Go ahead and report me! What is that your page? First of all, I've been contributing to that page for years. Second of all, I am expressing my opinion on the talk page. Take your attitude elsewhere, foolish person.Ledboots (talk)

Once again, the discussion on dates on these pages has been closed. Do not start up an edit war again and respect the outcome of the discussion.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Semitism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the reminder, but there was no need. I wasn't planning on more edits. I only added comments to the discussion page. Is that still okay? I'm done with that page for a while. I wasn't aware that adding comments to the discussion page is an edit. However, I have said what I needed to for the day. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't talking about the talk page; was talking about the article page. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I originally thought. And no, I don't plan on more edits. By the way, I like your photos. I play the piano and some guitar myself. Love the dance photo with your wife. I hope to learn Tango next year. Great form. But, why is there a photo of the film Mr. and Mrs. Smith put up next to the one from Casablanca? Thanks for looking out for me.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The theme of the dance recital was Hollywood something or another. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud...

Did you even consider the possibility that maybe I was already interested in topics that the Semitic and Magi articles relate to? As for you providing reasoning for why the info was removed, you made a counter-claim but never backed it up with sources. Wikipedia is about sources, which you do not have, and the info you remove does have. I am not doing this out of spite, I am doing this because some of the articles I watch are being altered by someone with an personal agenda. If I was doing it out of spite, I would be going after (checks user contributions page...) Generation X, stuff like that. But I don't have an interest in those, like I do various topics relating to the Bible in any way, shape, or form. You are a sad, paranoid person who needs to realize that a Wikipedia editor is supposed to leave their identity at the door when they see something in an article they disagree with. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please check the discussion page again before accusing someone of not providing counter links. I provided a link to a counter scientific article that debunked that author's work. All his articles are heavily disputed and he is controversial. It is currently the ONLY study out there. Look, I apologize if I'm falsely accusing you of following me around Wikipedia. But that is how it looks to me when you immediately revert another article of mine that you haven't edited yourself. I don't have a personal agenda. I'm not a sad, paranoid person for seeing false and disreputable information being put on an article page? Unreliable and false information is supposed to be removed from Wikipedia, especially if there's a slant. It is highly offensive to have debunked sources to support some ridiculous claim about Iranians and Armenians being Semitic. I've shown over and over that the author and his studies have been literally thrown out of respected journals for false conclusions. Why should I not care if false information and propaganda by a disreputable organization is being passed as fact just because I happen to be Persian?

Below is a sample of evidence from respected scientists. I left you the credible link, and supported my reasoning of why the information needs to be deleted, but I don't think you bothered to read any of the links or one of the counter papers by scientists that I provided.

Dropped genetics paper lacked scientific merit Nature 415, 115 (10 January 2002); doi:10.1038/415115b

Sir – Even though the controversial withdrawal of a paper on the genetic relatedness of Palestinians and Jews by the journal Human Immunology (see Nature 414, 382; 2001) is a minor episode compared with the tragedies caused by ethnic/religious conflicts over past decades, the issues involved are worth revisiting.

The stated purpose of the paper by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena et al. was to "examine the genetic relationships between the Palestinians and their neighbours (particularly the Jews) in order to: (1) discover the Palestinian origins, and (2) explain the historic basis of the present ... conflict between Palestinians and other Muslim countries with Israelite Jews". They conclude: "Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA genetic pool that supports a common ancient Canaanite origin. Therefore, the origin of the long-lasting Jewish–Palestinian hostility is the fight for land in ancient times."

It is difficult to believe that knowledge of genes may help to explain the present conflict. Although population genetics can address issues of relatedness of populations, mating patterns, migrations and so on, obviously it cannot provide evidence about reasons for conflicts between people.

Our primary concern, however, is that the authors might be perceived to have been discriminated against for political, as opposed to legitimate scientific, reasons.

Even a cursory look at the paper's diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.

The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute.

We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit.

Neil Risch Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA

Alberto Piazza Department of Genetics, Biology and Biochemistry, University of Torino, Via Santena 19, 10126 Torino, Italy

L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPa...415115b_r.html

FYI: I made it clear, that the points I made on the Magi page, etc. were open to discussion from other people. I purposely left the information out there for others to discuss and reach a consensus. I also mentioned that there is no point in editing again right now, because you'll just go back and revert everything. I hope you respect the fact that the discussion is open to others to chime in and not bash me again and say I have some agenda. I only ask that you take into consideration my sources and historical research, and the feedback from other people. I guess we'll just agree to disagree for now. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, CreativeSoul7981. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gen X End Date

Why have you decided to threaten me? I have been trying to maintain a civil discussion, and have NOT been editing the article at all, so I really don't appreciate the tone you took with me on my talk page. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and the discussion is never "closed." If I have relevant points you should address them. I would rather say that it is you who does not seem to be able to respect the process of discussion. Give me real arguments rather than simple assertions that this author is not a relevant authority. Who says? Why? You have said many times that the class of 2000 is somehow a dividing line between Gen X and Y, but have not really said why, other than that there was a lot of media hype around the date. But ultimately the number 2000 means nothing. It is a number, that has some symbolic importance, but is ultimately of little relevance to the vast majority of people. thanks for your cooperation.Peregrine981 (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't threatening you. It was a reminder. I can see that you haven't made any edits. However, this message was to you and another poster because it was reached by a consensus that the dates on these pages be left alone. I see that others have asked you to respect the outcome of discussion. Only ONE source shows 1983 as an end date and that is already left in the article at the bottom of the paragraph where it belongs due to it being a more recent source. This is not a widely accepted end date. Being part of the MTV Generation does not automatically make one Generation X. MTV Generation is a subgroup of both Generation X and Generation Y. Respected researchers use 1981 as the last date due to it being the last year BEFORE the Millennium. It just seems to me that you are re-starting something that was already put to rest. The page has just come out from under protection and it is a little warning so it doesn't start edit wars again. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: A Couple of Questions

Thanks for the compliment about my userpage, it took quite a while to design it, but I haven't touched the design in years, it really should be overhauled! As for where a semi-newbie should start, that depends what type of editing you are interested in. I started out doing counter-vandalism type editing, but many editors prefer to do copyediting, work with a wikiproject, or even just go out on their own to write new articles. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by templates on my userpage, do you perhaps mean barnstars? Barnstars are tokens of appreciation, if you are particularly impressed by something a Wikipedian does, you can 'give them a barnstar' by leaving them a message with one of the barnstar images and a note. Its all very unoffical stuff. Lastly, I protected the Persian People article after a request to do so due to some sockpuppetry and edit warring going on there, hopefully the people editing that page will be able to resolve the issues they are having and reach consensus. You are welcome to join the discussion. Prodego ^talk 16:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Arguments on Magi and Semitic

I see you've been getting into an edit war. I think the problem is largely one of editing style. Would you like to look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magi#How_to_edit.2C_how_not_to_edit

for some suggestions on how to edit in a way that no-one can argue with, and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Semitic#Bad_paragraph

for a couple of points on a paragraph that needs improvement? I'm not actually interested in either subject, but the problem could be resolved by attacking the editing in a different way. Just my thoughts, and of course only suggestions. Roger Pearse (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a calm and intelligent response to the issue at hand regarding the Semitic and [[Magi]pages. I appreciate you not using swear words or insults, etc. when engaging in discussion with me. Also, I'm a female, not a male (that is for that other poster who seems to think I'm a male for some reason). I will take a look at your links and read the information provided. I already indicated that I'd only engage in further discussion on those pages and not edit, but the other poster seems to be the paranoid one here. And I shared a couple of links on Zoroastrianism, but Ian.thomson (talk) didn't bother to read those sources. Also, what I said about Zoroastrianism being insular is something that is known, kind of like saying Christianity's beliefs are based around the Holy Trinity. It's common knowledge that can be found not only in the Avesta and Zoroastrian history, but verified by scholars and the Zoroastrian people . A correlation would be that for Catholics, teachings not only come from the Bible, a sacred text, but also from the Catechism, sacred tradition. There are traditional teachings that not in the Bible, but are still part of the Catholic faith. I'm not sure if I explained that well enough. Oh well. As there is no harm in doing more research and searching for more sources, I will continue doing that and add them to the discussion. Thanks again for your contribution.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Creative! Glad I could help. I've been in this situation myself, when people insist on saying stuff which they are sure is right, and I am sure is wrong (and I am right, too!). But the real problem is that neither of us is an expert (although I'm sure you're pretty knowledgeable about Zoroastrianism). So there's no possible compromise, if we just try to make the article say what is right.

The way forward is for neither side to express an opinion. I suggest that both sides must just quote the scholars. And by scholars we have to mean people who hold teaching posts on the subject at major universities, and have published books or articles on the subject. What we do then is get rid of all material that isn't by these people, gradually. We replace it with a description of what the scholars say -- and when they differ, we say "Dr. X says this[1]; Dr. Y says this[2]; Dr. Z says that most scholars agree with Dr. X[3]" with a footnote in each case. (Of course we don't quote amateur writers, or people who don't teach the subject at a major university; i.e. only reliable sources are used).

It's the only way, I think. I don't think either you or Ian or I (if I were interested) can possibly read enough to form an educated opinion on the subject, compared to the real scholars. So let's just say "this scholar says this, that scholar says that". Put their names in the article, as we do in the Mithras article. Roger Pearse (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I was given no indication what your gender was, and when you pointed out your gender (as if you had made it obvious) I switched to referring to you as female from that point on. As for using swear words and insulting, At one point in the Magi page I said "You are showing time and again that you do not give a damn about reasonable discussion. No one at any point said that the Magi were an Ethiopian group. No person at any point." because you were insulting with "You obviously no nothing on Iranian culture or history, otherwise you would know that Africans were slaves and not part of Persian culture." as well as continuing with "Because it isn't "highly likely", meaning it's true, that the Magi were Ethiopian." and "In any case, Christianity and historical sources attribute The Magi to the Persian Zoroastrians, and not Ethiopians." Now, where have I insulted you? Quote me. If it is something that I honestly should not have said I apologize, but I want to know what it was I said. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Take it easy, chaps. Hey, I wouldn't go into this. Everyone gets excited when editing. "Keep calm and carry on".... (smile) Roger Pearse (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Manga discussion on the Generation X and Generation Y pages - December 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Generation X. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. This is a more a formality as you have been engaged in an edit war on this article and on Generation Y, but no one has yet issued a 3RR notice. —Farix (t | c) 02:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I am no longer making edits. I just created a discussion on the subject. I left messages on your page, and other editors to contribute to the discussion. Thank you for the warning, but I am aware of the three-revert rule and will abide by it. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion and I look forward to working together on Wikipedia.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

My last post on this discussion is as follows:

That is one article that mentions both Generation X and Generation Y. Others mention dates, or a specific time period, which encompasses those generations. Why does all pop culture have to be mentioned in a scientific journal? Doesn't the history of manga and anime support the fact that manga (and anime) are part of the pop culture of these generations? Manga started becoming popular in the 1970s and 1980s and throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. It continues to be popular, but the great "boom" occurred during Generation X and Generation Y. Also, if we go by what you say, then no mention of music genres, Harry Potter, or other references to pop culture should be on either Generation X or Generation Y without "scientific research". I think the reference was a decent one. Doesn't anyone remember the huge popularity of Hello Kitty growing up in the 1980s? I was born in 1981, and I watched a lot of anime. Here are some other links (not major references though) that touches upon the history of Japanese art. http://www.contemporaryartproject.com/cap/otherCONTENT/superflat.htm http://artradarasia.wordpress.com/category/styles/anime-styles/ http://artradarasia.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/takashi-murakami-on-why-the-war-helped-create-japanese-pop-culture/ http://www.thegreenwolf.com/pcmreviews.html

Also, the book Japanese Visual Culture: Explorations in the World of Manga and Anime by Marc W. MacWilliams http://www.anime.com/Japanese_Culture_and_History/ Both anime and manga were becoming more mainstream in the 1990s. I'd also like to mention (but not use as a source obviously) that this is in a 1990s article on Wikipedia itself. If manga and anime boomed when Genereation Xers and Generation Yers were growing up, it should not be left out of pop culture.

I'd be more than happy to read these books and others to expand the articles, as well as the anime and manga pages on Wiki. You don't always have to use the terms "Generation X" "and "Generation Y", though that article used first did because it was a research article. If it falls in line with the dates for the generations, that should be fine. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Mixed Category

I support your edits there, if you need any help let me know. Izzedine 12:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Accusing others of vandalism and threats to 'report' them simply because you disagree with what their edit is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you wish to discuss my edit then I have already explained my actions on the Talk:Mixed (United Kingdom ethnicity category) talk page. Please address the issues there.

As for what you say, I have picked a random name from this random list; Bruce Oldfield. Please show me where his inclusion in this list is supported by his article. How about Billy Boston? David James?

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 02:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you. You just deleted a whole section without discussion (that wasn't even my edit by the way). None of this is even my research or edit. This article is on my watchlist. Blanking out sections without discussion can be considered vandalism. Various articles that have been sourced on Wikipedia on these Notable Britons mention their mixed heritage. There is no reason to delete this section. This who section was added by several editors and part of this article for quite a while. If you'd like to start a discussion, you are welcome to without destroying the works of others or part of an article. Thank you. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read this article on Wikipedia. I have been bold, you have reverted. I'm now asking you again to discuss. Your understanding of what is vandalism is also flawed. Please read this Wikipedia policy on what is not vandalism. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You haven't discussed, as other people besides me have not chimed in on the subject. Also, blanking out is vandalism. Do not delete sections of an article without a consensus.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)