Alambra

Hades in Christianity

I have done precisely what you alleged that you had done, in your edit summary "Integration of the part "Hades in Christianity" into Hades in Christianity, which had almost the same size, but slightly different content". It's up to you now actually to integrate the text from Hades into your somewhat childish revision of Hades in Christianity. I shall check there in a week's time and restore any deleted sourced text and correct style if necessary. We don't cannibalize Wikipedia articles. You have made a poor beginning, but I expect that you will improve. --Wetman (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what's your problem? My intention was not to cannibalize something, but to make one article about this topic instead of having two. Every part of the Hades-stuff is already integrated, mostly in the same words. --Alambra (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is to be a separate Hades in Christianity article, then it should be improved, not censored, if it is to be the main article that readers wanting more than what they find in the sub-section at Hades are directed to. The article Hades is not improved by deleting relevant text arrived at incrementally by many edits, simply because someone prefers one's own bowdlerizxed version and makes it available elsewhere. An instinct for deleting material at Wikipedia may be an aspect of individual indoctrination, but it does not contribute to building an encyclopedia. Most editors approach Wikipedia in a spirit of collegiality, fortunately. --Wetman (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There is still a misunderstanding. Nothing is deleted, every part is pasted to the more specialized article. I really don't get what your problem might be. A short summary in the more general article should lead to the main article of a special topic. It doesn't make any sense if the summary has the same size as the main artice, which was the case. That's really not logical. I hope, now you get the point. --Alambra (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)