Talk:Microsoft Customer Care Framework
|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Microsoft Windows / Computing||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
Marking writing style as more advert like than reference like: This is happening a lot to this article. Please define why/where you see that writing style so it can be corrected. Simply stating you feel it looks like an advert is useless.
There are no citations except from MS sources.
That is no reason to tag it as an advert. It is reason to tag it as not having external citations. Please do not abuse tags like this.
It is an advertisement. The originator of the article is an MS blogger who writes about CCF. The sources are all from Microsoft.
The originator may have been, but I have performed a number of updates (addition of information, rewriting content to remove any advertising style writing etc...) in the last 2 months and I do not work for Microsoft (feel free to check my IP address and compare it to the country I live in as opposed to any Microsoft bloggers which all seem to be based in America). In regards to the references, I have been responsible for each one of those and I agree they all point to Microsoft made content (which is why I have no problem with the external citation mark), I challange you to search the internet for any external content. CCF is probebly the least used Microsoft product and as such very little (if any) external exists.22.214.171.124 18:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
To try and make the article less like an "advert" based on your explanation of why you think it is one, I have listed CCF's competitor and a external news link to a reference customer.126.96.36.199 18:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Product decomposition is acceptable on other product articles on Wikipedia.org. Not sure why it is a problem here. It is not marketing and simply explains the pieces and parts of CCF without opinion. In addition, parts are being removed as marketing without explanation as to why. Explanation of various aspects CCF's is not inherently marketing (see above concerning that this needs more explanation than just the statement). Competitors should probably have their own articles as there are pro-and-cons to everything. I do not know them well enough myself though to write them though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumTruth (talk • contribs) 13:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:CCF Screenshot.png
Image:CCF Screenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 20:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)