User talk:Malerisch/Archive 1

Please tell me more about your review of article ratings for the level 4 vital articles project
Hi, Malerisch,

I see you have just jumped in on the discussion of the level 4 vital articles list, and are updating (?) article ratings. I intend to plunge into detail reexamination of the articles under the psychology subtopic on the vital articles list, as I am an active participant in WikiProject Psychology, and I thought I should check with you first about what procedure you are following. Are you visiting the article pages individually, or WikiProject project rating summaries, or what to check the article ratings? Are you changing article ratings as you go, or just taking them as is from the source you rely on? I want to make sure my work is compatible with the work of other editors, so please let me know. (P.S. Are you new here? Have you previously been active on other Wikimedia Foundation projects?) See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The process I followed was semiautomatic: I first wrote a script (with some help from the MediaWiki API) to help me determine if the rating on the Expanded list matched the majority of ratings listed on the talk page of each article—this way, I wouldn't have to check all ~10,000 articles, just around 50 from each section. If they matched, I didn't investigate further, but if they differed (say the Expanded list said the article was B-class and the talk page had 3 ratings for C-class and 1 for B-class), I performed a quick evaluation of which class was more accurate and updated either the rating on the Expanded list or the talk page so that they would agree.
 * I am actually new to editing here, but I've followed this project for a while. Malerisch (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your detailed reply. That was a smart use of a script to help all the editors on the vital articles project with important preliminary information. I see from this talk page of yours and from the talk page of the project that I am far from alone in appreciating what you are doing for the project. I thought I should mention, as one more resource to refer to during vital articles discussion, the editor who is running a tool to show article pageviews by project, with results summarized in Popular pages reports for most WikiProjects. For example, you can see the popular pages report for WikiProject India at Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Popular pages and in general you can go to most WikiProject main pages and just append the subpage link "/Popular_pages" to the main page URL to see the popular pages report (there are some exceptions, that is projects for which there is no Popular pages summary). The popular pages are shown in strict rank order of pageviews from all sources, including redirects, and thus show a different count of pageviews from that shown by the link to the grok.se tool from the article's history page.


 * Of course pageviews are far from the only consideration when deciding what to list as a vital article on Wikipedia, but to do our work on trimming the vital article list in disregard of actual pageview behavior by Wikipedia readers seems to miss out on a valuable source of guidance on what to prioritize. Cobblet has already raised some interesting questions about the priority of various articles on fish species based on the popular pages report for that WikiProject. I look forward to seeing your further nominations and comments on other nominations as the project proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hi Malerisch,

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your recent contributions to the Vital Article Project!

I noticed that you have just nominated 15 articles to be discussed on VA/E, Vital Articles level 4. Please note that the levels of the VA project build upon each other like a pyramid. Anything that is on level 3 is automatically on level 4; if not it's an oversight that can be corrected without discussion. You state on VA/E that you want some of these articles removed, which might make sense. The appropriate place for such a discussion is then the highest level (it says in the policy description on top of the talk page for level 4 that it's the discussion page for level 4).

Also, when you close a discussion and add/remove the article to the lists would you be so kind as to also place or remove the vital article template on the articles talk page?

Melody Lavender (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep, the reason that I nominated those 15 was because the articles are supposed to nest. I did ask on the Level 3 talk page first, though, and User:Cobblet mentioned that each should be nominated individually. Good point about the template though—I'll be sure to do that.
 * One other thing: there is precedent to nominate an article before adding it. Cuisine is an article that is on the Level 2 list and not the Level 3 list, and it was nominated on the Level 3 list first, rather than being automatically added. (It didn't pass, and now there is a discussion to remove it from Level 2). Malerisch (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I found the discussion on level 3 talk and responded. There are also precedents for simply adding what's missing. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks! Malerisch (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a note but it looks like you were putting the articles in class B+ which doesn't exist for vital articles. That's why all the categories are red. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Vital Articles
Just a note that you are allowed to vote on your own proposals. Thank you for the proposals. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:Short explanation
Hi Malerish. You're right! August does indeed have 31 days. I don't know what I was thinking. I think it may time to discuss the current voting rules and procedures. Proposals that get 4 supports and 0 opposes which then get closed as "No consensus" don't look right to me. I sometimes feel like supporting 4-0 proposals approaching the time limit even if I am personally neutral or not familiar with the article. Perhaps add a requirement that no proposal can be closed as no consensus before 60 days if there isn't at least 1 oppose? I don't know what else can be done. Gizza ( t )( c ) 14:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Horse VA
Next time you start moving around the horse articles, perhaps consider posting to wikiproject equine ( WT:EQUINE ) for comment. We have viewpoints you ought to consider. Montanabw (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

William Rainey Harper
I'm a bit confused by this revert. It seemed like the information in the paragraph didn't belong in a lead, but in its own section. Why was I reverted? p b  p  23:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that—I accidentally hit revert. I've already undone my edit. Malerisch (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Critique of Pure Reason
Hello Malerisch. I am interested in the Critique of Pure Reason. For the record, why do you consider Wikipedia's article Critique of Pure Reason to be C-class, as you indicated here? ImprovingWiki (talk)
 * I based my assessments around a few other non-fiction books—in this case A Treatise of Human Nature (Start-class), The Republic (C-class), and The Prince (C-class). I decided that the article wasn't in significantly better condition than those, so I rated it C-class. Malerisch (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Billy Joel
Why did you remove the VA rating on Talk:Billy Joel? Origamiteⓣⓒ 17:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I closed a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded here that resulted in the removal of the VA template. Malerisch (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Genetically modified organism article
Hi Malerisch - I noticed that you just added this article to the Technology project and gave it a C rating. Since you just reviewed the article in order to rate it, I would appreciate your comments on the Talk page, explaining where you found it deficient. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that I just used the classes already assigned on the talk page for the VA template :P If you think the article should be upgraded to B-class, I don't mind if you change them. Malerisch (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care about those ratings, nor GA nor FA status - i just always edit as best I can. I am always interested in concrete feedback. :)  But thanks for replying! Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hiya User:Malerisch

I've been working on the article Geophilus flavus, I was hoping you would be willing to evaluate it and assign a grading? It's currently listed as start level, however, I think it's been substantially improved since the last assessment. If you have the time, I would also greatly appreciate any feedback or editing tips.

Kind thanks,

--Witchruby (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Malerisch
Nice to see you after five years (Though we never had earlier interaction on Wikipedia but we shared similar interests - VA and I read a lot of your comments in the archives). Thanks for publishing first Wikimedia's Foundation article about VA. I kept mesage on your talk page because of it is awesome I never heard about it earleir but you did first edition on Wikipedia after 5 years one hour after I made analyse in my sandbox about gender bias, and I recantly also was semi active - almost like telepaty heh. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * BTW I noted, they have some mistakes in the article (both, content and things I not necesarilly totally agree) in content as, for example regarding copy from meta, they confused this discussion with not excatly simlar context about bourgeoisie at one quoting. It is interesing they noted that most users who participate on VA or LoA are very experienced. I believe perhaps VA project and Primary topic discussions should be somehow improved to discuss things more properly, see for exsmple: User:Andrewa/The Problem With Page Views Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Interesting coincidence! And yeah, you're right—they appear to have mixed up bourgeoisie with race (human categorization). Malerisch (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your discussions in Bangladesh Genocide
Hi Malerisch, just wanted to thank you for your contributions and discussions in the talk page of Bangladesh Genocide, and putting up the disputed tags. I was wondering if you can take a look at the page Rape during Bangladesh Liberation War. Really appreciate your meaningful contributions!

Shafkaat 208.181.174.134 (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey @Malerisch, a born and educated Bangladeshi here, grandson of a freedom fighter during the Liberation War- THANK YOU. You are doing god's work. You are standing against a whole bunch of angry people, who do not like your stance on this issue. I, and our entire Bangladeshi population stands by you, and your bravery, your courtesy. I fear that like many editors who have dared stood up to those disruptive vandalism, you will be blocked and banned soon. But we'll remember your stance on this issue. I, like many others, just found out about the massive vandalism just days ago- and going through all the recent events- all the page-protections and the blocks, the deletions of talks, votes, discussions and opinions, it's just sad to see how propaganda runs deep. Thank you again, Malerisch- whoever you're. 45.248.151.129 (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Reverts
@Malerisch I just want to know what's wrong about archiving unarchived sources. Like archiving sources is always encouraged. Please explain yourself. Like if you dont want some specific citations to be not archived, you can manually do it yourself. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not a regular editor of the Donald Trump article, but the current consensus for that article (as indicated on the talk page) is not to include archive links to websites whose links aren't broken. One commonly cited reason is that including archive links increases the size of the article significantly. Malerisch (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Malerisch But what we are really looking at is the summary style and that includes only the prose section. Also archiving helps retrieve any significant article should the original one become inaccessible. So can I revert your edit now? Am I justified? Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see how summary style is relevant to including archive links? I wouldn't recommend reverting my edit to re-add the archive links since the Donald Trump article is under active arbitration remedies—the notice at the top of the talk page says that [y]ou must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You are free to start a discussion on the talk page about archiving, but I don't think it will get very far. Malerisch (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)