Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2012 Guinea-Bissau coup d'état/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 21:09, 25 November 2012 [1].
2012 Guinea-Bissau coup d'état (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured article candidates/2012 Guinea-Bissau coup d'état/archive1
- Featured article candidates/2012 Guinea-Bissau coup d'état/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Lihaas (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it has completed GA criteria recently and thus isnt too far off FA with perhaps a few changes. It is also a topic that is deficient of FA (Africa) and would be the first African politics FA. Lihaas (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment citations inconsistent; please use consistent date formatting. (Didn't check citations thoroughly.) --Rschen7754 07:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry not sure what you mean about consistent date formatting? can you give an example?Lihaas (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes you format dates in your references like 2012-04-03; sometimes like 3 April 2012. Choose one or the other, and stick with it. --Rschen7754 18:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DoneLihaas (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO??????????????????????????????????Lihaas (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My comments have been addressed. --Rschen7754 19:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO??????????????????????????????????Lihaas (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DoneLihaas (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes you format dates in your references like 2012-04-03; sometimes like 3 April 2012. Choose one or the other, and stick with it. --Rschen7754 18:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry not sure what you mean about consistent date formatting? can you give an example?Lihaas (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Lihaas has a very difficult attitude and has tried to prevent me from making some improvements to the article's infobox. He has recently begun accusing me of vandalism. There are several areas in the article that I feel demonstrate a limited understanding of the subject, but under the circumstances it would be impossible for me to try to fix the problems. I would not support this article until Lihaas stops practicing WP:OWN and allows improvements to be made. Everyking (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a difficult attitude? The fact that i used sources to what i wanted to say vs. that fact that you use personal interpretation AND a refusal to discuss and gain sconsensus whiel claiing you have a consensus is me hindering the article. I specifically mentioned your source (As present in the article) and added that it was superceded by more recent events, yet you want to dismiss that RS to insert your personal "probably" (as mentioned in you summary.) and then go ahead and suggest a revert WITHOUT reason or anything rto revert (see the talk page AND his the edit history) is a someoneelses problem. No you must be god almighty that your edit is blidnly right. with absoludelty nothing else. (includign somoene else who previously opposed but then agreed on the source (which you say is illegitiamte and must be not consensus) and everyone else is wrong. Dont beleive me? read the space. Sorry Im not OWNING im citing SOURCES, youre dismissing what you IDONTLIKEIT to cite the previous UPDATE AS GOSPEL TRUTH. I said he made statement (and personally added it to the talke page), then (per ANOTHER EDITOR) answered that the infobox was added based on more REVENT DATA that he was arrested (which conveniently said editor want tos ignore for his propbably) is legitimate.
- Thats real rich claiming OWNERSHIP when you dont want to follow BRD to get consensus BEFORE reverting 'without explanation! and then ignore sources YOU dont like to fit your opinion! And then claim there is no consensus when the IP above admitted he found the soure and you claim he supports you. dO YOU read or want your view!Lihaas (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a difficult attitude? The fact that i used sources to what i wanted to say vs. that fact that you use personal interpretation AND a refusal to discuss and gain sconsensus whiel claiing you have a consensus is me hindering the article. I specifically mentioned your source (As present in the article) and added that it was superceded by more recent events, yet you want to dismiss that RS to insert your personal "probably" (as mentioned in you summary.) and then go ahead and suggest a revert WITHOUT reason or anything rto revert (see the talk page AND his the edit history) is a someoneelses problem. No you must be god almighty that your edit is blidnly right. with absoludelty nothing else. (includign somoene else who previously opposed but then agreed on the source (which you say is illegitiamte and must be not consensus) and everyone else is wrong. Dont beleive me? read the space. Sorry Im not OWNING im citing SOURCES, youre dismissing what you IDONTLIKEIT to cite the previous UPDATE AS GOSPEL TRUTH. I said he made statement (and personally added it to the talke page), then (per ANOTHER EDITOR) answered that the infobox was added based on more REVENT DATA that he was arrested (which conveniently said editor want tos ignore for his propbably) is legitimate.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.