Talk:Smartwool adds forced arbitration to EULA - Revision history

Sojourna: updated links

2026-04-12T22:51:49Z

updated links

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:51, 12 April 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Tone usage==		==Tone usage==

	Hi there! I know this article is in a very early stage, but I just thought I might mention this as a course-correction early on rather than once the whole article has been written. Ideally we'd like for incident articles to be very neutral, written from an unbiased perspective, and focusing on the facts of the matter, as well as an accurate reporting of commentator and community reactions to the incident in question. The NPOV concept discussed in the [[Wiki Content Policies]] should summarise this, as should the discussion of tone within the [[Consumer ~~Action Taskforce~~:Editorial guidelines]] and the [[Article Types]] pages.		Hi there! I know this article is in a very early stage, but I just thought I might mention this as a course-correction early on rather than once the whole article has been written. Ideally we'd like for incident articles to be very neutral, written from an unbiased perspective, and focusing on the facts of the matter, as well as an accurate reporting of commentator and community reactions to the incident in question. The NPOV concept discussed in the [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Wiki content policies\|Wiki Content Policies]] should summarise this, as should the discussion of tone within the [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Editorial guidelines]] and the [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Article types\|Article Types]] pages.

	[[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)		[[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Beanie Bo: /* Should this incident be written in past tense? */ Reply

2025-10-25T19:31:43Z

Should this incident be written in past tense?: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:31, 25 October 2025
Line 18:		Line 18:

	:I’d say that past tense is generally the tense that should be used in the wiki, but for titles, think of them as like news articles where in that case they’re present tense. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|talk]]) 19:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)		:I’d say that past tense is generally the tense that should be used in the wiki, but for titles, think of them as like news articles where in that case they’re present tense. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|talk]]) 19:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
			::Raster is correct, especially for incident articles as they are usually current events, and especially for forced arbitration which will likely be there forever. [[User:Beanie Bo\|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo\|talk]]) 19:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

AnotherConsumerRightsPerson: /* Should this incident be written in past tense? */ Reply

2025-10-25T19:12:12Z

Should this incident be written in past tense?: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:12, 25 October 2025
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:I think here the best practice might be to keep the company page relatively light on the details of the incident, and have the incident page contain most of the info on what happened to do with the forced arbitration. In that case, we'd not do the merge, and just move this page to a more sensible name (i've made an initial move but if anyone has a better name feel free to take action!) [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 18:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)		:I think here the best practice might be to keep the company page relatively light on the details of the incident, and have the incident page contain most of the info on what happened to do with the forced arbitration. In that case, we'd not do the merge, and just move this page to a more sensible name (i've made an initial move but if anyone has a better name feel free to take action!) [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 18:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

	== Should this incident be written in past tense? ==		==Should this incident be written in past tense?==

	In English, past tense is for ''past'' events as I understand. This article doesn't seem to have a company's response indicating they've made it easier to opt-out of forced arbitration though. Should those sentences be changed to present tense or are they OK as is? (Yes, English is not my first language and when it comes to naming specific grammar I easily get lost) [[User:Raster\|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster\|talk]]) 18:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)		In English, past tense is for ''past'' events as I understand. This article doesn't seem to have a company's response indicating they've made it easier to opt-out of forced arbitration though. Should those sentences be changed to present tense or are they OK as is? (Yes, English is not my first language and when it comes to naming specific grammar I easily get lost) [[User:Raster\|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster\|talk]]) 18:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

			:I’d say that past tense is generally the tense that should be used in the wiki, but for titles, think of them as like news articles where in that case they’re present tense. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|talk]]) 19:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Raster: /* Should this incident be written in past tense? */ new section

2025-10-25T18:50:38Z

Should this incident be written in past tense?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:50, 25 October 2025
Line 12:		Line 12:

	:I think here the best practice might be to keep the company page relatively light on the details of the incident, and have the incident page contain most of the info on what happened to do with the forced arbitration. In that case, we'd not do the merge, and just move this page to a more sensible name (i've made an initial move but if anyone has a better name feel free to take action!) [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 18:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)		:I think here the best practice might be to keep the company page relatively light on the details of the incident, and have the incident page contain most of the info on what happened to do with the forced arbitration. In that case, we'd not do the merge, and just move this page to a more sensible name (i've made an initial move but if anyone has a better name feel free to take action!) [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 18:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

			== Should this incident be written in past tense? ==

			In English, past tense is for ''past'' events as I understand. This article doesn't seem to have a company's response indicating they've made it easier to opt-out of forced arbitration though. Should those sentences be changed to present tense or are they OK as is? (Yes, English is not my first language and when it comes to naming specific grammar I easily get lost) [[User:Raster\|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster\|talk]]) 18:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Beanie Bo: Beanie Bo moved page Talk:Forced arbitration with Smartwool socks to Talk:Smartwool adds forced arbitration to EULA: Misspelled title: Not in sentence case

2025-10-02T22:17:02Z

Beanie Bo moved page Talk:Forced arbitration with Smartwool socks to Talk:Smartwool adds forced arbitration to EULA: Misspelled title: Not in sentence case

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:17, 2 October 2025
(No difference)

Keith: /* Merge article */ Reply

2025-02-20T18:48:36Z

Merge article: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:48, 20 February 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Tone usage ==		==Tone usage==

	Hi there! I know this article is in a very early stage, but I just thought I might mention this as a course-correction early on rather than once the whole article has been written. Ideally we'd like for incident articles to be very neutral, written from an unbiased perspective, and focusing on the facts of the matter, as well as an accurate reporting of commentator and community reactions to the incident in question. The NPOV concept discussed in the [[Wiki Content Policies]] should summarise this, as should the discussion of tone within the [[Consumer Action Taskforce:Editorial guidelines]] and the [[Article Types]] pages.		Hi there! I know this article is in a very early stage, but I just thought I might mention this as a course-correction early on rather than once the whole article has been written. Ideally we'd like for incident articles to be very neutral, written from an unbiased perspective, and focusing on the facts of the matter, as well as an accurate reporting of commentator and community reactions to the incident in question. The NPOV concept discussed in the [[Wiki Content Policies]] should summarise this, as should the discussion of tone within the [[Consumer Action Taskforce:Editorial guidelines]] and the [[Article Types]] pages.
Line 5:		Line 5:
	[[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)		[[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

	== Merge article ==		==Merge article==

	Hey @[[User:Katastrophic\|Katastrophic]] and @[[User:RMCHammer\|RMCHammer]] I see that you have added some info to this page. I think this would fit better in the company page that resulted from this video. I have linked it in a merge request if you fell like trying to enchance it.		Hey @[[User:Katastrophic\|Katastrophic]] and @[[User:RMCHammer\|RMCHammer]] I see that you have added some info to this page. I think this would fit better in the company page that resulted from this video. I have linked it in a merge request if you fell like trying to enchance it.

	[[User:Kostas\|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas\|talk]]) 15:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)		[[User:Kostas\|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas\|talk]]) 15:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

			:I think here the best practice might be to keep the company page relatively light on the details of the incident, and have the incident page contain most of the info on what happened to do with the forced arbitration. In that case, we'd not do the merge, and just move this page to a more sensible name (i've made an initial move but if anyone has a better name feel free to take action!) [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 18:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Keith: Keith moved page Talk:Forced Arbitration On SOCKS! Purposely Difficult Opt Out Scam Explained to Talk:Forced arbitration with Smartwool socks: old name was quite radical

2025-02-20T18:30:09Z

Keith moved page Talk:Forced Arbitration On SOCKS! Purposely Difficult Opt Out Scam Explained to Talk:Forced arbitration with Smartwool socks: old name was quite radical

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:30, 20 February 2025
(No difference)

Kostas: /* Merge article */ new section

2025-02-11T15:36:51Z

Merge article: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:36, 11 February 2025
Line 4:		Line 4:

	[[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)		[[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Merge article ==

			Hey @[[User:Katastrophic\|Katastrophic]] and @[[User:RMCHammer\|RMCHammer]] I see that you have added some info to this page. I think this would fit better in the company page that resulted from this video. I have linked it in a merge request if you fell like trying to enchance it.

			[[User:Kostas\|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas\|talk]]) 15:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Keith: /* Tone usage */ new section

2025-01-22T00:35:01Z

Tone usage: new section

New page

== Tone usage ==

Hi there! I know this article is in a very early stage, but I just thought I might mention this as a course-correction early on rather than once the whole article has been written. Ideally we'd like for incident articles to be very neutral, written from an unbiased perspective, and focusing on the facts of the matter, as well as an accurate reporting of commentator and community reactions to the incident in question. The NPOV concept discussed in the [[Wiki Content Policies]] should summarise this, as should the discussion of tone within the [[Consumer Action Taskforce:Editorial guidelines]] and the [[Article Types]] pages.

[[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)