User talk:Corticopia

This Archive Dealie

There's no need to bicker back and forth. If editors are harrassing you, warn them once then ignore them. If they're persistant, ask for help. Wars of words and insults aren't helpful. I've already told Dark Tea that archiving your talk page as he's been doing isn't acceptable and won't be allowed to continue - if anyone tries to continue it, tell me - and I'll deal with it.

As an aside - when editors snipe at each other and trade accusations, insults and digs at each other, admins are far less likely to be helpful and sympathetic than when an editor is well mannered and civil. More than anyone, politeness and civility are the way to get along, and that'll go a long way to making your editing less stressful. WilyD 00:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hawaii

Encouraged by your rapid response to my comment on Hawaii. Thanks. Rothorpe 22:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Reversion is usually only for vandals

G'Day! I don't think we've encountered each other before, so I was rather intrigued at this simple reversion of my editing that you just made: [1]

My edit summary of my work said: "Changed lede to reflect rest of article and place undisputed constituents first as per talk page (Australia was mentioned and internally linked twice before in 1st 2 sentences!)" and your revert (as are a great many of the significant edits that you seem to make) was marked m for minor. Perhaps you have this box ticked by mistake as the default for your edits? If so would you change it, as it seems a bit contemptuous of other editors work.

I would like to gently draw your attention to the following policies and guidelines:

1. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
2. WP:REVERT#Do_not
3. Wikipedia:Civility#Why_is_incivility_bad.3F
4. WP:LEDE

May I ask you, given the contents of my last reference to our Manual of Style, exactly why you think

1. Australia should be mentioned twice in the lede (when our Oceania article specifies that it was not part of the original meaning of the word and is still not universally accepted?
2. Australia should be internally linked or piped twice in the lede?
3. neither Micronesia nor Polynesia are now mentioned (after your revert) in the lede (when our Oceania article specifies that they were both part of the original meaning of the word and are still universally accepted as being part of Oceania?
4. Melanesia is now not mentioned (after your revert) in the lede (when our Oceania article specifies that it was both part of the original meaning of the word and is still usually accepted as being part of Oceania?

This article may also help you understand my feelings right now Ethic of reciprocity.

I shall copy most of these points to our articles discussion page on Oceania where I will be very interested to hear your point of view...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)