Talk:1590s
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit]
"It was the last decade of the 16th century" is incorrect. It mixes terms. Centuries start with year one, while decades (according to the decade list) start with year zero. More correctly, "It was the last full decade of the 16th Century." — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 00:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not revert without comments. The recent reverts (the ones that I reverted back) are without reference. Reference for the change in question is available on the Decade and Century articles. Removing the word "full" represents an unsupported agenda rather than actual verifiable fact. If you have comment about this, please address it here or in those other articles. Otherwise, discussion of this issue should move to the next level quickly to avoid unnecessary revert war. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 20:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm reverting AGAIN, per WP:BRD. Please do not change the long-standing comment that the 1590s are the last decade of the 16th century without relevant discussion, probably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Last decade of century. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am making relevent discussion. You still haven't explained your revert at all. Without explanation for reverting referenced material, you are in violation of WP:BRD and several other areas. Your reverts have removed referenced material, which is about as big as a violation as they come in day-to-day editing. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 20:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- You have not yet opened a discussion in the relevant place; it needs to be in all of the articles where you made WP:BOLD edits, or in a centralized place. This is not the right place.
- Furthermore, you removed some other long-standing edits in most of the articles, such as references to the Gregorian or Julian calendar. It's possible that some of your edits were reasonable, but, when all the ones I noticed were not any better than what was there before, it seems reasonable to revert all the edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have no desire for a edit war. You know that my edits are in good faith (as I did attempt to have a discussion). From your history, I can see you do conduct frequent revert activities all over the place. Perhaps some are justified, but please take each situation into consideration by its own merit, even when considering a series of seemingly similar edits.
- As far as the julian and gregorian calendar references, I prolly should've brought those up separately. The year system of the wikipedia articles are defacto gregorian (not julian). It is mentioned in some articles, but not others. Personally, I question the value of the decade articles at all, but that's a difference story. I removed julian references because of a lack of relavence. Since gregorian was not mentioned in most of the articles, it seemed appropriate to remove similar references in the few that did have these terms. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 21:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Question
[edit]Can somebody please explain this to me?
ajthesirenqueen.tumblr.com/post/143115471557/yourfursona-yourfursona-420-years-ago-on
Okay, so I figured this was fake, but when I googled it, this article actually came up:
But when I clicked it, that text wasn't there. I figured it must've just been vandalism, but when I click the cached version of that result, it still isn't there:
And I even went back through all the revisions and still couldn't find it. So, what gives? If this edit did indeed exist, then why isn't it in any of the revisions, and why doesn't it show up in the cached version, which is supposed to be the website as it was when it said that?