Brad, please refrain from making personal attacks and trying to insult editors who've worked hard on this article. Those of your concerns which were legitimate have been addressed in the article. In case of those "concerns" of yours which had little or no basis in either reality or Wikipedia policy (including stuff you were just making up), these have been addressed right here on this page. Volunteer Marek 00:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from accusations that the problems I've noted here are lies. Please refrain from being combative towards suggestions to bring this article to FA standards when it currently would not even pass a GA nomination. Brad (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said you were making stuff up, for example "Many citation needed tags" (there were 2) or "Talk page threads are full of disputes" (yes, all of them way way way old), "several paragraphs without citations" (also not true). The rest of your "suggestions" have been so vague so as to be completely useless, or simply inappropriate. The whole "Missing US copyright tag" is some weird red herring, since as I've already pointed out, (almost) none of the other FA class articles in this topic have these tags either. Or here's another false comment: only a blind person could miss the still open maintenance tags - sorry, there was ONE freakin' maintenance tag which was somehow missed so yeah, the usage of a plural here is at best inaccurate.
And if anyone's being combative it's YOU, just like you were on the Katyn Massacre FA. Just like there, we're getting a repeat of the same behavior. Vague, unhelpful complaints - if somebody asks you to be more specific you get insulting and defensive, and that's AFTER you waited two months or so to respond. Weird complaints not based in reality - there it was supposedly "too many images" which, when I pointed out that the article actually had FEWER images than articles of comparable size you tried to hide via hatting. And completely inappropriate comments. I'm sick of it.
You make totally bullshit statements like "Instead of fixing the problems they just ram in more photos and move commas around.". Fuck. You. I worked hard on fixing problems with this article, I didn't just "move commas around". I didn't "ram in" any photos. Neither did anyone else. I spent a lot of time on this, as the edit history illustrates. Who is this "they" you are talking about, anyway? And saying stuff like "when it currently would not even pass a GA nomination." just shows how little connection you have to reality at this point, as far as this article is concerned. Why are you reviewing FAs in the first place?
Throughout this whole review, any SPECIFIC problem that has been pointed out has been fixed. Perhaps not as fast as you'd like, but hey, since you only show up here once every two months, I don't think you have much room to talk. Every other reviewer has been helpful and their comments constructive. And their concerns have been addressed. You seem to have some kind of axe to grind here - and honestly I have no idea why.
lol... Another dramatic departure helps nothing. Brad (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another helpful comment from you Brad. You do know how to motivate people to work harder with your constructive comments, no doubt. To the closing admin: would you like to offer a thought on that? Because I feel about as motivated as VM to continue helping, giving the quality of feedback like this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
