Talk:SAE Institute

history
Do we really need all that detail in the History? Are the purchases of equipment, or moving premises that important? Iain 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
This article looks like an advertisement for SAE at the moment. The short criticism portion of this article has been removed, as have links to critical webpages. Why? Can User:Babasko please explain. - Iain 23:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes
No response to previous discussion, User:Babasko seems to have only removed critical elements of the article and has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. Therefore I have made the edits I was asking about. Iain 20:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Criticism Remark
being only a random visitor and user of wikipedia I (babasko) did not see the remark made by Iain. Weblinks concerning the criticism of SAE and Tom Misner were initially removed as they did not contribute objective info, but rather were part of a slander campaign initiated by a fired disgruntled ex-employee of SAE. And to my discretion have no place in wikipedia. I would like said links to be removed again

--- Gee. I wonder if babasako possibly works for SAE. ---

Disagreement on Criticism section
Hi. It seems that Babasko and I disagree. I believe the criticism section to be fair and reasonable. If the criticism itself is unreasonable that does not mean it should not be part of the article. I believe that the criticism itself is reasonable. One of the references is from a business magazine.[]

I think that the brief mention that some people have critised SAE and why to be apropraite to this article.

I can't see a resolution here, and other unregistered (not logged in) users are removing the criticism section. I am going to investigate having this article reivewed by some kind of third party.

Iain 00:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The page looks like an advertisement for SAE once again.

History Entries being vandalized
i just removed the history bits with wrongful slanderous allegations and statements. 58.172.24.204 seems to be on a personal vendetta against Tom Misner and mis-uses wikipedia for it. and before the question arises.. yes, i work for SAE and yes, i believe to know very well who this disgruntled editor is. and no, i do not feel that those edited entries aim towards the neutrality of the SAE entry. They are pure slander and plainly untrue.

earlier the question came up, if we really need an SAE history on this page, as one can read it on all sae websites and in the brochures.. i´m totally fine with that. less work for me..

babasko 09:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Information, not vandalisation
Wikipedia is about the free flow of information. Nothing in the edits made were false accusations. By removing the links to the BRW article (a respected publication in Australia) and other verifiable information, such as the fine for software piracy and Mr Misner's prosecution for forgery, you are indeed turning the entry into an SAE advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.24.204 (talk • contribs)