User:Raster

I am still getting used to the rules of the Wiki and its writing standards. If you see a blatant error, please open up a civil discussion on my talk page telling me how I can improve it, instead of assuming malicious intent. Remember the human.

Likewise, I apologize if any of my edits or edit summary seem cold-hearted (these appear in your email, you know). I realize that making contributions feel comfortable and rewarding helps boost motivation. I don't want people seeing something as simple as a typo and feeling "oh but what if I make a mistake again... what if it's okay that YouTube is spelt as Youtube... maybe I'll let that blunder slide...". Don't have that feeling. There are people that have nothing better to do with their lives that they vandalize wiki pages. Outnumber them.

With that said, if I did hurt your feelings with how I changed your work, it's ok to tell me about it - either in the talk page (Discussion) or just click on Tools V on top right > Email this user. If you disagree with my edits (or this page), do that too (see: Rules). I don't mind being informal here, there's not even a rule that you can't blank out your own discussion pages on this site. lol

>"but Raster, does that mean you've seen that rule written-"

Yes.

Thanks for caring about consumer rights, and stay hydrated!

These are here for the inevitable time I change browsers and refuse to import data for the 29th time

P:AE | Task Centre | Guidelines (tone) | Saucing (source credibility) | Mission | (to-dos) Tone | my drafts | News (New Pages)

Some pages have a tone notice but are too long to easily spot where it was added (without checking the History). This is where I note some of them down, so I hopefully don't use up energy just trying to find where the tone should be changed

Discord - "Tone notice. Article is overly aggressive for a company page and relies heavily on bullet point summaries instead of describing the TOS/Privacy Policy" - Beanie Bo 2025 (bold mine)

> within Mod noticeboard: "

I think as you say the main issues relate to the bullet pointed sections; mainly there are phrases like 'broad rights', which are both unhelpful and potentially misleading depending on how the reader interprets it. I'd say a shortening of the consumer impact summary, and the addition of a full section on its terms of service is probably sensible.

I also removed the section on vague moderation as it really didn't have good enough citations to support its inclusion.

I do think it's in a decent enough state to probably not need the tone warning however, and so I've taken it off." - Keith