User talk:Keith: Difference between revisions

Line 34:

I think that fits the bill - although it's a smaller company, it fits within the frame of modern consumer protection and demonstrates how draconian the terms for even something like that can be.

Go for it! I'd probably say that this is a case where a company article can be created, and the TOS issue can be neatly summarised within it, as opposed to being a seperate incident article.

Edit: actually, I might have got ahead of myself - is this something which has been covered or discussed annywhere other than by yourself? If not, it may fall foul of the No Original Research rule, although a very basic page which basically just lays out the facts which can be established from their website and TOS, and does not provide any commentary beyond this, might be ok.

[[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 I think that fits the bill - although it's a smaller company, it fits within the frame of modern consumer protection and demonstrates how draconian the terms for even something like that can be.
 Go for it! I'd probably say that this is a case where a company article can be created, and the TOS issue can be neatly summarised within it, as opposed to being a seperate incident article.
+Edit: actually, I might have got ahead of myself - is this something which has been covered or discussed annywhere other than by yourself? If not, it may fall foul of the No Original Research rule, although a very basic page which basically just lays out the facts which can be established from their website and TOS, and does not provide any commentary beyond this, might be ok.
 [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)