User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2015/March

Primary sources tag Project Euler
Hi Mikeblas. Two years ago you placed a primary sources tag on the Project Euler page. Please go to the talk page of Project Euler page to discuss if the tag is justified.Hkleinnl (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I responded to your question at Talk:Project Euler. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I answered you.Hkleinnl (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Children's Literature Publications are not Books?
Hello. You have removed a Books banner from a talk page I patrol. May I ask by what criteria you are designating a product with print inside that has covers and an ISBN as not being a book? HullIntegrity \ talk / 22:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just using the defined scope of WikiProject Books, which says that "articles concerning fiction should be directe to ... WikiProject Children's literature". A project's own definition of scope seems like the right criteria to use for articles within its scope. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the guidelines (which are not rules) of both projects, disagree, and am arguing against them. In this case, I was asking about your individual action as an editor. I am just curious why you would bother to remove a banner. HullIntegrity  \ talk / 12:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed them because the Books project has decided they don't want Childrens' Literature articles in their scope. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * *Thank you for explaining. HullIntegrity  \ talk / 14:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

For a New Liberty
Hello Mikeblas. With regards to this edit at For a New Liberty, while I respect your judgment, I would myself have thought the article was start class rather than a stub. Would you be willing to reconsider? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is in a terrible state: large block quotes from the book, an original-research summary of its contents, and only two references. The external links section is motly broken. The remaining useful text is minimal, and has neutrality problems. The books assessment quality scale makes it pretty clear that bad-quality articles are stubs, and this article doesn't show enough of the attributes of a start-class article to warrant that rating. I don't think the stub rating for the books project can be disputed in a meaningful way, given the current state of the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you for your reply. You are probably right. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)