While a good article is a satisfactory article, a featured article exemplifies our very best work and has the following attributes:
1. High and reliable quality. It has: (a) engaging prose of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive coverage of major facts, details and context; (c) factual accuracy, with citations for verification against reliable sources; (d) neutral presentation of viewpoints; (e) stable content.
2. Detailed style standards. It complies with the entire Manual of Style and has: (a) a concise summarizing lead; (b) a substantial table of contents; (c) consistently formatted inline citations.
3. Images. It has images in accordance with image use policies; in particular, they have acceptable copyright status and fair use rationales where necessary.
4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail.
according to the german wiki article DFC Prag my 'vandalism' is not 'vandalism' but the truth
and by rewivew it evan the english article states in a later paragraoph my socalld 'vadalism' itself without me posting it so i wonder if you also change that paragraph for socalld vandalism right ???134.3.76.108 (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but the reason for the revert was that your edit was flagged as a "test edit" by an automated software bot. In this case, it was this information: [1] which was added to the article. If you feel the reversal was in error, you may attempt to re-add the information, however without an in-line citation to a reliable source, it is likely to be challenged and reverted, perhaps again by an automated bot. For more information on how to cite information from reliable sources, please visit this link: WP:CITE. Best of luck with your future editing.OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff)11:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea how refreshing it is for me to see an affirmation of life and unrestricted possibility on Wikipedia among the user talk pages, when often they tend to be full of sarcasm and the rantings of bitter little tyrants clutching at fiefdoms of air. Cherish your new precious gift! Thank YOU! ;0) OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff)04:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Ryan
I thought it was important to add Paul Ryan's immigrant ancestry and the first Janesville ancestor. I'm one of our family's (not Ryan's, my family lines) amateur genealogists. The research I did on Paul Ryan is not the first little bit I've done on politicians. I have noticed that Paul Ryan's Janesville roots are more and more of interest. The fact of his Irish immigrant roots was already brought up before I got to the article. Better genealogists than I am may well be able to discover more of interest, and the fact they found them on Wikipedia may be of interest and spark something factual. Thanks for deciding not to delete my addition. I have learned 100 times more about history from doing genealogy, as people's associations through family are really half the story (more often than not 100 years ago compared to now, where whom one's family knows is still very important).SongspiritUSA (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a moment to talk. If you feel that it would be appropriate to re-add 3 generations of genealogy to the Paul Ryan article, I will not remove the information. I can't promise that others will not. My main issue was that the ancestors of Paul Ryan were named, and typically, we avoid naming people who do not themselves have notability on Wikipedia, with the exception of the immediate family, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Otherwise, it tends to fall into the category of trivia. Notability is not inherited, nor bequeathed to previous generations. While I agree that his ancestry is not trivial, how many generations we decide to include, as well as how much information we decide to include is really up to us. Please feel free to pursue whichever course of action you feel appropriate, with my blessings. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff)04:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not trying to be vague. Specifically, I don't see a genuine discussion, I see browbeating. You walked away from it, but not because you were convinced by force of argument, just inability to get through. This isn't a consensus, it's a vote. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No argument there. My point of debate has yet to be refuted, nor did it contain any accusations of political motivation, so that comment after mine is a gross exaggeration at best, and a falsehood at worst. I will not allow myself to be dragged into the mud on this article again. If you wish to reference my argument, by all means, it's yours. I have many character flaws, but being masochistic isn't one of them. Best of luck, let me know if I can help. Cheers. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff)07:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not blaming you for walking away. I'm simply unhappy that we have a false consensus reached by intimidation. I've been seeing a lot of this lately, and it disturbs me, as there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to address it. Technically, a consensus isn't a vote and any view that's not reasonably grounded in Wikipedia policy isn't to be considered. Practically, a group of editors stonewalling together is enough to drive reasonable people away. Which is, of course, the point.
This is being paired with edit-warring that uses false claims about consensus, so it's not just a talk page problem. Given the visibility of these articles, I'm concerned that real damage is being done. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to vent here. I've been through the entire emotional roller coaster, starting on the night I was watching the Olympics, and Andrea Mitchell broke into the coverage to state that she had reliable sources who claimed that Paul Ryan was the VP pick. It's been an onslaught ever since, and some of the comments by some of the editors are going to go in the history books, because the press was reporting on the whole process, at one point in real-time. No admin would even rule on my 3RR postings, in fact, it was funny by its very conspicuousness. I'm not sure I've seen a single non-solicited admin intervention since the protecting of the page, despite being one of the busiest and most contentious pages on Wikipedia. The only advice I can give is to comment that it is just another page on Wikipedia, and beating your head against the wall will not help you live longer. The page will be edited thousands of times between now and the election. Sometimes it can be better to keep certain discussions from being archived too quickly (and the timeframe is now 2 days, down from 30) by judiciously adding comments when appropriate, and wait for the inevitable push-back, which will happen, provided the issues aren't buried and abandoned. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff)07:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's one of the other things. I don't find it difficult to refute weak arguments. If someone says there's no reliable source, I can toss reliable sources at them. If someone specifies a policy that, in fact, has nothing to do with the issue, I can point out why.
What I find difficult is getting people to even make an argument as opposed to express a preference. Worse, when there a few people with the same preference, they seem even less motivated to make an argument. Instead, they reinforce each other's preferences and start claiming consensus. The silliest part is when they claim consensus itself as the reason, as if the consensus had been handed down from above. And when you ask a direct question, one tactic is for them to just ignore you and wait for the section to go away.
Now, all of this is particularly obvious on Paul Ryan because of the nature of the article and the circumstances around it. It's a certainty that certain of the editors are paid political workers; I have my suspicions. It's a certainty that many of the unpaid editors are extreme partisans who just want Ryan to look good; these are obvious. I've seen all this and more on Mitt Romney, only slightly more calmly. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've let some time pass, but I haven't walked away from the article completely. In regards to your (shared) suspicions, I always check edit histories, and most especially the edit analysis tool summaries of editors for whom I might possibly have suspicions of WP:COI and/or consistent POV-pushing, which luckily for me doesn't happen very often, because I stay away from political articles whenever humanly possible. A few of the most consistent and obvious POV-pushers on the right side of this equation have no edits before last month; a few more have no edits since 2009 (mid-term elections); and still more have no edits at all, except for talk pages. While this only constitutes a fraction of the 130 or so editors of this page, it is interesting. I have also had to report POV-pushers on the left side of this equation for consistent 3RR wars, without using the talk page. It appears neither side of the equation wants the equation to remain balanced, and neutral editors are unwilling to contribute in the same numbers as the other two groups.
In response to your statements about consensus, I couldn't possibly agree more. I think it is important for editors to challenge assumptions of non-demonstrated "consensus", regardless of which article we are discussing. Wikipedia's solution for these types of situations? WP:PROVEIT and "Show me". I will no longer accept statements that there is "consensus", unless it has been formally demonstrated with "keeps" and "deletes" in that very section, or a link to a thread with *clear* consensus... not just "stated consensus" by editors with a history of using this tactic.
When the formal question for inclusion or exclusion on the talk page is asked, in the question itself should be a disclaimer that unsubstantiated opinions, without reference to guidelines, policy or established (documented) consensus will not count towards consensus, as this is not a vote. If consensus is claimed elsewhere, a link should be provided. If you wish to use this "peacekeeping" tactic as well, a more clear consensus may be able to be demonstrated, rather than having real consensus (or lack of it) being drowned out by the loudest voices. Please feel free to keep me posted, should you encounter "avalanches". Cheers. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff)02:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the pros that are on my mind. To be frank, I'd expect them to remain low-key and focus on adding cited, neutral material. Their partisanship is only revealed in the strange gaps in their coverage, where you would expect a "negative" fact to go but it never shows up, and in how they consistently weigh in on polls/RFC's. What amuses me are the desperately amateur attempts at cloak and dagger work by unpaid zealots.[2]
I was reading a flyer that the ACLU sends its members, which focused largely on efforts to suppress non-conservative voting for the Presidential election. One thing that came to mind is that these voter suppression techniques are crude and statistical. Yes, early voting encourages non-whites to vote, but if you're non-white and you know they're using this trick against you, you should be motivated to wake up early on election day and do your civic duty. Yes, non-whites are less likely to have a photo ID, but if you're non-white and realize this is being used against you, you should be eager to get a photo ID. Suppression techniques depend on their victims being unmotivated, as opposed to angry.
In the same way, when there's a pile-on of people claiming consensus on the basis of consensus and stonewalling all discussion, the intended effect is to intimidate their victims into giving up. The most blatant example I've seen are the two demands I've received which insisted that I ought to stop editing because I'm not sufficiently neutral. The counter for this is to be motivated by their attempts at demotivation. I don't mean anger or whatever; that just falls into their trap. I mean steady determination. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
