Dcastorina

Welcome!

Hello, Dcastorina, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Era changes

These require discussion per WP:ERA - I've reverted you. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dcastorina. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 17:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Era Revisions

How would I properly go about changing those eras?

By following our guidelines at WP:ERA. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dcastorina. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 14:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Era

Ok well so where would I start a consensus?

Talkback

Hello, Dcastorina. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 15:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Your change to Republican Party violated Wikipedia's policy

Hello. Your recent change to the Republican Party (United States) article seems rather innocuous, but it does violate Wikipedia policy. It would hardly be worth mentioning, although you are supposed to receive a warning template on your talk page for doing it. I am mentioning it though, because your accompanying description of that edit was a rather larger violation of policy, guidelines, and of general civility, in and outside of Wikipedia. It is for that second reason that I went to all this effort for the first reason. You'll dislike me (check out the final graph below anyway), but hopefully you'll hesitate next time.

On the first matter:
As you probably already know, if a reference name has no spaces (as in pewresearch), then putting quotes around the name achieves precisely nothing. See WP:NAMEDREFS. This means that the sole purpose of your edit was to change the spelling of one solitary word from one valid English variety to another. This is a Wikipedia policy violation. WP:RETAIN ends with this sentence:

An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another. Editors who alter an existing variety can be advised of this guideline via the placement of {{subst:uw-lang}} on their talk pages. — WP:RETAIN

The original policy has not in bold. To save you the template substitution logging, {{subst:uw-lang}} starts by placing the following sentence on your talk page:

In a recent edit, 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. — {{subst:uw-lang}}

You may be tempted to offer one or both of these arguments in your defence:

1. The article has a strong association with one country and thus one variety of English.
2. Existing text in the article already uses Noah Webster's abbreviation by 'u' elision.

Indeed point 1 is certainly true; the article title leaves no doubt. Point 2 is true too. The phrases "slave labour", and "the colour red" both appear in the article spelled without the 'u'. These numbered items are the policy to adopt when usefully contributing to the article (i.e. with actual substance). The above quotations from {{subst:uw-lang}} and from WP:RETAIN makes it abundantly clear that the Wikipedia policy (not guideline, not suggestion) prohibits any edit that just changes from one variety of English to another, and this policy has its basis in respect.

I cannot even discuss the text of your edit summary. I'll just ask that next time, please don't "make snide comments" intended to hurt. WP:CIV WP:5 (2 & 4) WP:IUC may help - unfortunately WP:RUC cannot help in this case.

And finally for fun, if not actually educational:

• Favour / favor (all English books 1650-1970) - This graph shows the universal numbers.
• Favour / favor (non-American English 1650-1970) - This graph shows usage in books printed outside of America.
• Favour / favor (American English 1789-1970) - This graph shows the usage in books printed in the USA.

In that last graph, you can even determine the year of publication of Noah Webster's second English Dictionary. It wasn't his first effort to get Americans to drop the 'u' from some words, but it was the one that became a huge best seller (not in my neck of the woods though). It was published in 1840, and you can clearly tell that from the last graph. ChrisJBenson (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

K I just saw that and I looked at the dictionary and it said that favour was the French/British spelling. Dcastorina (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)DcastorinaDcastorina (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)