In a recent edit to the page Veganarchism, you changed one or more words from one international 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 subjects exclusively related to Britain (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 other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. 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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. --Dynaflow babble 07:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "whilst" isn't a part of an "international variety of English" (whatever that means); it is archaic and most manuals of style specifically proscribe its use. I am going to change your edit back now, and I hope that in the future you learn the difference between terms appropriate for an encyclopedia and colloquialisms. Whilstdestroyer (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Whilst" as a conjunction is acceptable usage in British English, and as long as the usage remains acceptable in that (major) dialect, it should not be arbitrarily "corrected" to the standard of another variety of English (as an American, I cringe at it too every time I chance to read The Economist). On the shiny-happy-public-relations level, the reason we say we make sure to respect each other's national varieties of English has to do with mutual respect and fellowship and whatnot. However, the very pragmatic real reason we're so anal about dialect-switching is that it can lead very quickly down a rather slick slope. Can you image the edit-wars and drama that would result if we allowed editors to debate the relative merits of "curb" versus "kerb" or "aeroplane" versus "airplane?" I don't even want to consider what would happen if we opened up, as a legitimate subject for debate, whether periods/full-stops belong inside or outside quotation marks. Please understand, giving each other's regional linguistic eccentricities a pass holds back much more serious problems than the occasional annoyance of running across an archaic -- to us -- word usage.
I will revert your reversion and ask you to reconsider your position. If you are still trenchantly set on eliminating "whilst" from Wikipedia, I will not re-revert if you undo me on this change. You should be forewarned, though, that what you seem intent on doing, judging by your username, will run up against a long-established and well-reasoned consensus at the Project, and your mission will likely face insurmountable difficulties as a result. Happy editing. --Dynaflow babble 08:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]