User talk:Nailujon

Hey there Nailujon, I reverted your change to Catholic Church sexual abuse cases by country. But thanks for wanting to improve the article. I agree with you, the article should use only American or British spelling, not a mix of both. But since this is article focuses on Europe, it's better to change the American spelling to British spelling instead. Sometimes articles are tagged with {{Use American English}} or with {{Use British English}}, like this one probably should be. Let me know if you have any questions or would like any help or some pointers. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

No problem! I appreciate the explanation, thanks! Nailujon (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Good job btw, I just accepted your changes to the article. :) --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! :) Nailujon (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello. 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.

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. TylerBurden (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for the explanation! Another editor recently pointed out that I should look for "Strong National Ties" (like using British English for European topics), so I was attempting to follow that specific rule rather than applying a personal preference.

I'm still learning the nuances of editing English variations and will be more careful to respect the existing variety moving forward! Could you point me to the specific edit you're referring to? I'd love to see where I went wrong.

My goal is to fix the consistency within articles that have a "mix" of British English and American English. In the future I'll make sure to choose the correct variety before standardizing.

Thanks for the guidance! Nailujon (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Nailujon I have had to revert eight more of your recent changes which incorrectly changed the English variety (on Tricicle, Spotify, 2025 Czech government Bitcoin scandal, Almir Badnjević, Klaipėda Free Economic Zone, Y the Magician, Norway, and Sweden). At that point I gave up because I see there are many more of your edits that need to be reverted but I don't have the time right now.

Please read WP:ENGVAR carefully, and particularly MOS:TIES. You seem to be changing articles to use British English just because they deal with European topics. This is not correct. MOS:TIES says "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the standard (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation." You should not change the English variety on topics with ties to a non-English-speaking nation, like Sweden, Norway, Czech Republic, Lithuania, etc. Please make sure that you understand this guideline before making any further edits to the English variety in an article. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Strava, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Davis Kitchel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davis Kitchel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

- The9Man ^Talk 07:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions to Pelle Sommansson. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and you need to establish notability via independent dources that discuss him in detsil, see WP:42. Press releases from where he works are not relevant. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply