User talk:68.59.55.0

Decades

Decades can run from any 2 points that are 10 years apart. The 201st (consecutive) decade runs from 2001 to 2010, but the "2000s" refers to the 10 years that start with 200. - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

As has been previously addressed, a decade can be any period of 10 years, and is not dependant on the origins of the Gregorian calendar. --Infrogmation (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my supposed "vandalism", I quote that page: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." I was editing in good faith. This site is far too large for me, a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, to be aware of every policy decision made by the administrators... even the vastly incorrect decisions, and believe you have blocked me in direct contradiction to the policy of assuming good faith until evidence to the contrary presents itself.

Why Wikipedia is using a different definition for the decades than the rest of the human world, I don't know. If it is your policy to officially be incorrect, that's fine. It's your playground, I'm just a kid swinging on the monkey bars. But I protest your assumption that I was editing out of malice, spite, or some other reason to commit actual vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.55.0 (talk • contribs)

Well, you may not have been committing actual vandalism, but no one in the "real world" refers to the 201st decade, which would be 2001–2010, nor does anyone refer to the 1990s meaning 1991–2000. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Try doing a google search for "When does a decade begin" and see how many references you get to the fact that decades start on the 1 year and end on the 10 year. The only people in the "real world" who don't are apparently the people here on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.55.0 (talk • contribs)

The "google test" is notoriously unreliable on the real-world popularity of Internet trends; although I would expect computer-literate people to start the decades with "0". In any case, even if the 201st decade of the Common Era is 2001-2010, most people refer to the (say) 1950s as referring to 1950–59. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that Wikipedia's policy regarding the numbering of decades is in conflict with the real world (as I tried to do in my original comment, you might notice), the other problem here is your statement that I "may not have been committing actual vandalism" (emphasis added). Could you enlighten me as to what "non-actual" vandalism might entail? Because I was under the impression that an edit made in good faith was, as per the policy, not vandalism at all, and thus should not have been "punished" by my being locked out of Wikipedia. {{subst:unsigned:68.59.55.0}}

There a couple points involved here. There is an editor who, although acting in good faith, has a disability which makes almost all of his/her edits incomprehensible, most of them making the edited article unreadable. He has a mentor now, and has improved somewhat, but if he had continued, he could have been blocked, even though editing in good faith.

You should have been blocked for edit warring, rather than for vandalism. Making the same (or similar) edits on a series of articles, all of which have been repeatedly rejected by consensus, without opening a discussion first, is grounds for a block.

You may, of course, appeal the block, but it's probably not going to be looked at before the block expires in a couple hours. If I had been uninvolved, I still wouldn't unblock, as your edits qualify as disruptive, even if not vandalism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That I can deal with. The "edit war" as you call it was unintentional, and for it I apologize. Thanks for the clarification.