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)

I am sorry you don't understand me, Jaak. Perhaps I was somehow unclear the first three times I said it: the Lead is not only an intro but a summary of the article. Noting the criticism in the lead is part of that summary. There are three parts of the criticism, and noting those three points briefly is not undue weight. Can someone please point out where cited info is irrelevant? Let's looks at this a different way: Macs make up 7-8% of the market. Might it be that the folk thinking the info is (insert cynical laughing here) are themselves OC users? I mean, it isn't "ganging up" on MS when what is being pointed out is actually accurate and verifiable. It is in fact part of multiple citations used for other information in the article.

Seriously, file an RfC or MedCab. I think the only undue weight coming here isn't coming from me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I believe this is a clear case of undue weight here. The lead is supposed to open up what the reader will learn about in the latter article and be an independant summary of the article. Noting that MS have received critisism is enough here without going into specifics. This is mentioned in the critisism section and doesn't need to be repeated in the lead. I've reverted twice now, and this is clearly supported by the consensus of this section. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this assessment, and feel a lot of the reverting out a white-washing by MS fans, but I also respect Postlethwaite's opinion. So, I will accede to the removal of all three of the criticisms being mentioned in the lead. Understand that this does not extend to purging the same from the criticism section. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than happy for it to be mentioned in the critisism section, my concern of undue weight comes from it being mentioned twice. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As I noted before, the Lead is a summary of the article. The paragraph in the Lead notes two of the three points that were criticized; I thought it exceedingly odd (and at the time, quite suspect) that the bit showing intentional obfuscation was the one all the PC users wanted downplayed or removed. No one seemed to be upset over the two criticisms being mentioned twice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:27, 6 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)

And apparently, Jaak wants to take credit for the DYK he not only didn't write, but tried to interfere with. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Jaakabou was forced to remove the claim

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:25, 6 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)

Firstly, maybe I am mistaken, Golbez, but the Lead is a SUMMARY of the article, right? Third paragraph discusses and summarizes the criticism section. As there are only three parts of the criticism, it seems odd not to briefly touch on them. I call it POV as it is clear that Jaak seems to think that even mentioning the bit anywhere in the article is undue weight. Cited info from reliable sources doesn't get tossed because someone thinks pointing to MS's mistakes is unfair. Jaak suggested filing an RfC; well, why doesn't he do so? I will certainly participate. Cited info should stay. I guess I don't get why people want to blow off WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. Maybe someone could explain it to me? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that every cited fact gets a place in the intro, nor does it mean that no one can remove a cited fact once it is in the article, as your edit summary seemed to imply. My exception was mostly with your edit summary, which as I said, seemed to betray a misunderstanding of how we work here. Also, please don't tell an established editor something will "NEVER" happen, it's not polite. --Golbez (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, my edit summary was a bit off-putting - it was a response to Jaak removing repeatedly the same information, arguing that we were unduly piling on WP. Wrong edit-summary? I'll grant you that. Also wrong is the idea that IAR allows us to unduly remove an appropriate summary of criticism from the Lead (you know, the summary of the article) simply because more MS editors are editing. That may not be the case, but it certainly seems that way. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)`

Was this article written by fans of Macintosh? Too much criticism compared to other context.

The first thing I noticed while reading this article was the extended criticism against Microsoft. Unlike the Get a Mac article, whose Criticisms section includes only four sentences, more than half of this article is filled with criticisms in detail.

I'm not saying that those criticisms are wrong or that we should delete the criticisms. What I'm suggesting here is that we should add more lines explaining more about the ad itself. Maybe we can add more lines about how Microsoft chose the people in the ad, such as the scuba diver, and a kid playing soccer, how long they'd planned for this ad, etc. -- Chul.Kwon/discuss/contributions 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

See #Order of reports within criticism... - Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind a random comment while passing through, I agree wholly with the above user. This article is, honestly, breathtakingly silly. It reads very much like a few Apple fanatics, stung by the commercials, coming to Wikipedia chanting "Must...Attack...Microsoft..." The entire Criticism should be rewritten to no more than one short paragraph of perhaps 2 to 3 brief sentences (but even if it were deleted entirely, the article would still be greatly improved.) The alleged controversy it documents is not important and far from encyclopedic; it can be hashed out on blogs and boards where Apple and PC enthusiasts tiresomely bash each other for sport. But please, leave the computer holy wars out of Wikipedia people. Here in the real world, it's nowhere near as important as you believe it to be. 72.73.211.16 (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. We have several quotes saying "Omigod it's so ironic that this ad was created on a Mac!" One makes the point, and Microsoft's response is just saying what anyone familiar with the ad business knows (An interesting inversion of this ad would have been to show people at an ad agency or graphic design firm — places where one normally sees almost all Macs — doing really fantastic things with creative software on PCs (Hey Miscrosoft, if you're reading this, I would be willing to release the rights to that idea for a small sum of money, and a Vista-compatible Gateway).

Anyway, I will tag this for undue weight. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, excuse me, but I am the one who wrote the f****** thing, so maybe suggesting motives that are a "tad" bad faith is supposed to get me to open a literary (and purely metaphorical) keg of whupass on y'alll.

However, maybe instead, you could add just a bit more good faith? Even better - maybe you could actually add more citations to the article talking about the ad. The criticism is actually one of the few things that make the ad campaign interesting at all (aside from understanding how ad campaigns work). The comment by the anon can be easily ignored, but Dan makes the case that the irony is the only thing notable about the criticism. I can see how he might miss the additional irony of using noted Apple users (and data-scrubbing Apple books and logos out of the shots where they say "I'm a PC"), or the issuing of the statement before MS tries to pretend the images were never made on a Mac. Business subterfuge is ass-clownery, and since we have quite a few reliable sources noting it as well, it seems - dare I say it? - pov to seek to pooh-pooh the criticism? Is someone here working for Gates? lol - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Got it, Daniel. Thanks :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section & recent discussion

I've made some changes to the criticism section that I hope we can discuss.

• I removed the two paragraphs reintroducing the subject - it seems to unnecessarily add to the length of the section and the article.
• I commented out a paragraph that appears to be unnecessary to the criticism section. It makes sense to describe the criticism and describe Microsofts response - the particular paragraph I removed falls more into "background noise" than either category.

Arcayne, your attitude on this talk page leaves something to be desired. A more humble and collegiate approach would probably get you better results - as it is, the antagonistic responses you've made in various sections has made it more much difficult to resolve these very minor disputes. Even if you are absolutely convinced you are right, as you seem to be above, the simple fact is that there is no sole arbiter of content - and consensus among editors is what determines the outcome. Avruch ^T 13:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Looking over my responses, I can see how my misplacing my temper wasn't helping matters, and the crap being foisted by another user to get their way served to distract me from seeking my temper sooner. Mea culpa.

I don't think I am anything approaching the sole arbiter of content. I know for a fact there is gray area 'wiggle room'. Usually, I am a tiger about consensus and discussion - frankly, what initially got my back up was another user's massive edits made sans discussion, and thereafter only cursory discussion. It didn't help matters when the sole argument for removing some of the info were variations of the 'i don't like it' non-excuse.

While I think I have been pretty open to a lot of the changes, I should have been more accommodating of info and opinion that, though uncited, might have been made/expressed in good faith.

Sorry for being a bit of an ogre. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to run up this argument again, but the reasoning which was supported by the community was mostly WP:UNDUE. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, the reasoning initially was your personal impression that the article was somehow manhandling MS by pointing to its multiple mistakes. But no, there's no need to continue the discussion. Maybe let it go now. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe you somehow misread my reasoning for cleaning up the lead. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't believe I did, but if I had, your actions w/the related DYK stuff would have served to reinforce that opinion. Now, in the interest of letting your mistake fall by the wayside, might we move on to something more specific to the article now? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne,

If you insist that I made an error in explaining my concerns - then I'm willing to take it at that and move one. However, I believe that your approach has not been working so well for you in the past couple of months so I do encourage you to try something different.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. You might be surprised to find tha tI actually tend to stay pretty cool, and usually get less patient when people think the rules don't apply to them. Maybe, before you point out various essays to me, you could brush up on policy and guidelines a little bit better. A lot of our frciton could have easily been avoided had you simply followed BRD. Or read WP:DISRUPT or even WP:DYK. That said, people with shorter block logs than present company have already advised me to cool down, and I have. Maybe you don't need to respond to the post, and it will all settle down. If its a last word' thing going on, then fine. Again, maybe let it go, and move on? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Actor vs actress

I keep noting that folk keep adding 'actress' to Eva Longoria-Parker instead of the more appropriate 'actor'. Actor is gender neutral, and preferred both within the entertainment industry and by the actors themselves. This was initially addressed in point #7 here. Might we discuss the matter here? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Either actor or actress is fine with me. Avruch ^T 15:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed someone who changed it and I'm not yet certain on why we'd keep her gender unspecified. It's not that I care so much, just that I don't undesrtand the reasoning to write 'actor' when we know it's a female. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw Avruch, some nice work with your latest re-write. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, to be encyclopedic? I think the name alone would denote gender, and actor is her job description. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are correct. Looking up other articles on Wikipedia I see 'actress' rather than 'actor' as the word next to female movie/television performers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Either way, I think "actor" is often gender-neutral these days and it certainly isn't important enough to argue over. One of those things like American vs. British English - might as well leave it the way it was written, to avoid the unnecessary argument. Avruch ^T 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Large-scale edits

I've undone a lot of edits by an anon user, while the edits seem valid on their face, there appears to be something of a double standard occurring. Citations, statements, etc. referring to Apple were systematically removed, while expansion occurred that defended the MS campaign - almost as if to downplay that the Mac work was done on Macs. As part of BRD, I've suggested to the anon (though their apparent knowledge at WP suggests a normal user working through an anon) that (s)he come on over and discuss the edits here - the 'D" in BRD. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Some of the edits undone (by section):

Lead

• removal of info noting that the campaign was meant to address the Mac Vs PC campaign and vamping up perception of its Vista OS.
• removal of the Seinfeld/Gates info noting the lack of success of that campaign
• removal of any mention of the Apple users featured in the MS ads

Campaign

• removal/shifting of information which reduces readability

Criticism

• removal of various sources, deemed by the anon to be useless, irrelevant, blogs or unnecessary

I kinda think some of these two dozen edits over the course of two hours needs some discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The anon user appears to not be receiving the message regarding discussing his edits, despite usertalk page messages (1, 2, 3). That might be a valid defense (being aware of messages), as I once heard that anon IP accounts don't know when they get messages in their usertalk space (can someone confirm that for me?).

Either way, that wouldn't mean they could miss messages here in article discussion. While the edits appear to be in good faith, they are substantially altering the article without any input, and the anon is already at 3RR for the day. Thoughts? 0 Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

When I started looking at the article history, I find myself agreeing with this IP. Have a look through each of his changes; a lot of them actually improved the article, and he/she removed several blogs used as sources; as I see it this is a valid thing to do, as is the removal of claims such as this; where the article claimed that

• "and Longoria Parker personally uses a MacBook Pro", based on an image found of her holding one. This is from a fansite, and might for all we know have been taken out of context. She might even be holding the Mac for the person in front of her for all we know. Not a terribly reliable source in my opinion.
• "Chopra uses one as well, and Williams uses a Macintosh in his recording studio."
• As for man one; the only "evidence" for him using a Mac, appears to be the image information from images on his website. But how do we know that he is the one who actually made that site? For all we know, he might be using a third party for this.
• Tony Parker is according to the source a macuser just because he appeared at a Mac expo.

As far as I can see, this is all based on assumptions made by a blog - hardly the kind of reliable sources Wikipedia needs. As for the list you made of edits undone: The removal of blogs as a source is not a problem. If the blogs are linking to reliable sources, use them instead. Blogs are typically the opinion of a single person, and is unlikely to be objective. As for other sources, feel free to reinsert sources removed sources if you feel that they are still relevant. As for the original sources (original being as in your last version before the anon started editing); out of the 14, only Computerworld, Sydney Morning Herald and Gawker is mentioning that the campaign is to change the public perception of Vista. Two of these do not mention where they have that information from, and the third appears to be a blog. Sure, the campaign is to push Vista, and try to sell more copies, but how do we know that this is due to the current public perception without having a proper source that says so? As for the Seinfeld campaign, some sources such as Betanews speculate if this was the result of a failed campaign, or as according to Microsoft, part of the plan (which was mentioned by several other sources, such as Computerworld).

As for the point about readability; this is to an extent a subjective thing. I liked some of the changes myself, if you disagree, please list specific edits rather than just writing "removal/shifting of information which reduces readability". Bjelleklang - talk 15:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As I have said before, I am not immediately opposed to some of the edits (even though, there appears to be a tendency to tout sources supporting MS's marketing while simultaneously downplaying or simply removing any Apple info); I simply think that - because of the scale at which they are being introduced - discussion is helpful. Tossing out twenty-plus edits and expecting individual editors to act on a single edit in the middle of the two dozen edits where the citation was removed, the text rewritten and a completely different citation added seems a significant expenditure of time. Why not make sure the edits will stay by discussing them first? Why does the user have to be warned that they are at the electric fence of 3RR before they even approach the discussion page?

Seriously, some of these need discussion before being added, as per BRD. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of Vista, which the campaign does not reference, to an article on a branding campaign

Bjelleklang, the ad campaign is designed to assist and support "branding" as opposed to "product" and is meant to put a positive spin on the PC as differentiated from the Mac. For a current example to support your comment here, "Sure, the campaign is to push Vista," please look at the concurrent advertising campaign specifically designed to push Vista here: [6]. Although we can easily synthesize the obvious, that MS wants to push their Flagship product which is reported to be being received poorly, the campaign itself - which is what the Wiki entry discusses, makes no mention of Vista and simply purports to support the PC. Perhaps we could create a good excuse and shoehorn the Vista criticism in by obliquely mentioning the Mojave Experiment as another current MS campaign? I'm not necessarily opposed to adding it, but I don't necessarily think it's relevant to an entry about the specific ad campaign either.76.224.68.237 (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to discussion, though you are a little late in doing so. Maybe you could defend your edits that you feel are worth reverting others three times to preserve. Do them point by point, as - personally speaking - am a bit concerned over the removal of any errors of MS's ad campaign as well as any reference to the Apple campaign that this particular ad campaign was supposed to counter (though MS is now spinning it that its part of a larger campaign). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It would have been better to have discussed these changes ahead of time, but I actually agree that most of them were helpful - a few were edits that I had planned on making myself (such as removing the "negative reaction" to the commercials bit that was unsourced and contradicted by the Times article). I think folks should stop revert warring over this, and start identifying what if anything needs to be reinserted. All in all, for a fairly minor subject, the article is in OK shape. Avruch ^T 18:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree, as many of the edits seem to downplay that MS made any mistake at all, and removes any of the comparison with the Apple ad campaign, which is pretty much a given. Point by point approach would seem to be the best way to address these edits, as there is sure to be some dissent for some of them. I don't mind waiting for the anon to be unblocked, so he can contribute to the discussion.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think when you use the term Intro, you actually mean Lead, right? Its an important distinction, as the Lead is not only an intro to the subject matter but also a summary of the article. As well, information that is likely to require links should be done at the first instance of usage (ergo, the linking of the Apple campaign). That the subject of the article is a campaign which specifically seeks to counter the impact of the challenger brand, it deserves discussion. Does that mean that other citations cannot be added? Heck no. Please, find citations and statements to add to the article discussing in depth the ad campaign; tearing down what is already in place seems to benefit no one (well, except for someone trying to hamstring the article so that it ends up at AfD, which I am sure isn't the case here), except Gates and Company.

Expand the article, adding parts that provide more than just the bad news about how Microsoft cocked up a few times, and the balance that some seem to feel is lacking will indeed emerge. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Desperate need for wikignoming

The second and third sections of this article have terrible grammar. I recognise there are other disputes about content going on, but it would be nice if someone made the article readable while the content issues are being worked out here on the talk page. I won't be able to work on it for several hours - fingers crossed someone else beats me to it. Risker (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit, but I can't say it will survive the back and forth that is currently diverting the attention of various editors. Avruch ^T 18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

This article is semi-protected for 72 hours to address the repeated insertion of disputed material by an anonymous IP editor. The anonymous editor is urged strongly to come to this page and discuss the disputed content. Should the content dispute come to an amicable resolution prior to the end of the semi-protection, any administrator may be asked to make an {{editprotected}} edit or to lift the protection. Risker (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverted to non-protected mode. Risker (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to point out that the anon was blocked for 3RR. Yer a lot quicker on the draw, partmer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Campaign as response to Apple Ad Campaign Mac Vs. PC

The comparison of this campaign to the Apple Mac V PC is a given, and is discussed at length. Check the Intro, about 50% is just that - and it includes a hypertext link to Mac Vs. PC. In the second section, "Campaign", again nearly 50% of the entire section deals with that, it is both the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the 4 paragraphs in the section. I think, at half the content (not including the significant and possibly majority share that is the "criticism" section), it is given significant attention.76.224.68.237 (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)