Infosfinaki

Windows refund

You recently reverted an edit of mine, saying that I was "inappropriately applying the WP:SELFPUB policy". My explanation for the deletions is at Talk:Windows refund#Use of WP:SELFPUB sources in Windows refund examples, so I would appreciate it if you would tell me how I misapplied the policy in light of my explanation. Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 14:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, on points 2 and 3.

2. It's not clear that the sources are not self-serving, and the claims cited to these sources are arguably extraordinary.

If you believe that there is a self-serving purpose, or that the argument is extraordinary, the burden of proof is yours, making the claim. I see no compelling argument on either claims.

3. The sources unquestionably make claims about Microsoft and various OEMs and their actions and policies.

By definition, a Windows refund article will make reference to Microsoft and an OEM. Please note, however, that the article provides factual evidence for the transaction between the OEM and the customer (scanned copy of the refund receipt).

I leave point 1 for last.

1. The sources are being used as citations for facts in Windows refund, not in articles on themselves or their activities

If I understand correctly your paragon of "independent reliable sources" is BBC. Be that as it may, relying only on sources of comparable size would mean considerable reduction of Wikipedia articles, much of its documentation coming from smaller sites.

However, to alleviate your concerns, I add an additional source from another website covering one of the stories. Infosfinaki 07:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

1. It is true that the BBC is a reliable source. It is also true that there are many other reliable sources regarding specific cases Windows refunds, many of which are already cited in the article. The source you provided from osarena.net does not appear to me to be a reliable source. Its credibility is undermined by the presence of unsourced allegations or allegations that are contrary to more reliable sources such as (from Google Translate)
   • "Microsoft has gone to companies and says the following: 'Reduce you to a minimum selling machines without Windows, you'll make a very, very best wholesale price' (without direct payment of money already)." (compare http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2007/05/windows-tax-is-50-according-to-dell-linux-pc-pricing/ and http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/01/italian-class-action-suit-targets-unwanted-windows-installs/)
   • "2. Companies and their branches, do everything to hinder this process a refund." (compare Asus's refund policy as described in the article and the first Dell example)
2. The WP:BURDEN of proof always rests with the editor wishing to add material. Regardless, even if self-published case studies could constitute non-self-serving and ordinary claims, it would still fail the other two points of WP:SELFPUB cited.
3. That a Windows refund case study will necessarily implicate Microsoft's and the OEMs' policies is a very good reason not to use self-published case studies posted by some random blogger or forum poster in the article. Verifiability is a key content policy on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your response, RJaguar3 | u | t 18:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)