Talk:MBlox

Tone and context

The article sounds a bit like a PR fluff piece. I didn't want to muck around with Barbara's edits straight-away (left a note on her talk page), but I added some context of the controversy surrounding the company. It may be a bit strong as a reaction to the tone elsewhere in the article. Maybe we can figure out a better NPOV tone for both sections. Johnsonmx (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This statement: "There is some question of whether mBlox has been the instigator of past scams or merely an enabling beneficiary", implies that there is a open question about this companies role in the scams. However the referenced article states "We should point out that MBlox doesn't dream up these rip-offs, it simply supplies the expensive phone numbers to those who do." which suggests that the latter "enabling beneficiary" was the case and that there is no question of mBlox instigating these scams. 82.108.73.231 (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point, but I don't agree with your full conclusion. mBlox's relationships with crammers are opaque to the public, and though the article should be clearer that mBlox isn't necessarily anything more than an enabling beneficiary, "there is no question of mBlox instigating these scams" goes too far. Johnsonmx (talk) 06:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, considering the date of the article and the fines in question I made a small changed ,"is" to "was", as it is no longer technically possible for any company to register a MSISDN for premium services without confirmation from an end users handset. 82.108.73.231 (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship between crammers and mBlox, and mBlox's responsibilities, have been extensively investigated by the UK regulator PhonepayPlus, who issued the fines quoted. From their published investigations and adjudications, it seems clear that mBlox played no part in the scams themselves, but were merely incompetent - verging on negligent - in preventing it happening. Therefore the evidence does not support the innuendo introduced into the article, which has been tempered with some facts and references to make it more NPOV. 78.151.159.169 (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MBlox. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121221230709/http://www.phonepayplus-services.org.uk/output/search-adjudications.aspx to http://www.phonepayplus-services.org.uk/output/search-adjudications.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]