Kostas

Deletion requests

Hi, can you take at the current articles marked for deletion? Here are some notes on why some of them have been marked for deletion:

• DRM (online), there already is a main DRM article
• EU Consumer protection laws, there are separate pages for laws, including these so it does not need its own page currently, the page is also empty
• Motorola phones, there already is a main Motorola article

InTransparencyWeTrust (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Overlapping infobox and notice

Hi, just wanted to point out that the NordVPN page has the infobox on the stub notice, I can't fix even if I use the source editor as it requires a moderator to do so. ema (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ema, thanks for the heads up. Should be fixed now Kostas (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on articles that link to guides

Hi, recently I wrote the article for the ultimate guide to an open source life video, as it did not have an article on this wiki yet. As you can now find the categories on the main page of the wiki, which includes user guides, it initially made sense to also categorize this article as such. The intention was also to make it easy for visitors of this wiki to find related resources, and for them to learn about what they can do. The section on guides for the article types is strict for posting full guides, which is why the article does not repeat the guide, but refers to it. The same is true for another article, running AI models locally guide. Later I saw that there was confusion on whether or not to place a guide notice on this article, understandably, so what follows is how that should now be resolved for both articles:

I agree with you that they should not be marked as user guides, as they do not contain the full guide but refer to external resources. So to avoid further confusion, I changed their category to external guides to indicate that they are articles that just summarize resources external to this wiki. And of course the articles should only be made if, like the user guides, they allow users to regain ownership of their product. This category is a subcategory of user guides, as they align with the same goal, makes them distinct, but still readily accessible via the main page of the wiki. I hope this clarification helps, and if you have any thoughts on this, feel free to reply --InTransparencyWeTrust 19:12, 05 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey @InTransparencyWeTrust, thanks for reaching out about this. I still have my reservations about having these as a sub-category to user guides. As far as content they fit more in the theme category but I can definetely see the reasoning behind the catgorization in that category (discoverability etc). I wanted to ask the opinion of @Keith and @Waldo on this before contacting you about the category this sould fall under but having this conversation here might be better.

The thing is that having guide on the wiki is not something we want to focus on so adding more types/versions of them would probably not be something we want to encourage. I thought of having the futo guide article as a section of the FUTO company page rather than a seperate enty would be better (or maybe I have missunderstood what the end goal with that is) and categorizing the local running of AI as a user guide page, so it can also bear the notice, despite the more general nature. Kostas (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that 'Youtube content creator made a video detailing instructions on how to set up self-managed stuff' is somewhat beyond the scope of the Wiki. The most I could see it being here would be as a small mention in the FUTO article (i.e. FUTO comissioned this guide, which sought to advance conumser rights) or something of the sort. I don't think it fits as its own guide article here. At present, the only guides which exist on the Wiki are those directly tied to specific conusmer protection incidents, and I think that's probably how it should stay for the forseeable future. Keith (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

When an external guide relates to a specific incident, a short paragraph on the incident page should be enough to refer readers to the guide. A whole article is not needed.

Right now, there are four full guides directly under the user guides category. I would argue that they do not align with the purpose of this wiki, which is to highlight consumer protection issues. The existence of these guides will make moderation more difficult as the wiki grows larger and edits are made more frequently.

I feel the same way toward the external guides, which are just summaries of external resources. Why do we need these, when we can just link to the external resources where relevant? Waldo (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The idea to move futo guide article to the FUTO company page itself seems like the best idea, I will move it accordingly. The same holds for the other article, that can also be moved into the main article as a section, which I will also do. Thank you--InTransparencyWeTrust 21:26, 05 February 2025 (UTC)

@InTransparencyWeTrust Thanks you and thank you for taking the time to write articles as well.

For the AI article page I am not sure which page would be apropriate, but if you find a suitable onee and try to cut down its length a bit to be more brief we could try and see if it fits.

Another possible option is to make an article with a more detailed guide on self hosting an LLM on wiki.futo.org I am not sure if it is exactly in scope for there or if the articles should only focus on different ways to do the things on the main guide, but I would think it would fit better there, theme being self hosting and all. Kostas (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

For now I moved that content to the Artificial intelligence page as it it is quite short, and leaves room to talk about the privacy concerns regarding these online chatbots. If someone wants to make a larger guide on the other wiki, feel free to do so. --InTransparencyWeTrust 21:57, 05 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that works for the moment. Thank you. Kostas (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on DeletionRequest

Hi, could you please take a look at the discussion at Template talk:DeletionRequest#message=? Thanks Waldo (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge request

I figure someone should field this merge request: https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/Talk:EULA_roofie#Merge_suggestion. Since there are no way to submit merge requests at the moment, I just put it in the talk page, but no one seems to have seen it. Louis seems to want an alternative for the "roofie" term too, so the time is probably ripe to decide whether the suggested merge is a good alternative term. Mingyee (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

RE: I Will Not Use Discord block

Since I do not know who the other administrators are, I would like to discuss the block with you. However, you do not seem to have an email address listed to contact you with. And I still will not use an evil privacy-invasive service like Discord. Therefore, I am attempting to contact you about my block this way.

I believe my edits are totally legitimate and not nonsense. For example, my talk on the software as a service page is a reasonable discussion question on what terminology we want to use for our consumer rights activism.

Including the details that I was told to include-

[quote] You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Your username or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by ‪Kostas‬. The reason given is Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages.

   Start of block: 19:45, 15 January 2025
   Expiration of block: 19:51, 15 February 2025
   Intended blockee: ‪I Will Not Use Discord‬

You can contact ‪Kostas‬ or another administrator to discuss the block. You can use the "Email this user" feature if a valid email address is specified in your preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is [redacted] Please include all above details in any queries you make. [/quote]

           Hello, what would you like to discuss ? 
           Just saw your assertion on the legitimacy of the edits. Were the edits on the pages of non existant users also legitimate? Kostas

The users do exist. They were not made up by me. For example, NathanRiley is an existing user.

         Apologies, you are right. I might have been too trigger happy because of other issues with vandalism. Let me discuss with the other mods.

         Hello again, sorry for the delay. I see that you have made an alt account here [User:I Still Will Not Use Discord]. This is not encouraged barring extreme cirmustances. I apologize for going directly to blocking  but reaching out was the right call. Circumventing the block will lead to banning.
        Since in this case I was also at fault for not reaching out if you delete the alt account I will lift the block on your original account. 
        However, please try to keep edits civil and constructive. I realize these were made in Talk pages but we would like to have interaction on this page be about the wiki itself.

I do not see a way to delete my account. Duckduckgo suggests that I cannot without some sort of mediawiki extension? I cannot link the source due to anti-spam policy.

       I was unaware of this, will look into it. You will be able to use your original account normally in 2 hours. 
       I will put an indefinite block on the alt tommorow.
       I respect your not wanting to use discord but focus on wiki topics when using the talk pages.