Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
→Appeal Request: new section |
→Appeal Request: Reply |
||
| Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
::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 == | ==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) | 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) | ||
:Mr Pollo often does tagging like that, pinging @[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] for thoughts here. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC) | |||