Talk:Playphone: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:46, 18 September 2012

Playphone is a scam !!! I was on facebook and I got subscribed for 14.99 and then when I called they said their was nothing they could do . I have been to other sites and I know a scam when I see one .

Can we get a lock on this page so Playphone representatives or otherwise officials cannot undo edits that respectfully (and rightfully) criticize the company? Azamax (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Azamax[reply]

i was charged overnight at 3 am on my att Pay as you go GO phone from playphone as well when i pulled up my account on a computer, I saw the 9.99 charge from playphone listed as ringtones games applications. there were several more charges because texting costs 20 cents for each sms message i send or receive. I called the att #611 and got a live person and she was nice enough to reimburse the 9.99 and 40 more cents for the text messages. if this happens to you, please investigate your phone records online if possible and call your phone company and they might could help in eliminating the scam charges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.63.71 (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The criticisms section was not referenced properly. In order to put this kind of information on a Wikipedia page, it must be supported by reliable third-party references, which a Google search and a non-reliable blog are not. I have done a full search of the web for any reliable reference for this kind of copy, and have found none. Obviously if there is one, let's add it, but I haven't found a single reliable source. We should ensure such a reference is available before trying to readd this section. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azamax response

Please accept my sincere apology for any inconvenience this may have caused you. Clearly this has upset you and I want you know that providing you with an explanation for these charges and solution is as important to us as it is to you. I am glad to hear that AT&T reversed the charges for the service. As a courtesy we do also assist with refund for accounts which are not used and are cancelled within 30 days from initiation or renewal. Our customer support is also available Monday - Friday from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. local time via phone, 877-312-7002. Please feel free to contact us should you have any additional questions.

Regarding this service, from your statement it appears that you may have participated in an online offer from a third party advertiser. We diligently adheres a double opt in process enforced by AT&T before charges can be applied for the service. The double-opt in process requires the device holder to use a password which is sent to the requesting device, the individual is once again presented with the offer terms before subscribing. Here they must check a box in which they agree to the terms and conditions and enter the password received on the device. This ensures that only the device holder can subscribe the device to the service. The device holder must enter the PIN into the website before the service can being. This process protects and ensures that only the individual who has possession of the device can subscribe for the service. Please feel free to contact us should you have any questions. We are here to help.

Best regards, Grace M. Sr. Manager, Client Services PlayPhone, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LizAtPlayPhone (talk • contribs) 02:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an appropriate use of a Wikipedia talk page.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Tag

I've read the article now and cannot see where the NPOV charge is coming from. The article is not written promotionally, and everything is pretty well sourced. The discussion on this page only seems to pertain to a section I've just removed that did not have proper referencing. Without that section, I do not see how there is an NPOV claim, so I'm going to remove the tag. Please let me know if you disagree? After a year and a half if there is no actual discussion of a NPOV issue, then in my opinion the tag has become obsolete. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding an update--someone at some point added a lot of promotional activity here. Not suggesting NPOV is at play (no pun intended) but I've added non-primary tag. I don't have Highbeam access, but believe this article may be using far more press releases than I've been able to catch.Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 ==Neutrality Tag==
 I've read the article now and cannot see where the NPOV charge is coming from. The article is not written promotionally, and everything is pretty well sourced. The discussion on this page only seems to pertain to a section I've just removed that did not have proper referencing. Without that section, I do not see how there is an NPOV claim, so I'm going to remove the tag. Please let me know if you disagree? After a year and a half if there is no actual discussion of a NPOV issue, then in my opinion the tag has become obsolete. [[User:Jeremy112233|Jeremy112233]] ([[User talk:Jeremy112233|talk]]) 17:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
+::Just adding an update--someone at some point added a lot of promotional activity here. Not suggesting NPOV is at play (no pun intended) but I've added non-primary tag. I don't have Highbeam access, but believe this article may be using far more press releases than I've been able to catch.[[User:Jeremy112233|Jeremy112233]] ([[User talk:Jeremy112233|talk]]) 21:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)