Wikipedia

Talk:2011 in the United States

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Pete Postlethwaite death inclusion

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

do you have to be american to be in this webpage deaths?

his most famous movie is american —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.171.210 (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'd say yes, at least in some political or self-identification sense, otherwise it's confusing and could make a broad range of foreign individuals eligible for inclusion here (academics, musicians, military leaders, journalists, etc.) due to their association with American works. As far as I can tell, Postlethwaite was born in England, lived in England, and died in England. He's listed at 2011. —Mrwojo (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The cure for AIDS got pulled, now I have seen everything

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

- * January 20 – New Technique Renders T-Cells Resistant to HIV.ref>cite web |url=http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=20761 |title=New Technique Renders T-Cells Resistant to HIV |author=Tiffany Kaiser |date=January 27, 2011 |publisher=Daily Tech}}</ref>ref>cite web |url=http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/hum.2010.001 |date=January 20, 2011 |title=Acquisition of HIV-1 Resistance in T Lymphocytes Using an ACA-Specific E. coli mRNA Interferase}}</ref> --70.162.171.210 (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

No cure has been found; there is treatment that slows the disease's progression. Jim Michael (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Should we include Harold Camping's prediction?

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Should we, or should we not? Zeldafan3242! :) 17:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

it is not what we think of it that is important - obviously only a retard would believe it - it is that there was plenty of press = notable so i say INCLUDE--70.162.171.210 (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
oh and i was not the one who originally included it but afterwards i wondered why i was so inept to as to have forgotten to do so--70.162.171.210 (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
subsequently someone pulled it and i alone cannot restore it without some degree of implied consensus--70.162.171.210 (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Even though it received a great deal of coverage, it wasn't an actual event, it was merely a ridiculous prediction. I don't think that predictions that don't come true can be considered to be of national notability. Jim Michael (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Birth cross dates

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

finished adding birth cross dates for 2011 deaths in the United States thru Richard Winters January 2 --70.162.171.210 (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

finished adding birth cross dates for 2011 deaths in the United States thru John Dye January 10 --70.162.171.210 (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

finished adding birth cross dates for 2011 deaths in the United States thru Charles Kaman January 31 --70.162.171.210 (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Anniversary?

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does "The scheduled opening date of the National September 11 Memorial & Museum in New York' on Sept 11 represent the addition of an anniversary by stealth? Not trying to downplay the original event, but the reason for this date and event is that it's the anniversary. And I didn't think we did anniversaries. HiLo48 (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

anniversaries are a problem for the editors of the big article, 2011, ... here at 2011 in the United States we are just happy that peeps even bother to post ... --70.162.171.210 (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Date Linking

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Unlike all other 244 articles in this series, this article linked the various dates appearing in the article, which is not consistent with Wiki guidelines MOS:UNLINKDATES. I accordingly removed such linkage. My edit was reverted by another user, the only reason given was my lack of previous edits to this article. (Hardly a justification for reversion) I have, incidentally, made hundreds of edits to other years in the United States series, as well as years in other counries series, I have undone the reversion. If the user believed that the dates should be linked, against Wiki guidelines, it should be discussed here. Davshul (talk)

actually this is complete bu!!sh!t and you know it - if you want to make the massive change you are requesting you need to discuss it at the appropriate location - that one being the talk page for the parent article, 2011 - to attempt to say that you are making a good faith effort by discussing it at a sub-article is rediculous since you know well that it will be immediately shot down in the well-policed talk section of the parent article page 2011 --70.162.171.210 (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
i see nothing here, Talk:2011, (a extremely well policed article) to imply you are making a good faith effort as an editor of this article--70.162.171.210 (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Although I took great exception to your charge against me of vandalism (made in one of your edit summaries) and the general tone of your language above, I had refrained from commenting on the above as I did not wished to further exasperate this matter. Furthermore, since your reversions had been undone, there appeared to be nothing to gain from further comment. However, I note that you have again reverted the edit, this time quoting the guidelines: Wikipedia:Recent years#Article body. These guidelines, however, as stated therein, relate to the "Recent year articles, (e.g. 2009, 2010)", they have no relevance whatsoever to the Year in United States series or Year in any other country. If you were to read the complete guidelines, this becomes obvious, where, for example the guidelines discuss how the articles are to begin, the contents ("New events added must receive independent news reporting from three different continents"), sports events ("Sporting events which are ….. not international (more than one continent) do not belong") the Births or Deaths that can be listed (at least ten different languages about the individual) and much more, all totally irrelevant to the Year in Country series. I am therefore undoing your edit.
You have, so far, reverted the same edit (by four different users) on five separate occasions (including four within the space of one hour). I would draw your attention to the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#The three-revert rule. I have not taken any action up to now in this regard, but if you persist in continuing with your reversions, you will leave me with no alternative, which action could result in you being blocked. I would, however, take such action reluctantly, as I am well aware of your invaluable contribution to this article. Davshul (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
On the contrary, you are the one violating the guidelines. Although there is an error is WP:LINKING and MOS:UNLINKDATES, the RfC changing the guideline specifically exempts "timeline" articles "intrinsically chronological articles", such as this one. It is hence left to the local consensus on this article, which has been against unlinking for some time. If you can establish consensus for unlinking on this article, go ahead and unlink. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Even though the anon clearly violated WP:3RR in doing so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

both obits and us history from oct 14 - dec 31 needs more filing in

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

as the primary editor of 2011 in us i suffered a loss on oct 14 and thereafter did not keep strict watch for includable events thereafter ... i will try to readd them but additional editor help would be appriciated--68.231.15.56 (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ownership issues

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

The last three people to edit this article have been reverted by 68.231.15.56 (talk) (same as 70.162.171.210 (talk)). While I recognize the disagreement about whether to link dates in the most recent "year in US" articles, these tiresome reversions are affecting unrelated contributions as well. Along with commentary in edit summaries and talk pages, I think WP:OWNERSHIP issues are discouraging other editors. —Mrwojo (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

my isp changed my number - nothing i can do about that ... and it is a waste of my valuable time in my opinion to bother to log in ever unless forced to do so ... as for reversions they are probably the two bot programs which are not complying with recent years and are thus to be automatically reverted as vandals--68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
other than the date linking waste of my time which reversions that i have made are you disagreeing with - most of the time i will revert additions of very minor deaths or incidents that no one will remember or care about in 20 years and thereby have no business being introduced into an "encyclopedia"--68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
There is no consensus one way or another (multiple editors removed the links you originally added), it's not just "two bot programs" (see history in Nov. 2011), those editors are not vandals [1], and they shouldn't be reverted without even reading their edits [2]. Your successive reverts of my changes to 2010, 2011, 2012 seemed nonsensical, perhaps automatic, despite having nothing to do with date delinking. The date linking issue is wasting your time? My point is that it's not just your time that's being wasted by those reverts.
I'm not criticizing everything you do; you've done a lot of good for these articles. It's this particular dismissive behavior, including your reply, that is problematic. —Mrwojo (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
i am working thru your items above ... the first is this one "*  Media related to 2011 in the United States at Wikimedia Commons", here, Facebook, a well patrolled page, there is an asterick under the section External links--68.231.15.56 (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
I tried to add the asterisk to this page but you reverted it. The asterisk was removed from the template and needed to be added to applicable articles. —Mrwojo (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
another editor made this change to format, which i thought was an improvement, so i reverted your attempt to revert back the other editor's new formating (by means of consensus - the two of us say it is better, you alone say it is not) ... the change was to link the title section headings and subheadings to the wiki pages where the original data was drawn from - "== Deaths in 2012 ==" and "=== January ==="--68.231.15.56 (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
That formatting for section headings is against WP:MOSHEAD and most of those deaths are not Americans. If we're going to use "the two of us say it is better, you alone say it is not" as a consensus for that article, would you accept that principle on date linking? —Mrwojo (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on 2011 in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on 2011 in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.



When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2011 in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2011 in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2011 in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_in_the_United_States&oldid=1213064797"