User talk:Kdammers/Archives/2020/December

December 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to OK, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 05:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You replied on my talk page: Greetings: It is not original research. I added an additional spelling to the others in the lede, none of which have citations.  The spelling I added is actually present in the text with a footnote (#18).
 * Generally, you should continue a discussion on the page where it was started, and I state that at the top of my talk page.
 * However, on the matter of the spelling of OK itself - footnote 18 says that more than a century ago Webster's listed it as an acceptable spelling. That does not mean it is a current usage, any more than "hath", "canst" or "doth". The lede is for generalities to give an idea of the article, not for listing out all possible oddities. Tarl N. ( discuss )

Hello, I'm Ost316. I noticed that you recently removed content from Shoestring potatoes 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. Rather than essentially blanking a redirect, please nominate at WP:RfD if you believe it is misleading or unneeded. Ost (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)