Talk:IPod/Archive 4

message: Is this section really neccessary?  I mean, its hardly encyclopeadic and doesn't even answer these 'top 10' questions. --81.97.194.11 19:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Top 10 iPod questions

message: After checking on the apple site i have not found anthing that indicates that the ipods operate using NTFS at all
indeed after reading  and  --
it seems that they operate in either HFS+ or FAT32 only
i apologise for any formating errors above :)Tacticus.V1 20:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a sneaky form of vandalism. Happens a lot.--IE 20:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: File Format

message: Some weird vandalism involving a generic image and the text "BOYS ARE SEXY!!!!!!" showed up under the Open-source alternatives section. I have removed it. -- 
Ubergenius 15:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just removed another bit of vandalism.  The word newb was writen in all caps, and spread accross a large section of the page.  You can see my revisions in the history page of the article. -- ModernTenshi04 04:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism Removed

message: Why the article not said about pop culture status of the device? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.88.95 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 13 July 2006
:Because idiotic consumerism is nothing new. — NRen2k5 18:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But why do these things pop up in other articles, take for example, Nintendo DS, it has a "DS in Popular Culture section! Isnt that idiotic consumerism?
Masterhand10 17:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: iPod as pop culture?

message: I think the statement Most PC's don't have FireWire ports so this move effectively opened the Windows market to iPod, although USB only Windows users had to keep their FireWire cables to plug into the wall adapter, needs to be changed. I can't think of a PC that doesn't have a firewire port. I think it should either read "At the time most PC's did't have..." or just be deleted all together.--Erciesielski 07:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right; times have changed. Fixed. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Most PCs still do not have FireWire. — NRen2k5 18:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: “[…]every PC made in the last 10 years has USB202 (or at least 1.1 for the underpriviledged).” More like every PC made in the last six years. — NRen2k5 05:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PC's don't have firewire?

message: I dont know about you but In the atlantic provinces in Canada before the ipod, Apple was pretty much in the shitter. I mean schools couldnt run apple computers, the only apple thing you saw was some laptops on collage campuses. But since apples are everywhere. should it be mentioned how the ipod might have revitlized Apple? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.126.72 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 12 August 2006
:no Nicoli nicolivich 20:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The iPod did actually help Apple a lot in terms of revenue and popularity, you could add something if you wanted. — Wackymacs 20:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also live in the Atlantic provinces, and my elementary school used to have G1 iMacs in the computer lab. I guess it just depends on the area you live in - like everywhere else. Seasonsinthesky 19:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apple

message: The following text, referring to the iTunes store, currently appears in the article:
:"iPods are the only portable music players that can play the purchased music, and this exclusivity has helped the store become the dominant online music service."
The argument is a logical fallacy. The opposite could follow (ie that people buy iPods because they're the only thing that will play music from the dominant online store), but the reverse is not true. I don't know enough about the iTunes store to make a sensible correction. Anybody care to try? Arcman 07:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is that because so many people have iPods (a full 76% of the MP3 player market), when users seek to purchase online music, they will naturally gravitate to the iTunes Music Store (iTMS), since it's built into the audio program and works perfectly fine with iPods. Hope that clears up the matter. –-  kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 16:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. User:Arcman is right and has spotted an error. It's basically an assumption that iPod sales = music sales. There could be a number of reasons for itunes music store success (cheapness, ease of use, CD sales decline, etc). No one has any strong evidence to say what it is (see slippery slope or logical fallacy for a better explanation). Now fixed. --IE 21:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "How is WMA the standard?" WMA is the standard because it's what all the major players (aside from iTunes) use. "And why should Apple comply with a product of MS?" Well, they support MP3, which is a Thomson/Fraunhofer IIS product. "If M4P is used more, due to iTMS's popularity, MS should bite it, not Apple." Not if it's deemed to be an unfair advantage. "Funny you critizice M4P for being "closed". I didn't know WMA was any more "open"." You're right. I think Microsoft has a tool they license to companies to allow them to create and sell protected WMA files, but I don't know - so in all fairness I'll have to agree that WMA is no more open than FairPlay. "Stuff WMA and stuff M4P. Oh, and stuff MP3. Ogg Vorbis should be the standard, because Ogg Vorbis, unlike the other three, is open." I agree with you in principle, but since MP3 player manufacturers are being so slow in adopting Ogg Vorbis support, and MP3 is so well supported, I would have to recommend MP3 as a DRM-free alternative instead. — NRen2k5 06:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Popularity of iTunes store

message: I noticed that the photo of the ipod is of a german ipod. I believe that it should be replaced by an English/ American ipod picture, as this is a English article. bobsmith319.
:go take a photo of an enlish ipod and post it then Nicoli nicolivich 17:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  no, leave it, anyway, it looks cool. who's gonna notice?  --  156.3.163.99 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, we should add a section on international iPod models. We are an English language encyclopedia for everything, English or not.  --  Zanimum 16:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: INTERNATIONAL IPOD

message: What evidence is there that this product fits the criteria for the table it is listed in? (which is, after all, Popular iPod accessories) -- Steven Fisher 17:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OhMiBod

message: Has anyone seen the new iPod? Its completly different to the 5th gen and has some cool new features like a 3.5inch touch screen and better battery life. This is not my website but i found more information on a site called 'iTunesTracks' in their blog? -Unknown
:That's fake dude. TomS64 12.:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
:That's what professionals call an unsubstantiated rumour. In other words, bull@#$%. — NRen2k5 19:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New iPod

message: How did the word "ipod" get coined?  Does it represent an initializm? e.g. "Internet personal ??? device" -Unknown
:Its a small item, like a pod, that holds all your music (like peas).  The "i" comes from Apple's tendancy to name things "iStuff" like the iMac, which came out before the iPod. I always thought the "pod" thing was pretty evident, like spaceship pod, or a pea pod.. Evokes the image of something small that you can carry with you and hold all your precious music.  --X 0 01:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only Apple's marketing department knows, and they aren't telling. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of "ipod" as a word 

message: Is there room for a small section about 6G speculation? I mean there are a lot of magazines and websites out there making guesses as to what is coming up next, so surely there is a chance that speculation on the upcoming product known as the 6G iPod relates somewhat to an article about iPods. I’ve read a lot, about it being just a big widescreen with the “touch pad” being incorporated into the middle of the screen in a touch screen. Like a “virtual iPod” if you will. Even read that it wont include wifi, but some kind of blue tooth. Might be interesting anyway, I know I certainly would want to be aware that there is a lot of interest in the 6G iPod when reading about the iPod JayKeaton 19:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. There is not room for a small section about 6G speculation. If there are specific articals which provide interesting speculation then i have no problem with them being added to further reading or external links, but wikipedia is not a cristall ball Nicoli nicolivich 00:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crystal ball, there might be a difference between a psycic answering questions and informed industry people talking about the new iPod, but hey, I'm not really that bothered. Just thought I would check the iPod page after skimming through cnets article on the 6G JayKeaton 06:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: The link in Nicoli nicolivich's comment, wikipedia is not a cristall ball should be: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nihiltres 05:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 6G iPod speculation

message: Rumours of an ipod + phone have been circulating. Could someone add some about it on the page? (see http://news.q4music.com/2006/12/iphone_set_for_release.html for more info) Tuck99 06:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: iPhone

message: It seems that there's a virus in the ipods.  where should this infomation be put? dposse 16:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To get started, I've put this under a new Security issues subsection under Software. --Amit 17:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Virus

message: Should we have a whole section devoted to the recent virus thing?  Opinions.  AlistairMcMillan 19:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a better way to assimilate the info, but if you do, you're free to put it all in a better place rather than deleting it altogether. By the way, I had renamed the section in the article to "Security issues". I do think it is a security risk, because iPods often find their way into other PCs too, especially when they are old and resold or given away, and unclean ones can pose a risk. It's not like it's easy to clean the virus. One has to follow some very specific instructions from Apple. I will put this back now, since you're the only user opposing the section. You can improve upon it if you want, or wait until consensus decides to not have it at all. --Amit 19:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Security issues" section

message: I've trimmed that interesting little section down to the bare bones of the rumour and the quote which it's based on. Whether that section stays or goes at the moment is up to the other editors (it's a very early rumour) but I thought I'd leave it up until we got a proper look at it. Eyes peeled for commentary from the press and Apple, folks. I've got a feeling it's simply referring to iPods with non-mechanical wheels ("starting with the touchscreen models" jars with "all iPods with displays"; "starting with touchwheel models" doesn't).  Sockatume 17:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumour control: touchscreen iPods

message: Despite daily vandalism by anonymous users, I don't understand why edits by them are not banned for this article. --Amit 22:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you could always put up a request to have it semi-protected at WP:RFPP. I don't think it really needs it, though; it gets a lot less vandalism than a lot of other articles on my watchlist, and it's usually reverted before I see it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Banning anonymous edits

message: Can we add a section for how easy it is to accidentally leave something so small in one's pants, and how Apple hasn't made it waterproof? My little brother just lost his for a second time, and now there's hell. After reading about Apple's policy regarding iPod's batteries, I can't help but wonder if they purposefully plan on customers destroying these every few months or so so they'll need to buy a new one. Tyciol 12:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The short answer is: NO --rogerd 12:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, shame on Apple, they should make their players big, clunky, and ugly like everyone else!  --Rehcsif 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: this isnt really something for wikipedia to have... anymore. It already has enough criticism. and about big clunkey ipods? I like the the way they are. there isnt much chance of leaving it in your pocket and breaking it in the washer. theres more chance of that in a 1g ipod shuffle or a USB flash drive. --masterhand10 17:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Durability and use risks

message: I deleted the 'sales' section because it consisted of a single sentence: "Since October 2004, the iPod has ruled the world, bringing Apple to a glorious upbringing. The PS3 will not sell well." Which was clearly neither factual nor sensible (nor impartial). Perhaps someone could rewrite a 'sales' section which gave some evidence for the iPod's undoubted success.
:That would be called vandalism, which I hadn't gotten around to reverting yet. I'll make sure there wasn't good content lost in the process.--HereToHelp 02:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate comment under 'sales' 

message: There are many people who "hack" their Ipod so they can do more with it.
As it voids warranty, it is at their own risk, but the hacks allow for example the Ipoid to hold a new harddisk of 300gb, witch is very tempting.
*Hackaday 300 gb Ipod
*6gb Ipod nano hack
*IpodHacks.com
Please insert this into the Ipod article too.
Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.151.158 (talk • contribs) 
:Those unfortunately, are not material fit for an encyclopedia. If were to fit every single possible thing that could be done on an iPod and put into the main article, the result would be very, very, bad. Sorry. –-  kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 08:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally feel that there should be mention of the RockBox project, anyway. — NRen2k5 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What, you mean like the mention under IPod#Open-source_alternatives? - Pronoiac 21:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ipod hacks 

message: This may be needlessly trivial, and if so, I apologize. But the word 'advert' is never used at all in America, and I think it would be confusing to American readers, and potentially readers in other countries. I suggest that the word 'advertisement' be used, since it's a more internationally accepted word, and plays fine on both sides of the Atlantic. Thoughts? SlapAyoda 21:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me. --Steven Fisher 21:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word 'advert' 

message: do you enjoy the offers and services of the iPod by apple computers? 
What do you feel is lacking in their recent creations?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.201.236.124 (talk • contribs) 
: 204.201.236.124, while I generally enjoy Apple products, Wikipedia isn't the place to discuss that. Please:
:#Consider getting a username
:#Consider reading about what Wikipedia is not.
:Thanks, Nihiltres 16:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't a place for surveys, unless the surveys have to do with editing Wikipedia itself. –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 04:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Says who? Source please!--HereToHelp 12:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, the big sign up there saying "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia" and not "Wikipedia: The Public Discussion Forum You Can Do What You Like With"? Sockatume 15:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Maybe HereToHelp could use some reading of the aforementioned what Wikipedia is not, specifically that Wikipedia is not a place for original thought, or soapbox. Isilanes 19:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the survey, I don't actually have a source per se - it's just experience from being here for some time, and from other random surveys that were posted on the Help Desk. In this case, it seems like it's from a commercial competitor/interest in Apple trying to do a survey/poll not related to Wikipedia - What do you feel is lacking??? Surveys are fine generally, but I feel that in this case, it's almost like spam. I apologize for any confusion, HereToHelp. –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 20:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does say here that for, Discussion forums, Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. Random, harmless surveys are fun and I enjoy participating in them, but this is almost spam. –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot remember why I posted that. I certainly know that Wikipedia is not for that sort of thing. Too much Wikistress, I guess...--HereToHelp 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: HereToHelp sometimes has Terminal Sarcasm Syndrome, I suspect. :D --ElaragirlTalk|Count 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Enjoyment of Apple iPods

message: The Zune page has a nifty infobox at the top that, IMHO, makes the article more professional looking and visually appealing.  I understand that there are many types of iPods so an exact replica of the "Portable Music Player" infobox would not work, but maybe could we have a simpler one to give a *very* brief overview to anyone wanting to compare the iPod line to, say, the Zune or other workalikes? - JustinWick 03:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a great idea, but the only iPod the Zune attempts to compete with is the full-sized iPod, which is not the best selling iPod - the nano and the shuffle both sell more. If an infobox attempted to include all three major models, it'd be pretty large. One way around this is to use a simpler infobox, design a picture showing all three models, and then putting some basic information about each model in that infobox. It's feasible - what are your thoughts? –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 07:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we'd need a custom infobox for this article. We have a number of different iPods, of which each class of iPod is of one of several different generations. Since I can imagine such an infobox as very big, we'd probably break additional sections up into smaller boxes which could be included in appropriate sections. I have to say, though, that I think this article is somewhat ambiguous - "iPod" has two meanings: there is the iPod brand, and the iPod player (the original design now in its fifth generation, not any of the variant iPods). We should probably split the article - the other iPod articles (iPod nano, iPod shuffle, iPod mini,) already have Portable Music Player infoboxes. Nihiltres 13:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So there would be two different articles? One on the iPod brand as a whole (which could include the iPod Hi-fi as well) and one on the specific model of iPod (5.5G) currently? –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 04:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nifty Infobox at Top 

message: I didn't see a mention in the article that "iPod" is now often used by an extremely large number of people as a synonym for "any MP3 Player, regardless of actual manufacturer"- did I miss something, or was this deliberately left out for other reasons? --Commander Zulu 06:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a citation from a reliable source for this? If so, feel free to add it with a reference. —Trevyn 20:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only my own experience in electronics retail, but nothing in print or online that I can link to- yet. --Commander Zulu 09:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: iPod as a Generic Name for any MP3 Player

message: This article says that "Unlike UMS/MTP-capable digital audio players, simply copying files to the drive will not allow the iPod to properly access them", implying that the iPod is not a UMS device.  However, the UMS device article lists the iPod as one.  Which is correct? Ken Arromdee 06:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's complicated. You can partition part of the iPod's hard drive as a UMS device for storing data, but you can't put your music in there (well, you can, but the iPod won't be able to see it). Sockatume 06:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's correct here? 

message: um i wanna add this to the artical, its from the apple computers artical, i added a link at the end.   pleaseeeeeeeeee add it, ppl should be informed.  thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.2.50 (talk • contribs).
Environmental Issues
Apple's hardware has come under fire by Greenpeace since 2004 for not setting a timeline to remove PVC, which still exists in recent products such as the iPod nano and MacBook; and for not promoting a global end-of-life take back plan for Apple hardware (although it does within Europe and Japan where it is required by law); as well as for not having reusable components.[24] Greenpeace lists toxic substances used in Apple products in their Apple parodying ad, including: cadmium, beryllium, lead, brominated flame retardants, hexavalent chromium, mercury.[25] Apple's own web site lists most of these compounds as "restricted substances" and has further information.[26]Apple also claims its recycling programs have processed more than 21 million pounds (9500 tonnes) of electronic equipment since 1994.[27]  http://www.greenpeace.org/apple
:Comment: This request needs to provide references for all the [numbers].  Also, the statement "Apple's own web site lists most of these compounds as "restricted substances" and has further information." seems like it needs clarification of and has further information.  Once this is properly referenced from both Apple's and Greenpeace's viewpoints, it can be added. —Doug Bell talk 11:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the paragraph from Apple Computer.  It does contain references, but it seems a little misleading.  When Apple lists them as "restricted substances", what it means is that Apple is trying to minimize their use, not that the substances are illegal.  Moreover, while Greenpeace criticizes Apple for using those substances, it omits necessary details, like saying "other companies have set a date to remove..." without naming the other companies.
Greenpeace also quotes Steve Jobs out of context (helpfully providing a link to the out of context quote!):
Greenpeace: "Steve Jobs publicly called environmentalists' concerns about Apple "bullshit"."
Context: "To say we're insensitive or irresponsible is just bullshit."
Notice that the Greenpeace quote claims that Job is denying "concerns" while Jobs is actually denying that Apple is irresponsible, which isn't the same thing.
I question using the Greenpeace reference at all, either here or in the Apple article.  They aren't exactly an unbiased source.  If you must use them, it should at least be qualified--"Greenpeace compares Apple to unspecified 'other companies'". Ken Arromdee 19:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editprotected request: environmental issues 

message: Someone should add a section about iPodWizard...
SEROUIOUSLY!
I HAVE NOT SEEN ONE MENTION OF iPODWIZARD IN THIS ARTICLE OR ALL REALATED ARTICLES!!!
(well, exept for the wiki page on http://www.ipodwizard.com)
156.3.163.99 17:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a Wiki, so you can add it yourself. SEROUIOUSLY! —Doug Bell talk 18:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm... I'm not sure if this corporation is noteworthy enough to have material included in the article... The website is purely commercial. –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 07:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes well, it's a Wiki, so if it needs to be removed, you can remove it. SEROUIOUSLY! —Doug Bell talk 15:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Since this is a Wiki, do you think we can link to Wikitionary where they have a more SERIUOUS spelling of seriously? :p --ElaragirlTalk|Count 16:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I know I can remove it, :) but still, it's best not to even have it on at all. Plus the IP has been cited for vandalizing. Seriously. ;) –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: SOmeone should at least link the iPodwizard article to the main ipod article -- Masterhand10 17:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What About iPodWizard? 

message: This talk page claims it's a good article and it's listed on Wikipedia:Good Articles but I don't see any record that it was actually reviewed. If not, it requires a good article review to get on the list. Twinxor t 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, this is very odd.  I looked to find any Wikipedia "meta" namespace articles linking to IPod (presumably a Good Article Review would be in there) but I didn't find any trace of it.  There was a peer review and a failed Featured Article candidacy, but no mention of a "good article review."  As an experiment, I looked at the "good article" Tagoi language's backlinks, and it does not seem to have been reviewed either.  I wonder how many "good articles" were never reviewed...  someone should form a committee and see that the good name of Good Articles is not sullied in this fashion!  Or perhaps I am missing something?  - JustinWick 08:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, after some sleuthing, I found that this edit, by Link_the_windwaker was when the GA tag was added. - JustinWick 08:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unbelievable! We've been deceived for the last 11 months :-). I've removed the Good Article tag... This article needs a peer review or Good Article review anyway, since the content has changed a lot. Well done for spotting that! --IE 20:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I added a message about this to Template:GA. Hopefully that will make it less of a problem. Twinxor t 22:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has this been reviewed for GA? 

message: The Criticism section is rather large. I'm thinking maybe we should move it to its own article. Shall we put it to a vote? — NRen2k5 06:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a Wikipedia guideline about this?  A lot of people just go back and merge things like this anyways, would be good to have solid evidence that it is, indeed, "too long."  Personally I think that'd be fine, but better find out before we vote.  - JustinWick 22:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about a guideline, but the criticism section needs to be shortened, in my opinion. The criticism section is very large, and I think that just having the section there, bloated as it is, invites NPOV - not to mention that we don't have a corresponding "praise" section. Nihiltres 21:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Criticism to its own article? 

message: A Good Article review has opened concerning this article and its possibly problematic passage over a year ago. Anyone is free to comment :/. Homestarmy 02:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to link to the actual review?  - JustinWick 06:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Good articles/Review#iPod. Twinxor t 16:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article Review