User:DitzyNizzy/2000 in British music

Millennium and 3RR
Everyone agrees that 1000 years is a millennium. But what you don't seem to accept is that the transition from one millennium to the next can be placed exactly where people want to place it. If they want the new millennium to begin on 1 Jan 2000, then it does! Just because someone decided there should be no year zero that does not determine the beginning of what people call " new millennia". People have changed the month when the new year begins before now (March to December). They have dropped days out altogether (11 days in the change to the Gregorian Calendar). Perhaps it infuriates you that these things depend on other people, when you would prefer them to be out of human control, but that is how language works, how convention works, how society works. Persuade people to give a different meaning to "the beginning of the new millennium", then come back. Until then you are a vandal. And if days drop out and years begin in different months, it is certain that 2000 years from the beginning of 1AD is NOT 1 Jan 2001 !!! User 1

This is a 3RR warning on the article 2000 in British Music. You are in blatant violation of 3RR User 2


 * I got your message and I have clarified the issue at User Talk. While you are right according to our Manual of Style, this issue is not worth getting blocked for.


 * For your own sake, please just walk away from the millennium issue and let others deal with it. -- User 3


 * Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User 4 reported by User 2. You need to know that by all rights you should have been blocked, but I have elected not to do so in this case.


 * As I see it, here's the takeaway lesson from this: don't revert more than once without taking the issue to the talk page. Don't revert more than twice ever unless it's blatant vandalism, a copyright violation or a WP:BLP problem. The importance of our rules on edit-warring far outweigh the details of our Manual of Style guideline. We operate on consensus here. When you get to 2R, that should be your cue to get others involved in developing a consensus on an issue. If you are right, editorially (as you were in this case), then you end up with the community's backing and help. If you're wrong, as I have been multiple times, then you sheepishly shrug and move on with no harm done.


 * Edit warring, as you and your anonymous antagonist did, sours the collegial atmosphere for everyone and eventually makes work for others to straighten out. It's just not worth it. -- User 3