| Revision as of 13:30, 27 October 2009 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,930 editsm Signing comment by Makeswell - "→Enlightenment (concept): "← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:46, 29 October 2009 edit undoMakeswell (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,356 editsm →Enlightenment (concept)Next edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| Moved to ]. ] (]) 15:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC) | Moved to ]. ] (]) 15:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| that was not the only reason i deleted the previous work, in fact i kept most of it |
that was not the only reason i deleted the previous work as you claimed on my talk page, in fact i kept most of it that even referred to the topic of Enlightenment and really it was all duplicate. the stuff on the Age of Enlightenment was a duplicate, the stuff on Kant was a duplicate, etc. Besides this I gave extensive reasoning both on the talk page and your user page. The bigger truth is that when you've criticized me for removing people's work and then you Blindly did the same to everything i had spent all night doing. This was especially Blind in light of the fact that in your own words you had no previous involvement or interest in the content of the page. | ||
| so, now the page is under the title of Enlightenment in Buddhism and Enlightenment (spiritual) which is somewhat appropriate despite the fact that those two pages have the exact same content. There also exists the Enlightenment (concept) page you've so zealously defended which has multiple conflicting meanings in the start and then goes on to further befuddle the idea with really unclear and misleading information in the sense that it refers to the Age of Enlightenment and yet calls it enlightenment and so on, and is mostly also found elsewhere in wikipedia. I really don't care at this point and would not have responded at all had you not further posted more stuff on my talk page creating an almost ridiculous at this point argument over the internet where nothing is really done or solved. the only thing i really have to say is that a rule is a rule for a reason, and the reason should be given more weight than the rule: deletion of material, even wholesale deletion, is oftentimes appropriate in given circumstances. i mean for the |
so, now the page is under the title of Enlightenment in Buddhism and Enlightenment (spiritual) which is somewhat appropriate despite the fact that those two pages have nearly the exact same content. There also exists the Enlightenment (concept) page you've so zealously defended which has multiple conflicting meanings in the start and then goes on to further befuddle the idea with really unclear and misleading information in the sense that it refers to the Age of Enlightenment and yet calls it enlightenment and so on, and is mostly also found elsewhere in wikipedia. | ||
| I really don't care at this point and would not have responded at all had you not further posted more stuff on my talk page creating an almost ridiculous at this point argument over the internet where nothing is really done or solved. the only thing i really have to say is that a rule is a rule for a reason, and the reason should be given more weight than the rule: deletion of material, even wholesale deletion, is oftentimes appropriate in given circumstances. | |||
| i mean for the Purpose-of-people-ActuallyBenefiting from the information given on wikipedia we can't be restricted by blind rules, right? | |||
| ] (]) 19:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:46, 29 October 2009
Talk page archives: Archive 1 Archive 2
Enlightenment (concept)
Moved to Talk:Enlightenment (spiritual)#Removed from my talk page. Mukadderat (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
that was not the only reason i deleted the previous work as you claimed on my talk page, in fact i kept most of it that even referred to the topic of Enlightenment and really it was all duplicate. the stuff on the Age of Enlightenment was a duplicate, the stuff on Kant was a duplicate, etc. Besides this I gave extensive reasoning both on the talk page and your user page. The bigger truth is that when you've criticized me for removing people's work and then you Blindly did the same to everything i had spent all night doing. This was especially Blind in light of the fact that in your own words you had no previous involvement or interest in the content of the page.
so, now the page is under the title of Enlightenment in Buddhism and Enlightenment (spiritual) which is somewhat appropriate despite the fact that those two pages have nearly the exact same content. There also exists the Enlightenment (concept) page you've so zealously defended which has multiple conflicting meanings in the start and then goes on to further befuddle the idea with really unclear and misleading information in the sense that it refers to the Age of Enlightenment and yet calls it enlightenment and so on, and is mostly also found elsewhere in wikipedia.
I really don't care at this point and would not have responded at all had you not further posted more stuff on my talk page creating an almost ridiculous at this point argument over the internet where nothing is really done or solved. the only thing i really have to say is that a rule is a rule for a reason, and the reason should be given more weight than the rule: deletion of material, even wholesale deletion, is oftentimes appropriate in given circumstances. i mean for the Purpose-of-people-ActuallyBenefiting from the information given on wikipedia we can't be restricted by blind rules, right? Makeswell (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)