Talk:Paganism
Editorial differences
Please could there be a discussion on differences over this page and a consensus agreed. Edit wars of delete and then revert are a waste of time. Matt58 (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think the changes Upplysning has made to this article are fine and therefore unnecessary to undo. And Crusader has now also added a link to a PDF file of Metaphysics of War by Julius Evola. A book one can find and buy on Arktos. This is not professional. --Estellenation (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- "Changes" Upplysning made? Are you kidding? He nearly eradicated the article with the exception of three or four sentences. It is unprofessional to offer our readers a free version (PDF) of Julius Evola's book "Pagan Imperialism and Metaphysics of War"? So only people with money should be able to buy and read his books? Sorry, I can't even take this serious ... and I am trying. Strange, now that Matt has written, you use the "Talk" section, beforehand it was just "undo" and everyone should get in line with that. Somehow, this reminds me of someone. Another coincidence? No, I don't believe in that many. --Crusader (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- It was you (Crusader) that started to undo all these articles not me. You did not say why you did it... and I have just been disagreeing with some few so far, that's it. You are the one being difficult not me. Me and Matt58 have been doing good here on English Metapedia the last half year since the retirement of Upplysning. --Estellenation (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- It was not I, but Upplysning who damaged this article ... without disscussion, without speaking to NatAll75 or any of the other contributors. You, on the other hand, do not belong to the contributors, as history shows. Who exactly you are? Oh well ... let the original contributors decide, what is to be done. Maybe instead of undoing great articles you can start more of your own? Oh, wait, I worked a little on Mark Zuckerberg ... and of course, without any word, any disscussion, any question, you undid it. Is that the way you do things on Norwegian MP? Here, the rules are different ... or at least they were. Maybe you think, if you start an article it is yours? If that is the new rule, okay, but then hands off of the other articles. Doesn't sound quite right, does it? --Crusader (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Gentlemen, please calm down. We need to work together. I am also of the opinion that we cannot offer piratical links to publications which have been published by Arktos and are for sale by them. If everyone did this Arktos would obviously go out of business and then no-one, rich or poor, would be able to read the book. I am not going to act arbitrarily on this but I hope you will take on board what I have said about this link and remove it. Matt58 (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Nothing defines archive.org as pirates, at least not for normal readers, but I understand your argumentation and request. We have disscussed the matter and I coincide, this is how I remember MP. But on the other subject, frustration is rising. From day 2 of my return, Estellenation started undoing my articles. To protect his own good work? That I would somehow understand, but wait, he was not a contributor, he wrote not one single word. He is here to protect the "work" of Upplysning. Why, I ask myself, do you not? What motive could he have? Do they know each other, are they friends, maybe “they are one and the same”? I see you undid Holy Roman Empire. Thanks for that, such an important article. Do you know who did not undo it? Estellenation! You are an administrator, so he knew better. You even forgot to delete the deleted pictures, but no problem for Estellenation. This is taking up far to much of my time. --Crusader (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Holy shit this make no sense! Calm down Crusader. For example the stuff you added to the Mark Zuckerberg article is moved to the Facebook article, I thought it would fit better there instead. But hey I can remove it from the Facebook article no problem and put it back to the Mark Zuckerberg article. --Estellenation (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Please, do what you want, Estellenation, that is supposedly your right, isn't it? You love to use the "Talk" page now, so why not write a short message? Or at least write in the summary: "Moving this information to Facebook". Then I and everyone else would have known. But no, you hit the UNDO-button, and all is well ... but it isn't. --Crusader (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- There are three active user here so it's easy to follow the changes, but i understand i should have written a short message about I moving it to the Facebook article. So you want to have it on the Mark Zuckerberg article and not the Facebook one?--Estellenation (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
