User talk:Guitarzan31

April 2020
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Law of war. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Plagiarism, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure what this means. I thought I had attributed it. I clearly cited the source (one of many) from which the information was derived. I’m not sure what else I’m supposed to do. I saw that you (or someone) changed the citation to a hyperlink so thanks for that. I’m good a citation, but not so good at coding. I tried to make it match what other people had done however it never got to where I wanted. Regardless, what I had left was not wrong or plagiarized as I had cited my source. When I look at the links in your letter, they don’t add much in the way of clarity for me. If you could please let me know what it is you believe I did wrong I would appreciate it. Guitarzan31 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

National varieties of English
Hello. In a recent edit to the page De jure, 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 original 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. TJRC (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This is dumb. If you want to be the international English police and make up your own rules that’s fine but you should be at least consistent and thorough. The author clearly cited to an American website (dictionary.com - owned by companies headquartered in the US) for his definition. If he were following your rules then he would have used the American spelling that was used in that definition at the time. Otherwise, he either changed it on his own or he added his own words in non-American spelling after citing an American source. If you’re going to follow your ‘rules’ then it probably should have been the American spelling in the first place. Your reverting my edit back was a complete waste of everyone’s time. Guitarzan31 (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)