Talk:GrapheneOS: Difference between revisions

Line 20:

:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L8mU6XROuh9o18jjnHKiQGvQ_82CzTE2/view?usp=sharing A link to my proposal. [[User:Pancho|Pancho]] ([[User talk:Pancho|talk]]) 22:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

'''"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 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."'''

:'''"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 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:

:Arguments in favor:

# Short.

:# Short.

# Bright line.

:# 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 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.

:# I think the bulk of us are here because we're fans of Louis and have developed a feel for and trust his judgement. -[[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 02:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

-[[User:~~CrookKilla~~|~~CrookKilla~~]] ([[User talk:~~CrookKilla~~|talk]]) 02:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

:Posting this here for convenience: [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Draft policy on the inclusion of positive consumer-focused acts and practices]] — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 03:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 :https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L8mU6XROuh9o18jjnHKiQGvQ_82CzTE2/view?usp=sharing A link to my proposal.  [[User:Pancho|Pancho]] ([[User talk:Pancho|talk]]) 22:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
-'''"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 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."'''
+:'''"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 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:
+:Arguments in favor:
-# Short.
+:# Short.
-# Bright line.
+:# 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 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.
+:# I think the bulk of us are here because we're fans of Louis and have developed a feel for and trust his judgement. -[[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 02:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
--[[User:CrookKilla|CrookKilla]] ([[User talk:CrookKilla|talk]]) 02:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
+:Posting this here for convenience: [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Draft policy on the inclusion of positive consumer-focused acts and practices]] — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 03:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)