Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of people on stamps of Kionga

If it is trivial is because Kionga issued only 4 stamps with the same figure. With this I can do nothing more then list the content of the country in the same principals of other existing lists. And sometimes what is trivial for someone maybe important for another one. As for merge this list on Portuguese colonies category in the same way of Australia, I dont see any logical reason for that.French colonies, British colonies are listed separately.Why not the same for Portuguese colonies?Are they different from the others? Most of French ,British and Portuguese colonies are now independent countries.Should them be listed under the colonizer country?
 * Assuming that the list of countries exist and anybody can contribute, I dont understand why such discussion on the votes for deletion.This page is no diferent from the Oltre Giuba list which is on Wikipedia a long ago.
 * This discussion belongs on the VfD page. And please remember to sign your comments (just put at the end) so we know who made them. Isaac R 00:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your precious and ambiguous ideas and advices.I'm feeling much better now knowing that you are always searching the perfection in the others ,the kind of perfection that you can't have beeing so stupid as you are.--JPPINTO 04:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You might want to have a look at No personal attacks and Civility. android&harr;talk 04:59, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * As for No personal attacks I suggest that you read carefully all the comments of Isaac R. about this particular list and about the interest of this kind of work in Wikipedia project.Don't forget the upper comment about sign my comments and the way he wrote it.As for Civility if you consider Isaac R. comments a civilized Wikipedia behaviour then something is wrong about the way you deal with this concept.What solutions did he point to this kind of lists?? And what to say about 'No sane person, not even a hardcore philatelist, is going to sit down and read that...'.What do you think he is saying??Is this really a comment for the content??For me is no different from my comment above.I've just give the right name for that kind of attitude--JPPINTO 15:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we don't have Two wrongs don't make a right; apparently, it's needed. Were Isaac's comments uncivil? Perhaps, but you took it to a whole new level by calling him 'stupid' outright. Isaac was referencing the content in his remarks, blunt though he may have been. Direct personal attacks just bring down the level of discourse to a shouting match, which serves no one. android&harr;talk 20:47, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)