Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
→Appeal Request: new section |
|||
| Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
:::Unfortunately that snapshot only has the Abstract. I'm not the one that added the particular source, but it (may) be sufficient enough to add as an archive link for that particular source (talking about the [[Age Verification]] article in case anyone's confused), so I've gone and done so. Thanks for your input. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 04:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC) | :::Unfortunately that snapshot only has the Abstract. I'm not the one that added the particular source, but it (may) be sufficient enough to add as an archive link for that particular source (talking about the [[Age Verification]] article in case anyone's confused), so I've gone and done so. Thanks for your input. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 04:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC) | ||
::This can be safely undeleted. The copyright symbol is sometimes used for partial copyright (which Creative Commons is). A more suitable symbol would have been the "(cc)" (creative commons) symbol, but it is not a dedicated unicode character like "©". The document itself says it is Creative Commons, not "all rights reserved", so I see no reason not to undelete it. [[User:JodyBruchonFan|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan|talk]]) 22:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC) | ::This can be safely undeleted. The copyright symbol is sometimes used for partial copyright (which Creative Commons is). A more suitable symbol would have been the "(cc)" (creative commons) symbol, but it is not a dedicated unicode character like "©". The document itself says it is Creative Commons, not "all rights reserved", so I see no reason not to undelete it. [[User:JodyBruchonFan|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan|talk]]) 22:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC) | ||
== Appeal Request == | |||
On the article regarding [[Restaurant Brands International caught training AI models using customer voices|Restaurant Brand International]], I think that the source credibility issue lacks merit and should be removed, as I don't see how it could be lacking in source credibility due to (in my opinion) additional evidence backup with images and detail breakthrough of the event that would classify it as being trustworthy? Would like some thoughts and comments around this, very confused. [[User:SquidthePlummer|SquidthePlummer]] ([[User talk:SquidthePlummer|talk]]) 23:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC) | |||