Jump to content

Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderator guidelines: Difference between revisions

From Consumer Rights Wiki
Latest comment: 20 November 2025 by Keith in topic Question
Question: new section
Question: Reply
Line 1: Line 1:
== Just a few typos ==
==Just a few typos==


#* Note: it is permissible for an incident to be positive, as long as it is both noteable  <-notable
#*Note: it is permissible for an incident to be positive, as long as it is both noteable  <-notable
          
          
# The company does not have an existing page, which the artice <- article
#The company does not have an existing page, which the artice <- article


#* The level of managerial independance <- independence
#*The level of managerial independance <- independence


#* The level of managerial independance - how independant  <- independent
#*The level of managerial independance - how independant  <- independent


* Stub (for an article which is simply underdeveloped: the content currentlyu <-
*Stub (for an article which is simply underdeveloped: the content currentlyu <-


lead to deletion if it's in massive violation of the No Original Reaearch <-
lead to deletion if it's in massive violation of the No Original Reaearch <-
Line 15: Line 15:
Basically a limbo to put articles in where their merits can be discussed before a descision <- decision
Basically a limbo to put articles in where their merits can be discussed before a descision <- decision


* Demonstrate (through evidence, and assertion by sources, not thorugh <- through
*Demonstrate (through evidence, and assertion by sources, not thorugh <- through


* If the Incident affected only a small hanfdful <-
*If the Incident affected only a small hanfdful <-


* '''The article should be neutral and factual,''' without unneccesarily -< unnecessarily  
*'''The article should be neutral and factual,''' without unneccesarily -< unnecessarily


A user reported that an Amazon delivery driver accessed their garage through their phone without authorization  
A user reported that an Amazon delivery driver accessed their garage through their phone without authorization  
#* Demonstrate a pattern of similar incidents or systemic flaws in Amazon's delivery authorization <- authorisation?
#*Demonstrate a pattern of similar incidents or systemic flaws in Amazon's delivery authorization <- authorisation?


#* Remove aricle, <-
#*Remove aricle, <-


A person brought a 5-year-old iPhone 11 for battery replacement at official Apple Store in Rio. After a $170 service, both cameras stopped working. Apple blamed previous unauthorized <- unauthorised?
A person brought a 5-year-old iPhone 11 for battery replacement at official Apple Store in Rio. After a $170 service, both cameras stopped working. Apple blamed previous unauthorized <- unauthorised?
Line 50: Line 50:
[[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 22:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
[[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 22:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)


== Question ==
==Question==


As part of these guidelines, it says this.
As part of these guidelines, it says this.
Line 56: Line 56:
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
I have never seen the garbage template used, except for one time when I thought it was an alternative to deletionrequest. Is this still done? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I have never seen the garbage template used, except for one time when I thought it was an alternative to deletionrequest. Is this still done? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
:yep, have updated the text to remove reference to the garbage template [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:51, 20 November 2025

Just a few typos

    • Note: it is permissible for an incident to be positive, as long as it is both noteable <-notable
  1. The company does not have an existing page, which the artice <- article
    • The level of managerial independance <- independence
    • The level of managerial independance - how independant <- independent
  • Stub (for an article which is simply underdeveloped: the content currentlyu <-

lead to deletion if it's in massive violation of the No Original Reaearch <-

Basically a limbo to put articles in where their merits can be discussed before a descision <- decision

  • Demonstrate (through evidence, and assertion by sources, not thorugh <- through
  • If the Incident affected only a small hanfdful <-
  • The article should be neutral and factual, without unneccesarily -< unnecessarily

A user reported that an Amazon delivery driver accessed their garage through their phone without authorization

    • Demonstrate a pattern of similar incidents or systemic flaws in Amazon's delivery authorization <- authorisation?
    • Remove aricle, <-

A person brought a 5-year-old iPhone 11 for battery replacement at official Apple Store in Rio. After a $170 service, both cameras stopped working. Apple blamed previous unauthorized <- unauthorised?

-- Preceding unsigned comment by DavidBenJr at 04:21, 15 January 2025‎

The spelling of “authorization” and the like depend on regional standards. Americans tend to spell it with a z, and the z spelling is actually also preferred by the Oxford English Dictionary. This is in contrast to analyze/analyse, where the OED prefers the s spelling. There is some etymological reason that I cannot be bothered to remember. Mingyee (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)Reply


Some additional typos:

2. The company does not have an existing page, which the artice <- article

This should only lead to deletion if it's <- it is

Aritcles <- Articles (inside categorization table)

If a deletion request is determined to be valid, <- (missing comma)

-- Comment by JazzyPizza, 25 April 2025‎

Thank you for pointing these out! and apologies for not actioning the earlier ones. I'll get everything done just now!

Keith (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Question

As part of these guidelines, it says this.

If a deletion request is determined to be valid, the linked pages need to be handled and after that the page should be marked with the {{Garbage}} template and protected from edits, pending final deletion. If a talk page is present before deletion, it is best practice to keep the talk page as its contents usually explain to readers why the page was deleted.

I have never seen the garbage template used, except for one time when I thought it was an alternative to deletionrequest. Is this still done? AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

yep, have updated the text to remove reference to the garbage template Keith (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply