User talk:Mac128

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] recommended ssw

Hi Mac, You added boldface "recommended" system software to several Macintosh models. Are these official recommendations, or where do they come from? Thx, Potatoswatter (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Official Apple recs, I'll add references soon--Mac128 (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Added – http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=5356--Mac128 (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Changes To Mac OS History

Not entirely true. I removed those sources because they are unreliable, and thus, useless. I want this article to eventually become a Good article and eventually featured. The sources you mention (that I removed) - there were about 8, all referenced to one sentence. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Which links are "broken"? Please be specific and I'll look into it. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Calm down. I am simply referring to Wikipedia's official policy. I want this article to become a Good article and eventually featured - neither of those will ever happen if there are questionable sources being used. The point here is that sources should be peer-reviewed beforehand. Sources like official corporate websites and peer-reviewed magazines/journals/newspapers (such as the New York Times) are classed as reliable for that reason. — Wackymacs (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I want it to be a model Wiki article. It won't be a while until I can put my attention on it - At the moment I'm working on other articles. — Wackymacs (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

MOVED Subsequent discussion to Talk:History of Mac OS.--Mac128 (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Macintosh Classic

Thanks for those edits. It seems you have the Appledesign book (I do not, unfortunately). This might seem like a stupid question...but do you know of where to get it for a price that isn't excessive like those on Amazon UK/US? — Wackymacs (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Navigation box

I think it is good, but it's going to take a long time to implement on all Mac model articles instead of using the ordinary timeline templates we already have. P.S. I rewrote the PowerBook 100 article - please check it out. — Wackymacs (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You can place your paragraph back if you use the History page (if you haven't already done so), I wasn't sure if it was 100% accurate since I don't have the Appledesign book. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 04:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: PowerBook 100

Two points here: 1) The information you added used a lot of technical jargon. When it comes to technology, most people just don't understand it. That's why you need to explain fully any jargon. I intend to submit this to WP:FAC soon. I guarantee someone there would be complaining about the tech jargon being too complicated for the average joe to understand. 2) The 'publisher' of the citation seems to have been Sigma Seven Systems Ltd. Who are they and what makes them a good source? Part of the problem is not to include too much information -- this is an encyclopedia, not a full technical specification website. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about this a bit more - it really seems you have it in for me. I know I keep mentioning verifiable sources, and it can be a pain. But I am simply thinking about this from the point of view of FAC. At FAC the citation you added would be questioned. So, that's not my decision. But also, it wouldn't surprise me if a FAC reviewer thought "Why is the editor mentioning that a third party serial modem port was available?" Nowhere in the sentence did you explain why this third party product was made. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? I don't see any quotation marks. Even if you're citing a source, you don't have to use the exact words as they did. If you are though, you should be using quotation marks (but in this case, I see no reason to do so as I don't see any point in this being a quote). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Mac_specs Template

I think you'll agree that the Mac specs template should be deprecated, since infobox computer has all its parameters and more. There are already other Macintosh articles using it such as MacBook and MacBook Air. In addition, Mac specs current appearance does not match that of any of the other Infoboxes on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if I intend to work on any of the other Macintosh model articles (currently busy on other articles!), so please feel free to replace the Mac specs infobox on the others with Infobox computer. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)