|
|
| (421 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown) |
| Line 6: |
Line 6: |
| *Post any information or news relevant to the moderation team here. | | *Post any information or news relevant to the moderation team here. |
| *To request an article to be created, do not post here, try [[Article suggestions]] instead. | | *To request an article to be created, do not post here, try [[Article suggestions]] instead. |
| *Do not report technical issues here, please use the [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki_talk:Bugs|Bugs noticeboard]] instead. | | *Do not report technical issues here, please use the [[Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Bugs|Bugs noticeboard]] instead. |
|
| |
|
| <div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 150%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold">[[Special:NewSection/Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard|Start a new section]]</div> | | <div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 150%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold">[[Special:NewSection/Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard|Start a new section]]</div> |
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
| *[[Special:NewPages]] | | *[[Special:NewPages]] |
|
| |
|
| | ==How will the CRW approach April Fool's day?== |
|
| |
|
| ==Outdated wiki link==
| | Hi, April Fool's day is next month and I don't want to initiate a discussion too late, so how would we approach it? My idea is 1) no jokes in articles, no exceptions and 2) clearly mark all jokes when they occur (I've made [[Template:April fools]] for this purpose). [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 19:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC) |
| The following I copypasted from [[Template:ToneWarning]]’s talk page. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| :Done! [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 11:28, 8 October 2025 (UTC) | | :If my science textbook in school gave me a QR code that ends up rickrolling me I think I'll spend longer than 1 day being distracted about it... lol |
| | :In my opinion they should be contained within user pages and other types of pages the common person never visits, like having it as an extra link under Wiki policy or something. It would be really bad if someone in power happens to see it the one day they get told to visit a page on the wiki. Just my two cents... but then again I'm pretty biased against the day anyway [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 06:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | ::I don't even think we should have it under a link on Wiki policy, just silently add it with thr correct template the correct people internally will see it via recent changes. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | :Honestly, I don't think we will be doing one this year. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 07:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | ::Was there one last year? I don't think there was. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | :::There definitely wasn't. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 08:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | ::::I've deleted the template. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | :::::Might be worth undeleting it... Louis came up with an idea for an April Fools, based on that Norwegian enshittification video from the other day. Basic concept is to enshittify the wiki (maybe just the main page, and with an off button, of course) for a day. I fully agree with no jokes in articles - that's just a pain to keep track of and undo, and could damage credibility if done without good taste. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 10:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | ::::::I have had my ideas, but I'll keep them secret for now. I'll undelete it. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | ::::::we could prob use the trollface as the wiki logo at least [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 04:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Due to the changes made since this template's creation in January 2025, I recommend updating the link used for "editorial guidelines". Clicking on it currently leads to the top of the [[Mission statement]] article since the original section label no longer exists. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 01:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
| |
| :More specifically, it should point to [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki:Editorial_guidelines]] instead of [[Mission statement]]. [[User:NOTAROBOT|NOTAROBOT]] ([[User talk:NOTAROBOT|talk]]) 11:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Place fightchatcontrol.eu in a prominent place on the homepage.== | | ==Appeal Request== |
|
| |
|
| I wish to have https://fightchatcontrol.eu/ on the top of consumerrights.wiki. I understand that this is not a corporation thing. But privacy is something many of the people here strongly value and this is an important project for everyones rights. [[User:Dentist5735|Dentist5735]] ([[User talk:Dentist5735|talk]]) 00:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
| | Hello! The article [[Advertising overload]] is marked as incomplete and as relying on AI/LLMs. I believe I've addressed the original intent of both of these, though the bottom section ([[Advertising overload#Notable Examples]]) is still a stub. I think the AI status notice should be removed, and the Incomplete notice should be replaced with a Stub notice. |
|
| |
|
| :Not a mod and so won’t implement it myself but there is a ‘consumer tools’ section if you scoll down very far that this would kinda fit in to. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
| | Cheers! [[User:Scholar Silas|Scholar Silas]] ([[User talk:Scholar Silas|talk]]) 05:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ==Itron article has been flagged for questionable relevance.==
| | :{{Done}} including '''completely removing both notices''', not marking it as a stub. The article overall is very long, and if a section is all to complain about on a very long article, then it's definitely not a stub. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| I believe the [[Itron]] article has been mistakenly flagged for questionable relevance. I have added several Incidents to the page to further show Itron's systemic patterns of consumer privacy violations please see the below:
| | ==Who gets superconfirmed first?== |
|
| |
|
| ''Itron's Smart meters allow them to collect, process, and store data without the end users' knowledge. (1980-Present)'' | | Hello, starting this discussion since the new superconfirmed usergroup has been added and we need to figure out who to give it to first. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 22:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ''NYSEG requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face monthly charge (November 2022-Present)'' | | :Just tested it on [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsAlt]]; why can't it undelete pages? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 22:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | ::I shall fix! [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 00:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | :::Also @[[User:JakeL|JakeL]] is semiprotection mow allowing superconfirmed users only as well as admins and not just normal confirmed users? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | ::::Yes, autoconfirmed users no longer have the semiprotected permission. This was an intentional change requested by Keith [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 16:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ''CenterPoint Energy requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face one-time and monthly service charges (Unknown-Present)''
| | ==add "Quasi-Wanted" Special page== |
|
| |
|
| ''Southern California Edison requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face monthly charge (Unknown-Present)'' | | There are Wikipedia articles linked from many different CRW articles. It'd be nice to see which topics are candidates for a dedicated article on CRW. I say "topics", just-in-case a future update adds support for non-WP "pseudo-internal" links (because WP links are shown as "internal" even though they aren't) |
|
| |
|
| Smart meter (and smart grid solutions) usage by utility companies involves a lot of layers but these are what I find to be most concerning:
| | Apologies in advance if this is not a place for feature-requests [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 06:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ''Lack of data privacy, utility companies can freely share customer data with third party smart meter companies (such as Itron) without customer knowledge.'' | | ==Appeal request for Wikipedia article== |
| | I've been testing out the browser plugin for the last few days and noticed it popped up on Wikipedia. After reading [[Wikipedia#cite note-15]] I wanted to challenge whether this article belongs on Consumer Rights Wiki, as I don't think it fits with the [[Mission statement]] or [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Inclusion guidelines]] at time of writing. |
|
| |
|
| ''Lack of freedom to choose whether or not you have a smart meter recording your electricity usage. This data can be used to infer all sorts of things from what kind of appliances you own to when you are home.''
| | Aside from mentioning that Wikipedia is big and influential (not necessarily a bad thing), there are two incidents listed. The first one relates to individual editors. The only citation for this mentions "Wikipedia has taken action against what it described as the “co-ordinated group” of fraudsters by blocking 381 accounts.". |
|
| |
|
| ''Itron's Data Processing Agreement is un-viewable (at least for me) and not easy to find either, and end users typically do not know they will have an Itron smart meter until after it is installed by their electric company.''
| | The second one is similar, it refers to behaviour of editors - the first citation mentions "Wikipedias in all languages, including English, are open to edits by any volunteers", and also mentions that "one of the ... admins at Scots Wikipedia, has called for native speakers to contribute as the community seeks to save the project.". |
|
| |
|
| Itron is not the only smart meter and smart grid solutions game in town but they are big and not end user friendly,.
| | In both cases I think this is a reasonable response from Wikipedia, they stepped in to address the issues by blocking abusive users, acknowledged the inaccuracies and called for people to help fix them. Wikipedia is free, it's hosted by a non-profit organisation and the editors are not working for Wikipedia, they are independent users of the platform. I don't think it's fair to blame them for user-generated content, and in my opinion it hurts the cause when we include articles like this alongside articles highlighting genuinely abusive business practices. [[User:DiffChar|DiffChar]] ([[User talk:DiffChar|talk]]) 23:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Thank Mods! [[User:Privacywarrior|Privacywarrior]] ([[User talk:Privacywarrior|talk]]) 19:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
| | :When this came up, I was very concerned but decided to leave it alone. Considering someone else thinks the exact same way as me, i think it's honestly a good idea atp for me to add a deletion request template (which anyone can do, by the way!) and refer back here. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ==Watch out for this person==
| | :After looking it over myself, I agree - it's not relevant as it stands. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 19:41, 30 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | ::I'd concur as well. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 19:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | :::Deleted. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 19:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| I was sent an e-mail yesterday (Sept 28th) from a person by the name "PawPatroler" who has apparently {{Wplink|User_talk:PawPatroler#Unblock_me,_please!|been harassing other wikis}} with the same appeal message in an attempt to have their Wikipedia account unbanned. Hopefully this just remains a one-off. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 02:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
| | ==Can't Edit== |
|
| |
|
| :I got the email as well. Didn't know about the Wikipedia thing though. @[[User:Keith|Keith]] might wanna check this out [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
| | I'm trying to edit this [[Dairy Queen]] article, however after adding the stub notice it won't allow me to edit anymore. @[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] [[User:SquidthePlummer|SquidthePlummer]] ([[User talk:SquidthePlummer|talk]]) 19:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ==Appeal deletion of Medical equipment page==
| | :{{Done}}. [[consumer_Rights_Wiki_talk:Moderators%27_noticeboard/Archive_4#Can_a_mod_please_remove_this?|Easy mistake to make]]. Next time, put it at the start of the article '''and''' leave a space. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:43, 23 March 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| [[Medical equipment]] has some issues relating to manufacturer lockdown and repair which are important (right to repair is right to save lives) and which may be somewhat different from issues in other devices. This page appears to be the natural place to cover these issues.
| | ==so...== |
|
| |
|
| There was a device page on medical ventilators, but it has been demoted to an incident page.
| | abt that superuser role? has it been rolled out yet? got hit in the face w a stub notice bug again lol [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 14:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| This deletion request is particularly confusing, because @[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] who proposed deletion, has what looks like some notes for an article covering right to repair of medical devices on their talk page.
| | :another thing. Phreeli has a valid entry in [[List of products and services with forced arbitration]]. still @[[User:Louis]] supported them w a dedicated [https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=e8SnNNq6MaI video], in which he states "so this is a company we started" and claims to be an unpaid board member. so I ask, what the fuck? Louis said to give a fuck abt consumer rights but he is not your savior. the video was released on 2025.12.19 and the citation on the list was archived on 2026.01.13, so it can be argued that it could be a development after the video was published. I have not seen him mention Phreeli since then. so I cannot say if they're still affiliated but the video is still up w no follow up (afaik). as y'all are in contact w the man, can we get a comment or perhaps an apology video w a ukulele cameo? [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 15:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | ::I discussed that here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_twkLJbc1c |
| | ::if there's an MVNO that's open to allowing people to pay with crypto without providing a name and address, I am happy to push them in that direction & help move it along. forced arbitration sucks balls, but every carrier has forced arbitration..... so this becomes a question of, should i not help push along a carrier that allows people to sign up in a more anonymous way, because 1 thing isn't to my liking... ??? the answer to that is no. |
| | ::framework doesn't release schematics... but after a long talk with the CEO, they'll allow you to get one if you contact them & sign an NDA. that's not what I want. but it is better than if I had not engaged at all. |
| | ::if i started a phone company/MVNO, it'd have no forced arbitration '''''AND''''' allow people to sign up with anonymous crypto without providing their name.... but i'm not starting a phone company... i am too busy as it is. |
| | ::phreeli belongs in that list of products & services with forced arbitration because they have forced arbitration. [[User:Louis|Louis]] ([[User talk:Louis|talk]]) 19:59, 26 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | :::as mentioned in my previous comment I didn't know of that video. thank you. even tho its been a week, I still haven't found the time to watch it. perhaps many of the points I've highlighted have already been discussed in said video. |
| | :::regardless, I agree that the existence of a more private MVNO's a blessing to see in a sea full of scammers. but I still would've liked to see them not go the same route as traditional operators regarding forced arbitration. everybody's "threat" model is diff so I can understand your stance. I'm a fairly regular watcher of the channel but somehow I missed the video. and based on the view discrepancy (378k vs 41k), many others have too. the follow up video includes the announcement in its description but the title and thumbnail do not reflect it being a follow up. I would like to see this rectified. |
| | :::now on Framework, I did not know an NDA had to be signed in order to get the schematics. I checked the article and it does not mention that. based on my 5 min search I found [https://knowledgebase.frame.work/availability-of-schematics-and-boardviews-BJMZ6EAu this] but it does not mention an NDA, just to reach out to support. could you please provide sources? I'd like to append this to the article. I don't consider it egregious but for a person looking for them, they should know. |
| | :::I'd like to highlight a conflict here. in the video you state "so this company we started" and in [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2009536/000200953624000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml this] SEC filing you're cited as a Director. I'd like to mention that I'm not American nor have any idea wtf this shit is, but I have a borderline idea on what SEC filings are. could you please explain to me what this means? ofc you yourself did not start the company but you are still listed as a director of the company. |
| | :::an article on Phreeli does not exist and the arbitration list can be hard to find. so I will be creating one. [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 18:52, 3 April 2026 (UTC) |
| | :Superconfirmed has been rolled out, see [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Moderator applications]], BUT you need your email. I think this stuff should be done onwiki but whatever, I got mod without using email lol. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 21:26, 26 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | ::I went on a hiatus again lol so apologies for the slow response. |
| | ::I did email Keith on the matter b4 the rollout and recently did I get knighted. thank you mods [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 18:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Not every "new consumer" issue with medical equipment falls under right to repair. There are also right to own considerations. (Such as having access to and control of my personal information - the readouts from my Cpap/pacemaker/etc. Also privacy issues. Who controls the device. ...) There are medical supplies (e.g. continuous glucose monitor patches or insulin refills, and things like region locking, supplier lockin, etc.) So I would not favor just moving the page to be only medical right to repair.
| | ==I think Internet Archive has excluded anything from Bambu Lab== |
|
| |
|
| I am confident that there is more than enough verifiable information and issues to make at least one article. | | I was on the Bambu Lab Authorization Control System page and I noticed that a lot of the archive links didn't work so I think Internet Archive has excluded anything from Bambu Lab. |
|
| |
|
| I think the page should be kept. Having some general pages that link things together is helpful. Especially when a wiki is so skeletal as this. The page can certainly use improvement. I think having the beginnings of a structure encourages growth. | | Do I need to move all the archive links to Ghost Archive? [[User:Andrew V|Andrew V]] ([[User talk:Andrew V|talk]]) 16:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| There is, as always, this disincentive to do anything to improve the page when it has a deletion notice. (No sense working on something that going to be destroyed.) [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 02:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
| | :It's the other way around; Bambu Lab has specifically decided to block the IA. And yeah, you can certainly use Ghost Archive. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | ::So should I switch all the archive links from IA to Ghost Archive [[User:Andrew V|Andrew V]] ([[User talk:Andrew V|talk]]) 16:24, 30 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | :::Yes. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | ::::Okay, I'll get started [[User:Andrew V|Andrew V]] ([[User talk:Andrew V|talk]]) 16:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC) |
| | ::Can confirm. I made a list of companies covered on this wiki that excluded themselves from the IA [[Internet Archive/Blocked companies|here]]. [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 19:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC) |
| | :::Thanks for making that article [[User:Andrew V|Andrew V]] ([[User talk:Andrew V|talk]]) 01:43, 3 April 2026 (UTC) |
| | ::::Of course! [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 19:10, 9 April 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| :Maybe @[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] can give his take since he's generally the one who finalizes article deletion.
| | ==Archive everything== |
| :As for my opinion, the article is simply too vague to be useful. Creating incident articles would be significantly more effective to shed a light on bad consumer practice in the medical industry, instead of one article with a ton of empty headlines. The article was created 9 months ago at this point yet only has 2 paragraphs worth of information. I take that to mean there is little interest in working on articles in the medical industry, and it's clear most people would rather discuss tech companies. So "encouraging growth" is not relevant at all in this case.
| |
|
| |
|
| :The way to give fair weight to the issues in the medical industry is by creating more articles dedicated to the various incidents that have been reported on. A single master sheet makes it seem like CRW only cares about tech issues (of which there are hundreds of relevant articles) and only adds in a few things from other industries lumped into one page that people are unlikely to find in the middle of hundreds of tech articles.
| | is there a way the checking process for refs be automated? it is user maintained and isn't always accurate. perhaps all refs could be checked if they have the <code>archive-url=</code> filled? [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 18:26, 5 April 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| :Incident pages are not "less than" company or product pages. They're simply different types. I don't think it's fair to say the medical ventilators article was "demoted" when the change was simply to portray the issues more accurately. Once I've gone through and edited the article to be more extensive and accurately portray the issue at hand, I hope that your position might change on the matter. And thanks for bringing it up anyway even if we disagree. It is motivating me to get to that article more quickly (as soon as I finish some smaller changes on articles I'm working on currently). [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 14:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
| | ==Featured articles on main page have light grey title on White background .. even on dark mode== |
| ::I can see the importance of having a page that includes the medical equipment, though a category system can also achieve this in a better way. There can be a main category (ex: Category:Medical equipment), and subcategories for the machines (ex: Category:MRI, Category:Ventilators) that include a small description of why they are consumer rights problems with alongside the Medical equipment category to link it all together.
| |
| ::For example, this is what the source code of the Category:Ventilators could look like:
| |
| ::<br />
| |
| ::At the beginning of the Covid 19 pandemic, ventilators were suddenly in very high demand. Digital rights management and lack of right to repair made the equipment shortage worse, and probably increased mortality.<br>
| |
| ::<nowiki>[[Category:Medical equipment]]</nowiki>
| |
| ::Let me know what you both think of this approach! [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 22:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
| :::@[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]]Sorry if the term demoted offended. It was not intended to. I was thinking in terms of the tree structure for the articles, not in terms of possible emotional impact. Lots of leaf [incident] articles, smaller number of device articles which aggregate/lead to the incidents, but can cover things more broadly, beyond just an incident. With theme articles (or possibly a missing article type, like a navigation articles) above that. So an incident article is less than a product page in the sense of being less general (more specific), not less important or valuable. I always try to be courteous, but sometimes I don't think of possible interpretations. So, my apologies.
| |
| :::I added a bit more meat to the article, hoping it will make it clearer what it could become, or inspire links to other relevant articles that exist, or inspire people to cover more medtech. If this article is to be deleted, what is the plan? Where would content like I added to the article better be placed? Is there a better name this theme article could be placed under? (I started a thread to discuss this on the article's talk page.)
| |
| :::For example, if this page goes, and the ventilator page just covers the covid emergency, then where can we put information about ventilators beyond the initial Covid surge?
| |
| :::I have more response, but want to sleep on it. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 18:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
| :::I just realized why I used "demoted." The [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Article types|list of article types]] lists them numerically (product is Tier 2, incident is Tier 3). For Tier 2 it says "This tier of articles may well be the most useful to the casual reader. This is where someone who googles [insert thing here] consumer rights wiki will usually end up." Sure sounds like incident articles are "less than" product articles (as in less useful, less likely to be seen, a lower tier).
| |
| :::Just pointing out what seems to me a natural interpretation of the wiki policies. I am not trying to justify or defend my word choice. I still apologize if they caused offense. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 19:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
| ::::I do wonder whether 'trunk, branch, leaf' might be a better way of putting it than the tiers. I wrote the basic article categorisation system in an afternoon many months ago, so it is very much not gospel! It seems to mostly work, but if we do need to make tweaks, it's worth discussing [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 16:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
| :::::This makes perfect sense. I think it would help organize the wiki a lot, and help new contributors decide which article type is most fitting for what they want to write. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 17:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
| :::@[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]]@[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]]
| |
| :::Just to be clear, when I first saw the medical equipment article, I figured it was a theme article. It would have been clearer had I said that in my initial appeal. I recognize that theme articles are to be used sparingly, but I think medical equipment has enough unique features and is important enough to consumers that a theme article is warranted.
| |
| :::I still think the [[medical equipment]] theme article is a better solution than categories.
| |
| :::The medical equipment theme article:
| |
| :::*Is easier for the reader (easier to make “grandmother” appropriate). (They don't have to learn how categories work.)
| |
| :::*Is easier for other articles to link to (don’t have to warn the reader that doing a context switch to categories).
| |
| :::*Allows compact coverage of additional issues and types of devices for which articles have not been created. (Easier to read and maintain than creating a bunch of stubs. Having mention of a device or issue may prompt people to create more detail.)
| |
| :::*Allows mention of considerations which would otherwise be replicated into articles in the area. (e.g., One could come up with boilerplate about FDA or insurance considerations, and copy it to the sub-articles – but maintenance headache.)
| |
| :::*Gives place to cover things which don’t fit neatly into the existing structure (e.g., artificial pancreas) (I am not advocating coverage there long term, but it is way we can capture those things that don’t fit neatly, rather than just losing them. As we find things that don’t quite fit, the structure can evolve. )
| |
| :::*The talk page gives a possible place for questions/discussion of articles in this area. (Or, if there is a better place for such discussion, the talk page could give a pointer to it.)
| |
| :::*A theme article fits in the official article types, whereas creating a new type of hybrid category/theme article feels like beyond the scope of what should be decided here?
| |
| :::Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 17:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
| ::::I generally think you're right to want to keep it here, and I think you've laid out good reasons for keeping it in mainspace rather than having it solely be a category page (a medical equipment category is also appropriate, but having a real page covering this sort of thing makes sense). We ideally want users to be able to navigate around the wiki through the use of links, and a general article on medical equipment, or conusmer protection in a medical context, is sensible. The article could certainly do with a coat of paint (maybe the examples should be tabulated?)
| |
| ::::I'd probably say just keep it on the Wiki with a stub notice for now. Any thoughts @[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]]@[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]]?
| |
| ::::It would probably at some point sit under an overarching 'medical consumer rights issues' article or something of the sort, and then this article serves to discuss equipment issues as opposed to ones related to payments, insurance, sales, etc. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 16:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
| :::::@[[User:Keith|Keith]] I think you and Drakeula made great arguments for why it should stay. Though I guess I should say my personal philosophy, which is basically to assume that others by default ''won't'' work to improve existing articles, especially niche ones. Most users prefer high traffic articles pertaining to large companies or major controversies. My personal opinion is that leaving a lot of low quality stubs ruins the integrity of the wiki, ''especially'' for articles that are 3+ months old. When I add relevance/deletion notices, it's on these articles that:
| |
| :::::- have been stubs for 3+ months
| |
| :::::- have not had any notable edits/improvements in 1-3 months
| |
| :::::- are niche articles that have extremely low probability of further improvements, etc.
| |
| :::::As a moderator, I'm ''attempting'' to fill that gap, which is why I sort of informally taken control over articles I feel like I may be able to do justice in fixing (e.g. covid ventilators). When low quality articles are left on the wiki, it's basically the moderators' responsibility to fix them. And since we don't have enough hands or time to fix the hundreds of articles out there in need of substantial work, I tend to err on the side of deletion, simply for maintaining the wiki's integrity.
| |
| :::::So I understand completely why you err on the side of keeping articles unless they clearly do not belong. But I do genuinely think it could work against us if we have 900 articles yet half of them are stubs or need substantial improvements. And it's pretty clear that they will continue to stay stubs for months to come, leaving that stub-to-complete article ratio to ever increase.
| |
| :::::Just food for thought, I guess. - [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 17:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::I suppose my hope on that front has been that a good pool of 'stuff that needs work' will encourage people to work on it. Because we want the wiki to end up being reasonably comprehensive, I think that having a stub article basically just saying 'this should be an article, and here is at least enough stuff to justify it being more than just a row on article suggestions' has value in 'holding place' on the wiki and allowing other articles to link to it, and giving a bit of visibility that it needs to be properly written.
| |
| ::::::Realistically, it will be quite some time before we are at the point where we'll expect the wiki to be useful to a reader. At that point, when it comes (maybe around ~2000 articles? next year once the UI overhaul is done?) it might made more sense to have a 'step-up' in how strict we are about zombie articles. So for now I'd say that policing the deletion zombie articles should probably be mostly restricted to articles that make you go 'this could just be an entry in the article suggestions page' (although if an article feels irrelevant or is just complete trash, that's a different matter). [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 20:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::That makes total sense, especially considering how young the wiki still is. I see where you're coming from and I can adopt that philosophy lol. Thanks for explaining it [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 21:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::@[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] I agree with Keith on thinking that stubs help growth.
| |
| ::::::I only found out about this wiki recently (month or so ago).
| |
| ::::::I notice several things that makes the wiki unwelcoming to new editors. (This is not about any one editor, most of these are from multiple interactions with different people.)
| |
| ::::::#Deletion discussions saying something hasn't gotten edits in xx months. As a newbie, how can I counter that? (Also, this encourages long term editors to make periodic "keep alive" edits, which seem like a waste of time.)
| |
| ::::::#The constant fear of the wiki getting too big/successful. (Expressed by editors in multiple ways in discussion. This one is nuanced and complex. More on this elsewhere.)
| |
| ::::::#I haven't had this happen, but I expect for long time editors, having something one worked on deleted just because life happens and you hadn't got back to it in a while would be discouraging.
| |
| ::::::#Salting the ground. When one goes to create an article, all you see is that something was there. Don't see what it was, or why it was deleted. If I find that an article on this was deleted, I don't bother to create an article (even if I am sure it could be good and relevant.) So if you delete things just because they are old, one has increased the friction against creation. This is part of why I tend to imagine any article is the best, most relevant version of that article it could be. If that article should stay, then I would vote for keep. If it still doesn't pass muster, then I would say out it goes.
| |
| ::::::#help being gated behind Discord's user agreement. (See [[Talk:Main_Page]])
| |
| ::::::Might also be a matter of working style? Some people seem to have lots of projects working on at once (office so full of papers you need a shovel to find a chair). Others may do one thing deeply at one time (clean desk with only 1 file open at a time). Both extremes can work, just how to support both - allow the cluttered desk folks to have the "richness of opportunities/mess" and the clean desk folks to have their "streamlined/sterile & lifeless" workspace. (I hope I got that even handed. No offense meant to any of the styles.)
| |
| ::::::I have certainly added to articles which were stubs, some of who's relevance had been questioned. I find something that is not my main focus, but in passing it inspires hey, I can add this example, or connect that up. Some of them have inspired me to think of other things worth covering here (articles to propose, etc.). (i.e., having a wide variety of shoots really does help growth)
| |
| ::::::Sorry this got so long. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 00:21, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::One other item to the list -- having an article proposed for deletion right after I try to make it more discoverable. One of the things I do is try to see what is here, and in the process connect related things. One of reasons an article might be undeveloped is it was hard to find. If going to propose based on article age, maybe wait a bit after new links put in. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 00:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
| :::::I’m fine with either approach, though for now adding a Stub template is good. I agree we should be more strict on "zombie articles" once the wiki becomes more fleshed out. [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 20:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Can someone help me on the mess I made here?==
| | This isnt great for readability. |
|
| |
|
| Hello, I have recently made an article on the [[Biometric Information Privacy Act]] which I have completely messed up! I saw that King Louis made a place in the [[Friend app#See also|see also of the Friend app article]] about the BIPA, so I decided to make one myself, but me not being a US citizen and not fact checking, I based it on [[wikipedia:Biometric Information Privacy Act|this BIPA from Wikipedia]] but somehow combined it with this [https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/4400/text| bill] (the wikipedia one was an [https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=095-0994| Illinois] one). So basically what I did was combined two articles into one and only found out when doing refs ~1 day after. Should we [[wikipedia:WP:TNT|blow it up and start over]]? Somehow save this? I need help here. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
| | my setup for reference : |
|
| |
|
| :The second bill you shared leads to a broken page. I'm gonna go ahead and make the judgment call that you can nuke it. Trying to parse through the information of which bill it belongs to might take more time than simply starting over. Also, I personally operate on the philosophy that "if I don't fix it myself, no one else will" (which isn't ''always'' true, but it's true often enough). And it seems especially true for niche pages like this one. If you want to fix it yourself, just make sure you add Illinois to your searches and make sure the relevant websites is Illinois state and not federal govt. Thanks for the attempts anyway, even if it gets nuked. We always appreciate contributors looking into policies and such, since it's rare that it happens. You're good! [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 15:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
| | dark mode on CRW, Firefox. Linux Mint XFCE. [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 04:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC) |
| ::Should've checked the second bill! I'll add a deletionreq now. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
| :::Oh, I meant erasing the content and perhaps just having a one paragraph explanation and stub! Probably shouldn't have said "nuke." I was referring to that wiki article you linked to: "With articles, this is the '''TNT tipping point''' argument: if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article." Maybe I read it wrong, sorry! [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 17:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
| ::::<nowiki>*facepalm*</nowiki> Thanks for removing it, I couldn’t have because abuse filter. Also, the WP:TNT article means to delete the entire thing (done via a deletion discussion, which is in Wikipedia where people vote on whether to keep or delete an article) [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Remove ‘Help About MediaWiki’ from the main menu list==
| | :wait i just went back and now they are black titles... i dont know what happened. mightve been a one time bug on my part ??? [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 04:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC) |
| | ::OK i figured it out... this is weird : |
| | ::it only happnes when i am LOGGED OUT of my account. |
| | ::to reiterate : |
| | ::when a user is logged out. the featured articles on the main page appear with light grey titles on white background ; which isnt great for readability ... especially for new users' first impression of the website. |
| | ::Once i am logged into my account, the titles now appear black with good contrast. |
| | ::I dont know why this is the case but it is consistent across my testing [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 04:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC) |
| | :::@[[User:JakeL|JakeL]] this was an issue that I had before that I asked om your talkpage to fix, now it's happening again? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC) |
| | :::I'm going to throw in a curveball. logged in and I still got the issue. [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 08:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC) |
| | ::::@[[User:JakeL|JakeL]] pinging again [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 11:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| This literally comes with MediaWiki to help you learn about it while setting up and it is still in the main menu. I don’t see why we need this? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
| | ==Suggestion== |
|
| |
|
| :Good catch; I know its there to help people learn how to edit and do things but after initial set up it does not serve much purpose; maybe we could change it to the editting guide or something becuase there is still usefulness in linking to a mediawiki edit guide or functional tutorial so new users can learn how to edit. [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 15:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
| | I feel we could be more clearer when it come to our date standards on the wiki, as right now I feel its lacking in clarity and causes confusion for newcomers on what the actual date format is most commonly accepted and preferred (as of right now being something like a date format of 20 Jan 2004 <s>if that makes sense</s>). Currently, when going onto the citation tab to add a source, it reads ''"Example: Format as YYYY-MM-DD (2020-12-30) or DD Mon YYYY (30 Dec 2025)".'' |
| :removed! ty for the catch [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 16:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Top contributors page==
| | Additionally, I also think the product section ''(referring to the This is a list of the company's product lines '''with articles on this wiki'''. [[Example product line one]] (release date): Short summary of the product's incidents.)'' could also be more specified and informative on what users are supposed to fill out, along with specifying what to do when there's no incidents relating to any of their product, as right now it's kinda up to the users to determine what it means. |
|
| |
|
| Hello, there’s a [[Top Contributors]] page AND [[Special:ContributionScores]] page. The sidebar currently directs you to the ContributionScores page, so the Top Contributors page is useless. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
| | I also want to ask if you can add more sections to the parent company on the CompanyCargo template(being adding one company that's own by several other companies instead of one <s>as of current</s>) as I'm currently working on '''[[Denny's]]''' article and <sub><s>as far as I know</s></sub> there are 3 private companies that own Denny's as of the moment. |
|
| |
|
| :Hi, I dont see that link on the sidebar; where do you see this - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 15:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
| | I don't mean to come off in a bad way where it's disrespectful, I meant to only state my opinion on the matter. [[User:SquidthePlummer|SquidthePlummer]] ([[User talk:SquidthePlummer|talk]]) 03:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC) |
| ::Beneath "Random Page", it says "Top Contributors". See: [[MediaWiki:Sidebar]].
| |
| ::@[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] is pointing out the redundancy between the two pages they mentioned. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 16:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
| :::Yes, that is what I meant. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:39, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
| ::::What theme is being used as this doesnt appear on this theme? http://scrnsht.us/chrome_zz9teMfUJD.png - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 16:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Yes it does. In the main menu section on the left, there's a 'Top Contributors' page beneath 'Random Page'. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| == Please exclude "New user message" from the leader board ==
| | :Agree, we don't really have a specific date standard here [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:38, 11 April 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| No robot hate, but [[User:New user message|New user message]] should not be displaying in the leader board for human contributions. :) — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 03:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
| | |
| | :I have been using the DMY format since the majority of the world generally uses that. The hope for the wiki is to be an international source for consumers around the world (not just Americans), and I believe DMY to be in line with that goal. I further believe it would be better to have a consistent experience, which is why I have used the DMY format even for American companies and incidents. (Though clearly Rossmann disagreed with that, as he recently "corrected" the dates on an Amazon article from an older edit of mine.) |
| | |
| | :As for the citations, I abbreviate the months because early on using more than three characters for the month resulted in the citation template being unhappy. It appears to have since been fixed, but old habits die hard. Not sure why the wiki template data outputs strictly numbers and that's a topic that will eventually have to be decided on in conjunction with this. |
| | |
| | :Apologies for not speaking up sooner; I wanted mull over the matter first. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 23:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC) |
| | |
| | ==JS ToneWarning appeal== |
| | |
| | ([[JavaScript|this article]]) With the most recent edits (from other people, and myself) I think that notice can be finally removed. <code>Cleanup</code> should stay, as it's not done. |
| | |
| | I could remove the notice myself, but I'm asking here, just-in-case [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 06:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC) |
| | |
| | :{{Done}} [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC) |
| | |
| | ==Appeal request for YNAB article== |
| | |
| | Hey CRW! |
| | |
| | Today, after learning that YouNeedABudget had added forced arbitration to their ToS, I contributed [[You Need A Budget (YNAB)|my first original wiki article]]. I'd not completed each section, so it was naturally marked as a stub, but '''I believe I've satisfied the requirements for each required section, now, and that it is outside stub territory.''' |
| | |
| | I tried to provide as many references as I could, while keeping things as relevant as I could, but as I said, this is my first article, so please let me know if there's anything else I can contribute to improve the article in any way. |
| | |
| | The one thing I think could be better is providing the actual email sent by YNAB as its own file as a better reference, but because I am no longer personally a user of YNAB, I don't have a copy to provide, myself. I reached out to some users from the subreddit threads linked within the article to ask for some anonymized copy if at all possible, and if I get something back, I can provide that then (or, if someone else has their own copy, all the power to them to contribute it). Failing this, though, I hope that the links to the related discussion about the email's existence meets the standard of verifiability. [[User:Jamesonismad|Jameson Ismad]] ([[User talk:Jamesonismad|talk]]) 05:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC) |
| | |
| | :{{Done}} — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 22:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC) |