User talk:Theoscar

Planktic v. planktonic
Hi Theoscar, sorry if you didn't understand that 'see talk' means 'see the relevant talk page', in this case Talk:Plankton, where I've started a discussion on this topic, in an attempt to avoid repeated reversions that will put us both in danger of reaching WP:3RR (click on link for details). I would be grateful if you would undo your own latest reversion until consensus has been achieved in the discussion. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello! I've replied on the relevant talk page - thanks for explaining that.  I also didn't know about the WP:3RR rule, so another good heads-up.  I'm not quite sure how to undo my last reversal without running in to the WP:3RR rule, so it's still there for now.  It's only temporary though and it'll be changed as soon as we can work something out.Theoscar (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I know (or AFAIK as you'll see it) the 3RR rule doesn't include self-reverts. Don't be put off by all this stuff, it's hard going when your new to Wikipedia. Use the links on the welcome page that I'm about to add, they're really helpful. Mikenorton (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The edit looks OK, but I'm still not entirely convinced, maybe others will join in the discussion. BTW (by the way in Wikispeak), remember to sign your comments and always use an edit summary. I know that you did the first few times but forgot for the last two, although you're new to this game other editors occasionally get irritated by that sort of thing. Also note that using abbreviations (AFAIK BTW etc.) is very common but drives some editors to distraction, I include them here because you'll see them turning up on talk pages and it's not always obvious what they mean. Mikenorton (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for all the tips - great help. Sorry if you're still not convinced by the edit - I hope you can see the need to include 'planktic' as well as 'planktonic' though.  There are people out there publishing new literature using 'planktic'; both terms are very much alive. Theoscar (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I wasn't being clear, I meant that I wasn't convinced about including the linguistic explanation, I'm happy with 'planktic' being described as the 'correct' word - just not sure about the neuter ending bit being necessary. Mikenorton (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)