Talk:I'm a PC

Citations

I didn't really format all of the citations with templates, as there are so many out there that better citations than the ones I chose might be found by some enterprising soul with oodles of time on their hands, and there's no sense in wasting time before the citations are found to be stable and acceptable to all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll finish it up tomorrow... going to bed now. Btw, it feels like too many of the citations are about mac traces in the images of the commercials - makes me a bit uncomfortable about the neutrality of the article - but I think my changes to the lead really helped that issue. Anyways, I'll keep reviewing these citations. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

the work was excellent, and I altered some of them because - in the final analysis, that which makes the ad campaign more notable than a new jingle song for Campbell's soup is the bone-headed move by Microsoft in allowing their ads to be made on their competitor's computers. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's kinda known that graphic designers have a fetish for Apple's products and it works well with Apple's main theme of simplicity in design. Considering this, there's really no surprise in having the commercials being made with Macs - although it is a bit awkward for Microsoft and CPB that they didn't think about this issue. Anyways, I'm concerned that this article promotes a "boneheaded" narrative rather than just tell what happened in a neutral encyclopedic way. To clarify, I feel you've re-admitted undue material in the introduction regarding Microsoft's reaction to one section of criticism. It is already in the body of the article and is not that big a detail that it should be prominently displayed, taking up one sixth of the introduction to the article. I'll be bold for now, in hoping you will agree with me, and remove the re-addition of the text from the lead - but if you disagree, I would not object for external opinions on this.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I do disagree. Vehemently. While you note that the "fetish" for Apple products means that commercials are made with Macs, you missed the main point. I don't think anyone would have really cared that Apple Macs were used to make the commercials. What is damning is that Microsoft chose to data-scrub any connection to Apple, therefore admitting to the embarrassment. It is most certainly not undue weight to note that, both in the lead (which is a summary of the article) and in the body of the criticism section. I, of course, have put the removed statement back in. Please remember that BRD means that, once reverted, the discussion cycle begins - not post your rationale before reinstating your edit without a discussion of the matter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The data-scrubbing is notable for the body of the article but I don't see it as "damning" that Microsoft chose to delete some metadata. Please remember that we're not trying to show-up Microsoft but rather to tell the story in a neutral manner. To be frank, the article looked like it were written by a Macintosh employee first time I laid eyes on it with the majority of references leading to "PC guy uses Mac" blog sites. The lead seemed to portray Microsoft as an incompetent failure trying to chase Apple. Sure, the errors are notable but the criticism already takes up half the article space and this tidbit of deleting metadata is undue for the lead since it looks like Wikipedia is trying to hammer a point. Anyways, I'll open this issue for outside opinion in a sec so we can see what others think. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 16:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I do have to say, upon a quick look through some diff's and the article history that it appears Jaakobou is making changes within the scopes of WP:NPOV and I encourage all parties to continue discussions here before making any further controversial changes. Tiptoety ^talk 17:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral third party, I'm not seeing anything wrong with the article as it stands. Could perhaps use a little beefing up in terms of describing the advertisements, core messaging of the ads, and public/journalistic reactions to them, but beyond that it's looking relatively well-balanced, in my opinion. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with the ref work that Jaakobou performed, as it was largely non-controversial, but I did find problems with some of his assumptions that it was written by an Apple employee (I created and expanded the article, so it was a notably pigeon-toed lapse in good-faith, as far as I was concerned). J made almost 50 edits to the article, and discussed approximately none of them, until asked. This is a community, and when one makes edits they can be reasonably sure are contentious, its time to head to the discussion page. When you are reverted, it becomes doubly-more important. Interpreting the discussion part of the BRD cycle as 'post why i did it and revert back in the same edit again' does not work, and I am of the opinion that half of the addle-pated, lame-ass edit-warring that occurs in Wikipedia would would simply vanish if people actually presumed to work with others. Jaak isn't a moron, and neither am I. I expect discussion on those points where we disagree; its how consensus and compromise are found.

That aside, that Microsoft attempted to conceal the fact that their ad campaign was created on a competitor's machines - an ad campaign that ironically points out how their machines are everywhere in both ironic, notable and encyclopedic. Does that mean the article is about that, and that alone? Nope. But it does get pointed out, for the bone-headed move it is with plenty of citation. And frankly, i take exception to the BS implication that I added only those sources from Mac-friendly sources and blogs. InfoWeek and ComputerWorld and PC World are not Mac-friendly environments, and the latter is specifically geared towards the PC market. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am willing to work with anyone; I am not willing to work against the fait accompli consisting of a mass number of edits that deserve further discussion and a consensus. Please feel free to re-add the refs, and I will help with that - it needs no real discusion. the moving, removing and "tweaking" of statements deserves and should be discussed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arcayne,

Article had lapses in neutrality as well as the clear style issues. Most issues were superficial with a small number of them - like excessive criticism and mentioning of Apple - of more room for discussion. Still, If our only argument is about stuff like the lead paragraph, then I'm having difficulty with the rest of your mass revert.[1] The references were destroyed[2] as well as a good number of basic cleanups which should not elicit any argument. Other basic changes like placing together criticisms rather than have Microsoft's "official press release" sandwiched between should be fairly clear as well. Anyways, I see not everything was returned and I'm left to question of why you'd rephrase some of the text but wipe out the ref work.

The glaring problems in the change are the changes to the first and second 'campaign' paragraphs where currently, there's a needless repetition of "Mac Vs. PC" in 3 paragraphs in a row on what is supposed to be the description of Microsoft's campaign.[3] Also a glaring issue is the destruction of the reference work.

We've had a 3rd and 4th external opinions about the status of the article prior to your edit so there is no point in talking about this as though we're having an edit-war. I'm still unpersuaded in the extra value of pushing the "they deleted metadata" text into the lead, but certainly the changes to the "campaign" section of the article ("Mac Vs. PC" in every paragraph) are a clear violation of WP:NPOV.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 08:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC) c-m 08:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I'm not sure I understand the substance of your objections. First of all, Both Tiptoety and myself indicated that we didn't see problems with the article, and Tiptoety asked that everyone refrain from making any controversial changes before discussing them here. Clearly the changes you made are controversial in Jaakobu's opinion, while Jaakobu's are controversial in yours. Might I ask that as an act of good faith you undo your last edit, and outline here what specific issues you have with the article, and your suggestions for addressing those issues? Here's an example of what I mean:

• "Fred walked down the street towards the corner" - I feel this places undue emphasis on his destination, can we rewrite as "Fred walked down the street"?

I would also note, that in the lead there is a misuse of "it's" (should be "its), and excessive use of 'peacock words' such as 'lampooned' and 'embarrassment'; this trend continues through the article, and certainly raises WP:NPOV questions.

So could you please list here, point by point, what your objections are so that everyone can address them and we can all work together to create a well-written and neutral article? Thank you. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I opened in the meantime a notice of the concerns on the DYK page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: Trusting this won't be an issue, I've currently made a series of small edits (see history) to only fix the references and did not change any content. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC) another link. 11:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Last point first:

1. I have no issue with the correction of the refs. It was difficult to separate the ref work from the content changes and I had already said I had no issue with them being reinserted.
2. I am unsure how noting that MS scrubbed the images is a violation of NPOV. I can see how the characterizations can be seen as NPOV, though. The problem presented is that the sources themselves make this characterization, not me.
3. I have no issue with avoiding the repetition of the Mac Vs. PC (Get a Mac) ad campaign. It deserves notable mention, as it is in fact the driving force behind the "I'm A PC" campaign specific ways that the Seinfeld/Gates ads aren't. Multiple citation note this.
4. I will avoid the assumption of edit-warring on Jaak's part, as I am sure he wants to work with folk; I am notably on record within Wikipedia being strongly in favor of discussion - in fact almost excessively in favor of it, so as to find consensus and compromise, and to avoid equally excessively edit-reverting. Major edits without getting input beforehand is just asking for trouble. This isn't just a personal preference; it is the 'D' part of the BRD model of consensus.
5. If you have a citation that "Fred walked down the street towards the corner"', then it isn't undue weight to note it, because you aren't making the deduction - someone citable is.
6. "lampooned" and "embarrassed" appear in the citations, I think. Had I been the one to add descriptives, I would have used "ironic" and "bone-headed". ;)
7. actor Eva Longoria - the usage of actor is gender neutral ¹ and less offensive term, as actress is considered within the field to be somehow less than the gender neutral form.
8. I am also concerned about the redlinks created by wikilinking Sean Siler and Geoff Green. While an article could conceivably be created for the latter, as he is heavily involved in activities that could be considered notable, Siler isn't of sufficient, objective evidence to be considered notable. Notability is not temporary.
9. The placement of the MS press release, defending the usage of Macs appears where it does as it chronologically follows the chain of events after the discovery, Frankly, I cannot remember whether the scrubbing occurred before or after the press release (someone pipe up about that?).
10. The data-scrubbing is important to note because MS was intentionally trying to remove evidence of its cock-up in the face of criticism (or rather, ridicule).

Frankly, I find the listing of NPOV concerns by Jaak in DYK to be offensive in the extreme. As there was precisely nothing that affected the DYK's qualification (or is Jaak now arguing that the MS ads were not made on Macs, despite dozens of citations to the contrary?), it seems retaliatory and designed to slow down the acceptance of the DYK because I object to some of his edits here. I would think that striking it immediately might be an excellent way to start us down the road to more happier editing. As there is no factual incorrectness of the DYK, and the sole purpose of DYK is to draw new people to the article, Jaak's comment there was unnecessary. I don't want to have to go to DYK and call it for what it is, because that might create more problems than it solves. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to address the points raised:

1. I was aware of this and moved ahead.
2. More WP:UNDUE than WP:NPOV. The language used - i.e. "embarrassment compounded" also raises concerns of WP:PEACOCK as a fellow wikipedian above us noted.
3. I was concerned that the term "Mac vs. PC" appears three times in three paragraphs. Surely our English is richer than that and it saddened me that you reverted this fairly simple change among the others. Since you seem to agree on this, I'll be bold and change it back - if you disagree, feel free to revert.
4. I agree in general.
5. Please review WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. The lead should be a simple introduction of the article issues focusing on the subject - not on the minor details of the criticism. I'm sure we'll discuss this point further.
6. Ironic is fair use for the body of the article when noted to the person making the assertion. Lampooned is blogsphere language and while we allow blogs on as reliable sources for this article - it doesn't mean that we should mimic their style; more-so in the lead. I guess we'll be forced to further discuss this point as well; possibly get more community input if mine and that of Prince is not enough.
7. I don't mind this issue so much.
8. Please review WP:REDLINK. Article is supposed to get community notice once it becomes DYK and "Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." DYK articles benefit from a few red links for notable issues.
9. Placement of MS official response should stand on it's own and not between digs about the irony of MS's miss. This is a major neutrality concern. It is not customary for respectable news sources to place one side in the middle of two people who attack him. Usually the response is given at the end or right before a closing statement by the reporter (not blogger).
10. I agree that it is important and gave it more than enough volume within the body of the criticism section. However, the current writing of the lead is just "ass-clowned themselves into a pickle" as you put it on my talkpage. I'm open to some encyclopedic mention of this - feel free to make some rewrite attempt and we'll see if it works for me.

I hope I addressed all points in a satisfactory manner. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In the order discussed:

1. Resolved
2. They scrubbed the data, and its cited that they did so. It is further notes via neutral, reliable sources as to why they did so. It isn't pov to note it. "embarrassment compounded" was a paraphrasing of the various cites that noted the scrubbing, and their comments ranged from "regrettable" to "stupid". I thought I was hitting the middle ground. Not noting the foolishness of the error, when there are multiple citations that point it out as such - well, that is pov. (addressed in subsection, below)
3. While we don't necessarily need the redundancy of the Mac Vs. Pc mentioning, it is important that we do refer to it as an ad campaign, as "tv commercials" your most recent edit, seemingly renders them unconnected, which I think no one here thinks. Both ad campaigns are valid, and we don't love one more than the other, so we don't downplay the classification of one over the other. (addressed in subsection, below)
4. Resolved
   Glad we are in agreement about discussing before editing, Jaak.
5. Incorrect, the Lead is both an introduction to the article as well as a summary of such - noting the breadth of the criticisms (which are not, as you've suggested, "minor details"). As well, suggesting I review core policies can be taken as snippy (I should know, I've done that often enough back in my earlier editing days); let's all presume we bring the same level of cogency about wiki policy and guidelines, okay?
6. Yes, we probably will have to discuss this matter in greater detail, Jaak. I don't like ranging too far from the source material ('lampooned' was a direct quote from the source), as it dances along the line of OR. As well, let's avoid using the term blogosphere, as its kinda negative, and in accurately used here. Let's iron out the other issues, and we'll come back to this.
7. Resolved
8. Resolved
   Regarding the redlink, as I noted before, we need to establish the notability - beyond the simple scope of this ad - for Sean Siler. For example, the Mac ads feature Hodgson, who had other popular exposure prior to being used in the ads, as did Justin Long. Siler appears to have a sense of humor, but there's no notability in that, per se. Geoff Green is okay to link, as there is an opening for creating an article based out of his notability arising out of his other activities.
9. I don't see the NPOV concern, except that perhaps you see the placement as a kick at MS. The info is presented in chronological order: the ads are discovered to be made on Macs, then MS issues a statement, then it scrubs the info to hide that it ever happened. That is how the matter progressed. Are you seriously suggesting that it didn't? (addressed in subsection, below)
10. I am unsure what you are saying; perhaps not using my quotes about something else will assist in explaining your position better. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, i am not sure why you ignored my request to withdraw your retaliatory comment at DYK, but you should know that you aren't going to get much rhythm until it's redacted or at least stricken. It was bad form, and it served to create unnecessary friction. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment about #3, and I have to say that I agree with Arcayne's justification for using "campaign" instead of commercials, though it does take away from the readability of the sentence and causes it to not flow as smoothly as it would if the same word was not used twice. Personally I think the whole sentence needs to be re-written because it took me at least two times of reading it over to really understand what it was saying. Just my 2 cents, Tiptoety ^talk 21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Spokesperson cites

I'm still not crazy about the sources for the claim that the people in the commercial are Mac fans. The first source used (Sydney Morning Herald) says their source is "Silicon Valley gossip blog Valleywag" and the fact that Chopra likes iPods (which are obviously not Macs). The second and third sources seem kinda bloggy, too. The first one is a mac site and the second is what seems to be a gossip blog. Aren't there any non-blogger sources for that? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading one mainstream one right off the bat that pointed to the irony of "self-proclaimed" mac users being used in the ad, but can't remember which one. The cite is in the article, though.

Also, I thought that some tech blogs are not the same sorts of blogs that we exclude, as the writers of such are considered reliable and part of the industry (therefore notable), like Harry Knowles is for film and AICN.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Leftovers

List of current issues... some of the relevant discussion can be found here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

MS scrubbing the images - in the lead

I'm concerned that this detail is used in a WP:PEACOCK/WP:UNDUE manner.
p.s. I can't avoid using the term blogosphere because these are the majority of the sources we have on this article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The metadata thing in the lead seems a bit off - that they were using a Mac is embarrassing enough, but the details don't seem relevant until the criticism section (might also want a "discovery"-like section, but I don't know whether it was the campaign or its criticism which is more notable.) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead serves as both the introduction as well as the overview/summary of the article. Noting the criticism seems on point. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, certainly. I just think it's too specific for the lead is all. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've made an edit, attempting to address that. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe your edit addressed the core of the concern. I would like the see the lead paragraph regarding the criticism appear like this (Golbez version):

The campaign has been criticized for having used notable supporters of various Apple products as well as it's commercials being revealed to have been created largely on Apple computers.

The rest of the "an embarrassment compounded when..." (in the current version) is redundant to the core descriptive and presents an undue addition IMHO. To quote Xavegoem above me: "it's too specific for the lead". There also seems to have been generated an English problem with the break off of the "supporters of various Apple products" text. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I also think undue weight is being given to this minor fact here. Is this really such a big deal? The introduction should be kept clear and easy to understand. Yes, it is indeed an embarassment to Microsoft. But we don't have to write all details in the first mentioning of it. I'm siding with Jaakobou here. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how its a minor fact. I mean, MS issued a press release for the mistake, which should have been the end of their response. It was not; they made an effort to conceal that mistake, which only exacerbated the problem. Example: a person openly and repeatedly notes how their child is the best painter in the world. Then it is revealed that the artwork the child paints was actually painted by someone else. Instead of issuing an apology and noting reasons for the usage of the ther artist, the parent attempts to concea the fact that the other painter ever painted the images. The initial mistake is notable - sad and pathetic, but notable. As well, the activity to conceal the matter is notable. We have significant and notable citation through a variety of sources that speak to the issue. It isn't undue weight to note it, since other sources have specifically and pointedly noted it.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you've reverted against clear community input. It is a good practice to take a step back when there is a consensus among uninvolved editors. I was trying to come up with a collaborative compromise suggestion that will allow us to circumvent this consensus to something that you would be happier with but was really unable to come up with a good one. In the procces, I also realized that the titles of all the relevant articles is "Microsoft used Macs" and not "Microsoft scrubbed metadata". I'm not sure any of this is persuasive to you, but I'm open to an RfC or some other dispute resolution process if you insist. However, a revert which ignores the current consensus is somewhat disruptive at this point in time. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to add sources that state that Microsoft did not use Macs, or that they did not scrub the data. You are welcome to add sources that speak to the rest of the campaign, but we have citations - notable citations - that explicitly state what is currently in the article. As they are verifiable, and from notable sources, I don't see the slightest reason to exclude them. If you feel that verifiable fact is in fact a violation of neutrality, then maybe find some sources that contradict the ones already present, or - crazy idea - expand the article in other ways. My point of view is in fact neutral.

And I will revert info that removes clearly cited information without a solid, policy-laden reason. Every time. If you think that an RfC or MedCab will be effective in addressing the points I've addressed above - aside from actually worrying about cited folk pointing at the Emperor's New Clothes - please feel free to do so. I haven't heard anything thus far that convinces me that we are wrong to note cited information that relates directly to the article's subject. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand you. The content is well cited inside the body of the article and you are rejecting community consensus that it is undue for the lead. You can either attempt to persuade the editors who stated their positions or open up an RfC or some other dispute resolution process. Edit-warring to impose your personal perspective against the consensus,[4][5] is a violation of Wikipedia policies and I suggest you stop. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC) wlinks 18:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the question is whether or not that chunk of sentence is lead-worthy. Well, let's see, There's a lot of criticism in the article (may or may not be undue weight in itself). What is really of note is not so much whether or not the metadata is lead-worthy, but what the consensus on it being lead-worthy is. Right now, there's a relatively clear consensus that it is not, seeing as how Arcayne is the only one disputing it. (as a footnote, adding the cites in the lead to compliment it doesn't help or hurt the cause in any way, that's basically irrelevant) Wizardman 18:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Mac Vs. PC" / "commercials" / "campaign"

Resolved

I believe the word "campaign" already appears within the discussed sentense and that "Mac Vs. PC" appears in the other two paragraphs (Second para on 'Campaign' subsection). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment above in regards to this. Tiptoety ^talk 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As a compromise, I've removed a lot of the redundancy, copyediting it to read a little better. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy we sorted this one out quickly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As am I. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Order of reports within criticism

Clarification: the following is a discussion regarding the I'm_a_PC#Criticism subsection. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see chronological order, which places Microsoft's response sandwiched between criticisms, as the proper way of handling criticism. In fact, it might be good to break down the section and add a "Microsoft response" sub-section. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I find it difficult to understand how you don't see the chronology. Had the cock-up never been discovered, MS would have never issued a press release, nor would they have endeavored to hide the fact that Macs were used. As MS had a limited response to the matter (likely to minimize the press about the mistake), I am of the opinion that an entire subsection would serve as undue weight and a little more POV - it isn't our job to save MS from itself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm unhappy with the current order and importance levels given to each issue as well as the language used.

It starts with the unencyclopedic "As noted earlier" in the 3rd paragraph, moves on to an unclear order of statements and an inflated level of importance given to the scrubbing of metadata:

Order of metadata issue: discovery, discovery maker+detail, discovery ratified+detail, microsoft fixing it, microsoft press release, John Paczkowski's "Apple has so mercilessly tarred and feathered", Tim Beyers' "achieved its goals", Jack Loftus' "if Apple were smart", Zach Epstein's "the irony of the discovery is detrimental".

I believe this issue should be narrowed down a bit (as 3 paragraphs is just too much volume) as well as organized into a criticism, response type of order with a possible short neutral analysis at the end. Currently, the repetition of issues just hammers in the point rather than let the story tell itself. If there is agreement, I'd agree to attempt a re-write or see such a rewrite being made. (my previous rewrite was smaller than current suggestions)

As a side note, I'm not sure as to why this part of the story is emphasized over the 'Apple sympathizers' part of criticisms which, IMHO should appear first.

Hope this clarifies my perspective, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to illuminate, Jaak, before offering suggestions. The 'as noted earlier' bit refers to its initial mentioning in the Lead, and I am not really sure where that sort of thing is prohibited within Wikipedia, but it is largely used in normal encyclopedic articles.

And your chronology seems a bit wonky: ad campaign, release of press images; discovery of image detail, image creator ratified by notable sources, MS acknowledging the image creator, MS removing the detail from the images.

Now, I don't mind trimming down the section to three paragraphs or two subsections, as that is mostly what is called for, unless MS does something else, like set fire of Apple's Cupertino offices or hold their hands over their ears, squeeze their eyes shut and repeat over and over that Apple doesn't exist 'coz they can't see them. Oh wait, that's what they tried to do here. ;)

As I noted in other sections, Apple isn't being given any preference here, but MS isn't either. If Apple released commercials that expounded on their spreadsheet or database abilities, and it was subsequently revealed that not only was the work created on Excel or Access, but that Apple then tried to conceal that fact, both facts would be notable. Seeing that Macs make up 7-8% of the market, I perhaps I should be more surprised that more folk haven't shown up to downplay the concealment. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK comment

This comment was placed in DYK after Jaak's large-scale edits were reverted. As the stated concern - that of npov - isn't a consideration of the DYK:

Did You Know... that the recent series of "I'm a PC" advertisements for Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system were created using Apple Macintosh computers?

The DYK was approved and ready to roll. When Jaak posted there, he did so with the full understanding that the DYK would be put into a holding pattern. As it seems to be an admitted reprisal for being reverted, he should strike his comments. It's a WP:POINT behavior that shouldn't have happened, as it delays opening the article to a wider audience of editors who might contribute. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
At Jaak's request, I've removed the offending post to WP:3O, though I am not sure why...Anyhoo, the DYK was approved and should be up in a day or so, bringing new editors who can help expand the article. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no "reprisal" here and the opening of a WQA seems like you're more interested in drama than anything else. Can you please calm down? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC) clarify. 08:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WQA is a step along the DR process, as you seemed unwilling to respond to polite and then explicit requests to explain how your personal opinions were relevant to the DYK. DR seemed the appropriate next step, and I wasn't planning on seeking a block for disruption, which I could have easily done. You failed to address concerns I expressed about the non-sequitur nature of its placement in the DYK, and you specifically noted that you wanted to halt the nom until your unrelated concerns were addressed. It is only noted here because it affects the DYK, which tends to expand editor input significantly (the purpose of DYK), and you seemed content to ignore any inquiry into it. The comment at DYK immediately followed you being reverted in the article. It was a cheap shot, and I called you on it. Maybe don't perpetrate that sort of nonsense, and you won't get called on it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Next steps

Having observed the talk and edits, I am withdrawing from attempting to help with this dispute. I suggest that the two of you--both of whom are acting in good faith to improve the project--visit MedCab to resolve this. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm bewildered as to how such a minor thing (yes, it is MINOR) can turn into such a huge discussion! In Dutch (forgive me the impolite words), we call this 'ant fucking'. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I consider it something of a mior issue as well. It happened, so perhaps we are served by not pretending it didn't happen. Wait, which ant-fuckery are we speaking of? ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Order of reports within criticism...

I'm a bit unhappy with the current order and importance levels given to each issue as well as the language used (see #Order_of_reports_within_criticism). However, I am not in the state of mind to rewrite it again so I throw my glove in for others to pick it up. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, Arcayne...

"Cited information will NEVER be removed from the article, esp. when removing it represents a pov edit"

This is a vast misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. What Jaakobou did was remove a piece of information from the lead. It still exists in the Criticism section, and is still cited.

By your logic, I could copy and paste the entire article four times into the lead and no one would be able to remove it because it's cited. Just as removing it represents a "POV edit", I challenge that your efforts to keep it there is a POV edit. Particularly when the talk page consensus seems to be going against you.

If this low-grade edit war continues, I'll protect the page [on the wrong version] and force y'all to go to medcab, because your attitude here is way off. This is not your article, and you alone do not get to decide what is POV and what stays. --Golbez (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)