Hello, I'm Ivebeenhacked. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2025 without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 09:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2025 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2025. For a second final time, please stop your disruptive editing and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia guidelines. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Soetermans,

I don't understand how am I being disruptive. I now understand that I shouldn't have deleted the big chunk on the 2025 page, but I don't know what's wrong with those minor edits (changing numbers from letters to digits). I'm trying my best to improve the text, and I don't think I'm doing anything wrong anymore. Why do you think every edit I make is disruptive? Janan2025 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because single-digit numbers usually shouldn't be written in digits. See MOS:NUMERAL. There are some exceptions, see MOS:NUMNOTES. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with the Manual of style. Thank you. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Church (building) did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! jlwoodwa (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me what is going on here? Why are you doing this? What is the point? Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sergecross73,

The reason why I'm doing this is to feel good about the number of my edits going up. I don't have any bad intentions in doing this. This is the only way I can do it, as I can rarely find appropriate parts of articles to edit. I might continue to do this. It's my own user page, so please don't tell me to stop doing it. Please don't get mad at me! Janan2025 (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to stop doing this immediately. Editors are not to be artificially inflating their edit count like that. We are an encyclopedia, not a stress ball. Sergecross73 msg me 22:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously doing this again. Final warning - stop or your account will be blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sergecorss73,

What am I doing wrong? I'm not constantly reverting myself, like I was in the past. I'm just making normal edits, except for the one I had to revert on the "Trauma (I Prevail album)" page after reverting your one (which I don't remember). Please don't block me because I'm not intentionally doing anything bad. Janan2025 (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've made 21 of these in short succession, and each one created with an unreasonably large number of small edits. There's no reason to be doing this other than your already stated intent of artificially inflating your edit count. Sergecross73 msg me 11:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear, the reason for me making so many edits on my first 21 Sandboxes so quickly was indeed to increase my edit count, (which I didn't think was artificially because I did them myself, unlike the ones I used to undo artificially on my user talk page in the past). But anyway, I stopped intentionally making so many fast edits on the same Sandbox, and instead, I create and edit my Sandbox in 1 go. But, in some cases, the reason for the multiple edits can be different. For instance, sometimes, I might make a lot of edits in a short period of time on the same page (or it could possibly happen on my Sandboxes) because I haven't noticed something that I wanted to edit, because I've made a mistake, or because I've changed my mind about something. And finally, I must've reverted your edit by mistake yesterday, so sorry about that, I've undone that. Janan2025 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's "artificial" misses the point entirely. Your main goal needs to be building an encyclopedia. Making edits for no other reason other than to increase your edit counts falls under WP:NOTHERE. You need to find a constructive thing to contribute to the encyclopedia. Find an article you want to expand or rewrite. Join a group with a purpose - like joining WP:CVU to learn how you can remove vandalism. Find something to do.

If you can't find anything you actually want to add/write/change, then you may need to reconsider if this is the correct hobby for you. If all you want to do is see a counter go up, go make a blog or social media account and post a lot or something. That's not what we do here.

This is the last time I'll warn you about this. Next time, your account will blocked from editing. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sergecross73,

My only goal isn't to see my edit count go up, but it's also to contribute to Wikipedia. I'm contributing to Wikipedia by correcting a lot of grammar, spelling, and punctuation mistakes, as well as some other changes on several pages (which I think are good contributions), and creating Sandboxes with information about future years. I think they're good contributions. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong anymore, is that right? Janan2025 (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish for your Wikipedia presence to largely be adding periods or commas to articles, that is...technically fine. But creating unnecessary userpage drafts just to increase your edit count? Not okay. There is absolutely no benefit to mass creating identical drafts like that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for me creating the Sandboxes is not just to increase my edit count, but also to experiment with the articles about future years which don't exist yet. Janan2025 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be a lot more convincing if you hadn't just literally said "the reason for me making so many edits on my first 21 Sandboxes so quickly was indeed to increase my edit count". But even if you hadn't, its extremely obvious. All you did is just copy/paste the same content over and over again, and then make similar tweaks over and over again. It would be one thing if you were actually writing drafts, but you're not, you're just copy/pasting the same thing over and over again. If/when someone is ready to actually create those articles, they can copy/paste that template into the article at that point. You don't need to ready 20 drafts of the same content for that. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear, increasing my edit count for me making so many edits on my first 21 Sandboxes wasn't the only reason, it was also to experiment (like I was with all 27 Sandboxes). I think that other users also use their sandbox(es) to experiment. What am I allowed to use my sandbox(es) for? Janan2025 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what were you attempting to learn by copy/pasting the same content into 21 separate sandboxes? What was the experiment? What exactly was it you were exploring? Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why I used 27 separate sandboxes was just to keep it tidy. I wrote articles about mostly years beyond 2030 (which don't yet exist on the main Wikipedia). I wanted to experiment with writing articles about them in my own sandboxes rather than on the main Wikipedia. Janan2025 (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's "tidy" about copy/pasting the same information into 27 separate but almost identical drafts, but regardless, maximizing edit count should not be a consideration in any of the edits you make, and if it appears that it is, it is a problem. I don't know why you focus on it, but edit count holds little value in the Wikipedia community, especially considering anyone can take a quick look at anyone's edits and see what people are actually doing. No one is going to be impressed to see you've got 10,000 edits to your name someday when they can see that you spent thousands of them doing essentially nothing in your user space. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, in some cases when I'm making several edits on a page / sandbox in a short period of time, it might seem that the reason would be to increase my edit count, but it wouldn't be. As I mentioned earlier, it could happen if I made a mistake, didn't realise an edit I wanted to make, or wanted to change my mind. Again, what am I allowed to use my sandbox(es) for? Janan2025 (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "sandboxes" you keep creating are sub-pages of your user page, so WP:USERPAGE has all the information for what is and isn't allowed in user pages. Please review it. See the "this guideline in a nutshell" box at the top for starters. The part that says They should be used to better participate in the community, and not used to excess for unrelated purposes is alluding to what I'm talking about here. "Making edits/sandboxes for boosting your edit count" would be an "unrelated purpose". Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the "this guideline in a nutshell" box, and I saw that user pages are for communication and collaboration. I was kind of collaborating by writing articles about future years in my sandboxes, which adds to the articles about years up to 2029/2030 published on the main Wikipedia. So, wasn't it a good idea? Janan2025 (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, not a good idea. Use sandboxes to write actual drafts, not just copy/paste spam the same information over and over again. I cannot be any more clear about this. If you're making drafts in the user space, they need to be something that you wish to work towards publish into an article some day. You haven't created any articles yet, I know that you certainly weren't planning on publishing 20+ identical articles any time soon. (And if you were, that's an even bigger problem. There's no realistic hope of writing an article about the year 2055 any time soon.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm bit afraid of my account getting blocked. Since I don't ever intentionally do anything wrong on Wikipedia (unlike vandals), it shouldn't get blocked. I should get warned first if I keep doing anything new that's wrong. Like when you warned me the last 2 times, I stopped doing those things. What are all the things on Wikipedia that I shouldn't do, which could get my account blocked? Janan2025 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of resources/pointers out there:

1. WP:WIKIPEDIAADVENTURE is a help guide for teaching you the ropes.
2. WP:5P links to a lot of the core fundamental aspects of the website that you can read up on.
3. WP:TEAHOUSE is a place where new editors can ask questions and get answers from experienced editors.

Above all, the only thing you've really done wrong is make pointless edits to inflate your edit count. Simply don't do that. Maybe it would help to pretend there's no edit counter and there's no way to tell how many edits someone makes, so you won't stray into making pointless edits again. You may as well, because again, there's very little importance placed in edit count in the first place. Good policy knowledge and high quality edits will get you far more respect than a high edit count. Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sergecross73, Is it okay if I create and write in Sandboxes not to increase my edit count, but for writing about something I like/find interesting (not copy and pasting the same thing over and over again)? I think I might like to do that sometimes. I think that Sandboxes are supposed to be for practicing editing / writing about things. Janan2025 (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added facts about years in my already-created Sandboxes not to increase my edit count, but to add more information, as it's something I like and interests me. The reason why I sometimes write about each thing in a separate Sandbox is just because I think it's more tidy. Please let me know if I ever do something I shouldn't! Janan2025 (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to let you know that I've playing "The Wikipedia Adventure" game for fun, and to see what it's like. I'm not doing anything against Wikipedia's policies. Please don't think that it was to inflate my edit count! Janan2025 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding links to something in my Sandboxes to improve them. Nothing that I'm doing is to increase my edit count anymore. It's always for other reasons now. Janan2025 (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've created new Sandboxes to write things that I like and interest me. I'm not doing anything just to increase my edit count anymore. Janan2025 (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use past tense on 2025 entries. Thank you. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wjfox2005,

I don't remember using the past tense anywhere on the 2025 page. If I did, it was a mistake. Where did I use the past tense? And if I did, what's wrong with that? Janan2025 (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of this edit? You restored an unsourced genre without explanation. This flies directly against Wikipedia's sourcing policy - WP:V. Sergecross73 msg me 22:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sergecross73,

Just now, I saw that I reverted some edit on that page, but I don't remember that. It must've been a mistake. I've reverted my edit. Sorry about that. Janan2025 (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't understand how that happened accidently, as you don't seem to maintain that article, nor had we interacted in weeks, but regardless, thank you for undoing the edit. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding incorrect grammar all over the project. Years don't need commas after them in most usages, the most frequent time they do is purely an oddity of the US's MDY dating. If you're just using a year, no commas after it unless it makes sense for the actual sentence structure. You seem to be just adding commas after every single year which is almost always incorrect. See MOS:DATE. Additionally please stop adding Oxford commas in every article, they are usually not needed. Don't change them to your personal preference. Canterbury Tail talk 20:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Oxford commas are optional. I'm not adding them only because I want it a certain way, but because I think it's more correct, and looks better with the commas. I add commas after years sometimes, for exp. "In 2013," (which is correct). Janan2025 (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. The Oxford comma is usually a personal preference, it's not always "correct", and adding the comma after a year on its own is very rarely correct unless the sentence structure supports that. As mentioned in MOS:DATE. Canterbury Tail talk 21:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is kind of a personal preference, but it's not at all wrong, so I think it's okay to add it. I think I only add a comma after the year when it's appropriate to add it, as shown at MOS:DATE. Janan2025 (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 21:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I didn't mean to be disruptive with my edits, but again, I often add Oxford commas because they're not so rare to use and not wrong to use. It's not just a personal preference. Oxford commas are used quite often, and I think sentences look better when they're used. They may not be essentially needed, but they're also not wrong to use, so please don't tell me to stop adding them. In terms of adding commas in other instances, I added them because I've seen them being used in such instances on other articles, but I'm not sure if they should be used or not. Janan2025 (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again they should NOT be used, commas after a year are rarely correct. And you're adding Oxford commas as a personal preference, you literally just admitted that with "I think sentences look better when they're used", and they can at times actually be incorrect. And Oxford comma is a very American thing (despite the name) and usually not used in British or related English variations. Canterbury Tail talk 21:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an Oxford comma on the Parekkattukara page for a very good reason. It was to separate the word "bank" from "bakeries", so that it doesn't look like the 2 words are linked to each other. Janan2025 (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnecessary, not needed for comprehension or understanding and Oxford commas are rarely used in Indian English. No opportunity for confusion there between two regular widely understood English words. Canterbury Tail talk 21:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Parekkattuara article was written in Indian English, but most of the articles that I'm editing are not. I don't know why you think that commas should be rarely used. Commas are almost always used and should be used in cases like: "On 19 January,", or "In 2013,". I think it's wrong to not use commas in these cases. Adding an Oxford comma is not essential, but is usually okay. Janan2025 (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out several times, it doesn't matter what your view is it is wrong to use commas in those two examples you listed above. If you continue to ignore the MOS you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 22:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Janan2025, please see MOS:DATE for Wikipedia's style regarding commas after dates. The table there explains that a comma is not used after DMY dates: "A comma doesn't follow the year unless otherwise required by context", but a comma is used after MDY dates. So, using a MDY date, "On January 19, 2015, something happened" is correct. With DMY format and other formats, no comma is used: "On 19 January 2015 something happened". CodeTalker (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've looked at MOS:DATE, and now, I understand that a comma only follows a year if the date is in mdy format. That means on the 2025 Gaza war ceasefire, and on other pages there are several mistakes (several dates in dmy format have a comma following them which they shoudn't). I wasn't and won't ever be intentionally ignoring the MOS, it's just I thought that I was right. But in the future if I ever ignore it, will be by mistake, not on purpose, so I shouldn't be blocked, but I should be first notified that I ignored it. On the "2025 Gaza ceasefire" page, the comma after "On 19 January" and the edit summary was that commas are not needed after months, so doesn't that mean lots of other commas should be removed from the page, such as after "On 25 January", 29 January, 30 January, 31 January ..."? In what cases should commas be used after years? I'm confused by the "unless required by context" part. I've seen commas used after years in lots of cases, such as "In 2015," and I'm confused if that's right or wrong, and when exactly they should be used, and when not? Janan2025 (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally you don't use them other than for the standard grammar rules involving commas. There's nothing special about years and dates from a sentence construction perspective. The many cases you're see in of "In 2015," are wrong and should not be copied but rectified. You are going to find wrong grammar use in articles as not everyone is aware of the correct rules. Canterbury Tail talk 12:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Janan2025, MOS:OXFORD explains that either comma convention is acceptable, but each article should use one convention consistently. That is, an article should either use Oxford commas everywhere or not use them at all. However, MOS:RETAIN says that one should not edit an article solely to change from one convention to the other. I have not looked at your edits in detail, but if you are editing articles solely to add or remove an Oxford comma, you should stop doing that, regardless of your personal preference. CodeTalker (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your continued disruption utilising commas, despite all the conversation above that you have been part of, you have been blocked to prevent further disruption to the encyclopaedia. If you don't know how to use commas correctly, you should not be continually making comma changes. Canterbury Tail talk 12:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for my disruptive editing, but it wasn't intentional. I just wasn't sure exactly where a comma should be added, and where not. Which of my edits were disruptive? I was also going to also ask, should a comma be added after "In January" or not? And in terms of the Oxford comma, why don't you want me adding it, even though it's usually not wrong to add it, but is optional? And, in terms of the numbers, why did you revert my edits of changing numbers to digits even though they can written both in words or digits (I think)? Janan2025 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are continually changing things to your own personal preference against MOS:RETAIN and you're still not listening to what is being told to you about MOS:DATE. Additionally you were randomly adding some commas in sentences that made them nonsensical. Canterbury Tail talk 13:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wasn't intentionally ignoring MOS:RETAIN or MOS:DATE. I just didn't fully understand what it said there, wasn't sure about some examples not mentioned, and thought that all the edits that I made were right. I have a few questions. 1. Exactly, in what cases should commas be used? 2. Should a comma be used after "In January", "On Monday", or "In 2023"? 3. Is it really true that commas shouldn't be used after "In 2015", even though in most articles, they are used in cases like that, so is that always wrong? 4. Why did you revert my edits of changing numbers from being spelled out to digits, even though double-digit numbers are usually written in digits? 5. Why did you revert my edit of changing "the age of 9" to "age 9"? I just thought that it's better if less words are used. But maybe, that edit that I made wasn't essential. 6. You removed a comma after "On 19 January" on the 2025 Gaza ceasefire page, and said that it's not needed, so shouldn't all the other commas after the dates in dmy format on that page also be removed? 7. Why don't you want me to add Oxford commas, even though they're optional (not usually wrong to add)? Janan2025 (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through MOS:RETAIN and MOS:DATE, and I think I understand the cases where should be used and where not a bit better, and that I've used them where they're not needed in the past, but again, adding an Oxford comma isn't wrong, so you shouldn't be telling me to stop adding it, as it's not disruptive editing, and I shouldn't ever be blocked just for that. I'm not too sure was I only blocked for adding commas in other places, or was it for adding Oxford commas as well. What will happen if I start adding Oxford commas again? Janan2025 (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you start adding Oxford commas all over the place again as your personal preference you will be blocked again, it's very much disruptive editing. And as for the other items, we're not here to teach you English grammar of when commas should and shouldn't be added. And just because some articles have incorrect comma usage doesn't mean it should be continued, they should be corrected. Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider adding Oxford commas to be disruptive, even though it's not wrong, it's just optional? I totally don't understand that. What problem do you have with that? Janan2025 (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're adding them based on your personal preference, you shouldn't change anything in an article just because you like it better. This is a collaborative project, not your personal scrapbook. If it's optional to have them it's optional to not have them. When written the original editor opted not to have them where they are not necessary, so coming in and adding them just because you prefer them is disruptive. It's a pointless edit, changing something that's not an issue to the way you like it. Canterbury Tail talk 15:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just want to let you know that on the 2025 Gaza war ceasefire page, you removed the comma after "On 19 January" because as you said, commas are not needed after dates in the dmy format, but you didn't remove the many other incorrect commas on that page. Should they also be removed? Janan2025 (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove it, I reverted your edits, there's a difference. And yes they should be removed. Canterbury Tail talk 15:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 12:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Compassvale Secondary School, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 20:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just want to let you know that in some article, I've added a comma after "In the 15th century" because I'm pretty sure that it's correct, but I'm not completely sure. Anyway, it's important to know that I haven't intentionally added any wrong commas anywhere today. Janan2025 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was concerning changing variations of English from one version to another- in your case, changing the spelling of a word from the British English version to the American English one. Sarsenet (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]