This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.116.112.4 (talk) at 16:18, 7 March 2008 (→Microsoft complaints about IBM behavior: Suppressing published views of Microsoft amounts to censorship.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:18, 7 March 2008 by 66.116.112.4 (talk) (→Microsoft complaints about IBM behavior: Suppressing published views of Microsoft amounts to censorship.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
- Microsoft is obviously the most reliable and authoritative source on its views on the matter. These published sources are the gold standard for the Misplaced Pages. Suppressing them amounts to censorship and is against NPOV.--66.116.112.4 (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)