User talk:Pro1902

May 2022
Hello, I'm Danbloch. Your recent edit(s) to the page 2000s appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello I didn’t make a mistake. Just calculate it we started year 1 not 0 so add to 10 years (decade) it because year 11 so that the start of the new decade then do it again 21 then 31 then 41 then 51 the 61 so if you continue on the pattern that a new decade starts when the last digit of a year is 1 you will reach 2011 which is where the new decade started so technically 2010 is apart of the 2000s Pro1902 (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * A decade can be any ten-year period. The 2000s is the one beginning with 2000, not the one reached by starting at the year 1 and counting forward.  But irrespective of details, you would need a source to make this change.  Per WP:VERIFIABLE, even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable (supported by inline citations) before you can add it. Dan Bloch (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.almanac.com/when-does-new-decade-start This one of many arrivals it says 2020 is apart of 2010s so the 2010s is apart of the 2000s because if not it will be 11 years and also this is another source https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/21/us/when-does-the-decade-end-begin-trnd/index.html Pro1902 (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Take another look. These both say that there are various ways of referring to decades, and the almanac.com one specifically talks about when "the new decade" starts, but neither one says that "the 2000s" starts with 2001. The CNN article even says, "When we think of the 90s, we think of the period from 1990-1999. It just doesn't make sense that the year 1990 would be considered part of the 80s." Dan Bloch (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m the cnn it says we think and it doesn’t make sense it dosent say it’s true Pro1902 (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In cnn it says it dosent make sense it dosent say it’s untrue. if something dosent make sense dosent mean it’s untrue and if you use the same logic the websites are saying but in the 2000s it will prove my point (the last one i sent has some mistakes so this is the correction for it) Pro1902 (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that if you're still thinking about making this change it's not me you need to convince, or not just me, it's the consensus of editors at Talk:2000s. Also note, you need a source saying, "The 2000s are from 2001 to 2010."  Anything else isn't sufficient, even if you believe that that conclusion follows from it.  See WP:OR. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
Hello, I'm 73.22.122.66. Your recent edit(s) appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 73.22.122.66 (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I will add a source Pro1902 (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pro1902! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of 2000s several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at Talk:2000s, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 16:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Nobody uses the talk page i sent and nobody responds Pro1902 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Pro1902
Hello, Pro1902. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Pro1902, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:Pro1902


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Pro1902, was deleted as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz Read! Talk! 08:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)