Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/A Weekend in the City/archive1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Rafablu88
<moved from main page>
- This is an inappropriate nomination rationale. ceranthor 17:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Um, no. It clearly states that it fulfils all the criteria and gives advice to reviewers. You're more than welcome to oppose based on "this nomination's FAC two-sentence rationale is inappropriate" Cheers. Rafablu88 18:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's still rude as hell, though. Unless you have no sense of humour and you're trying to make a funny. Then it's just crap. Seegoon (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the constructive comments about how to improve the article for FA. Rafablu88 20:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative process; that goes beyond article construction to venues of discussion, such as this. Incivility, which is exactly what you are indulging in, is inexpedient to that end. Your attitude displays an inflated sense of self-worth and an assumption of flawlessness, which I can assure you (even without reading the nominated article) is not an attribute of yours, mine, or anyone. I was being flippant before in the vain hope that you were just a little off the mark. Now I'm illustrating my contempt for your approach to this project. If everyone shared your supercilious position, this whole project would crumble. Seegoon (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Again, thanks for adhering to the collaborative process mantra by writing detailed comments on how to improve the article to FA and consequently slightly increase the quality of the encyclopaedia. Rafablu88 22:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative process; that goes beyond article construction to venues of discussion, such as this. Incivility, which is exactly what you are indulging in, is inexpedient to that end. Your attitude displays an inflated sense of self-worth and an assumption of flawlessness, which I can assure you (even without reading the nominated article) is not an attribute of yours, mine, or anyone. I was being flippant before in the vain hope that you were just a little off the mark. Now I'm illustrating my contempt for your approach to this project. If everyone shared your supercilious position, this whole project would crumble. Seegoon (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the constructive comments about how to improve the article for FA. Rafablu88 20:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's still rude as hell, though. Unless you have no sense of humour and you're trying to make a funny. Then it's just crap. Seegoon (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Um, no. It clearly states that it fulfils all the criteria and gives advice to reviewers. You're more than welcome to oppose based on "this nomination's FAC two-sentence rationale is inappropriate" Cheers. Rafablu88 18:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)