P.S. On further reflection, I see that there is at least one point that I clearly overstated in our discussion. Sources for 2000s (decade) do not, in fact, have to be explicitly about the decade. They can be about, say, events that happened at some point during the decade. For example, a retrospective source about the 21st century, published before 2010, almost certainly is acceptable as a source about the 2000s. It is, after all, from these types of sources that time lines are constructed. Beneath my cynical tone (as it strikes me now in retrospect) was the idea that one can't infer too much from sources, as such inference might amount to original research. If a source says that X is characteristic of the 21st century or of modernity in general, that source (at least in principle) certainly may be used to help put the 2010s decade (insofar as it is part of the 21st century and of modernity) into context. Statement X just shouldn't be used clearly to characterize item A on Wikipedia, when it clearly is meant to characterize item B in the source. This probably is what I should have said back in January, and I apologize for making my case in such an inflected voice. Also, I take it that your first language is not English, so I should have been more sensitive to the possibility of unintentional offense. While I don't know for a fact that you took offense at all, I'm troubled by the correspondence between our discussion and your departure from the project. Please, once more, accept my sincere apologies for any actions on my part that might have discouraged your participation.