Talk:Fine print

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Business (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


This article is full of opinionated language like the following paragraph:

Credit card issuers are among the largest of those who have won the fine print battle against the consumer. Consumer advocates have widely criticized the credit card industry for its increasing ruthlessness in its practices, which allow the banks seemingly unlimited rights to charge whatever fees they wish, to rewrite the terms and conditions faced by the consumer at will, and to not be challenged by the consumer in their practices. The consumer who initially obtained the card was inevitably drawn by the large print, which was accompanied by pages of fine print few are likely to read in full or to understand.

Censorship tag dispute[edit]

Let's see if there's consensus against it. There needs to be quite strong consensus against a censorship tag to justify its removal from an article. For more information, please refer to this censored image discussion.}}

For starters, censorship tags like that one belong on the talk page, not the article. Second, as far as I can tell there is nothing in the article or about the subject which may be objectionable. Thirdly, links from the mainspace to the userspace are not allowed. Finally, that section you keep refering to gives no information at all its simply an automated image warning and your rambling response to it, if anything it seems as though you are insisting on the presence of this tag to make a point--Jac16888 Talk 01:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Getting very sick of you restoring this meaningless tag so you can make a point, please do not restore it again--Jac16888 Talk 17:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding what you said in your summary here, well for starters I'm not even sure what you're talking about, could you maybe consider actually talking to me instead of spouting gibberish? This is how I see it: You uploaded a file File:BofA small print ad gaffe (in Safari).png which was nominated and then speedy deleted due to it apparently not meeting fair-use criteria. Rather than actually discussing this properly with the tagger or the deleter, you instead replied to an automated messages, hardly likely to get a reply. A while later you added the tag to the article (A tag which is primarily used on talk pages to explain why an article may contain objectionable material and the Wikipedia is not censored), apparently (based on your edit summary linked above) because you believe your image was deleted not because it wasn't fair use, but because somebody was trying to censor the article. This is, IMO, being disruptive to prove a point. If you believe the image should be restored, then take it to the deleting admin, or DRV, adding a passive-aggressive tag to an article which contains no objectionable material, or content that could be considered offensive achieves nothing--Jac16888 Talk 11:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Your comments indicate you assume that what censorship is and what the censorship tag is described as being for are the same thing. Perhaps this is not obvious to you: If the image was deleted as an act of censorship, which I think it was, then the article was censored. If that's the case, there's no requirement that I engage the censors or take it to DRV or that I not tag the article's talk page to make note of the censorship. If given that, one can conclude that it's not disruptive, period. If it's not disruption at all, it can't be disruption to prove a point. In fact, challenging the censors is likely to result in disruption. It's not passive aggressive not to engage the censors; I've no reason to think they're even aware of this discussion or that I added the censorship tag. (They could be lurking or using a sock!) If you didn't have a dubious determination to make me wrong for pointing out the censorship or criminality of fine print there would be no disruption. The BofA 1.01 image was deleted even though its past use meets Wikipedia's fair-use criteria, IMNSHO. Of course you're free to claim you disagree with me on that point. But it doesn't make the censorship tag here pointless or inappropriate. Despite your denials, the truth is I WAS attempting to use the tag for exactly what the tag's purpose appears to be if you simply look at the tag itself, as I said. And as I noted, the tag's dox do indicate a more limited use, but those dox can't change the reality of whether or not the article was censored. IMO, the BofA 1.01 image, etc. was deleted because it was objectionable, not because of criterion #F7 of the fair-use policy.) Corporate censorship of the self-censorship veriety is what in my view caused the image I uploaded to be deleted. --Elvey (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Your comments are utterly ridiculous. This entire argument is based around the concept that your image being deleted is censorship, despite no evidence suggesting this is the case and despite the fact that you have not asked the deleting admin or anybody else if they could verify whether or not it was deleted properly, for all you know it could have been a mistake. To automatically jump to the conclusion that it's down to censorship is just idiotic. And you still fail to grasp the fact that even if you are being censored, the tag you attempted to add is not used for that purpose, nor is there any tag that is used for that purpose. If you believe censorship is occurring then, since wikipedia is not censored, you address the issue, not incorrectly add a tag--Jac16888 Talk 17:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Law of Fine Print[edit]

We should undo this edit. I don't think that is spam advertising Truth in Advertising (, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization's The Law of Fine Print page because it is totally relevant to the topic at hand, from start to end, not to mention it's from a not-for-profit. WTF? Apart from User:Shortride's contribution (and noting User:Jac16888's valid spamvertising reverts) I can't see a single net edit to the article since my last edit last year that's worth keeping. User:Ronz' edit makes no sense, and misapplies policy, though Ronz' comment at User:TINA4truth is good. --{{U|Elvey}} (tc) 21:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed multiple external links after reviewing them all, hence the edit summary of " quick cleanup per WP:EL & WP:NOTLINK".
I didn't see anything in those external links that couldn't be incorporated into the article. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)