Talk:Fritz!Box

USA compatible?[edit]

Can any of these FRITZ!Box devices be used in the USA? Bizzybody (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selling places tend to explicitly state the box has no FCC approval so my guess is: It may work but you can get into issues with your Telco due to breach service agreement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.102.216 (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issues tag by bot[edit]

I have removed the following "Issues" tag (producing a big ugly box on top of the article) which was inserted by bot - a piece of software run by some Wikipedia user.


{{multiple issues|

  {{lead too short|date=August 2014}}

  {{prose|date=August 2014}}

  {{one source|date=August 2014}}

}}

I have also inserted a tag telling the bot (AnomieBOT) to leave this page alone for the time being.

I refuse to debate content with machines. When someone inserts such a tag he should normally be available to discuss the issues on the talk page and at least help to fix them. This process - the interaction between human beings - is unduly abridged here. Someone writes a piece of software which then in turn tries to dictate Wikipedia content.

As for the tags here, the lead may warrant some improvement, but the itemized feature list is quite appropriate for this kind of article, and the narrow sourcing is typical for a product entry; especially since the vendor's literature has a reputation for accuracy and quality. Wefa (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wefa: Actually, these tags have been inserted by a human, Thumperward [1], the Anomie Bot only added dates. The tags indicate that there is something wrong with the article quality and should normally not be removed until the issue is addressed. Removing them, as you did here, is sweeping the problem under the carpet. Why didn't you go for improving the lede and body when someone pointed out that there is a problem with it? kashmiri ^TALK 22:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. So it's not a bot but a person who left a tag without explanation. FWIW, The tag indicates no such thing - it merely indicates that Thumperward THINKS something is wrong with it. I diagree on two of his points, and consider the third a matter of style.

This is not what tagging is made for. The way to change Wikipedia articles is not yelling at other people "go and change you f* article". It is to fix them yourselves. Thumperward did not even bother to go to the talk page and give a single line of explanation. This kind of drive-by tagging is arrogant and counterproductive, a kind of Wikipedia graffiti. The decent way to get involved in a Wikipedia article is to either make sensible changes or engage in the talk page. Tagging is for more egregious cases, where active edits happen but there is an obvious error in direction or a massive problem with basic rules.

Absent it's author's involvment that tag needs to go. I suggest your revert your reverting.Wefa (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then what are such tags made for in your view? I believed they are for focusing the attention of potential editors. For length of the lead section, you are welcome to read WP:LEDE, what other explanation is needed? For using prose instead of bullet list - the issue is fairly clear to anyone looking at the article, what else is there to discuss? There is Manual of Style, discussion can be held there. As to single-source - most of the article seems to be WP:OR, or unreferenced at least (and could have a tag as well!) - the only reference is to a 2010 blog entry which does not even mention what it is supposed to reference.

Agreed that the look of the tags is far from professional - as is the layout of Wikipedia anyway, dictated by the limitations of MediaWiki software. However, I stay by the tags and tagging various articles - I have seen many times how tagging helped to improve articles. If you don't feel like improving this article, at least I suggest you don't remove the markers that show what needs to be worked on. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 07:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If people spent half as much time fixing the problems that tags highlight as they do whining about the motives and parentage of those who place them, we wouldn't have anywhere near so many tags to whine about. This article is riddled with problems, being largely an essay drawn from primary documentation or personal investigation. The actual impact of the subject (why we should care about it: in other words, the primary purpose of the article) is stuck away in a single sentence about market share in the lead, with the body a grab-bag of factoids and bullet points that would better fit a catalogue or manual. I'll work on that myself in time, but it's quite plainly wrong to suggest that if I haven't come to the talk page to have to explain why a two-sentence lead is inadequate that it isn't. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelmsburger strabe 16[edit]

20539 Hamburg 2A02:3030:A04:A705:30D2:C8DE:F06D:1D3 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet conncection[edit]

I don’t have internet 94.252.121.155 (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]