User talk:22nd Century and Beyond

Nomination of 9987 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 9987 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9987 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CatcherStorm ^talk 18:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 3183 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 3183 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3183 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CatcherStorm ^talk 18:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about 9622

Hello, 22nd Century and Beyond,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether 9622 should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9622 .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

CatcherStorm ^talk 18:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 9966 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 9966 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9966 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CatcherStorm ^talk 18:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 9847 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 9847 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9847 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CatcherStorm ^talk 18:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 9106 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 9106 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9106 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CatcherStorm ^talk 18:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 9168 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 9168 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9168 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CatcherStorm ^talk 18:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 9682 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 9682 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9682 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CatcherStorm ^talk 18:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 9361 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 9361 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9361 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CatcherStorm ^talk 18:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These should NOT be deleted because they provide accurate information about those years.

Proposed deletion of 3087

The article 3087 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:CRYSTALBALL article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 3017

The article 3017 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTFUTURE - this and many other thousands of years will exist, but there's nothing to say about them specifically.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. McGeddon (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will be removed shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Please hold back on creating any more future year articles until you've discussed why creating them doesn't go against policy. Thanks. McGeddon (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 3016

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on 3016 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Arkhaminsanity (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 3016

The article 3016 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTFUTURE. Original Hawking quote here is that disaster "becomes a near certainty in the next 1,000 or 10,000 years", he was being neither precise nor literal.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. McGeddon (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overwriting an existing page

Please do not edit an existing page to create a new article, as you did at 3000. See WP:Your first article for the correct procedures. Thank you. — Gorthian (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome 22nd Century and Beyond!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,199,211 registered editors!

Hello, 22nd Century and Beyond. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Gorthian, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:

Introduction to Wikipedia

The five pillars of Wikipedia

Editing tutorial

How to edit a page

Simplified Manual of Style

The basics of Wikicode

How to develop an article

How to create an article

Help pages

What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:

Do be bold

Do assume good faith

Do be civil

Do keep cool!

Do maintain a neutral point of view

Don't spam

Don't infringe copyright

Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest

Don't commit vandalism

Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:

Ask a question

or you can:

Get help at the Teahouse

or even:

Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:

Fight vandalism

Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome

Help contribute to articles

Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you

Help design new templates

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.

Sincerely, — Gorthian (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC) (Leave me a message)[reply]

— Gorthian (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if you've had a rough time your first day editing, so I wanted to welcome you and give you a couple of tips.

Read WP:Notability to get some idea about why so many of your articles are being discussed for deletion. Specific years far in the future may not merit their own articles, but the material can be added to century articles (such as 30th century), as long as it's reliably sourced.

You may want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Years to find other editors with similar interests.

There is a discussion at The Village Pump (policy) that you might want to follow or contribute to. Even though it's focused on the policy for recent years, future years are part of the scope as well.

Good luck and happy editing! — Gorthian (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 3089

The article 3089 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:TOOSOON

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop creating new articles thousands of years into the future. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Fbergo (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 1 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the 100th century page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 3086

Hello, 22nd Century and Beyond. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, 3086, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Jbh ^Talk 00:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 3015

Hello, 22nd Century and Beyond. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, 3015, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Jbh ^Talk 00:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 9980s

Hello, 22nd Century and Beyond. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, 9980s, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Jbh ^Talk 00:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 10000s

Hello, 22nd Century and Beyond. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, 10000s, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Jbh ^Talk 00:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 9960s

Hello, 22nd Century and Beyond. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, 9960s, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Jbh ^Talk 00:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 9970s

Hello, 22nd Century and Beyond. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, 9970s, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Jbh ^Talk 00:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 101st century

Hello, 22nd Century and Beyond. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, 101st century, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Jbh ^Talk 00:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 9965

Hello, 22nd Century and Beyond. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, 9965, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Jbh ^Talk 00:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 9117

Hello, 22nd Century and Beyond. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, 9117, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Jbh ^Talk 00:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 10004

Hello, 22nd Century and Beyond. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, 10004, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Jbh ^Talk 00:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 9105

Hello, 22nd Century and Beyond. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, 9105, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Jbh ^Talk 00:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 9087

Hello, 22nd Century and Beyond. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, 9087, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Jbh ^Talk 00:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Far future articles

I strongly advise you to take a break from creating articles that violate the guidelines for articles on for future events. It is becoming disruptive and you are taking up volunteers' time. You may be blocked if this continues. Acroterion (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will wait a few hours before creating more articles. How do they violate guidelines?

Did you read the link I provided? We don't create articles on future (or even past) dates or events until there is a reason for the article to reference a significant event. You're just making uninformative filler. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am able to search for any year anywhere from like 1000 BC to 2099 AD. But am not able to see single years after 2099. Where would be a good place to provide information about years not listed on the site? Isn't Wikipedia a site to provide information about things, time, places, and many more. Isn't it like a dictionary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22nd Century and Beyond (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and it documents verifiable and notable things and events, not indiscriminate lists of unremarkable stuff that might happen. The actual question is "why does the encyclopedia need to have articles on future dates beyond 2099?" Unless something truly notable is certain to happen in a specific year (and can be sourced), an article on a given year in the future (or in the far past) is pointless and amounts to clutter. Since we have a historical record it's easier to point to dates in the last 3000 years, but useless beyond less than 100 years in the future. Acroterion (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, please see WP:NOTDIC and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:NOTFUTURE, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NOTE. Acroterion (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Acroterion was being polite in their phrasing - "take a break" should be read as;

Please stop creating this type of article. They violate Wikipedia's content guidelines and will be deleted. If you continue you may have your editing privlages suspended. If you wish to create articles about future events please see Wikipedia's the guidelines for articles on for future events
If you need some assistance feel free to contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} me ({{ping|Jbhunley}}) from any talk page. You can also get help from the editors at the WP:TEAHOUSE. You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and a time stamp when you save the page. Jbh ^Talk 01:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 9298

Hello, 22nd Century and Beyond. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, 9298, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Jbh ^Talk 01:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 9300s

Hello, 22nd Century and Beyond. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, 9300s, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Jbh ^Talk 01:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brookerbs

What is your relation to User:Brookerbs? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, speaking of a waste of volunteer time, that account is plainly disruptive. Please answer NeilN's question. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Brookerbs account earlier but was trying to transfer information to this one.

Proposed deletion of 9950s

The article 9950s has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable decade. Nothing of note associated with it, since it hasn't happened yet and isn't on anybody's planning calendar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

Are you willing to stop editing the way you have been and only use one account? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, but you can please undelete my year pages that I worked on creating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22nd Century and Beyond (talk • contribs)

Here's the problem. We believe that you were acting in good faith out of enthusiasm. However, all those non-notable and speculative year pages were disruptive, particularly when you did all those page moves into nonexistent userspaces. You created a lot of work to clean up after you. We've explained why the year creations were contrary to the encyclopedia's guidelines. Please review the links we provided farther up the page, they make it clear how the articles were a problem. For my part, I would support unblocking if you undertake to do something else entirely and to stay away from year articles, as I don't think you have quite understood what's appropriate and what's not. Eventually, once you've gotten a better idea of what the encyclopedia does, you might return to some carefully curated articles on notable years of the future, but boilerplate article creations will never be acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and may I ask a question:

Through this encyclopedia, how do you get it to provide information to the public so that people can look up a year and see it's roman numerals, what day of the week it starts, and whether it is a common year, leap year, or exceptional common year? There is currently no other way to look it up. Like for example, if someone wants to see what day of the week does the year 9800 start, how can they find that? Also, is there a way to create articles in the sandbox and also would it be able to be published and not violate the guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22nd Century and Beyond (talk • contribs)

In my view that falls under "indiscriminate collection of information." What you're talking about is more like an almanac than an encyclopedia and as such is outside the purpose of Wikipedia. All subjects are required to have achieved some level of notability, and a database of that kind really doesn't fit. As for sandbox and userspace, Wikipedia userspace isn't a free webhost for personal projects or for material that doesn't have a place in the encyclopedia, or that doesn't support the mission of the encyclopedia. We've got articles already on leap years and how they're calculated, but I don't see specific material relating to exceptional common years, at least not in the article common year. That might be something to be added, but I don't see an easy fit for a database or year calculator in this project. Acroterion (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion made at the adminstrator's noticeboard recommended that all new articles you might create be required to go through the articles for creation process to screen them before they get to article space. However, that would still require an undertaking from you not to flood AfC with boilerplate articles and to respect the requirements for very clear notability, and it would not allow you to use userspace as an alternate host for content. Acroterion (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. I can go through the articles of creation process because my topic of interest is future history. I like to study events in the far far future.

That will mean that you really will need to read and understand WP:NOTFUTURE/WP:CRYSTAL, because there are only a few non-routine things that can be predicted with certainty. Elections, sports championships and the like are routine and are in general not entitled to an article of their own much more than immediately in advance of the event. Leap years are completely routine and don't get an article just for being leap years. The far far future, apart from articles like heat death of the universe, is pretty much out of Wikipedia's scope. You also need to learn to sign your posts. Acroterion (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok to have an article about the year 2100? There are some events taking place in that year, such as the extinction of bird species by 12 % and also the fact that it will be an exceptional common year because it is evenly divisible by 100 but not by 400? Also the fact that it will be exactly two weeks ahead of the gregorian calendar for the next 100 years after that until the year 2200. Also to show 2100 in other calendars, such as it being 3050 in the berber calendar, 7609 in the Byzantine and years in many other calendars? Is there any way to see what the years will be in other calendars? I am able to look that up for the majority of past years and future years up to only 2099.

Is there any way you can go and look up the year 3000 for example and read about it and see it's years in other calendars? OR another example, the year 9797. Where can people go to look up that year in other calendars? There APPEARS to be no other way to look up years after 2099 in other calendars.

Please sign and date your comments. This is easy: hit the "~" (tilde) key four times in a row.

You don't seem to understand what Acroterion has been saying. Again, Wikipedia is not an almanac. There is probably some website that converts between year numbers for future years. And if there isn't, too bad: providing this service is not the job of this encyclopedia.

You also seem to have an odd idea of what makes a year noteworthy. You say that the year 2100 "will be an exceptional common year because it is evenly divisible by 100 but not by 400". Hardly. It will be a year that has the number 2100. I'm not a mathematician, but I doubt that a mathematician would argue with me if I said that divisibility by 200 but not by 400 is uninteresting.

And I'm also not an ecologist, but I doubt that an ecologist would argue with me if I said that it's rather silly to claim (now, in 2017) that "the extinction of bird species by 12%" is an event that will take place in the year 2010. Still, I'm open to being persuaded: what is your source for making this claim? -- Hoary (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It talks about the bird species extinction on the 22nd Century page. Plus did you know that you might think that the Earth takes 365 days and 6 hours to orbit the sun. Well not exactly, it is like 365 days, 45 minutes, and 46 seconds, so Pope Gregory reformed the Gregorian Calendar in 1582 so he added a leap year rule so here is the whole rule:

A year is a leap year if is divisible by 4 and not by 100 unless it is evenly divisible by 400. This means that 1600, 2000, 2400, 2800, 3200, 3600, and so on are leap years, but 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2500, 2600, 2700, 2900, 3000, 3100, 3300, 3400, 3500, 3700, 3800, 3900 and so are all exceptional common years.(User talk:22nd_Century_and_beyond)

I'm recommending not unblocking. The user does not seem to be listening, and seems to be caught up in his own world and interests. This user should not be creating any year articles, period, whether through WP:AfC or not. They need to specifically agree to avoid creating or drafting any year articles. Everything they are talking about violates WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SPECULATION, and so on. They need to find a venue other than Wikipedia for their hobby: a personal blog or personal website (they are free these days), or a community (web forum) of like-minded people. His other minutiae questions can be asked at WP:Reference desk (that is until they get sick of them), or answered by him doing simple Google searches. Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be unblocked.

Request to Unblock

I am wanting to request to be unblocked from Wikipedia.

You give no reason for being unblocked.

Either you are reading selectively, or you're ignoring anything you want to ignore. You ignore the minor points, such as the repeated request to sign and date your comments; and you ignore the important stuff: everything that Softlavender says.

Furthermore, you give me reason to doubt that you can helpfully edit an article on any subject. The article 22nd century, which you point us to, says:

By 2100, 12% (about 1,250) of the bird species existing at the beginning of the twenty-first century are expected to be extinct or threatened with extinction.

As you don't claim otherwise, I'll assume that this is an accurate summary of the source that it cites. And I'll ignore the degree of precision of "the beginning of the twenty-first century". Now, if you either don't understand or can't express the difference between (A) a process that's expected to reach a certain point by year X and (B) an event that will happen in year X, then you shouldn't be editing here. -- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, is it ok to use a personal sandbox for this kind of stuff? (22nd_Century_and_beyond)

No, it is not OK, as explained here. -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the sandbox for? Oh and yes, I do understand the difference between processes expecting to reach a point VS an event that's gonna happen.(22nd_Century_and_beyond) So Yes, I would like to be unblocked please.(22nd_Century_and_beyond)

You still fail to explain why you would like to be unblocked or how your editing would benefit Wikipedia. And you still fail to address what Softlavender wrote above. So no, I'm not going to unblock you.

A sandbox in your user space is for drafting articles of value to Wikipedia. It's subject to the guidelines explained in Wikipedia:User pages; therefore it is not for drafting what might be articles if only Wikipedia's policies were how you'd like them to be.

You can sign and date your comments by typing "~" four times in a row. -- Hoary (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to help Wikipedia give accurate information.22nd Century and Beyond (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate information about what? For example, which article do you want to edit first, and how do you want to edit it (or what do you want to add to it)? How will you insure that the information is accurate? -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to unblock at this time. I see no indication that you understand Wikipedia's purpose or that you will do so in the near future. We've been patient, but there are limits, and you've repeated the same questions over and over. Your edits, however well intentioned, have been disruptive and have required a significant amount of volunteer work to repair. Until you clearly understand what you can and cannot do, you will not be unblocked. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request to be unblocked, please.22nd Century and Beyond (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what Acroterion wrote above and also read WP:GAB carefully. Note: To make an unblock request, copy the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: {{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here}}. Don't forget to insert your own reason to replace "Insert your reason to be unblocked here". You must indicate how you will change your editing pattern in the future. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:40, 2 February 2017 (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).

22nd Century and Beyond (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to help Wikipedia get accurate information on topics. I would also like to make drafts in the sandbox.

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block. Yamla (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2017 (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.

You are not permitted to remove previous unblock requests, nor are you permitted to alter what I wrote. --Yamla (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC) {unblock|1=I will promise to only create pages in my personal sandbox and not anywhere else on the site as I was blocked for making disruptive edits to other pages.}}22nd Century and Beyond (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2017 (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).

22nd Century and Beyond (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will promise to only create pages in my personal sandbox and not anywhere else on the site as I was blocked for making disruptive edits to other pages. 22nd Century and Beyond (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for abusing multiple accounts; you will need to request unblock at your original user talk page. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:34, 2 February 2017 (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.

I clicked on the link that you posted ( original user talk page ) and tried to do that like you requested, but it won't let me because it says that I am blocked.22nd Century and Beyond (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Log out of this account and log in to that one then post the request. Jbh ^Talk 19:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok

Request to Unblock

Important

This account will not be unblocked. Go to your original account to request unblock. If you continue to post random messages on this page the page will be locked. Tiderolls 06:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is there a Wikipedia Questions site where you can ask questions and get answers from people?22nd Century and Beyond (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk. You will not be able to make use of that feature while blocked, though. Tiderolls 20:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can you unblock me? If not, I am wanting to know if the year 9800 is a leap year or exceptional common year? I google searched it and got this page showing that it does have a February 29th (http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/cgi-bin/calendar/calendar.pl?Month=2&Year=9800&config=calendar.cfg). But then I hear that if the last two digits of a year end in 00, they have to also be evenly divisible by 400. I have no way to look that up because noone will let me write articles that automatically calculate through this site if it is a leap year or common year. The link I gave you shows a February 29th in the year 9800, but how could that be if 9800/400=24.5. If it is not a whole number with no decimal, then it is supposed to be an exceptional common year right? Can you help me find the answer to this? Is 9800 going to be a leap year or an exceptional common year? added at 21:36, 7 March 2017‎ by User:22nd Century and Beyond

Above, Tide rolls wrote: This account will not be unblocked. Go to your original account to request unblock. If you continue to post random messages on this page the page will be locked.

Your original account is Brookerbs. Go there. And when you go there, read Oshwah's advice: I think that you should read Wikipedia's Standard offer page and come back in six months.

Meanwhile, I am locking this user talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]