 Reversion is usually only for vandals GDay I dont think weve encountered each other before so I was rather intrigued at this simple reversion of my editing that you just made 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 workI would like to gently draw your attention to the following policies and guidelines WikipediaAssume good faith WPREVERTDonot WikipediaCivilityWhyisincivilitybad3F WPLEDEMay I ask you given the contents of my last reference to our Manual of Style exactly why you think 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 Australia should be internally linked or piped twice in the lede 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 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 OceaniaThis article may also help you understand my feelings right now Ethic of reciprocityI shall copy most of these points to our articles discussion page on Oceania where I will be very interested to hear your point of viewGaimhreadhan kiwiexile at DMOZ talk   

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
 Reversion is usually only for vandals GDay I dont think weve encountered each other before so I was rather intrigued at this simple reversion of my editing that you just made 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 workI would like to gently draw your attention to the following policies and guidelines WikipediaAssume good faith WPREVERTDonot WikipediaCivilityWhyisincivilitybad3F WPLEDEMay I ask you given the contents of my last reference to our Manual of Style exactly why you think 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 Australia should be internally linked or piped twice in the lede 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 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 OceaniaThis article may also help you understand my feelings right now Ethic of reciprocityI shall copy most of these points to our articles discussion page on Oceania where I will be very interested to hear your point of viewGaimhreadhan kiwiexile at DMOZ talk   

