Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:27, 8 January 2007

Numismatics NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

1. – October 2006

"See also"

I've removed the entire "See also" system. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT a web directory; though such a list might be appropriate for an article about online payment systems, none of the sites listed there are about PayPal (except for paypalsucks.com, and we don't link to attack sites, and the article about it is worthless.) --jpgordon 06:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

PayPal Targets Online Games

PayPal just threatened to cut off Gaia Online's donation services because of it's casino minigames... keep in mind that the only thing people donate to Gaia for is Donation Items. NOT Casino Tokens (which have to be bought with ordinary virtual gold), nor the Casino Tickets used to buy more virtual items.

Gaia's not a gambling site, it's a forum with a casino-style minigame tacked on. They may as well attack Microsoft because there's a way to play Solitaire 'Vegas' style.Veled 15:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Got a URL for this? --jpgordon 15:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I added it. 68.13.99.150 22:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, from the link, it appears to be a done deal. Why is this under "criticism"? Even the link you provide isn't complaining about it. --jpgordon 22:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

CAPTCHA

OK, this article claims PayPal started them; CAPTCHA claims it was AltaVista. Which? --jpgordon 14:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

FEES!

I think someone should post the fee table for PayPal Business/Premier users ... I can't believe it isnt already up... if I remember correctly its 2.9% + 0.30$...and it changes if you recieve more money each month.

--Gautam3 05:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• That's really the kind of thing best suited by simply pointing to PayPal's own site. We'd have to take it all from there anyway, and anyone who might want to use it would want to look there (where it's authoritative) rather than here. --jpgordon 17:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

we definitely need to link to pages like www.paypalwarning.com and paypalsucks.com. they have true stories of users who have been duped by the illegal bank of paypal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oracle21 (talk • contribs) 01:18, October 22, 2006 (UTC)

• The editor who put in stuff like "corrupt and evil" in the introduction to the article needs to learn about WP:NPOV. --jpgordon 01:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• There are legit complaints on that site.
  • Perhaps, but it's still an attack site, and we don't include attack sites. --jpgordon 15:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification/Explanation

This article needs more explanation on the process of using paypal.

Is it that: You verify your bank account with Paypal, then transfer funds to it and Paypal pays the sellers? And doing it electronically through paypal is faster (after you have funds transferred in it) than going through paypal with a credit/debit card (which would take a few days to process)?

Also, the difference between Paypal's electronic funds, debit card, and credit card use needs to be explained. I don't see on the site anything about debit cards and their use. Can the debit card be used as a credit card? --70.111.218.254 13:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

paypal criticism

I was pointed out that "frozen accounts" is regarded as a problem with paynet - and googled a bit around it.

I came over the website paypalsucks.com - which particularly critices paypal for:

• having unfair Terms of Service
• having an understaffed customer support department
• frozen account problem. It seems like PayPal automatically closes accounts (and funds!) on suspicions of fraud. Innocent people get their accounts frozen from time to time, and when this happens, it is very difficult to get ones money back.
• customers are beeing "ripped off", chargeback risk and credit card fees are beeing used as an argument for having high charges on transactions - but those charges are applied to any transactions, regardless of whether it's credit card transactions or not.

I suppose at least the frozen accounts problem, plus a link to the paypalsucks site would be appropriate.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.242.203 (talk • contribs)

this site has been covered numerous times. Please read the archives, and no it isn't appropriate.--Crossmr 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Paypal also charged Misplaced Pages Foundation more than $46k in charges in 2006, an unconscienable act as Misplaced Pages is a non-profit service to the world."

I saw someone added that line, "Paypal also charged Misplaced Pages Foundation more than $46k in charges in 2006, an unconscienable act as Misplaced Pages is a non-profit service to the world." It is unsourced. I would love to find a source on that, even something on Misplaced Pages. Would anyone know anything for hints? Please. Thank you. DyslexicEditor 20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sure. Just look at the Wikimedia financial statement. The statement does not, however, describe it as unconscionable, whether spelled correctly or not. --jpgordon 02:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Because PayPal forced Wikimedia to take them as a form of payment. Wikibofh_(talk) 03:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the $46k statement is clearly true but I disagree with the unconscionable part. It is clearly unsourced POV. $46k is reasonable considering that there is no public electronic payment system in the vast majority of countries. All private electronic payment systems have always charged transaction fees, since the huge numbers of programmers and engineers who create such systems do not work for free. --Coolcaesar 06:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That $46K would likely be the standard Paypal fee for processing something on the order of two million dollars worth of donations. I'd be willing to bet that at least 2% of those donations happened because PayPal was available -- the service reduces charitable giving to "click click click", and some of us are remarkably lazy. Well, I am...I know that if I can use PayPal I'm more likely to donate a small amount, the bread-and-butter $20 sort of donations that are the lifeblood of many non-profits nowadays. --jpgordon 16:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Paypal Criticism and Criticism Links

• I went to see why Paypal criticism links were delted and found this in the log. "because they're not at all good sites". That is your opinion, others like myself think they are great sites.

13:53, 15 August 2006 Jpgordon (Talk | contribs) (→Why are the critical sites being deleted? - because they're not at all good sites). Jpgordon is or was a programmer at eBay (which owns paypal) and continues to delete information that is critcal of paypal. Please do not delete information that is critical of paypal. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/NPOV Router 17:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• No links to attack sites. That's it. We've discussed that here repeatedly. Consensus has been consistent about that throughout Misplaced Pages, and has been backed up by ArbCom decisions. See the archives of this talk page for more. Feel free to actually include well-sourced, verifiable criticisms of PayPal; simply linking to sucks.com sites isn't within policy --jpgordon 17:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Three critical sites were identified as OK to post "a small number of relevant links" Posting Critical Sites Router 00:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And if you can change the ArbCom ruling that attack sites do not belong anywhere on Misplaced Pages except, perhaps, in articles about those attack sites, they can be included here. --jpgordon 04:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Everything I have seen supports criticism and links to it. Please provide explicit link here to ArbCom decision and support for your comment which states, "ArbCom ruling that attack sites do not belong anywhere on Misplaced Pages..." . Router 15:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between "criticism", which you are free to insert (supported, of course, by verifiable reliable sources into the article, and "attack sites", which are covered by Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site: Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking. --jpgordon 16:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• You are reading this out of context. You need to read the whole article to understand what is considered an attack site. This case is about "attack sites" which "purport to disclose detailed information concerning the names, geographical locations, ISP's, and personal attributes of various Misplaced Pages administrators and editors." Not sites that are critical of a company or government body. See Outing sites as attack sites Router 17:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Feel free to bring that issue up in the appropriate forum. If you think something like "fuckpaypal.net" isn't an attack site, you need to convince ArbCom of it. I'll recuse from the case, certainly. --jpgordon 17:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• The case you cite is one about attacking a persons identity, not criticising a company.

• NA-Class numismatic pages
• NA-importance numismatic pages
• WikiProject Numismatics articles