Talk:Apple News

{{Infobox OS component}} or {{Infobox software}}?

My recent changes to the article, in which I transplanted info into a new usage of the {{Infobox software}} was reverted and the existing {{Infobox OS component}} was kept in place. I come to this talk page now knowing that there hasn't been a discussion on this talk page even after a more-fierce-than-normal edit war between @KamranMackey and Codename Lisa: that saw some colourful language being thrown around. I'm surprised that there hasn't been a proper discussion on this, so yeah, here's such a discussion!

My rationale for this page implementing {{Infobox software}} instead of {{Infobox OS component}}, is that this article is the only one of the articles on iOS's default applications that uses the former, rather than the latter, which is used by all other articles on the topic. This includes the articles for Calendar, Files, Health, Notes, Maps, and Wallet. In addition, I concur with a rationale KamranMackey brought up in the scruffy edit history of the article, which is that {{Infobox software}} has more parameters for editors and allows more information displayed on the article to users reading. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 03:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, PhilipTerryGraham

• {{Infobox software}} has more parameters to abuse, not more parameters to use. For example, the |latest release version=; he who inputs something in this parameter, in case of iOS components, either has mistaken (assuming good faith, my choice) or a liar (assuming bad faith, not my choice). Unlike Windows, it is impossible see the internet version numbers of components. None of these matters. In case of built-in OS components, a version number is merely indiscriminate info. The other oft-used parameter is |status=.
• "Other stuff exists" is the second most hated argument in Wikipedia and my most hated one.
• Aside from your hostile edit summaries, you dug up a lot of dirt too. What I actually did to you in this article was first reverting your change of infobox and then restoring your image and caption. You went to a great length of misrepresenting them. But please remeber that WP:CIVIL is a fundamental policy; if you don't want to edit collegially, you have no right to edit at all.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Umm, I'm not sure what you meant by "hostile edit summaries". What exactly did I go to a "great length" to misrepresent? I'm confused as to why you're being such an aggressive editor that you're immediately attacking me on the first reply. You mention good faith in one of your points, but it seems you haven't shown that to me. I haven't shown you anything that could be considered hostility. I never edit-warred with you, or even did anything to start an edit war. When you switched the article's infobox back to {{Infobox OS component}}, I left it alone and started a talk page discussion, like a civil editor does.

By the way, I restored by own image and caption, while you just reverted by syntax spacing fixes as literally demonstrated in the second link you showed, in which one can clearly see the image and caption (which I restored in the previous edit) was not changed. If anything your edit summary of "Salvaging some edits by User:PhilipTerryGraham" is the misrepresenting one. In any case, we're discussing the merits of using {{Infobox software}} in this article, but if you can't do that without making your third point of keeping {{Infobox OS component}} literally "you're being a bad editor", then this isn't going to be a substantial discussion, is it? Might want to re-read WP:CIVIL too, in addition to WP:AGF. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 07:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: "When you switched the article's infobox back to {{Infobox OS component}}, I left it alone and started a talk page discussion". Yes. You did. Perhaps I should bear that in mind. That's something. But then "like a civil editor does" is ... Let's put it this way:

I once met a Muslim, studying post doctorate. He said there are some sins that burn the hard-earned good deeds, the same way that a match burns down an edifice that took years to be built, even if that match is lit by the architect.

You do such a nice thing as not disputing my edit. Well. That's very kind. But then you come here and in your second sentence, you dig up dirt. That's the worse type of personal attack, the kind that the most despicable people on the planet do. Not only does it null your good deed, it paints it in a bad light: It seems that the reason you didn't dispute my edit was because you were busy digging dirt!

Just FYI, edit warring needs mens rea; there was in me or KamranMackey. Finally, there is such thing as "edit conflict". That's what happened.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Wow, okay. Firstly, I wrote "like a civil editor does" as a reference to you telling me to read WP:CIVIL, so I wasn't trying to offend you, I was responding to your claim against me that I wasn't being a civil editor. Secondly, what do you mean "digging up dirt"? Do you mean when I referred to the edit history of this page to disprove your claims against me? Just like you tried to refer to the edit history of this page, but made false statements about them? Dude, I'm not trying to start anything with you, so just put down the verbal weapons such as grouping me with "the most despicable people on the planet". I know you've gone way beyond the reach of assuming good faith, but I still urge you to do so. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 07:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)