User talk:DionysiusThrax/Archive 1

doc hype
As you've been interested in the documentary hypothesis article in the past, I'd be grateful for your comments on my recent rewrite, if you have time. PiCo 14:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I did not respond sooner. I am honored just to be asked for my comments, and when I have some time, I will try to approach with extreme caution this task, which may be a little bit of a challenge for me, as I'm hardly an expert.

ALSO, I'm not all that well-versed in WikiWare... Can you tell me if there's some tool I might use to set about identifying your specific changes? Or is it such a *complete* rewrite that such a tool would not help, anyway? Thanks in advance for your answers, and thanks again for asking. The DH is truly a fascinating subject, and I believe well worth the time spent. DThrax 02:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to interject but I noticed this discussion and wanted to try to answer your question about looking at changes made to the article. Open the article, click on the "history" tab and I think you will see how you can see what changes were made by a particular user.  Just trying to be helpful.  Thanks to both of you for your involvement in DH, I am researching this topic (for the last six years) and just discovered the article here on wikipedia.--Markisgreen (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The rewrite is quite big - thanks for agreeing to have a look. I'd be grateful for any comments you might make, especially for further improvement, by additions, deletions, or changes of emphasis. PiCo 02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

January 2008
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. No stated or valid reason for mass deletion (8K+) worth of discussion.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please remove the Vandalism tag. I was simply cleaning up the partial remains of an old conversation that no longer held any relation to the Article. The other participant in the conversation had already removed part of it anyway, so the way it stood, it was decontextualized, both from the extant Article *and* from the rest of the conversation as it had previously stood before Kwakikagami's deletion of material from the same place.


 * I also have to say, I think the changes he made to my contribution this evening -- which was FINE the way it was -- were insubstantial and look to have been done essentially out of spite or as some sort of a provocation. It is so no nice to make new friends on Wikipedia...  I think this person should receive some kind of warning to just back off and leave me alone.


 * Dionysius, I don't know why you think I'm attacking you. I made some edits which I think improve readability. I appreciate that your second round of edits was a clear improvement to the article, but the fact that we were getting into so much detail over the etymology made me think it would be better placed in a section of its own. That's a common formatting convention; generally parenthetical material, unless quite short, is avoided in the introduction. I also corrected a factual error. None of that was motivated by spite or as an attempt to provoke you; in fact, I didn't think I'd done anything that would have upset you at all.
 * I also didn't remove anything from the conversation to affect context: I made only the one edit to the Talk page. kwami (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I also do not see any vandalism from, per my talk page discussion. If you submit some diffs, I may be able to provide a more speedy and informed response, but nothing stands out. You are also not permitted to remove discussion per WP:TALK since the discussion was not considered vandalism. If you want, you can remove the vandalism notice on your own talk page, but it confirms that you did receive the notice and accepted it.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's fair to say that DT accepted it, only that he received it. Also, I don't believe the deletions were vandalism. kwami (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When the user mass deletes content/blanks, per policy, with no edit summary, and does so again without notice, then that can be considered vandalism. I gave a general notice that that action and behavior is not acceptable.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree with you that it was inappropriate. I just think that the concept of vandalism involves malicious intent, which I do not think was the case with DT. kwami (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (restart) It's not necessarily vandalism to the extent of a persistent vandal, but a notice that that behavior is not acceptable. It was explained once in an edit summary and a notice was given on the second attempt.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 07:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)