Are you new?

When an original form of an article was in one form of English; and amendments added in another form of English. Wikipedia policy is that articles are kept consistently in the original form of English used (rather than separating them into two forms as is the case with Norwegian into Nynorsk and Bokmal). The view that there should be only one English Wikipaedia is generally supported by non-British speakers of English; the view that Wikipaedia should be split into American-English and English, generally finds support amongst British speakers of English; British speakers of English are outnumbered by Americans by about 5 or 6 to 1, and so their dialect faces marginalisation and subsumation into American. Americans tend not to care; British tend to. Anecdotally, dissenters tend to end up blocked and banned from Wikipaedia. This is obviously not cultural imperialism, is it.

For details of Wiki policy (and to indulge in a truly epic argument) please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Consistency_within_articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#National_varieties_of_English Spelling... the American disease! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28spelling%29#Tagging_pages_-_Read_this_first

It is also against Wiki guidelines to immediately refer to article changes as Vandalism. (See: Avoid Using the Word "Vandal") (See: Punishment Beatings for Hasty Admins!) (See: Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith)

"ASSUMING GOOD FAITH IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF WIKIPAEDIA!"

It is not constructive to revert changes without having checked Wikipaedia policy or without checking the nature of or reason for changes.

See: Wikipedia:WikiHate

The spirit of Wikipaedia is to show some respect and friendliness, and discuss concerns without alienating those at whom you are directing your disagreement.

See: Wikipedia:Wikilove

There are too many Wikipedia:Administrators (those who like to threaten blocks) created over the last couple of years whose bedside manner leaves much to be desired. Contributors are not a rank below Administrators; many Contributers are older, more qualified, more capable people who have jobs, family, and social lives that preclude them from spending enough time online to be an Administrator. All Administrators would do well to remember this - you may be dictating to someone older and more qualified and experienced than you!

I.E.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIVIL#Examples

Remember, Administrators are not gods... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#No_big_deal

...and can be removed if they start becoming unWikipaedian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Grievances_by_users_.28.22Administrator_abuse.22.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges

So if you are an Admin; and you are looking to leave a message on my page in the form of a "warning" or "imperative" form of language - be nice, keep cool, and think about how you might come across. I will not tolerate aggressive Administrators; and if given just reason, I will act to have your privileges removed.

I know where you lurk! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NoSeptember/List_of_Administrators

Still grumpy? Get help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts

If you still got someaught to get out of your system, I've decided to add some patronising guidelines for leaving comments, as even the most savvy of us can forget ourselves.

The Hexadecimal Internetwork Commandment Karass

1. Use e-mail only when it's the most efficient channel for your need.
2. Never print your e-mail.
3. Send nothing over e-mail that must be error-free.
4. Never delete names from your address book.
5. Never forward chain e-mail.
6. Never send e-mail when you're furious or exhausted.
7. Don't pass on rumour or innuendo about real people.
8. Nor should you do so about companies you work for or may work for one day.
9. Never substitute e-mail for a necessary face-to-face meeting.
0. Remember this hierarchy: first the meeting, then the phone call, then the voice mail, then the e-mail.
A. Your e-mail is hackable, retrievable, and can be used against you. Use only when absolutely necessary.
B. Invest in a spam filter.
C. Target your e-mail.
D. Write more carefully.
E. Reduce interruptions.
F. Get training.

"I'm just some bloke off t'inter'" (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2002 (UTC)[reply]

Forking into Wikipaedia won't change much

Whilst I agree that there is a ham-fisted approach by some within Wikipedia to introduce American spellings, for example, that doesn't mean that a fork helps, because it just marginalises British English. Whilst some Americanisms may appear simplistic (aluminum, color, summarize) there are often reasons for it (remember the colony was cut off from sophisticated culture from the 1700s to the early 20th century). Usage of zed is an older spelling the contemporary ess and the colony simply did not keep up with the language and so on.

I don't care what the reasons are; but I do care about being forced to accept it, and effectively agree to the subsumation and extermination of my identity.

However cultural purity aside, English is the language with the richest vocabulary and language whose vocabulary and nuances flex and grow every second. To try and paddle against the flow would be an exercise in futilation. Ei2g (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I keep seeing so many British people doing it then? The only reason it hasn't happened is sheer weight of numbers. Not just of Americans, but other foreigners who've learnt Americanese, and they basically keep blocking any such changes.

Mind you spelling the unit of distance as meter is just wrong by any measure. Ei2g (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't spell it like that; stop telling porkies! (btw I'm Lysdexic!)

Didn't say you did - i was just making a pun - meter, measure and agreeing that meter (distance) should be eradicated. Ei2g (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't used wikipedia in a while so I'm not sure where to post this; I just wanted to say in response to the message you left me, I don't think it would be such a good idea to split off, just edit the retarded US spellings for things and leave the reasonably sensible US spellings on US themed pages. Changing the names of elements (aluminium) or measurements (metre), especially when they don't even use those units is just ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen214 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get anywhere doing that - the Yanks will just call you a troll.

Actually, back in the day, probably 2003, I had Jimmy Wales himself berate me for it, but he didn't have much of a comeback for the point that several languages, the main example cited being Norwegian, have forked precisely in the way I was proposing, and what I was suggesting was entirely consistent with policy, and that the exception being made was for English. His latest project of WikiTribune (WikiNews 2.0?) illustrates his confusing approach to things - like why not just make WikiNews better? It's an easier and more logical name to remember, but I digress... 212.105.162.130 (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Macdaddy[reply]

There are plenty of British people who have been dissatisfied with the lack of forking for years. It's not just my, myself, and I; I've seen many edit wars over the years that I have not been involved in. Some genuine areas of confusion... i.e.: "Eggplant" and "Rappalling" ...not really intelligible to most British people.

The fundamental point that no anti-forking campaigner has ever been able to adequately address is if a language like Norwegian can have two versions of Wikipedia, why not English? The precedent has been there for years. Not to mention the countless mutually intelligible Latinate and Slavic dialects that exist on Wikipedia.

To refuse to allow forking on the basis of subjective preference (as appears to be the case), is not "wikipedian" (see POV Fork). A universal and fair approach based on evidence and objectivity should be applied equally to English forking as it is to Norwegian forking. If English forking is to be prohibited, then there should be an objective set of reasons presented why, so that the same principles can be equally applied to other cases of language forking. To all those who oppose the forking, I would ask them to explain why it is reasonable for other languages to fork; I might add that English has already been forked into "Simple English", another precedent.

As I understand it, trolls hide under bridges... or lurk in the edit pages of wikipedia articles, guarding them... I understand Americans have a different meaning for this word... much as they do for so many... forking is inevitable; resistance is futile ;D .

YES IT FORKING WILL!

Actually, I'm just talking about duplicating the entire English Wiki, and editing it to suit British tastes - you'd be surprised how many differences there'd be (about 20% noticable, and a lot more that was more subtle).