Talk:iPhone 5/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edit war

Can't we just put up a disambiguation page for now? Marcus Qwertyus 06:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Every single source that I have seen says that this is NOT the iPhone 5. One of wikipedias core content policies is verifiability. Calling or linking it as the iPhone 5 is original research.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have never claimed that the iPhone 4S is the iPhone 5. However, iPhone 4S was known by most as iPhone 5 before its announcement a week ago. Therefore, there is no doubt that there are still people trying to reach the iPhone 4S article with the name iPhone 5. Besides, iPhone 4S is the fifth generation of iPhone, just like how iPhone 3G is the second generation of iPhone, and the page iPhone 2 redirects to the iPhone 3G article. Wiikipedian 01:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It violates two of wikipedias three core content policies. Both Verifiability and No Original Research. There must be sources that confirm that they are the same in order to link the two. All sources that I have seen all say the same thing, it is not the iPhone 5. Sources said, before the announcement, that Apple may release the iPhone 5, but obviously Apple released the iPhone 4S instead. iPhone 4S was never known as iPhone 5. many sources were even speculating both releases and some even say that an iPhone 5 may still be released.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You said that sources have said that Apple might release the iPhone 5 before the iPhone 4S announcement. It seems to me that these sources were predicting what this generation of iPhone would be called, or rather, calling this generation of iPhone by its generation - "iPhone 5". With that being said, I am still not convinced that the sources were referring to a different iPhone. Furthermore, there are people who would know iPhone 4S as iPhone 5, due to the publicity of the name "iPhone 5" sources generated when referring to the fifth generation of iPhone, which is now known as the iPhone 4S. You also said that sources have been speculating both releases and some people have said that an iPhone 5 might still be released. Unfortunately, speculation is not what Wikipedia is for. Wiikipedian 04:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You are actually defending the speculation that was made before the apple announcement on October 4th as proof that people call this phone the iPhone 5, while saying that the speculation after the announcement is irrelevant? What wikipedia is for is to cite the reliable sources, and no sources call this phone the iPhone 5. You are conducting WP:OR which is a major policy on wikipedia.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The second iPhone was called '3G', the third '3GS', and the fourth one '4'. Following that logic, I think it's safe to assume (until there's further confirmation) that this one is the fifth generation. Ashwin18 (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No one is arguing that it is not the "5th Generation". Hell,it was me who made that change on the page. But all sources explicitly say that this phone is not the "iPhone 5". Which is a separate device.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is that if the sources are verifiable, then the redirect can be changed back to the generic iPhone page, but if they aren't, there's no reason to leave it the way it is now. Ashwin18 (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Well there are tons of sources that say that Apple did not release the iPhone 5,but none that say that the iPhone 4S is the iPhone 5. I'd link some if anyone wants, but they are so plentiful, they should be easily found on a simple search.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

With the release of iPhone 5, i guess we have to formally close this topic.--Urville ^talk 15:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

iPhone 4S

I agree with Ashwin18, it should be redirected to iPhone 4S. I also thought about poeple who actually calls it 5 and not 4S so it should be that way. TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you feel now? I said it last year. The iPhone 5 is not the iPhone 4s. Just as I had predicted.JOJ ^Hutton 22:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Creation of iPhone 5 article

I noticed that my edits were removed based on supposed crystal balling but based on precedent, iPhone articles were always created subsequently after the announcement of a press conference and in some cases before that, given that correct sources have been provided. The image that was issued earlier today by Apple earlier today also seems evident that it is in relations to the iPhone 5 as there is an obvious shade produced in it. The liklihood of the event centering on other issues or products is extremely unlikely given the time and month it was issued. For the reasons above, I have decided to restore the information and noted very clearly that any other information that has yet to be verified by Apple is not to be included. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

New articles have been created when the phone is announced, not when the event is announced. Always been that way. Anything, even the name of the device, is pure speculation, and wikipedia doesn't publish rumors.JOJ ^Hutton 15:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

iPhone 5 Lightning connector

Please post GOOD links here to articles that describes technical details of the new iPhone 5 Lightning connector. Please don't post marketing hype or other junk that isn't important for use within a Wikipedia article. Thanks in advance! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should create a new lightning connector article? *Magmar452 (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a "Lightning Connector" redirect to this article, but unfortunately there is almost no technical information about it, so I think we should wait until more info is available. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

iPhone 5 thickness

If the iPhone 5 doesn't have a uniform thickness, then I think the article should list both the minimum and maximum thickness. Please discuss and fix. Here is an article about the subject. http://mybroadband.co.za/news/gadgets/59733-apples-big-lie-about-the-iphone-5.html • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Copied from article, in case it gets deleted "During the announcement of the phone Phil Schiller claimed that the iPhone 5 is "the world's thinnest smartphone", however it was pointed out that there were already thinner smartphones out there • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added another source supporting this. There has been some discussion where people claimed that the thickest points of other smartphones are thicker than the iPhone's, however the thickest point of the Oppo Finder is only 7.1mm thin. BeŻet (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit by 59.94.133.117

I highly recommend reverting the edit by 59.94.133.117. It has turned the article into a puff piece, and was clearly cut and pasted from advertising material. 216.249.56.54 (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

-- Bongwarrior has removed the content. --Webclient101 (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Iphone 5 Announcement

We should redirect all samsung articles to iphone 5 article, at least for a while. Especially the Galaxy S3 article may distract people and cause people not to buy Iphone 5, even though Samsung basically stole Apple patents and produced Galaxy S3 with stolen patents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.113.243 (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Why? It's their choice. 20:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.71.222 (talk)

WE should not as it destroys the objectivness of WikiPedia --79.69.101.118 (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)!

Use of Cortex A15

Despite claims of this being powered by a dual-core cortex A15, it's more likely this is a shrink to 28nm and a quad core cortex A9. Tinkuman (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It's probably a Dual-core ARM Cortex-A9 running at 1.6Ghz, this way Apple can affirm thats this CPU is 2x powerful than the A5 in the Iphone 4s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.16.60 (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Anandtech says it uses a custom design, and it is most definetely a dual core. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.71.222 (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It uses a custom design Arm V7 instruction set is dual core ands runs at 1Ghz--79.69.101.118 (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Connectivity

1) The 3.5mm needs to be added to the infobox. I added it this morning, but it's gone now. According to the "template", it should belong in the Connectivity section. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed it because I was basing the entire infobox on the one in the iPhone 4S article which is currently a good article so I assumed that that article is complete or close to it, that applies for the frequency spectrums as well. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Done, I added sound field to infobox. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

2) Comma's should be added to the connectivity part of the infobox. It is a mess! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Status

The article obviously isn't ready for it. I'm going to copyedit the article a couple weeks down the road (after all the hype has died out), submit for peer review, and go from there. Zach Vega (talk to me) 00:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Transferring a portion of connectivity to reception

From what I can see, a large portion of the content in the connectivity section is on what carriers will be able to offer what phone and whether one of the features (LTE), will be usable in a region, this in my opinion is more suitable in the "reception" section than the hardware section which should just include the details and explanation of specification as it is and not whether issues such as the coverage of LTE exist. This has been done in the past particularly in the 3rd generation iPad article where several paragraphs on the lack of LTE functionality outside of North America are located in the "reception" section. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Also the LTE reception section doesn't belong in the feature section as it's not a feature of the device, in my opinion it's more suitable in the Reception section as the section discusses how the phone will be integrated into existing networks and whether consumers will be able to benefit from the feature or will the phone's claim result in the same outcomes as the 3rd generation iPad's LTE claims. Based on precedent, this section belongs in reception section and "Guidelines" for what should be included in the section is from a Wikipedia essay which hasn't even been passed into a guideline hence it doesn't reflect the consensus of Wikipedia or what was previously done in "Good articles" such as the one I linked before. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• I would be more than happy to move the LTE reception section to whatever section you decide if you can provide a valid argument/reason rather than linking a Wikipedia essay. To start things off, dictionary.com states that "Reception" can be defined as "the act of receiving or the state of being received". The LTE reception section outlines how the phone was received by the carriers and whether consumers will be able to benefit from the stated features in the phone whereas feature can be defined as "a prominent or conspicuous part or characteristic", the usability of LTE is neither a feature nor a part of the iPhone 5. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 02:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

?

WP:own? How would that apply? Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite clearly with regard to images. A 250px wide upright image is way too big for an info box, others clearly agree, but not you. So lets talk and reach consensus on the best size --Biker Biker (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

They were 250px up until about a week ago; and still are on the iPad articles. Zach Vega (talk to me) 00:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I trimmed the image, and it looks a lot better at 200px. Kewl? Zach Vega (talk to me) 00:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

RAM

Should I add that is is LPDDR2-1066 RAM? 3930K (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Added it, please send a message my way if you have anything to tell me. 3930K (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 September 2012

I'm suggesting/requesting the slogan be added to the infobox on this page using a line of code similar if not identical to

| slogan = "The biggest thing to happen to iPhone since iPhone."

The reason being that all previous iterations of the iPhone have the slogan on their pages in the infobox. DavidMcClurg (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, the lead paragraph has an mention of the map concern and problems. This is more of an iOS6.0 problem then a iPhone 5 problem. Also, it is mention in the below paragraph too with references. 98.253.72.205 (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

iPhone 5 Teardown (detailed hardware information)

Here's the iphone 5 teardown, which sometimes can be useful to validate information in an article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone-5-Teardown/10525/1

We have contradicting information about the charge of the iPhone 5 battery, "EE Times" reportss that the iPhone 5 can hold a charge of 1400mah whereas ifixit claims that it can hold 1440mah. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I would trust iFixit over 100x more that those cowboys. 3930K (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Negatively 'received'?

This sentence doesn't make sense:

However, many negatively received the new "Maps" application as it is reported to contain many serious errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.250.88 (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but received was used in the context of reception, which is defined as "the state of being received". YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 09:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Its wrong anyway, because the new "Maps" app is part of iOS 6 and not simply part of the iPhone 5.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If we include a software section, we should at least include some brief criticisms of the software as well, and well, the Maps issue is the most prominent of them all. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

But only the parts of the software that are unique to the device. Adding the criticism of the "Maps" app here is taking the situation out of context, because its part of the larger operating system, available on other devices, and not just this single device, giving it undue weight on this article. Actually, to add my own little forum opinion on the "Maps" app, I like it. They added some really neat functionality, and I don't really see any major differences. Not enough to make me complain about it. The pros very much outweigh the cons in this situation.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In terms of graphics, it's each to their own but in regards to functionality, the issues are really striking; the search issues, low resolution satellite images, incorrect tag plotting, the list and severity of these issues are overwhelming really; that's enough off-topic nonsense out of me. I did initially say when I added the a small paragraph that partially summarises the reception section that specifically mentioning the Maps issues may be WP:UNDUE but at the point when I added that, there were only a limited number of reviews available. I probably misinterpreted your first post as referring to the dedicated 'Reception' section as well but overall, I do agree that a more generalised statement on the overall reception of the device particularly the software is needed in prose. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 14:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The argument is that the "maps" app is not an exclusive app of the iPhone 5 and therefore any criticism of that particular app, isn't indicative of the phone itself, but criticism of the software. Whereas, criticism of any particular Microsoft Windows feature, shouldn't be added to the article on Dell, or HP. And from what I can tell, most of the criticism relates to the functionality in only a few countries. In the United States, the "public transportation" feature is working. It has no problem with searches and works great. I love it. The turn by turn directions are god send, and it even recalibrates your trip if you take a wrong turn or decide that you want to go another way. Turn by turn even works when you don't have a cell signal. I think all the controversy is coming from mostly the Apple haters who jump on any small complaint, i.e. the iPhone 4 antenna, and magnify it into some major flaw in the device. Everyone I talk to personally loves the new maps feature, as well as myself. And as if I needed anymore reason to like it, Google maps had always mislabeled my street name, even on Google Earth. The apple app gets it right. This looks like a problem that is only outside the United States.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't lead a path to an Apple vs Google debate. The criticisms that consumers point out shape and to some extent direct the way products are developed, hopefully the existence of these issues will lead to Apple further examining their products and/or software releases before releasing them. Also the issues being limited to areas outside the United States doesn't make it any less of a problem however I doubt that is the case. Back to the content in question; Although I agree that the full details of the issue belong in the iOS article, device articles nonetheless generally include extensive details about the software as it's a vital component of the device hence criticisms of this component should at least be briefly outlined in this and other articles on devices that support iOS 6. If a security breach directly attacks a specific line or brand of computers then information regarding the breach or issue belongs in both the computer's article and the operating system's article if it was a factor that led to the breach. In this case iOS is specifically designed for the iPad and iPhone, a major app in the operating system of these two products is defective to a certain extent, this has directly led to the impairment of user experience of the devices hence as a component of how users and consumers view the iPhone, brief detail of it belong in the reception section. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 17:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

off-topic forum nonsense YuMaNuMa Contrib 18:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Reasons why the Map App is a failure from what I've experience Searched for Launceston, Tasmania and it directed me to a thick glass land area 10km east of the actual city. In addition to that a major river that runs through it is depicted as a 'grassy' area in Standard mode. Afterward, I attempted to search for Launceston CBD and it produced no results. Searched for Tamworth and I got a computer store. Browsed through to Perth, Scotland and the clouds in satellite image literally conceal the whole city, absolutely nothing can be seen from the maximum zoomed in level. Browsed satellite images in my area and the images are not aligned due to the poor stitching of images. The Sydney Harbour Bridge, an iconic globally recognized landmark is missing its steel pillars between the arch and roadway. Sydney Apple Store is located on the opposite side of the road to where it really is. And no, this isnt coming from an "Apple hater", I'm just stating that as a iPad user, a device that iOS 6 supports, the new release really changed the way I currently perceive my iPad hence such an issue affects the reception of the overall device. While I understand that blame doesn't sole lie on Apple, the responsibility of checking the quality of data before signing agreements with satellite image providers and mapping companies does. YuMaNuMa Contrib 18:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection request

Could you put a lock on this page cause I think it may get attacked! --79.69.101.118 (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The nearest this has come to being defaced is me putting misinformation into this :P

3930K (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree while I was sound asleep at night, the page was vandalized numerous times, some were reverted by other ip editors and some were reverted by clue bot, I'm currently in the process of reviewing all the edits to see whether it meets the page protection requirements. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 00:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected for a couple of weeks so the drive-by dicking about should stop. That said, iPhone has been permanently semi-protected so that could be the way this article goes to if history repeats itself on this new phone. Of course that won't stop established editors posting that the rather disappointing iphone 5 is actually a steaming pile of shite, and wonder what the fcuk all the fuss is about with its launch? --Biker Biker (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

We should remove bad language! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.127.125 (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Swiss Clock

The Swiss clock design is not used on the iPhone. It is only in the iOS 6 version for the iPad. 184.175.18.94 (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 September 2012

I would like to add a section to this article in the 'Reception' subheading. The following text is what I would recommend adding:

iPhone 5 Queues

The iPhone 5, like its predecessors, attracted a lot of attention on the day of it's release. People showed up globally to queue outside numerous Apple stores in the initial 9 countries open to public sale: US, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and the UK (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2012/09/12Apple-Introduces-iPhone-5.html).

United States: At the New York Apple store on 5th Avenue, Hazem Sayed was first in line to promote his start-up social media app Vibe (http://vibearound.com/). Also in line were Gazelle sponsored Jessica Mellow and Keenen Thomspon who blogged about the experience (http://iphonewhatever.com/) (http://www.latinospost.com/articles/4188/20120916/iphone-5-line-begins-new-york-city.htm).

United Kingdom: Over 1200 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/sep/21/iphone-5-apple-maps-queues) people lined up outside the Regent Street Apple store before the big opening. Front in line were Ryan Williams and Peter King who camped out for 7 days to use the publicity to promote Cancer Research UK Initiative 'Just Giving'(http://www.justgiving.com/iphone5cancerresearch) - their iPhone 5 was sold as a charity auction on eBay and went for £1,070.00 with 34 bids (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/iPhone-5-Charity-Auction-Im-first-line-London-/271059404660?pt=UK_Mobile_Phones&hash=item3f1c664774#ht_500wt_1160).

Among the front-runners at the Regent Street Apple store were Richard Wheatcroft and George Horne (http://www.macworld.com.au/news/iphone-queue-fund-raisers-charity-begins-outside-the-apple-store-73419/). The duo were camped out in order to promote another charity, CrowdFuelledCauses (http://crowdfuelledcauses.com/) Hope Boutique Bakery initiative aimed at helping women who were involved in trafficking, prostitution or who were abused (http://www.macworld.com.au/news/iphone-queue-fund-raisers-charity-begins-outside-the-apple-store-73419/).

Australia: 600 people queued up outside Apple's flagship store in the Sydney CBD (http://afr.com/p/technology/iphone_stocks_run_low_as_aussies_Q6TqOefGblo7W03iclpQHI) on George Street, the head of the line occupied by 'Aussie Todd' (http://www.news.com.au/technology/smartphones/aussie-todd-foot-the-first-in-line-to-get-the-worlds-first-iphone5/story-fn6vihic-1226476971406) who works for MobilePhoneFinder.com.au (http://www.mobilephonefinder.com.au), an Australian mobile phone plan comparison website who planned to giveaway the very 'First iPhone 5 in the World' (http://www.mobilephonefinder.com.au/apple/iphone/iphone-5/the-very-first-iphone-5-is-up-for-grabs/). However, Apple have been accused of engineering the sale of the first iPhone 5 (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/09/iphone-5-launch-scandal-apple-accused-of-ignoring-queue-to-find-its-own-first-owners/) to go to two teenagers, James and Tamsyn, instead.

In Brisbane's Chermside Apple store, Apple Computers co-founder Steve Wozniak (http://www.news.com.au/national/australia-goes-nuts-for-the-iphone-5-as-apple-founder-steve-wozniak-joins-our-queue/story-fncynjr2-1226478600390) showed up to sign autographs and get an iPhone 5 before his hometown California did.

Japan: Lines at the Tokyo Apple store stretched several blocks, despite rainy weather (http://gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/news/long-queues-greet-apples-iphone-5-in-sydney-tokyo-270207). Some of the first people in the queue even ran live streams of the event. The Ginza district store even had some people sporting costumes for the event (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/iphone-5-unleashed-long-queues-greet-apple-latest-model-asia-australia-expected-frenzy-europe-u-s-article-1.1164349).

Singapore & Hong Kong: These two Asian countries used a prearranged booking system (http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/14916838/apple-fans-across-asia-queue-for-iphone5/) for customers to pick up their iPhone 5 at a certain time. In Hong Kong, student Kevin Wong hoped to buy the iPhone 5 and sell it in mainland China for a profit - Hong Kong having no sales tax, coupled with a strong Yuan, meant that Wong could hope for a profit of over US$100 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/iphone-5-unleashed-long-queues-greet-apple-latest-model-asia-australia-expected-frenzy-europe-u-s-article-1.1164349).

France: France's launch was met with the strike of their Apple employees (http://www.thelocal.fr/page/view/striking-french-workers-threaten-iphone-5-launch).

Kelzvieira (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Not important IMO. But if other non-approved people agree I will add it. 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Not important to describe the phone, a lot of advertising there. Vacation9 (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It is important IMO!--88.111.127.125 (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 September 2012

Linkipedia (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC) The second last paragraph should be corrected since the given reference [60] does not directly mention anything about Denmark. Furthermore, as stated here TeliaSonera has an LTE network in the Band 3, frequency 1800 MHz (supported by the iPhone 5) in the country. But all that is theoretically speaking anyways, real prove about actual support for the iPhone 5's 4G LTE on danish networks can be found on Telia's danish homepage. There's also another carrier, 3, that just rolled out a 4G LTE network in the biggest cities and will be fully compatible with the iPhone 5. Although both carries are not expecting the new iPhone to work on their LTE networks until November (with an iOS update, according to Telia).

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

How to represent the CPU in the inforbox

Current: CPU - 1.2GHz Apple-designed ARMv7 Apple A6

Suggestion: 1.2GHz dual core Apple A6 (without the [[]] on the Apple A6 as it is already done in the SoC info above)

Any thoughts? Jørgen88 (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Add a detailed seperate CPU section --88.111.127.125 (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Geekbench is now reporting it is 1.30gHZ 98.253.72.205 (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That's because Geekbench is NOT a reliable method for detecting precise CPU frequency, especially for CPU's with variable clock rates, same reason it very often shows different "performance ratings" between different runs on same exact hardware. Same situation as with iPhone 4S (since it also has a CPU with variable frequencies). When using the "Geekbench" data (ANY type of data - overall performance or clock speeds or whatever else it may randomly produce) as a reference, one MUST use the word "approximately".98.113.203.22 (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

--88.111.127.125 (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)We should say it is has a dynmaic clock speed, with a max of 1.2Ghz

Seems to me people are still trying to establish just what exactly it can benchmark at. Until we have a reliable source for actual CPU spec it should stay as it is. ^Alex J _Fox (Talk) (Contribs) 22:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

We sohuld say it is dynamic!--88.111.121.131 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

LTE issue

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2410409,00.asp

Is this article-worthy? 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Hello? 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's article-worthy. The question is – where will it go? –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere!--88.111.125.204 (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Build composition, quality and changes in materials used

We need to mention that Apple improved the build quality by further minimizing seams and replacing the shatter-prone glass with either a more shatter-resistant glass or polymer or ceramic (needs more clarification/detail), as well as the change to using aluminum for its case, which may scratch easily as a result since its anodized coating seems thin, but allows the phone to resist shattering a lot better. We should mention the drop test against the Samsung Galaxy SIII, since the iPhone didn't shatter at all compared to the major screen cracks in the SGS3. Apple emphasized the better build quality in this iPhone version in its press event/keynotes, so the differences/changes should probably be addressed in this article. Sources that can be used: Slate Mag, and LA Times, and for more info: Apple - M0rphzone (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you decided to move forward 20 minutes after posting. The Slate source is an op-ed piece which would be alright if it were listed under "Reception", a section reserved for that kind of material. The LA Times piece uses sources and methods that could be considered questionable (e.g., scientific, professional, etc.) – Android Authority and iFixYouri aren't exactly on the same level as Consumer Reports. I personally would forgo mention of that one. Apple, is of course, a primary source and could be challenged depending on how the content is written. Biggest thing is to be sure to avoid peacock terminology and paraphrasing, which is easy to do with primary sources that tend to advertise their product/service in press releases. Other than a few exceptions like these, I don't see a problem with discussing improvements to the phone's construction as long as facts and opinions are properly placed in the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

So does the current placement look alright? It'd be great if somebody cleaned up the format a bit more. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the section down below peripherals. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of anecdotes and synthesis

Outstanding issue - Will be considered stale after no reply in a month YuMaNuMa ^Contrib

I found this link and opinion from wiki editors based on this. It is basically a write up detailing the author's experience. Since Wiki isn't for sharing personal experience or anecdotes, I don't think such sources/contents should clutter up the article here. Does anyone have input, based on application of WP:RS and WP:OR ?? I also edited out duplicate references leading to commercial sites offering author's opinions. Please comment. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The source is similar to one that M0rphzone asked about above. It is generally acceptable to include a paraphrased statement or quote in the "Critical reception" section of an article, as long as the author in the source is considered to be highly-knowledgeable in the subject. Such opinions can be useful as long as they're from reputable sources in the industry, and not just any personal blog or post on the internet. Also, the appropriate weight should be used giving less attention and space to minority viewpoints. Though you were likely correct to remove such references/statements from the main body of the article, it's possible some of that material should be included under Reception. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Another issue with less than well established and respect source that primarily posts op-eds is that author or the company rep could push links in a hope of boosting traffic. While Wiki is now no follow, reading various SEO strategies online seems to indicate links from wiki significantly boosts traffic. Why the issue? For the ones that stand to benefit, building contents around to allow for including their link as citation leads to clutter with excess details or inaccuracies. Those bloggers can also just come here and insert it as a third person effectively getting around "published source" by simply publishing what they want to included on wikipediaCantaloupe2 (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to clear things up as I added quite a large amount of sources on "Scuffgate", most of those sources were Alexa tested first, I also looked at their fan/reader base before adding so my intention was not to spam unreputable or unreliable sources. Scuffgate is undoubtedly a significant "defect" that users face and the reports of such scuffing is almost endless. Although claims like "I will never buy an iPhone again due to scuffing" should obviously be omitted, test conducted should not even if they don't comply with lab standards, lets face it, no tests conducted by technology websites do, however these tests nonetheless represent typical user experience and sentiments from reviewers are generally based on typical usage over a short period of time, hence if the source is reputable enough or claim is prevalent, the criticism belongs in the Reception section. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 04:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Specs in infobox or section

Outstanding issue - Will be considered stale after no reply in a month YuMaNuMa ^Contrib

The infobox was awfully long as another editor suggested. I moved it to a new section "specifications". Are phone pages supposed to be written with all of that in infobox or do you all find this an ok change?

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox was way too long. Per WP:IBX, the purpose of an infobox is to "summarize key facts in the article" and emphasizes that the "less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". It needed to be shortened. The Specifications section needs some work and will need to be moved towards the end of the article, but it's a good start. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure how it should be. Do you wanna do that part? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action, but I think people swung the axe too far. Almost all other cell phone articles have technical details in the infobox so that is why I think this is too big of a cut. My earlier edit comment was the list of countries was out of control, maybe fine in the text body, or compressed like it is now, but not a big sequential list like it use to be. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

My infobox recommendation is: restore infobox, keep newer version of "Availability by country", convert GSM and CDMA info to a similar "SHOW" style. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the cut, but the amount of technical specs there before went overboard (SoC, CPU, GPU, RAM, etc.). Instead of restoring the previous version and making a few cuts/changes, I would suggest deciding on a few specs that are the most significant and add them back. We should strive to keep it as short as possible. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I won't have time to work on this anytime soon, but I'm sure putting it in a table would help. Perhaps look for another phone article that has a Specs section to get some ideas. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok then here are the proposed changes so far:

• Convert GSM and CDMA info to a similar "SHOW" style
• Trim specs (specify which ones to keep and which to trim out)
  • Collapse connectivity section
  • Remove the functional capability of a certain specification such as HD video
  • Remove subjective information such as the battery usage time
• Or move specifications section towards the end of the article and rework (how?)
• Trim list of countries or relocate (how?)

Updated. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we keep it as it is, I don't believe there is any need for change, most of the infobox can be accessed within a few scrolls and adding a specification section is redundant. The purpose of infoboxes as you may know, is to provide quick access to information, anyone familiar with Wikipedia and its style will know where all the information is located and thus scroll or find that area, in this case the entire specification of the device is located in the infobox. In addition, its length is standard on all iOS device and even detailed Android articles. The only reason why a specification box may be needed is if there is more than one variant of the device. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss the comments above regarding WP:IBX? The guideline clearly states that infoboxes are a summary of what appears in an article. So, in other words, specs shouldn't be listed there that aren't also mentioned in the body of the article. That's just not the case with the current infobox. Furthermore, only "key" facts should be included – not an exhaustive list of ALL facts. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is choosing which sections should be excluded and whether excluding such a small amount of information warrants an entire table being created. The only suggestions I can make in regards to removing information from the box are collapsing the connectivity section and removing the functional capability of a certain specification (ie HD video) and subjective information such as the battery usage time. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 07:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The hard part is figuring out what to exclude or what the norm for length should be. That may need to be a discussion at the infobox template page for other articles and future ones as well. As for the information we end up removing from the infobox, it doesn't have to be in a section entitled "Specifications", nor does it necessarily have to be in a chart. We can insert the info as prose throughout the body of the article, likely under "Features". --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Shatter resistance test

Rectified - Paragraph in question was removed YuMaNuMa ^Contrib

I took out a substantial portion. This was based on one person's experimental result based on one product sample. It is akin to saying "I'd buy this car, because a guy I know wrecked it bad and he walked out with scratches". You wouldn't add something like that or anecdotes on safety section of a car model. Why would you write this in iPhone page? I don't think the finding is conclusive enough to be representative for the product as whole. He "threw it" rather than "dropped it" but that does not quantify the impact speed or the impact angle. The conditions are just not controlled well enough. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Did the content say the tests were representative of the product as a whole? No, they didn't. It can be put in the reception section, can it not? It doesn't matter whether it's controlled or not. It's a review of the product, and therefore part of the "reception" to the product. I will add it back in unless you have better reasons besides "we can't write about it because they're some random guys tests". - M0rphzone (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Which brings up the question. It's representative of one sample, which I find it inappropriate to include. On Wikipedia, we don't publish original research. I don't believe that an experiment on one sample by some guy would not pass WP:RS or WP:OR. Since we're in agreement its not a good measure of durability for product as a whole, it brings up the question what value, if any this brings to readers. Does your interpretation of relevant policies find that it should be included? Please explain Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the WP:RS policies affect the presentation of this content. Also, these are not based on a one product sample. The "reliable" reviews are based on one author's judgment of one sample product, so does that mean they are experimental results based on "one product sample"? No, they don't. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up of the article

Cantaloupe, you removed major parts of the reception section, claiming that "dubious anecdotal claims from review sites. duplicate citations leading to commercial sites driven by ads."

Are you serious? All commercial sites are driven by ads. That is not a reason for deleting it. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm restoring it to before the pruning because we should discuss how to go about cleaning up the article or which sources are "reliable". - M0rphzone (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't publish anecdotes, personal experience etc. As another editor already explained to you, these sources are not Consumer Watch caliber credibility. The findings are the opinions of the author. So its no different than you publishing a blog, then citing it as a "reference" on the ground that its "published". Please explain with relevant wiki policies. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Except the point is these are not anecdotes nor "personal experience" due to the fact that the videos can be seen with our eyes, and this is not some sort of historical account that can be twisted. As the policy states, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The people who work these teardown/review sites are experts in that field, and have been referenced multiple times for various products/topics by other "reliable" third-parties. We are not directly stating the opinions from the authors, but rather the factual results of the tests, and what the reviews say about the topic. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No disagreement there. The thing we agree to disagree is that the author whether the author and site in question is recognized as "expert". Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Cantaloupe2, I believe your edits are quite controversial and most are based on assumptions rather than evidence. Examples include labelling iFixit as an opinion piece and removing valid claims such as the Map being "negative received", yes - some can argue that it's each to their own but the majority of sources state otherwise hence it's appropriate for us to say that in the prose. Some of your edits also alter the entire meaning of replaced sentences, clarifications of existing sentence are more than welcomed but if content is removed, a reason would allow us to understand the rationale behind the change. Another example of an odd edit is replacing the existing sentence on the cost of the components of the iPhone with a sentence outlining what is not included in the cost, the sentence already clearly says component and labour. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 04:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No info about Wi-Fi modes

I noticed the iPhone 5 supports 5 GHz Wi-Fi, in addition to the older 2.4 GHz. I'd like to see a brief section under Hardware to list the Wi-Fi protocols or modes supported. --Rfinchdavis (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Bias in wording

Rectified - The word allegedly was removed and 9to5Mac was cited YuMaNuMa ^Contrib

"Apple allegedly stated it's normal."

This sentence has a problem. By adding "allegedly" into the sentence, you're flipping the bias towards the other side. It's just as bad, Cantaloupe. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this point, "allegedly" is frowned upon on articles that document news, some editors even go out of their way to remove words such as allegedly and supposedly. This isn't a news website therefore why should news editorial terms be used? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

READ THE CITED REFERENCES!!! "allegedly" exactly as stated by NBCNews that is cited. There's a reason they cited as that rather than blindly quoting off what they saw on 9to5Macs as a definite fact. In case you don't understand, it means that NBC is not 100% confident about the claim it read on some website called 9to5mac.com, hence allegedly. As a wiki editor, its not your job to infuse WP:UNDUE to change what source reports with uncertainty to a certain claim because YOU FEEL it certain. That is bias. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Check the cited reference before you spurt off. This is exactly as quoted in cited reference. [1]. "Apple senior vice president of marketing Phil Schiller allegedly had with a customer such cosmetic issues are "normal.". NBC did not do its own fact checking to verify it. Which part of this do you not understand? To quote as stated in reference is impartiality, not bias. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Allegedly is used by news sources to prevent themselves from being liable for providing potentially incorrect information to readers, which Apple may then see it as defamation. Basically it's done to protect their asses arses. You seem to enjoy going out of your way to argue that when citing the primary sources (9to5mac), which is reliable was an option. Just because you're not familiar with the source does not make it less credible or unreliable as you have suggested in the past. As stated before, we are not a news sources hence editorial terms should not be used, a source is either factual or nonfactual, there's no grey spot if there is, it is best to remove it. Also you seem to have a tendency to alter entire sentences or clause when adding a simple word or making minute changes as such will suffice. Is there a reason for rephrasing an entire perfectly grammatical clause/sentence that is fine with/out the word allegedly? By the way, your comments are borderlining uncivil at the moment, I have tolerated your arguments when they seemed absolutely absurd and argued them on a point basis. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 11:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It means that NBC is uncertain. NBC is reporting based on heresy. It is 9to5mac.com that claims to have done fact checking, not NBC itself. NBC is UNCERTAIN about 9to5mac.com's claim. Since the cited reference is NBC rather than 9to5mac.com it shall be as referenced. If you object to it, then the source should be changed to 9to5.com. Your use of vulgar language is borderline uncivil.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Please highlight and show me example of my use of vulgar language. Normally a reasonable person wouldn't make such a request over an issue as minute as using the word allegedly but whatever, I'll cite 9to5mac while leaving NBC as it is.

I honestly don't believe it, again a visual image of the email was provided yet you questioned the credibility of 9to5Mac. This further reinforces what I said before in regards to news sources, a reasonable person when confronted with visual evidence would willingly accept its factuality, however news sources are determined to cover their asses arses when using other sources by whatever means necessary including using words such as allegedly. Let's make things clear here, Wikipedia is not a university paper; Wikipedia is not a specialty journal; Wikipedia is not a news source; Wikipedia is not a laboratory report; Wikipedia is not a research paper. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"however news sources are determined to cover their asses when using other sources by whatever means necessary including using words such as allegedly."

1) unnecessary for you to use that sort of language. You could have phrased it in such a way that is appropriate for audience of all ages.

2) It's your speculation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry if that offended you but ass did not come across to me as profanity especially on a website directed at mature audiences given the amount of startling and uncensored content. However, Wikipedia does not censor information and my use of profanity wasn't directed at you hence I don't see how it's uncivil, however I will avoid using that word now that I know you're offended by it. Now back to the pertinent issue, speculation or not visual evidence was provided yet you chose to argue that NBC doubts 9to5's credibility, that ultimately adds another option onto your plate, you had the choice of simply citing 9to5mac, ignore such an insignificant issue, do some research and realise that 9to5mac has photographic evidence, which for a reliable site such as 9to5mac means it's considered "substantial" evidence hence it deserves to be included without news editorial terms. What I said before is common practice in Australia and I assume the United States as well as both nations have similar legal systems, I was interviewed by a journalist several times and the use of allegedly in newspapers and news websites is for the reason explained above. Also your explanation of NBC using the word allegedly because they didn't check the credibility of their source is also a speculation... YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• No? Don't want to further participate in the discussion? Fine with me. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 04:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to have some patience. The RfC is still in progress. As shown by your behavior of reverting within six minutes of requesting response, you're impatient with unrealistic expectations of prompt response. We don't live on Wikipedia and to expect that your discussion gets top priority is unrealistic. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I want to resolve this issue as fast as possible and only posted the above comment after you did some more source removals on several other articles. My replies to your reply on the other forum are directed at you and worded in a way that expects a response yet you have not replied. This led me to one conclusion - you have nothing left to say, DGG already provided a response on that forum and here, how many more do you expect or want? How about you do something on your part to resolve this instead of dragging your misled edits longer and reducing the quality of this article as a result. I expected a prompt response because you generally provide one, especially when I started a new section under my original question, which received a reply from you within minutes. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You're clearly ignoring civility rules when you're taking "asses" and replacing it with alternate spelling "arses". This is immature childish behavior. While I may have responded immediately if our activties coincided, that isn't a guarantee. I don't live all day to edit wikipedia. Appadvise.com, Phonedog.com are not reliable sources. As far as what I find to be improper synthesis which is making a statement that is of greater certainty than the source supports, I think that'synthesis. I posed that question to DGG and awaiting response. Adding low quality sources that is mostly filled with heresy lowers quality of the article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to convey something and won't go into craploads of runabouts to do so, so if you're offended I suggest you reevaluate your perception of what a profanity is and what offends you. I already apolgised and don't know what more I can do to make it less offensive without changing the meaning. I try my best to respond within a timely manner and hope that you would do the same, however a lack of responses after 36 hours is quite excessive. I'll review all appadvise and phonedog sources to see if they further source other websites or if replacements exist so please don't remove content just yet. From what I read, DGG already stated that including a general statement of what sources said such as Many sources, several sources or the device received generally positive reviews is not synthesis. Vandalism is a serious accusation, I suggest you search up what constitutes a vandal YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

What were you trying to accomplish by spelling it "arse" instead? Rather than say "cover themselves". You were just playing cat's game with something like that in an OBVIOUS way. Go see DGG's talk page. there's a new question I asked him/herCantaloupe2 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I had no intention of doing that, assume good faith next time, arse is not considered a profanity or offensive word, in addition, cover their "arses" is an idiom whereas cover themselves is an ambiguous phrase which can be interpreted as cover themselves with what? Can you explain to me how the word arse or the other version of it offended you and is considered uncivil to you? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

One, "ass" is recognize is offensive language. Two, "arse" is just a British variant of it. Three, you were using it in a way I perceived as an offensive way to deflect problem at hand by not addressing the matter and calling it as "its just what reporters do". Any other question that went unaddressed? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Several; How is what I said uncivil to you - "deflecting" an argument using an offensive word doesn't seem like it directly affects you unless it hurts your eyes or medical problems exist? Did you read the part where I said that it's an idiom and also the paragraph about NBC not checking the credibility and veracity of the claims that 9to5mac.com made by using the word allegedly being speculative? How many responses do you expect from RfC? Why did you go into so much lengths to include the word allegedly when photographic/visual evidence has been provided by a reliable source? Will I get an apology for you devaluing my comments ("spurting off") since I provided you one for using an idiom that I perceive to be inoffensive? How on earth is combining similar sentiments by using phrases such as "many sources", "several sources" or "the iPhone received mainly positive criticisms" synthesis when no further conclusion has been reached other than stating that many sources exist - which were cited directly after the sentence or in the paragraph in which the sentence is located? Also one final thing, why do you abandon your previous arguments by moving on without addressing raised points and/or changing the issue at hand? (Moved on to claiming 1440mah is incorrect despite insisting that a source you provided, which also states it holds a charge of 1440mah is more reliable or whatever after I provided visual evidence that proves that ifixit's claim is more substantial and better established than yours, moved on to arguing about the offensiveness of a phrase I used when other far more pertinent points could have been discussed such as the your insistent use of "allegedly" when again visual evidence was provided by a reliable source.)YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 07:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing here from YuMaNuMa

YuMaNuMa many times deleted my content on this talk page and on Talk:IPhone 5/GA1, GoneIn60 once. Just to inform others about the aggression and tone of these users. Possibly they deleted others comments they didn't like here too. Have other users noticed that? Tagremover (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Relax. I just reformatted the section to make the statements more clear. If you're referring to the title of a subsection you created, that's hardly something to get worked up over. Again, we would appreciate a response in the discussions above that your actions have initiated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I deleted it twice with reasons provided, that hardly constitutes many times but whatever. How about you reply to the comments on the pertinent issue instead of repeatedly going on about how I removed a few comments from GA review page, you already posted your ridiculous warning on my talk page, restored the comments, what do you think you could possibly achieve by posting another comment here? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 21:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I felt that YuMaNuMa was unwilling to not have it his way in prior disagreement. He only compromised after an RfC. I too have objected to the drop test experiment as you can see in earlier discussion. Sure, it maybe sourced, but he was unwilling to pull it. The inflammatory remark "(1 edit by Tagremover (talk): You have to be fucking kidding me right? Discuss on the talk page before you make such a huge edit involving large removals . (TW))" targeted directly at a specific editor as he made in this edit is unacceptable. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I compromised because the user provided a proper reason for the removal or alteration of the content whereas you didn't provide a reason that I thought was sufficient enough, so of course I wasn't willing to let you change the content with opposition. As I repeatedly said before, I am more than willing to compromise if you can provide me with valid reasons why it should be removed with the use of policies and common sense to support your claim. I wasn't involved in the discussion you cited earlier and you didn't put that claim forth when we were discussing the content hence it wasn't a responsibility of mine to remove it. Also I apologise to Tagremover if he was offended by my edit summary but the removal of such a large section that is sourced is simply ridiculous and as shown by my tone, I was clearly frustrated, I understand that this isn't an excuse for my action and once again I unreservedly apologise. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 00:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It isn't about doing things to your approval as if this article is your territory. Regardless of how much you disagree with that editor, there's no acceptable reason to swear and marginalize another editor the way you did in that edit. If you can't keep your cool, take a break. It is a personal attack. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No, but I am human and humans get emotional, as you can see I have calmed down and started discussing it rationally. The attack above does not involve you, I have already apologised to Tagremover and accepted full responsibility for my actions. If he wishes to pursue it further, he can report me at WP:ANI. Speaking of personal attacks, can you apologise to me for devaluing my comments by saying I'm "spurting off", I found that offensive and have yet to receive an apology from you despite informing you about my perception of that comment earlier. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)