User talk:Muxxa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Deep ecology
Well, if you don't think ecosophy should be in the lead, you could always remove it or place it somewhere else in the article. --Viriditas | Talk 07:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've fixed the ecosophy article to include the sense of ecological + philosophical. Muxxa 05:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] From JimR ...
Hi Muxxa -- thanks for your message on my talk page. I like your point about everyone's changes being complementary: this is Wikipedia's great strength. I wish I had more time to try to contribute! You have done a marvellous job with the DE article.
A while ago on the DE talk page you asked "The ecofeminist criticism is very well written, but I'm not sure if it is a criticism as such, could it be reworked into the main article somewhere?" I think as it stands now after subsequent revision it is just about right. There was a substantial debate in the late 1980s I think, reflected in http://www.dhushara.com/book/renewal/voices2/deep.htm (a long series of extracts without a mention of copyright status). I've only browsed in this: do you think it's worth linking from the DE article?
Another page that seems relevant to DE both overall and with regard to Tao and Zen is Thomas Berry and the New Story. Do you know of any cross references between deep ecology and Berry's work which could justify a link to that page from the DE article?
JimR 06:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Request for edit summary
Thank you for your contributions. And I have a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries more often when you contribute. An edit summary helps others understand what you changed when checking the watchlist or the recent changes, and often times complements studying the diff. Think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. I hope you don't mind. :) Cheers – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
