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.
 

The Law of Fine Print[edit]

We should undo this edit. I don't think that is spam advertising Truth in Advertising (TINA.org), 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)

Images[edit]

It's an interesting case where something so common and contentious has no illustrating image, due to almost every instance of the phenomenon being a copyrighted work. But I was able to find some examples. B137 (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Bank of America gaffe image[edit]

I can't say that I can see any value to this addition, while amusing it is clearly just an error with the website CSS rather than an attempt at actual usage of "Fine Print" as defined by this article--Jac16888 Talk 21:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fine print. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)