Talk:The year 292,277,026,596 problem

Interestingly, this article does make sense (see Year 2038 problem, where at one point this page was wikilinked). It just is really absurd. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Recent attempts to delete this page.

There have been several recent attempts to delete this page and to delete references to the year 292,277,026,596 problem on other pages. There is an ongoing discussion on Talk:Unix time about this. Please give that discussion a chance before trying to push these deletions through. If a consensus emerges for deletion there, we can start the deletion process on this article and go though all the associated pages and delete the references to it. Please don't jump the gun and try to delete it while we are still discussing it.

This article is just a stub right now, but in the next week or two I plan to greatly expand it, but only if the consensus is that it is notable and should not be deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

notability is in question; there is only single source; the problem is not covered in great detail in it. `a5b (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Talk:Unix time. It is best to discuss such things in one place. Would you be so kind as to repeat the above argument at Talk:Unix time? It is a valid point and should be discussed. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A better solution would be for you to stop filibustering the quite proper redirection of this page to the appropriate place in the parent article, rather than chiding others on process (speaking of which, Wikipedia is not a forum). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And you determined that it was proper to delete this page and redirect it - how? The arguments that A5b put forth at Talk:Unix time appear to me to be invalid, but of course I want to hear him out in case I am misunderstanding them. In the meantime he has attempted to delete The year 292,277,026,596 problem through redirection in the middle of a discussion about it. I believe that the proper course of action in such a case is to leave The year 292,277,026,596 problem at the last stable version while we seek consensus, and then to expand and improve it if it survives.

I find your accusation of "filibustering" to be offensive and untrue. He boldly redirected it, I reverted him, and now we are discussing it. How is that "filibustering"? Would you prefer that I edit war rather than discussing? Or are you suggesting that I simply allow him to delete through redirection based upon the dubious reasoning he has provided so far? Should I have discussed this in multiple forums rather than keeping the discussion in the place where A5b first made his argument? I really don't understand what you think I should have done differently.

I also find your edit summary to be (mildly) offensive. If you think I am misbehaving in some way, I welcome you to bring it up on my talk page. I really do welcome correction and guidance, but don't understand from "sigh" what concrete changes in behavior would make you happy. As a person who has Asperger's syndrome, I realize that some of the traits that are typical of Asperger's can be frustrating to others, but I assure you that I just want to do what is best for the encyclopedia, and right now I don't see deleting all references to the year 292,277,026,596 problem on the basis of "I just don't like it" to be an improvement.

I am trying to the best of my ability to handle this particular content dispute the right way, by talking it over, seeing if A5b cam convince me and seeing if I can convince A5b. Many times I have gladly accepted correction from other editors and apologized / changed my behavior because of the correction, but with all due respect, in this case I really think that I have done the right thing and that your criticism is misplaced. I am, of course completely open to any argument that the above conclusion is wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You took what multiple editors have construed as an entirely whimsical topic and repeatedly blocked moves to correct the undue prominence afforded to said subject by a standalone article without any substantial argument. The resultant article is one sentence long, and literally nothing would be lost in a merge at this time. The argument for a merge at this time is based entirely on logical interpretation of the rules of the project. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)