Thread:ChishioKunrin/@comment-25940943-20150122072622/@comment-24891101-20150122082152

It's actually an Atlantic Ocean issue. Apparently Brits put punctuation outside quotation marks if it makes sense, whereas Americans always put them inside. For what it's worth, I agree with you; it makes logical sense that only punctuation which is part of the quote would go within those marks which serve as delimiters. In other words, things not part of the quote do not go with the quote. I'm American, but it seems to be a better system.

However, this wiki follows American English conventions, for the sake of consistency, and therefore, while an arguably superior system (at least in this respect), it unfortunately must be removed.

The Oxford comma, however, makes sense regardless. Consider, as wiki does, a breakfast, consisting of coffee, bacon and eggs, and toast. Whereas without: coffee, bacon and eggs and toast. Or the amusing book dedication without: To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.

As to the edits, while I cannot speak for Chishio (though I strongly suspect her reasons are much the same), your initial edits were somewhat... dubious, which (somewhat indirectly) brought you to my attention, and so I tend to check your edits. It's not out of any personal dislike for you, but merely an overabundance of caution, which will significantly diminish in light of this outreach. We've certainly seen worse before.

So, don't feel unwelcome. Ultimately, lots of wiki edits, especially in the offseason, are either straightforward fixes or mild structural changes, mostly based, if we are honest, on the editor's personal taste. As such, these edits are approximately in thermodynamic equilibrium, so to speak; there is no clear impetus in on direction or the other. Wikis, for all the inherent crowd-sourcing, are actually fairly conservative, in a linguisitc sense, insofar as significant rewrites, or even minor ones, are not undertaken trivially. Furthermore, the text of the article as it stands at a time is naturally familiar to the community, and tacitly approved. So, when an innovative edit is not instantly recognizable as an objective improvement, there is some tendency to return to previous versions.