Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
SinexTitan (talk | contribs) →vague Pro-consumer articles definition: new section |
CrookKilla (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
:'''SUCCESS'''! Relatively minimalist [[Template:Dead link]] forked off Wikia instead. Works! Having a strategy re https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/117429/how-to-use-wikipedia-templates-on-an-outside-mediawiki would be good. We have so I presume we already imported CS1, or does it come with MediWiki? I see we do NOT have citation (CS1, CS2, etc) templates; citations work through Modules, so those templates are not needed, apparently. [[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 20:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC) | :'''SUCCESS'''! Relatively minimalist [[Template:Dead link]] forked off Wikia instead. Works! Having a strategy re https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/117429/how-to-use-wikipedia-templates-on-an-outside-mediawiki would be good. We have so I presume we already imported CS1, or does it come with MediWiki? I see we do NOT have citation (CS1, CS2, etc) templates; citations work through Modules, so those templates are not needed, apparently. [[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 20:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
== vague Pro-consumer articles definition == | ==vague Pro-consumer articles definition== | ||
kinda reads how the US' router bill does. are everything in the crossfire? for now it seems like the articles that consist of 0 anti-consumer incidents are likely to be removed. e.g. [[GrapheneOS]], [[Mullvad]], [[GOG.com]], etc. but what abt [[Valve removes arbitration requirement from Steam Subscriber Agreement]] and [[EA releases source code of classic Command & Conquer titles]]? are these next in line for the guillotine? they don't have "relevance" or "deletion" notices so it is confusing when compared w the set definition. | kinda reads how the US' router bill does. are everything in the crossfire? for now it seems like the articles that consist of 0 anti-consumer incidents are likely to be removed. e.g. [[GrapheneOS]], [[Mullvad]], [[GOG.com]], etc. but what abt [[Valve removes arbitration requirement from Steam Subscriber Agreement]] and [[EA releases source code of classic Command & Conquer titles]]? are these next in line for the guillotine? they don't have "relevance" or "deletion" notices so it is confusing when compared w the set definition. | ||
what I got from the vagueness is that positives are allowed such as [[Valve#Positives]] but the article must not solely be them or otherwise might "sound like we are endorsing them". yes or no? [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 17:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC) | what I got from the vagueness is that positives are allowed such as [[Valve#Positives]] but the article must not solely be them or otherwise might "sound like we are endorsing them". yes or no? [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 17:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
:A comment I just added to the [[Talk:GrapheneOS]]: | |||
:'''"If [[User:Louis|Louis Rossmann]] has verifiably extolled its virtues, it's on topic."''' I think that is a short simple, good rule we should have. At least I'm going to throw it out there to be considered as the only or one of perhaps multiple rules / line definitions to address this issue. If a bright line can be drawn based on the other efforts above, good, but right now, I'm seeing a lines that I anticipate would make each decision a tough call - one that would be hard for someone with folks with even a little bias one way or the other (i.e. average humans) to be able to respectfully disagree on. Probably wouldn't hurt to add "significant coverage" or something like that but maybe not necessary. '''"Significant coverage by [[User:Louis|Louis Rossmann]] verifiably extolling something's virtues indicates an article is warranted."''' | |||
:Arguments in favor: | |||
:# Short. | |||
:# Bright line. | |||
:# I think we want articles on companies which Louis verifiably extolled the virtues of. Several come to mind of which he has covered in some detail. | |||
:# I think the bulk of us are here because we're fans of Louis and have developed a feel for and trust his judgement. | |||
:Where is the current "Pro-consumer articles definition" or scope policy? | |||
:[[Positive_practices]] exist but doesn't answer. | |||
:Oh, see [[Category:Pro-consumer_articles]] defines it and just got edited on the 15th. https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Category:Pro-consumer_articles&diff=prev&oldid=57894 | |||
:@[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]], are you open to my idea? I'm reading into [[GrapheneOS]], [[Mullvad]] still being around that a proposal like mine is welcome - unlike some forums, where such a suggestion would be considered 'arguing with the mods'. [[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 03:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
==Pocket Cast== | |||
I have a direct Pocket Casts support email that may help source the “Showing advertisements to Champion/Lifetime users” section. | |||
On September 24, 2025 at 04:08 UTC, Pocket Casts support responded to my complaint about banner ads. The response stated that maintaining Pocket Casts had become “unsustainable on one-time purchases or free app downloads alone,” that Pocket Casts had moved to Plus/Patron subscriptions, and that banner ads had been introduced for users who do not have Plus or Patron. The email also framed ads as helping “keep the lights on” and directed me to try Pocket Casts Plus. | |||
I was a lifetime-license user. After I pushed back and pointed out that I had a lifetime license, the ads were removed from my account. I can provide a redacted screenshot of the email/thread if useful. [[User:ServiceLevelOne|ServiceLevelOne]] ([[User talk:ServiceLevelOne|talk]]) 17:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC) | |||