User talk:84.73.140.109

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] September 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on MacBook Pro. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

[edit] Compromise

In the spirit of compromise, for the Apple hardware since 1998 template, I propose changing the Intel codename to simply 2007 as a shortened form of Mid 2007. This way a part of the terminology Apple uses to refer to the model is used rather than our own Intel codename preference. -GnuTurbo 17:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be a smart name if we knew there will be no more new iMacs during 2007. That will probably be the case, but we can't really be sure of that now. If we chose 2007 (which personally I wouldn't mind as long as its unambiguous) and they release another rev in 2007 we'll be stuck with a mess. The mess would be comparable to the mess we have now because somebody chose C2D for the first C2D rev. Now we have a second iteration of C2D and we're stuck with using chipset names. :( So, do you understand why I'm reluctant to using the 2007 moniker now as long as we don;t know if it will be unambiguous? BTW, I appreciate the idea of discussing a good solution first rather than engaging in an edit war. :) --84.73.140.109 21:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Then use Mid 2007. -GnuTurbo 21:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm no great fan of Apple's names. But at least they are public and unambiguous. If you have a better idea, please come forward, but until now all I've seen is either a technically incorrect label or Apple's name.--84.73.140.109 22:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
So you will accept Mid 2007? -GnuTurbo 22:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
That was actually my original suggestion. IMHO it's certainly better than using an Intel code name for a platform which Macs don't use.--84.73.140.109 22:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
When/where did you make that suggestion? -GnuTurbo 22:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It was one of the first changes I made to the iMac page, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intel_iMac&diff=156879287&oldid=156817112 --84.73.140.109 07:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. Please be more careful not to revert next time. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! That makes so much sense with a public IP.--84.73.140.109 12:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming consistency edit war

Regarding your edit war over Timeline of Macintosh models, I have protected the page and created a post on the talk page so you can civilly decide which version is to be used. Please comment and come to a conclusion without further edits to the article.--HereToHelp 15:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)