p s on further reflection i see that there is at least one point that i clearly overstated in our discussion sources for s 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 st century published before almost certainly is acceptable as a source about the s 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 st century or of modernity in general that source at least in principle certainly may be used to help put the s decade insofar as it is part of the st 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