User talk:Danbloch

For some unknown reasons, some mid or top quality recent sources saying the boomers' births were between 1944 and 1965 were erased and edited out of the article. I'm absolutely embarrassed and confused on this. How can recent sources be not of the top-quality kind, in particular those saying the boomers as born between 1944 and 1965? The older classification (1946 and 1964) is outdated and needs being changed and / or challenged because modern sources are saying that the boomers began entering this world around two years earlier than was previously thought (meaning during 1944) and the last year during which they were born was one year later than had been previously estimated (1965). How, though, can either I (or anybody else) find a high-quality reference to prove such? Angela Kate Maureen Pears 23:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Angela. I did give a reason, in the edit summary. But in more detail: The 1946-1964 range has almost universal agreement (which isn't true of the ranges for other generations). It's even in dictionaries. An alternate definition would need a better provenance than the two random people you gave. The sources currently in the article for 1946-1964 include the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (the dictionary I linked to above), the Pew Research Center, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Federal Reserve Board, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Gallup, YouGov, Australia's Social Research Center, and the United States Census Bureau. These are high quality sources. The two people that you give aren't.

You can raise this issue on Talk:Baby boomers and try to get a consensus there, but I would be surprised it there's support for it. Danbloch (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Danbloch. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 19 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey.

And wishing you a joyful Merry Christmas and a wonderful, happy 2026. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 20:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that you had reverted an edit of mine adding a library resources box to the article for Lloyd Alexander in the bibliography section. I wanted to let you know that I had in fact configured the box to return books by Lloyd Alexander not about him (you can test the link in the revision history). It was also recommended by WikiLoves Libraries that this box be added in the bibliography section for authors.

Since I think this was a misunderstanding of how I configured it, I wanted to ask you to consider adding back the library resources box. I don't want to edit war, but I still believe its addition was useful to the article. Thank you! AaronNealLucas (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I've put it back. I'm still not completely convinced that this belongs in the article body, but it's something reasonable men can disagree on. Cheers, Danbloch (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that! If you want, of course, I have no objection to it being in the external links if that seems better. I generally put it in the bibliography unless there are multiple different sections listing works (like a bibliography and discography or split bibliography, etc.) or if I don't supress the about links. That's just what feels right to me, but if there's concern that it will get in the way, I understand moving it. AaronNealLucas (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

So, like... really? Wanna talk about it? I'm lovin' Tricky Dick (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Your edit:

1. changed a link target from Spanish and Portuguese Jews to Sephardi. Either of these is fine.

2. changed a link target from Litvaks, which was correct, to Litvak, which is a redirect which requires an extra step to get to Litvaks.

3. changed "Jews" to "Jewish People" in two places, which isn't an improvement.

So none of the changes were improvements, and some made the article worse. Why do you think they're desirable? Danbloch (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I feel it can be dehumanizing to leave the word "people" out of categories of people. I'm lovin' Tricky Dick (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree with you. "Spanish Jews", etc., is idiomatic English. "Spanish Jewish people", etc. isn't and sounds awkward. You can bring the issue up on the article's talk page if you want to pursue this. Danbloch (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Take a look at the article Jew (word).

"The word Jew has been used often enough in a disparaging manner by antisemites that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it was frequently avoided altogether"

That's why "Jewish People" is preferable to "Jews". Off and running (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

However, in the case of this edit in question, the addition of the word "People" is not an improvement because there is already a sub-categorization in front of the word "Jews", making the addition of the word "People" cumbersome. Off and running (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

That's fair, thanks. And that article goes on to say, Even today some people are wary of its use, and prefer to use "Jewish" (with citations). I think it's nuanced though. Danbloch (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Colorado Apex ultimate frisbee team.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)