Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

User:SouthPaw

2025-01-19T06:51:08Z

SouthPaw: Created my own user page

I joined Jan 18 2025 and am still getting used to how this all works. (Said on Jan 19 2025)

Talk:Steam

2025-01-19T06:46:35Z

SouthPaw:

== Tone concerns with regard to the Consumer Protection Profile ==

While I really like what's being done here with regards to the commentary, my concern is that it currently results in a lot of qualitative/judgemental statements being made in the Wiki's voice, on a page which is not supposed to be too editorial. In this case, I think it's been done quite well and the statements are largely reasonable, but it does still violate NPOV. I think exactly how this should be handled, and whether editorial content is appropriate on company articles, is something that might need to be discussed at a site/admin level. If editorial content is to exist on company articles, I think it almost certainly should be in its own section/box, as it is here [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 20:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

: As a first thought I would say that avoiding the use of "profile" or "status" to decribe the stance of a company in regards to Privacy,Transparency and Freedom would help limit the room for subjective statements. As it stands in this case the bullet points are factual and neutral enough, replacing "profile" with "key points" (or even "terms of service summary") and not using status as a way of scoring would help bring this alot closer inline with the aim of a company page. [[User:Kostas|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas|talk]]) 23:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:: The reason why it violates the neutrality principle is less to do with how heavily opinionated the particular statements are, and more to do with the fact that they are being said in the wiki's voice at all. Instead of someone reading them and seeing 'the wiki says that x person says that steam is like this', they read it and see 'the wiki says that this is true'. Again I'm not 100% opposed to the wiki having editorial stances, and this might be a demonstration of how it can be done well, but there needs to be a clear separation between 'the wiki's reporting on facts and opinions from other people' and 'the wiki having an opinion on a topic', which is why I think that if it is permitted, it should be in some kind of special box or something. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::actually I'm not sure that what I said above makes complete sense in this context... might be too late at night for me to be going around having opinions on things! If I were to reconsider some of it, I'd agree with you that the main issue is the scoring aspect of it. everything else is very clearly factual and based on the content of the SSA or other steam documents. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:: If I may, under Privacy, I recommend: "Collects much personal data...", "Records and stores all user communications across platform features", "Keeps certain user data indefinitely, even after account deletion" Under Freedom, I recommend: "Access to paid content can be ended at Valve's discretion" [[User:SouthPaw|SouthPaw]] ([[User talk:SouthPaw|talk]]) 00:45, 19 Jan 2025 (UTC-6)

Talk:CAT:Documentation/Core Patterns

2025-01-19T05:40:21Z

SouthPaw: Discussion page organization

Please create separate discussion sections if/when discussion topics differ greatly. For example, there should be different discussion sections for Documentation and separate for Core Patterns.

== Documentation ==

This could likely use a discussion section.

== Core Patterns ==

The average number of words per sentence for a page should be kept below 20. The creator of this section is not sure if he fully understands what core patterns means, but he thinks this applies.

Talk:Disney wrongful-death lawsuit

2025-01-19T05:33:23Z

SouthPaw:

This is the discussion page. Information that applies to all or a large majority of the sections belongs here, otherwise place information within corresponding discussion sections.

== A comment on a goal to set for readability ==

I believe that this stub has language that is too complex for its purpose to explain the information to a general audience. More specifically, the sentences are long; while this does lead to including more information in fewer total words, it makes it more difficult to read. The current (today is Jan 18 2025) average word count of this stub is 24 words per sentence. I recommend the language be edited to reduce this average to fewer than 20. This may sound like a small and difficult change, but I believe it will make this information much more accessible to the public. I submit this comment as a potential example of a text with a more suitable average.

== Possible edit to improve readability EDIT Some practice notes on editing and observations ==

The following is unlikely to have the cite notes placed correctly as no attempt was made to do so. The language here is recommended to improve readability. I am no expert and many of these changes may make readability worse. Today is Jan 18 2025.

In a wrongful death lawsuit, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. His wife had died from a severe allergic reaction at a restaurant in Disney's EPCOT theme park. The lawsuit claims Disney was negligent in managing food allergens and this contributed to her death.[1] However, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed by sending it to arbitration, citing a Disney+ user agreement. Piccolo signed this agreement in 2019 when he subscribed for a one-month long free trial. This agreement includes a clause requiring arbitration for disputes with the company. Disney stated that they neither owned nor operated the restaurant and were merely defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.

Disney argued that, because Piccolo had subscribed to Disney+ (even for a free trial), he was bound by the arbitration clause to all of the Disney company, not only Disney+. This sparked significant backlash as over 150 million Disney+ subscribers could similarly be barred from filing any lawsuit against any part of the Disney company. In response to the criticism, Disney withdrew its motion and allowed the case to continue in court.[2]

EDIT: This is a test to see what can be edited and how. My current conclusion is that the first discussion section cannot be edited (I mean the one without a summary), but that all following sections can. Also of note, when I first began editing this section, the contents had changed slightly in a way that may cause a slight issue with this website. Inserted in the contents textbox and at the very beginning, was a "double equals" followed by the summary, followed again by "double equals". There may have been white space, I do not recall. Inserted in the summary textbox, was what appeared to be a website wrapper of some kind it was a "slash asterisk", followed by the summary, and that followed by "asterisk slash". I cleared these additions (in the textboxes) first and while making this very edit, so I am relying on my memory to relay what I observed. I want to avoid making more edits than necessary for fear of causing some issue with this website's functions or those of the moderators.

Also, I am planning to create one more discussion section in this discussion to see and test if and how the discussion sections can be reordered, and after that, if and how unnecessary discussion sections can be deleted (I plan to delete the one I add if possible and add any pertinent observations in this discussion section and after this note).

EDIT 2: There is nothing wrong with the website, it just works in a way that I consider to be very strange. I have successfully merged and split different discussion sections. I know how to reorder discussion sections. Also, I am about to try to delete a test discussion section I made. If it is no longer there, then I did so successfully. Today is still Jan 18 2025. I am trying to include timing information for these edits as I think are appropriate, but I am also erring on the side of too much information, rather than too little.

Talk:Disney wrongful-death lawsuit

2025-01-19T05:29:26Z

SouthPaw:

I believe that this stub has language that is too complex for its purpose to explain the information to a general audience. More specifically, the sentences are long; while this does lead to including more information in fewer total words, it makes it more difficult to read. The current (today is Jan 18 2025) average word count of this stub is 24 words per sentence. I recommend the language be edited to reduce this average to fewer than 20. This may sound like a small and difficult change, but I believe it will make this information much more accessible to the public. I submit this comment as a potential example of a text with a more suitable average.

== Possible edit to improve readability EDIT Some practice notes on editing and observations ==

The following is unlikely to have the cite notes placed correctly as no attempt was made to do so. The language here is recommended to improve readability. I am no expert and many of these changes may make readability worse. Today is Jan 18 2025.

In a wrongful death lawsuit, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. His wife had died from a severe allergic reaction at a restaurant in Disney's EPCOT theme park. The lawsuit claims Disney was negligent in managing food allergens and this contributed to her death.[1] However, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed by sending it to arbitration, citing a Disney+ user agreement. Piccolo signed this agreement in 2019 when he subscribed for a one-month long free trial. This agreement includes a clause requiring arbitration for disputes with the company. Disney stated that they neither owned nor operated the restaurant and were merely defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.

Disney argued that, because Piccolo had subscribed to Disney+ (even for a free trial), he was bound by the arbitration clause to all of the Disney company, not only Disney+. This sparked significant backlash as over 150 million Disney+ subscribers could similarly be barred from filing any lawsuit against any part of the Disney company. In response to the criticism, Disney withdrew its motion and allowed the case to continue in court.[2]

EDIT: This is a test to see what can be edited and how. My current conclusion is that the first discussion section cannot be edited (I mean the one without a summary), but that all following sections can. Also of note, when I first began editing this section, the contents had changed slightly in a way that may cause a slight issue with this website. Inserted in the contents textbox and at the very beginning, was a "double equals" followed by the summary, followed again by "double equals". There may have been white space, I do not recall. Inserted in the summary textbox, was what appeared to be a website wrapper of some kind it was a "slash asterisk", followed by the summary, and that followed by "asterisk slash". I cleared these additions (in the textboxes) first and while making this very edit, so I am relying on my memory to relay what I observed. I want to avoid making more edits than necessary for fear of causing some issue with this website's functions or those of the moderators.

Also, I am planning to create one more discussion section in this discussion to see and test if and how the discussion sections can be reordered, and after that, if and how unnecessary discussion sections can be deleted (I plan to delete the one I add if possible and add any pertinent observations in this discussion section and after this note).

EDIT 2: There is nothing wrong with the website, it just works in a way that I consider to be very strange. I have successfully merged and split different discussion sections. I know how to reorder discussion sections. Also, I am about to try to delete a test discussion section I made. If it is no longer there, then I did so successfully. Today is still Jan 18 2025. I am trying to include timing information for these edits as I think are appropriate, but I am also erring on the side of too much information, rather than too little.

Talk:Disney wrongful-death lawsuit

2025-01-19T05:28:21Z

SouthPaw: /* Possible edit to improve readability EDIT Some practice notes on editing and observations */

Talk:Disney wrongful-death lawsuit

2025-01-19T05:23:07Z

SouthPaw:

I believe that this stub has language that is too complex for its purpose to explain the information to a general audience. More specifically, the sentences are long; while this does lead to including more information in fewer total words, it makes it more difficult to read. The current (today is Jan 18 2025) average word count of this stub is 24 words per sentence. I recommend the language be edited to reduce this average to fewer than 20. This may sound like a small and difficult change, but I believe it will make this information much more accessible to the public. I submit this comment as a potential example of a text with a more suitable average.

== Possible edit to improve readability EDIT Some practice notes on editing and observations ==

The following is unlikely to have the cite notes placed correctly as no attempt was made to do so. The language here is recommended to improve readability. I am no expert and many of these changes may make readability worse. Today is Jan 18 2025.

In a wrongful death lawsuit, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. His wife had died from a severe allergic reaction at a restaurant in Disney's EPCOT theme park. The lawsuit claims Disney was negligent in managing food allergens and this contributed to her death.[1] However, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed by sending it to arbitration, citing a Disney+ user agreement. Piccolo signed this agreement in 2019 when he subscribed for a one-month long free trial. This agreement includes a clause requiring arbitration for disputes with the company. Disney stated that they neither owned nor operated the restaurant and were merely defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.

Disney argued that, because Piccolo had subscribed to Disney+ (even for a free trial), he was bound by the arbitration clause to all of the Disney company, not only Disney+. This sparked significant backlash as over 150 million Disney+ subscribers could similarly be barred from filing any lawsuit against any part of the Disney company. In response to the criticism, Disney withdrew its motion and allowed the case to continue in court.[2]

EDIT: This is a test to see what can be edited and how. My current conclusion is that the first discussion section cannot be edited (I mean the one without a summary), but that all following sections can. Also of note, when I first began editing this section, the contents had changed slightly in a way that may cause a slight issue with this website. Inserted in the contents textbox and at the very beginning, was a "double equals" followed by the summary, followed again by "double equals". There may have been white space, I do not recall. Inserted in the summary textbox, was what appeared to be a website wrapper of some kind it was a "slash asterisk", followed by the summary, and that followed by "asterisk slash". I cleared these additions (in the textboxes) first and while making this very edit, so I am relying on my memory to relay what I observed. I want to avoid making more edits than necessary for fear of causing some issue with this website's functions or those of the moderators.

Also, I am planning to create one more discussion section in this discussion to see and test if and how the discussion sections can be reordered, and after that, if and how unnecessary discussion sections can be deleted (I plan to delete the one I add if possible and add any pertinent observations in this discussion section and after this note).

== Test Section ==

Test Section created Jan 18 2025. I intend to delete this and am using this to learn how the discussion editing interface works.

Talk:Disney wrongful-death lawsuit

2025-01-19T05:20:01Z

SouthPaw: /* Test Section */

I believe that this stub has language that is too complex for its purpose to explain the information to a general audience. More specifically, the sentences are long; while this does lead to including more information in fewer total words, it makes it more difficult to read. The current (today is Jan 18 2025) average word count of this stub is 24 words per sentence. I recommend the language be edited to reduce this average to fewer than 20. This may sound like a small and difficult change, but I believe it will make this information much more accessible to the public. I submit this comment as a potential example of a text with a more suitable average.

The following is unlikely to have the cite notes placed correctly as no attempt was made to do so. The language here is recommended to improve readability. I am no expert and many of these changes may make readability worse. Today is Jan 18 2025.

In a wrongful death lawsuit, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. His wife had died from a severe allergic reaction at a restaurant in Disney's EPCOT theme park. The lawsuit claims Disney was negligent in managing food allergens and this contributed to her death.[1] However, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed by sending it to arbitration, citing a Disney+ user agreement. Piccolo signed this agreement in 2019 when he subscribed for a one-month long free trial. This agreement includes a clause requiring arbitration for disputes with the company. Disney stated that they neither owned nor operated the restaurant and were merely defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.

Disney argued that, because Piccolo had subscribed to Disney+ (even for a free trial), he was bound by the arbitration clause to all of the Disney company, not only Disney+. This sparked significant backlash as over 150 million Disney+ subscribers could similarly be barred from filing any lawsuit against any part of the Disney company. In response to the criticism, Disney withdrew its motion and allowed the case to continue in court.[2]

EDIT: This is a test to see what can be edited and how. My current conclusion is that the first discussion section cannot be edited (I mean the one without a summary), but that all following sections can. Also of note, when I first began editing this section, the contents had changed slightly in a way that may cause a slight issue with this website. Inserted in the contents textbox and at the very beginning, was a "double equals" followed by the summary, followed again by "double equals". There may have been white space, I do not recall. Inserted in the summary textbox, was what appeared to be a website wrapper of some kind it was a "slash asterisk", followed by the summary, and that followed by "asterisk slash". I cleared these additions (in the textboxes) first and while making this very edit, so I am relying on my memory to relay what I observed. I want to avoid making more edits than necessary for fear of causing some issue with this website's functions or those of the moderators.

Also, I am planning to create one more discussion section in this discussion to see and test if and how the discussion sections can be reordered, and after that, if and how unnecessary discussion sections can be deleted (I plan to delete the one I add if possible and add any pertinent observations in this discussion section and after this note).

== Test Section ==

Test Section created Jan 18 2025. I intend to delete this and am using this to learn how the discussion editing interface works.

Talk:Disney wrongful-death lawsuit

2025-01-19T05:17:20Z

SouthPaw: /* Test Section */ new section

I believe that this stub has language that is too complex for its purpose to explain the information to a general audience. More specifically, the sentences are long; while this does lead to including more information in fewer total words, it makes it more difficult to read. The current (today is Jan 18 2025) average word count of this stub is 24 words per sentence. I recommend the language be edited to reduce this average to fewer than 20. This may sound like a small and difficult change, but I believe it will make this information much more accessible to the public. I submit this comment as a potential example of a text with a more suitable average.

The following is unlikely to have the cite notes placed correctly as no attempt was made to do so. The language here is recommended to improve readability. I am no expert and many of these changes may make readability worse. Today is Jan 18 2025.

In a wrongful death lawsuit, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. His wife had died from a severe allergic reaction at a restaurant in Disney's EPCOT theme park. The lawsuit claims Disney was negligent in managing food allergens and this contributed to her death.[1] However, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed by sending it to arbitration, citing a Disney+ user agreement. Piccolo signed this agreement in 2019 when he subscribed for a one-month long free trial. This agreement includes a clause requiring arbitration for disputes with the company. Disney stated that they neither owned nor operated the restaurant and were merely defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.

Disney argued that, because Piccolo had subscribed to Disney+ (even for a free trial), he was bound by the arbitration clause to all of the Disney company, not only Disney+. This sparked significant backlash as over 150 million Disney+ subscribers could similarly be barred from filing any lawsuit against any part of the Disney company. In response to the criticism, Disney withdrew its motion and allowed the case to continue in court.[2]

EDIT: This is a test to see what can be edited and how. My current conclusion is that the first discussion section cannot be edited (I mean the one without a summary), but that all following sections can. Also of note, when I first began editing this section, the contents had changed slightly in a way that may cause a slight issue with this website. Inserted in the contents textbox and at the very beginning, was a "double equals" followed by the summary, followed again by "double equals". There may have been white space, I do not recall. Inserted in the summary textbox, was what appeared to be a website wrapper of some kind it was a "slash asterisk", followed by the summary, and that followed by "asterisk slash". I cleared these additions (in the textboxes) first and while making this very edit, so I am relying on my memory to relay what I observed. I want to avoid making more edits than necessary for fear of causing some issue with this website's functions or those of the moderators.

Also, I am planning to create one more discussion section in this discussion to see and test if and how the discussion sections can be reordered, and after that, if and how unnecessary discussion sections can be deleted (I plan to delete the one I add if possible and add any pertinent observations in this discussion section and after this note).

== Test Section ==

Test Section created Jan 18 2025. I intend to delete this and am using this to learn how the discussion editing interface works

Talk:Disney wrongful-death lawsuit

2025-01-19T05:12:07Z

SouthPaw: A possible edit to improve readability EDIT Something looked like minor website snafu

I believe that this stub has language that is too complex for its purpose to explain the information to a general audience. More specifically, the sentences are long; while this does lead to including more information in fewer total words, it makes it more difficult to read. The current (today is Jan 18 2025) average word count of this stub is 24 words per sentence. I recommend the language be edited to reduce this average to fewer than 20. This may sound like a small and difficult change, but I believe it will make this information much more accessible to the public. I submit this comment as a potential example of a text with a more suitable average.

The following is unlikely to have the cite notes placed correctly as no attempt was made to do so. The language here is recommended to improve readability. I am no expert and many of these changes may make readability worse. Today is Jan 18 2025.

In a wrongful death lawsuit, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. His wife had died from a severe allergic reaction at a restaurant in Disney's EPCOT theme park. The lawsuit claims Disney was negligent in managing food allergens and this contributed to her death.[1] However, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed by sending it to arbitration, citing a Disney+ user agreement. Piccolo signed this agreement in 2019 when he subscribed for a one-month long free trial. This agreement includes a clause requiring arbitration for disputes with the company. Disney stated that they neither owned nor operated the restaurant and were merely defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.

Disney argued that, because Piccolo had subscribed to Disney+ (even for a free trial), he was bound by the arbitration clause to all of the Disney company, not only Disney+. This sparked significant backlash as over 150 million Disney+ subscribers could similarly be barred from filing any lawsuit against any part of the Disney company. In response to the criticism, Disney withdrew its motion and allowed the case to continue in court.[2]

EDIT: This is a test to see what can be edited and how. My current conclusion is that the first discussion section cannot be edited (I mean the one without a summary), but that all following sections can. Also of note, when I first began editing this section, the contents had changed slightly in a way that may cause a slight issue with this website. Inserted in the contents textbox and at the very beginning, was a "double equals" followed by the summary, followed again by "double equals". There may have been white space, I do not recall. Inserted in the summary textbox, was what appeared to be a website wrapper of some kind it was a "slash asterisk", followed by the summary, and that followed by "asterisk slash". I cleared these additions (in the textboxes) first and while making this very edit, so I am relying on my memory to relay what I observed. I want to avoid making more edits than necessary for fear of causing some issue with this website's functions or those of the moderators.

Also, I am planning to create one more discussion section in this discussion to see and test if and how the discussion sections can be reordered, and after that, if and how unnecessary discussion sections can be deleted (I plan to delete the one I add if possible and add any pertinent observations in this discussion section and after this note).

Talk:Disney wrongful-death lawsuit

2025-01-19T04:41:04Z

SouthPaw: /* A possible edit to improve readability */ new section

Talk:Disney wrongful-death lawsuit

2025-01-19T04:14:52Z

SouthPaw: I think too many words per sentence.