User talk:81.131.103.252

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Alternate history, 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. BilCat (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I suggest that you consult a reputable dictionary, after having worked to obtain a sound education, to find out the difference between the meaning of 'alternate' and 'alternative'. That a word is colloquially misused in the US, which is common and is a reflection on the generally poor state of education for many US-ians, does not provide credible justification for defining such misuse as so-called 'American English', neither do occasional recorded mispronunciations by people who either should or, if better educated, would know better.

One of the most amusing attempted redefinitions based on ignorance was the Wikipedia article on 'nucular' (an atom does not have a 'nuculus', but a nucleus). The article appeared following G W Bush's repeated mispronunciation, was mocked, was taken away, and later reappeared, once again trying to define US-ian ignorance as an acceptable alternative to sound education.

A recent, comparable, source of international amusement was Trump's use of the phrase 'fake news' and one of his acolytes similar use of 'alternative facts'. Neither recognised just how ridiculous they sounded. My preference is for such articles to keep appearing because they provide such good amusement and entertainment for the globally better educated. The US is still a young country that still behaves like a delinquent teenager on the world stage and, like a hormonal teenager, thinks that by making a loud noise it demonstrates that it is better and wiser than everyone else. It isn't.