Talk:Opt-out/Archive 1

That phone number is legitimate

Oops. I did some googling and it turns out that the 1-888-5-OPTOUT (1-888-567-8688) phone number that keeps getting added is legit. I apologize to past contributors who posted this information in good faith only to have it reverted as spam. The number is included in a slightly expanded version of the article. --CliffC 03:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

unions

I've heard of people mentioning opt-outs with labor unions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.42.241 (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Rename

I propose renaming this opt-out (business) and using this name space to link to Opt out (disambiguation).Kevlar67 21:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is not just about business, and there is already a dab page at Opt, so Opt out (disambiguation) doesn't seem to be needed. ---CliffC 23:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on links

[ The following is copied from User_talk:CliffC ]

Cliff the video you removed from the Opt-out page is not a promotional link, it is obviously a public service announcement for the greater good of the public at large. I am wondering if you or other editors of this page have a special interest in this page due to the removal of this video (maybe working for the DMA) and how fast you made the edit??? I make this comment not to offend but being a privacy advocate I definitely noticed that the information included on the opt-out page is remarkably scant and is muddled by references to UK resources. Kindly reconsider the video and tell me what part of the video you consider a promotional link. I will be editing this page further to include all relevant steps to opt-out.

Thank you much. Open Information (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I've never been accused of working for the DMA before, whichever one of them it might be. One of the guidelines here is assume good faith, and it would behoove you to not assume that I or other editors here have some "special interest" in the pages we edit. The Opt-out article, like many in Wikipedia, is occasionally targeted by people trying to promote a web site; that's why it's on my watch list. When I saw this edit to Opt-out, including a link to www.insideidtheft.info, I took a look at the site rather than click on a video of unknown parentage. As most editors on change-patrol will do, I next looked at your history of edits to see whether the edit was likely to be a constructive one. Reviewing the changes to the three articles you've edited so far, I came across this edit to Credit freeze that includes citation of www.insideidtheft.info as a reference for the text added. Next, I tried to establish the site as a reliable source suitable for use as references but unfortunately Google let us down there, finding few mentions of the site in mainstream media. I reverted the 'Credit freeze' edits.

Wikipedia needs content, not links, so any content improvements to Opt-out you can contribute are certainly welcome, assuming they are supported by citations from reliable sources.

I see that you have already restored the MSNBC video to Opt-out. I'll leave it as a public service announcement, but I don't see any value to the article in footnoting the video caption to your site, especially since the site is not its creator and it's not hosted there. I'll copy this section to Talk:Opt-out and perhaps another editor will ring in on the subject. --CliffC (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with CliffC's analysis. I'll also point out that the second person advice highlighted by the recent edit[1] is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia (see WP:TONE), and further expansions of that section should probably go in the United States National Do Not Call Registry article. See also WP:NOT#HOWTO. Wikipedia does not provide instructions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. I edited before reading this. Having seen the 19:17, September 20, 2008 edit by Open Information and the cleanup - How-to tag at the top of the page I went through and removed as much of the how-to info as I could. Sorry for not coming here first. I believe my edits improve the article but if a consensus to revert them exists please go right ahead.

Really I think the article needs to be focused on the the idea of an opt-out list - how it affect consumer and marketer behavior what the costs to individuals companies and society are and what the different political pressures are. The current emphasis on simply listing different opt-out lists that exist is not very encyclopedic at all. -- SiobhanHansa 02:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)