Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderator guidelines - Revision history

Keith at 00:51, 20 November 2025

2025-11-20T00:51:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:51, 20 November 2025
Line 57:		Line 57:
	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)		:thanks, have updated the text to remove reference to the garbage template [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Keith: /* Question */ Reply

2025-11-20T00:51:33Z

Question: Reply

AnotherConsumerRightsPerson: /* Question */ new section

2025-11-19T07:23:04Z

Question: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:23, 19 November 2025
Line 49:		Line 49:

	[[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 ==

			As part of these guidelines, it says this.
			<blockquote> 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 <code><nowiki>{{Garbage}}</nowiki></code> 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.
			</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)

Keith at 22:39, 25 April 2025

2025-04-25T22:39:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:39, 25 April 2025
Line 45:		Line 45:

	-- Comment by JazzyPizza, 25 April 2025‎		-- 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!

			[[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 22:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

JazzyPizza: /* Just a few typos */

2025-04-25T17:15:39Z

Just a few typos

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:15, 25 April 2025
Line 31:		Line 31:

	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. [[User:Mingyee\|Mingyee]] ([[User talk:Mingyee\|talk]]) 11:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)		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. [[User:Mingyee\|Mingyee]] ([[User talk:Mingyee\|talk]]) 11:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			-------------

			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

JazzyPizza at 17:06, 25 April 2025

2025-04-25T17:06:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:06, 25 April 2025
Line 31:		Line 31:

	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. [[User:Mingyee\|Mingyee]] ([[User talk:Mingyee\|talk]]) 11:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)		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. [[User:Mingyee\|Mingyee]] ([[User talk:Mingyee\|talk]]) 11:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

	~~------------------------~~

	~~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)~~

JazzyPizza at 17:04, 25 April 2025

2025-04-25T17:04:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:04, 25 April 2025
Line 31:		Line 31:

	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. [[User:Mingyee\|Mingyee]] ([[User talk:Mingyee\|talk]]) 11:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)		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. [[User:Mingyee\|Mingyee]] ([[User talk:Mingyee\|talk]]) 11:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			------------------------

			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)

Keith: Keith moved page Consumer Action Taskforce talk:Moderator Guidelines to Consumer Action Taskforce talk:Moderator guidelines: Misspelled title: Not in sentence case

2025-01-26T19:42:53Z

Keith moved page Consumer Action Taskforce talk:Moderator Guidelines to Consumer Action Taskforce talk:Moderator guidelines: Misspelled title: Not in sentence case

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:42, 26 January 2025
(No difference)

Kostas: Kostas moved page Talk:Moderator Guidelines to Consumer Action Taskforce talk:Moderator Guidelines: move to proper namespace

2025-01-26T11:48:57Z

Kostas moved page Talk:Moderator Guidelines to Consumer Action Taskforce talk:Moderator Guidelines: move to proper namespace

← Older revision	Revision as of 11:48, 26 January 2025
(No difference)

Mingyee at 11:53, 20 January 2025

2025-01-20T11:53:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:53, 20 January 2025
Line 29:		Line 29:

	-- Preceding unsigned comment by DavidBenJr at 04:21, 15 January 2025‎		-- 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. [[User:Mingyee\|Mingyee]] ([[User talk:Mingyee\|talk]]) 11:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:51, 20 November 2025
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)