Talk:Ed Bott

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Journalism

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Subjective statements should be removed

The following two sentences clearly violate Wikipedia rules and should be removed: "...he has made a name for himself with his renowned pro-Microsoft bias.[citation needed] Bott often applies undisclosed, stricter standards of evaluation to companies he writes about other than Microsoft."

Neither of those statements is true, and more importantly, neither is supported by any independent evidence, as the "citation needed" notes suggest. In the interest of fairness, I searched to see whether any such evidence was available. I can't find it and thus I respectfully request that the offending sentences be removed.

Thespecialist4 (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out the advice I see when I sign in to this page says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page." Surely the section I highlighted here falls into that category. It is both "contentious" and unsourced. Thespecialist4 (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the uncited claim of bias. Secretlondon (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I believe it's also time to remove the maintenance template from this page, as it no longer contains any unreliably sourced or unsourced material. Thespecialist4 (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time to remove the maintenance template

I believe it's time to remove the maintenance template from this page. It has been steadily improved since that template was added nine years ago, and the page no longer contains any unreliably sourced or unsourced material. Thespecialist4 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]