Talk:Thumbplay

Criticism section

Could we please discuss why the user 74.233.10.220 removed this text? "Thumbplay resorts to marketing techniques which many find questionable. Their advertising offers a premise of free or inexpensive ringtones, but with a requirement of a monthly subscription of at least $9.99 plus taxes and fees, which is often hidden in fine print. Thumbplay targets its advertising at children and teenagers, such as in TV shows and magazines aimed at teenagers, who probably won't read their own phone bill. Thumbplay has been the target of numerous complaints that it does not immediately honour stop requests but instead continues to bill customers monthly fees after they request a cancellation, even if the customer does not continue to request any ringtones or wallpapers."

A previously cited reason was that it was "unsubstantiated defamation -- no links". I added a link, and this user went ahead and remove the text again anyway, with no reason given.

Before this text is removed again, could we have a discussion here about it? 69.81.156.184 (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the top part out because it's mainly speculation- the citation really only supported the sentence stating they were the object of complaints. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI

I tagged this as a COI. The edits by new users are highly promotional, and are coming on the heels of complaints at WP:EAR, from someone admitting to be from the company. I highly suspect the company is making these edits. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any problem with the edits; if not WP:WHYCOI? -- samj _in ^out 18:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the edits removed cited criticism, e.g. [1] JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, though it seems the criticism is back in the article. It does seem likely that it is the company making these edits but as the article doesn't currently appear to have any issues perhaps you would consider moving the {{COI}} tag to the talk page where it is visible to editors but not readers? -- samj _in ^out 05:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]