Talk:Opt-out - Revision history

Sojourna at 20:51, 30 March 2026

2026-03-30T20:51:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:51, 30 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Relevance==		==Relevance==

	Do we need an article for this? It's self-explanatory and it's meaning doesn't inherently change in the context of consumer rights. [[User:Beanie Bo\|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo\|talk]]) 02:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)		Do we need an article for this? It's self-explanatory and it's meaning doesn't inherently change in the context of consumer rights. [[User:Beanie Bo\|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo\|talk]]) 02:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Line 6:		Line 5:
	::I agree that a theme article seems useful. I don't think it is self explanatory. The content that was here didn't even mention opt-in vs. opt-out (and how opt-in is often better for consumer protection issues.) (Pretty much anything many companies make opt-out should be opt-in (like selling my data), and anything they voluntarily make opt-in (like digital coupons) should be opt-out.) [[User:Drakeula\|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula\|talk]]) 22:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)		::I agree that a theme article seems useful. I don't think it is self explanatory. The content that was here didn't even mention opt-in vs. opt-out (and how opt-in is often better for consumer protection issues.) (Pretty much anything many companies make opt-out should be opt-in (like selling my data), and anything they voluntarily make opt-in (like digital coupons) should be opt-out.) [[User:Drakeula\|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula\|talk]]) 22:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

	== Opt-in ==		::I agree that having this as a theme article is useful and relevant to the wiki. "Opt-out" is self-explanatory in that it is removal from participation, but the article isn't just about the dictionary definition - it's about how it applies in the context of consumer rights. Although the article needs plenty of work, it's worth keeping. Changing the irrelevancy tag to stub. — [[User:Sojourna\|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna\|talk]]) 20:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

			==Opt-in==
	I redirected opt-in here (since they are related concepts.) [[User:Drakeula\|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula\|talk]]) 22:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)		I redirected opt-in here (since they are related concepts.) [[User:Drakeula\|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula\|talk]]) 22:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Drakeula: /* Opt-in */ new section

2025-10-04T22:26:18Z

Opt-in: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:26, 4 October 2025
Line 5:		Line 5:
	:I personally think for the sake of having theme articles as building blocks for incidents, this can definitely stay. It is self-explanatory but from what I understand, if we wanted to base an incident article on opt-out being violated, this would be great for it to have. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|talk]]) 05:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)		:I personally think for the sake of having theme articles as building blocks for incidents, this can definitely stay. It is self-explanatory but from what I understand, if we wanted to base an incident article on opt-out being violated, this would be great for it to have. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|talk]]) 05:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
	::I agree that a theme article seems useful. I don't think it is self explanatory. The content that was here didn't even mention opt-in vs. opt-out (and how opt-in is often better for consumer protection issues.) (Pretty much anything many companies make opt-out should be opt-in (like selling my data), and anything they voluntarily make opt-in (like digital coupons) should be opt-out.) [[User:Drakeula\|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula\|talk]]) 22:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)		::I agree that a theme article seems useful. I don't think it is self explanatory. The content that was here didn't even mention opt-in vs. opt-out (and how opt-in is often better for consumer protection issues.) (Pretty much anything many companies make opt-out should be opt-in (like selling my data), and anything they voluntarily make opt-in (like digital coupons) should be opt-out.) [[User:Drakeula\|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula\|talk]]) 22:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

			== Opt-in ==

			I redirected opt-in here (since they are related concepts.) [[User:Drakeula\|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula\|talk]]) 22:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Drakeula: /* Relevance */ opt-in on opt-out

2025-10-04T22:20:15Z

Relevance: opt-in on opt-out

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:20, 4 October 2025
Line 4:		Line 4:

	:I personally think for the sake of having theme articles as building blocks for incidents, this can definitely stay. It is self-explanatory but from what I understand, if we wanted to base an incident article on opt-out being violated, this would be great for it to have. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|talk]]) 05:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)		:I personally think for the sake of having theme articles as building blocks for incidents, this can definitely stay. It is self-explanatory but from what I understand, if we wanted to base an incident article on opt-out being violated, this would be great for it to have. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|talk]]) 05:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
			::I agree that a theme article seems useful. I don't think it is self explanatory. The content that was here didn't even mention opt-in vs. opt-out (and how opt-in is often better for consumer protection issues.) (Pretty much anything many companies make opt-out should be opt-in (like selling my data), and anything they voluntarily make opt-in (like digital coupons) should be opt-out.) [[User:Drakeula\|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula\|talk]]) 22:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

AnotherConsumerRightsPerson: /* Relevance */ Reply

2025-09-24T05:30:26Z

Relevance: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:30, 24 September 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Relevance ==		==Relevance==

	Do we need an article for this? It's self-explanatory and it's meaning doesn't inherently change in the context of consumer rights. [[User:Beanie Bo\|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo\|talk]]) 02:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)		Do we need an article for this? It's self-explanatory and it's meaning doesn't inherently change in the context of consumer rights. [[User:Beanie Bo\|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo\|talk]]) 02:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

			:I personally think for the sake of having theme articles as building blocks for incidents, this can definitely stay. It is self-explanatory but from what I understand, if we wanted to base an incident article on opt-out being violated, this would be great for it to have. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|talk]]) 05:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Beanie Bo: /* Relevance */ new section

2025-09-04T02:35:42Z

Relevance: new section

New page

== Relevance ==

Do we need an article for this? It's self-explanatory and it's meaning doesn't inherently change in the context of consumer rights. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 02:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)