User talk:Zillennial

Hi Zillennial,

Thank you for your recent contribution at Millennials. I have taken on board your point of view. I have proposed to improve the Date and age range definitions section of the article to address your concerns, to ensure the section is not unbalanced towards certain viewpoints and to add more information on neglected viewpoints. There is an encouraging sign that a new consensus is forming to support the change as one of the main objectors has noted that concerns have been taken on board and now supports improvement. I would really appreciate if you could add your new opinion to this section of the Talk page to avoid the article being stuck at Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling.

Thank you for your time! Richie wright1980 (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I added a semi-protected request over on the Generation Z Talks Page. Possible signs of vandalism and sockpuppetry via a VPN as the editor is including "1995 to 2009" in the introductory paragraph; despite a concensus being made months ago. They are also falsely stating that the 1995 to 2009 definition being common, when the majority of the 1995 articles do not utilize this and have other end ranges such as Jean Twenge's 2012 end date. 2601:940:C100:8890:FDFB:B2AC:7D50:BE99 (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, you're awesome. I also want to suggest that you should not worry about the "mid-to-late 1990s" vs "late 90s" part, for now. This is too arbitrary and broad to be of any real importance. For example, when I do research or when talking to people about what is the difference between early, mid, and late 90s or 2000s; I many times noticed that people often categorize 1997 and 2007 as being part of the "mid" category while putting 1998 and 1999/2008 and 2009 as the true "late" category. Vice versa, I have also seen 1995 and 1996/2005 and 2006 be considered as part of the "late category", while splitting 1990-1994 and 2000-2004 as the first half, or "early category". The "mid-to-late" dispute may lead to another edit war that may undo all of the hard work that you have done. You have done fanstastic work. Right now I am currently moderating other Wiki projects such as Simple Wikipedia, the Wiktionary, and Wikidata to protect against vandalism and disruptive editing. Another editor and I have finished updating the Zillennials page over on Simple Wiki as well as Wikidata (both different from the main Wiki). 2601:940:C100:8890:D50A:8D12:A5F0:9089 (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm still convinced that Mirenism is a possible sock for Kapartem; especially after reading both of their edit contributions. I am also very convinced that Kapartem is a sockpuppet for the past editor Agrso. Keep a heads up if future weird accounts show up. 2601:940:C100:8890:D468:6AE9:316F:4105 (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Please use WP:Sockpuppet_investigations to submit an investigation request if you are convinced a sockpuppet is being used. Zillennial (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Another vandalism/disruptive attempt on Gen Z by @Gandtha. Account has history of being blocked in the past. 2601:940:C100:8890:FCBE:EA77:B86F:6A30 (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. Who are you to dictate this is vandalism. You are the one dit the wiki using IP address. Gandtha (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Please read my reply over on the Gen Z talk page. You are ignoring the consensus to discuss in the talk page before making any edits to the date range in the introductory paragraph. This has been emphasized multiple times in the talk page the past year, yet you are choosing to ignore it. So yes, your edits are vandalism. Your account barely has made any contributions to the Wikipedia site, and your edit history shows that you were indeed involved in a past edit war over an unrelated Wikipedia article last year in 2024. 2601:940:C100:8890:55C6:3705:ABEE:5744 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Zillennial, wanted to ask you about the Japanese sources that were added to the 1996 section over at the Gen Z body? I don’t know if they count as part of the Western World in social generations. They now give put too much weight against 1996, for example, Redditors have seen the Japanese changes and have recently updated their definition for Gen Z to 1996 to 2012 due to this. I will provide the Reddit link. Is it possible to revert the Japanese edits, or at the very least completely eliminate the McKinsey, Bain and Company, and Ipsos sources from the 1996 section to even out the bias? I am sure that all of them have now updated towards Pews definition. For example, SpinnerLaserzthe has found the 2025 McKinsey source updated with Pews 1997 definition, but still left in the 1996 old one from 2023. Did the Australian government also updated their census to Pew’s range? I have attempted to contact SpinnerLaserzthe about eliminating the Japanese sources, but I haven’t gotten a response yet. Surprisingly, they fully agree that the 1997 to 2012 is the definitive definition for Gen Z in the Talk Page, so I’m bamboozled as to why they added the new 1996 sources. In conclusion, my point is that the new 1996 sources are really bad since people are going to start saying that Gen Z starts at 1996 and not 1997. Here is the official Reddit link that now unfortunately has updated with the 1996-2012 range: https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/about/ 2601:940:C100:8890:308E:1485:B99C:4D8F (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I don't see an issue with adding the Japanese sources to the Generation Z wikipedia page. GO ahead and ask the other editors on the talk page if you can add it. However- Reddit is not an "official" source of anything as they are user created communities. - Zillennial (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Currently I have discussed with @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd in their talk page about the situation. They have responded that I can go ahead and edit, however the page is semi-protected. Also, if I bring up the topic to the Gen Z Talk page, it’s just going to inflame the date range war as it did in the past. Do you think that the Japanese sources should be eliminated? What to do? As I’ve said, 1996 is currently under the bus, as the phrase goes. 2601:940:C100:8890:308E:1485:B99C:4D8F (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, @Zillennial. PricewaterhouseCoopers has updated their definition of Gen Z with Pew's 1997 to 2012 definition. I also wanted to request that the old McKinsey source (the one with 1996-2010) be removed because the brand new McKinsey source from 2025 (that cites Pew's 1997 to 2012 definition) has already been added, so it's pointless having both McKinsey citations. I already have added both links in the Talk page, as well as making the request there, but noone responded. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Current vandalism and bad–faith edit attempts over at the Wikidata project for Generation Z and Millennials. It has been fixed for now, however the Wikidata project requires constant maintenance and surveillance. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey Zillennial! There is now a main Wikipedia page for the new micro–generation, the Zalphas. Hope to see you soon! ChicagoGirlD (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)