Talk:Barbecued pork with rice

message: Why on Earth does this have a page? Shall I create a page for barbecued pork with chips? Barbecued pork with pasta? Barbecued beef with rice? Craziness...Skittle 19:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. Alanmak's suggestion to merge them all back to Char siu is actually quite reasonable, and I am beginning to see merits in doing so.--Huaiwei 02:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes this is ridiculous. enochlau (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And your solution is...?--Huaiwei 15:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, done! I've also made a Category Barbecued X with Y. Ewlyahoocom 08:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ???

message: So I don't have to ban Instantnood and Huaiwei from another article I have decided to protect this page instead since a number of parties seem to be involved and this isn't a one on one with those two.  First, let me say I cannot believe that such fighting occurs over a food dish!!  This is absolutely ridiculous and some of you guys need to calm down, take a breath, and then discuss what you need to do on the talk page.  Then, here's the fun part, step 2 is to wait a day or two to see what other people say about your proposal before you just institute it.  It's called consensus building and if you folks can't build consensus on a food dish then we have some serious problems.
Please, for the sake of all concerned, calm down a minute, try to work together to make this a better article, that's the goal.  When I think you've sufficiently calmed down or when you think you have then request unprotecting.  --Wgfinley 10:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much Guy. I'd say what somebody had done was like a Chicagoan spliting the material of Chicago-style pizza to a separate article, after the pizza article she/he started was expanded by people from Italy, New York, London, etc. Thanks God both Italian and English use roman alphabets with no diacritics, and the word pizza is spelt in the same way across the ocean, and in both languages. — Instantnood 20:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is justification for Chicago-style pizza to be in a seperate article, why not? I dont quite see the context there, and its relation to spellings or to this article.--Huaiwei 02:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any? — Instantnood 18:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any?--Huaiwei 06:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any not? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any not?--Huaiwei 16:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, Edmund? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh??--Huaiwei 17:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you the Edmund Teo I know? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is Edmund Teo to you?--Huaiwei 18:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You of course silly~ -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool thanks!--Huaiwei 18:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You said " [I]f there is any.. ", and I asked if there's any. — Instantnood 17:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And?--Huaiwei 18:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any justification? — Instantnood 18:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any justification for?--Huaiwei 10:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Protected 

message: Per the above, Huaiwei indicates he has no intention of stopping warring, in fact, he appears much more interesting in bringing up other arguments and other articles without any reference to this one.  To me, this is the definition of "edit warring" when it's more about what happened on other articles than this article.  So I am banning Huaiwei and unprotecting the article.  I hope the remainder will work to produce a consensus on this article.  --Wgfinley 01:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly protests this action on the part of Wgfinley. This is a discussion page, not the article page, and using my comments here as basis for a page ban is sending a message to everyone that perhaps all of us should stop using discussion pages least they be used as basis for administrative actions which are not fought over in the article itself? And I find it absolutely ridiculous for Wgfinley to say that I appear "much more interesting in bringing up other arguments and other articles without any reference to this one.", when the conversation he refers to was ignited by comments made by instantnood , which included the words "A similar debate is around the Singapore-centric set up of the bakkwa article (see talk:bakkwa)" That he considers this evidence of "edit warring" on my part alone is completely baseless. Impartiality on the part of Wgfinley is sorely missed here, and I am inclined to think he is also reacting based on discussions taking place in User talk:Huaiwei.--Huaiwei 01:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How then, would you consider Instantnood's efforts here as having "worked out differences"? How is it you have no comment on his initiation in bringing in the disputes over Bakkwa into this page and ranted on Singapore-centricism? A simple look at the edit histories shows that prior to your protection, instantnood was very active in revert warring. How is it that you could make this assumption that I will revert war, while assuming good faith in your advocacy? I am sorry, but if you are serious about showing your impartiality, is this the way you do it?--Huaiwei 03:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In all due respects, I think we should ban Instantnood as well. I mean Huaiwei can't exactly edit war by himself; Instantnood clearly edit warred with him on 8/9 January. I think it is better if he doesn't edit this page without discussion here first. As an admin, I can impose such a ban, but I will defer to the opinion of Wgfinley. enochlau (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to cut them a break on this one, protect the page and see how it would go -- Instantnood stated on this page that he would try to comport his behavior, Huaiwei did not.  I'm not looking to drag other articles.  It's simple -- I gave them a break, one of them said he would try to comply (and I am AGF and assuming he intends to) and Huaiwei said he would not do likewise and brought other articles into it.  Therefore, I banned Huaiwei on this one and not Instant.  --Wgfinley 05:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He said he will comply, while I failed to comment on it (I did not say I will). Based on this, you are presuming he will not revert war, while I will, and to actually ban me based on a prediction that I will revert war? Are you thus saying everyone must say in the respective talk pages that they will "not revert war", failing which a ban will be imposed? With all due respect, but since when is wikipedia administrative action based on such presumptions, verbal vows that mean nothing and curry-flavouring comments in your talkpages or anywhere else?--Huaiwei 06:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Huaiwei Article Ban

message: Looks like this article has already been merged into Char siu. I will create the redirect. -- Emana 02:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Already merged?