| Revision as of 13:34, 7 March 2008 editKilz (talk | contribs)1,368 edits →Microsoft complaints about IBM behavior← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:00, 7 March 2008 edit undoStVectra (talk | contribs)7 edits →Microsoft complaints about IBM behaviorNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ===Microsoft complaints about IBM behavior=== | ===Microsoft complaints about IBM behavior=== | ||
| I left the section in and removed the Self published source as this would also remove the original research by Synthesis ]. Please explain the replacement of the page at Microsoft. It dose not pass ] it is a self published source. It needs a 3rd party reference. ] (]) 13:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | I left the section in and removed the Self published source as this would also remove the original research by Synthesis ]. Please explain the replacement of the page at Microsoft. It dose not pass ] it is a self published source. It needs a 3rd party reference. ] (]) 13:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Misplaced Pages is very clear on the use of sources. Microsoft in this instance is not a reliable source. It is writing about itself ] clearly says it cant be used as a reference when it includes claims about third parties. | |||
| :Looking at the section it looks like the remaining section does not have a valid reference either. From Questionable sources, it relies heavily on personal opinions of Microsoft. Since they are about a 3rd party, it also in my opinion is unusable. ] (]) 15:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:00, 7 March 2008
Microsoft complaints about IBM behavior
I left the section in and removed the Self published source as this would also remove the original research by Synthesis WP:SYN. Please explain the replacement of the page at Microsoft. It dose not pass WP:SOURCES it is a self published source. It needs a 3rd party reference. Kilz (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is very clear on the use of sources. Microsoft in this instance is not a reliable source. It is writing about itself WP:SELFPUB clearly says it cant be used as a reference when it includes claims about third parties.
- Looking at the section it looks like the remaining section does not have a valid reference either. From Questionable sources, it relies heavily on personal opinions of Microsoft. Since they are about a 3rd party, it also in my opinion is unusable. StVectra (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)