User talk:Blintz

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Grand master ka 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Wong) ~ trialsanderrors 02:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second trialsanderrors concern here. Your behaviour in the referenced discussion was unacceptable. Please carefully review our policies and remain civil ++Lar: t/c 07:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply has been answered on my talk page, I prefer to keep discussions threaded together, so please feel free to continue there, if you need to, but do realise that this is not a debate. Your conduct is unacceptable as I have detailed further there, and it needs to change. That's really not a debatable point. ++Lar: t/c 11:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, you're being very heavy-handed here. I'll admit that I made the comment (about partisans of subjects jealously preventing articles under their "protection" from being deleted) somewhat sarcastically, but I haven't done anything to deserve your constant assertions that I've been unacceptable. If you'll notice, after I explained my position GENERALLY, without any personal attacks on the author of the article or any contributors, Trialsanderrors jumped in, accusing me of getting into "fights" and making "flying accusations of xenophobia." Surely, when such offensive terms as xenophobia are brought into a debate, there has to be some reason, since merely bringing up the word raises the bar of the argument. Trialsanderrors didn't seem to have a reason. When I responded to Trialsanderrors' surprisingly persistent attacks, he then accused me of not assuming good faith in others. Hypocritically, even though he lectured me on how I fell "afoul" of rules regarding the discrediting of others' opinions, he simultaneously attmempted to discredit my opinions. In any case, since the article was ultimately deleted, I was obviously ultimately correct in marking it for deletion, so I shouldn't be accused of inappropriate and unacceptable conduct. Also, considering that our disagreement was really fairly calm and proper, and I tried to make my responses as erudite and reasonable as possible, I think that your threats and declamations were inappropriate. Blintz 20:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Wong

Why is this page banned? Weird....Seems like the work of censorship Communists! Wikipedia was banned and is now banned in China, FYI. (shudder).

Please do not modify the history of the above again. Nor take Kai Wong to AFD again. Kai Wong was deleted and the page has been protected and tagged as deleted. Thank you! — The King of Kings 05:18 June 29 '06

Epsilon, with all due respect, I believe that you are mistaken. "Kai Wong" was deleted several weeks ago after a rather acrimonious dispute. The deletion was properly overseen by an admin. Someone recently attempted to resurrect the page (which now resembles a personals ad more than ever), so I listed it for speedy deletion. I didn't modify anything. I only attempted to relist the page for deletion. Blintz 00:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Wong

When I saw/worked on the article (which was Kai wong, it had an N flag on it, indicating it was brand new. I greeted the user, moved it from Kai wong where it was to Kai Wong where it should have been had it been a legitimate article, and went on my merry way. I have no other involvement with the article, nor do I understand where you drew your conclusion that I'd recreated it since I didn't see a protection or an AFD notice when I created the new page. In addition, please check user contributions before you chastise another user in the future - you'll find that I've been through the AFD/CSD process before and am more than versed in what it entails and requires. CQJ 18:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh..now I see why you were so upset in the first place. The page wasn't protected, and I don't verify every little change I do against AFD to make sure that it's not a recreation. However, instead of you blasting me like I'm an idiot, you could have just said..."Hey, it's a recreation, just to let you know...." CQJ 19:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CQJ, I'm most sorry. Yes, I now see that you only helped format the page, so I apologize if I was abraisive. The reason for my suspicion was that when I initially listed that absurd Kai Wong page for deletion, I had to fight a pitched battle against an assortment of fanatical Chinese partisans and meddling admins. That took quite some effort, so I was annoyed to find that the page had been defiantly recreated. Again, my apologies; I'll redirect my attention to the user who recreated the page. Blintz 00:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either of the two that edited Kai wong before I redirected would be responsible for trying to restart it. Have fun! CQJ 01:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked and found that the article was created by an unregistered user operating from the main Singapore IP address. No luck there.... Blintz 10:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo dude, how about banning the page on Mao Tse Tung and making the entire encyclopedia your collection of love letters? Duh....