Talk:PayPal/Archive 2

message: It seems changes made to this article are immediately reverted for no good reason. I suggest something be done and will be suggesting that to others.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.232.46.151 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with editors 

message: Who is it deleating all of my postings in there ? no rule violation fund, at least not in all of my sentences deleted alltogether ! ?
In the second paragraph it sound more like a personal opinion, if it is you may want to quote part of that paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ntt ng (talk • contribs) 06:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "NPOV dispute [Safety & Protection Policies]" 

message: Is the recent addition of the PayPal Security Key Physical Device worth mentioning?Toolofthesystem 19:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, why do you ask? --Elvey 01:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PayPal Security Key 

message: I've removed the entire "See also" system. Wikipedia 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)
thread_title:  "See also" 

message: This happens cause any potentially illegal account gets frozen (paypal encashing interrst and fees then, in some of the cases just the amount in total until state authorities claim it- if ever noticed...) and paypal employees can have options and assets in paypal- so every frozen account increases their personal stock options/ shares value. Closed circuit.
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)
thread_title:  PayPal Targets Online Games 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  FEES! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification/Explanation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  paypal criticism 

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

message: * 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/wiki/NPOV Router 17:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forums are not reliable sources. We cannot have a criticism section based on unreliable sources. I had thought there were some reliable sources previously though, but that one is certainly not a reliable source.--Crossmr 19:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, unless your customers issue has been published by a reliable source, no. A more reliable source is an article in a reputable magazine, newspaper, or online variant there of. Self-published sources like blogs, forums, fan sites, etc. Anyone can write whatever they want in a forum and hence its not usable as citation.--Crossmr 19:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the "Accolades" section was pure puffery, so I zapped it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paypal Criticism and Criticism Links 

message: "PayPal account holders must be 18 or over with a debit/credit card or bank account and an e-mail address."
Please check the correctness of this.  Why is either a card or a bank account needed?  PayPal offers several ways both to add and to withdraw funds:
Adding funds:
* Using a card (credit/debit)
* By having PayPal charge the money from a bank account (available in some countries only, such as the United States)
* By paying in cash at a bank account, post office or similar (available in some countries only, such as Sweden)
* By transferring the bank from your bank account to PayPal's bank account (available in some countries only, such as Sweden)
Withdrawing funds:
* Money inserted to a bank account (available in some countries only)
* Cheque sent out by mail (available in some countries only)
If you only send money, and you pay in cash at a bank, why do you need either a bank account or a card?
If you only receive money, and you receive the money as a cheque, why do you need either a bank account or a card?  Or, let's say that you receive money from others, and then spend all of that money on other things, and spend no money other than the money you receive using PayPal, why do you need a bank account or a card? (58.188.97.134 18:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Card/bank account 

message: I'm going to clean up the criticism section again. Wikipedia policy requires that all information be sourced and be neutral point of view.  The requirement for any item in the criticism would be that:
#The problem can be verified as existing
#The problem be labeled as a negative or criticism by a reliable source
Just because a company does something you don't like doesn't mean its a criticism shared by a non-trivial viewpoint. Applicable policies are Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. A reasonable time will be given for anyone who wants to add sources to that section to do so.--Crossmr 20:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism clean-up again 

message: I am surprised that there is no comparison of payment methods to show how unique PayPal is as compared to other payment systems.  I understand that PayPal wins hands down in many situations, not only for on-line sales, but also for small fund transfers ... especially for transfers with and between countries outside North America and Europe ... but do not have numbers to compare.  Does anyone have such information?
Enquire 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unique Selling Proposition (USP) 

message: I'm surprised a lengthy article like this is lacking a description of the basic functioning of this service. All it says is that PayPal "serves as an electronic alternative to traditional paper methods such as cheques and money orders", "performs payment processing for online vendors, auction sites, and other corporate users, for which it charges a fee" and that it is "licensed as a money transmitter" and is "not a bank". But how does it actually work? How is that "payment processing" and "money transmision" done? I mean, some people like me have never used PayPal, so I have no idea about things such as what kind of information they require from the users to set up an account, what steps they take to transfer the money between buyer and seller, etc. Do PayPal payments work as some kind of online postal giros? Or does PayPal merely serve to hide the user's credit card number from the receiver of the payment, using the PayPal account as a kind of "virtual" credit card? Or do users "recharge" their PayPal accounts with money from their bank accounts and then payments through PayPal are done with the money available in the PayPal account and not directly with the money in the user's bank account? 213.37.6.106 19:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does PayPal work? 

message: "PayPal allows customers to send, receive and hold funds in 17 currencies worldwide. These currencies are the U.S. Dollar, Canadian Dollar, Australian Dollar, Euro, Pounds Sterling, Japanese Yen, Chinese RMB, Czech Koruna, Danish Krone, Hong Kong Dollar, Hungarian Forint, New Zealand Dollar, Norwegian Krone, Polish Zloty, Singapore Dollar, Swedish Krona, and Swiss Franc."
CNY may not be used for sending money worldwide, only for sending money within the People's Republic of China.
"For PayPal.cn, the only supported currency is the Renminbi (RMB, ISO: CNY), whereas PayPal.com supports Canadian Dollar, Euro, Pound Sterling, U.S. Dollar, Australian Dollar, New Zealand Dollar, Swiss Franc, Hong Kong Dollar, Singapore Dollar, Swedish Krona, Danish Krone, Polish Zloty, Norwegian Krone, Hungarian Forint, Czech Koruna."
This is a repetition of the previous list of currencies, although in a different order.  This is confusing.
The whole section seems unstructurised & needs to be rewritten in a better way. (Stefan2 22:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Business today" section 

message: I was (repeatedly) denied a paypal account because (as far as i could tell), I didn't have a telephone.  If I am correct in my understanding Paypal's denial statements, then the necessity of having a telephone (or at least to give a telephone number) should be indicated.  (And then I started getting dunning e-mails and confirmation request from PayPal about purchases.  Not a single one of my e-mails back was answered by a human being. ) Kdammers 11:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telephone nec. 

message: It is probably worthwhile to consider the costs that paypal and CARD ISSUERS charge for paying someone in a different currency to yourself.  I am unaware of the costs of either process (though, as always, it's probably the bank and paypal that get their cut of the profits).  
FacetiousEconomics 17:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't a guide to using paypal. Its an encyclopedic entry on the website. Also see WP:NOT wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Crossmr 00:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not encyclopedic to note that PayPal, which touts itself as an alternative to traditional payment methods, charges in a similar manner as said traditional payment methods? I don't find it remotely "user guide"-like to mention such. Achromatic 08:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you want to draw a conclusion feel free to do so, have it published in a reliable source and identified as a non-trivial view point and it can be included in the article. Alternative means choice, it doesn't mean it has to be wildly different.--Crossmr 13:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CURRENCY CONVERSION COSTS 

message: This section has very little relevance to the end user. When we talk about a piece of software, do we feel the need to cite that there are "detailed documents" for users to use the system? I feel there's very little value to be had having this section in there, and the language used is borderline NPOV, seems to serve more "advertising" than statement of fact (a fact which is of little merit, to my perception, both as a user of PayPal, and as a developer of merchant solutions utilizing said API and resources). Achromatic 08:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  REMOVAL OF SANDBOX 

message: After eBay Inc. deleted criticism in 2005  and this was noticed by Wikiscanner users, I reinserted a part of the deleted criticism and added a source to prevent deletion because of it being unsourced (I think this argument was only abused to suppress criticism, as sources can easily be found and the practice of blocking accounts without needing a reason is well known) --Janschejbal 15:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, to make sure it is 100% ok I changed the wording: A number of users have reported frustrating situations because the users reporting it is something that can be perfectly shown by primary sources (the users complaining in public forums). I added a google link to avoid making the link list a few pages long, if you want, direct links to the primary sources can be added, tell me how many you want to justify the wording "a numer of users" and relevance. --Janschejbal 18:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A google search isn't a citation nor are vague links to sites full of self-published issues, also if sources are readily available, please provide them and make sure they meet WP:V and WP:RS. The claim has been made multiple times that these are supposedly really easy to find, but they haven't been provided. Even the one reliable one presented is a criticism of the lightest degree. The individual cited says the he understood why they didn't, but just felt they should have handled it a little better. It seems to be a criticism of their customer service. As its currently labeled the text is inflammatory. Accounts which quickly gain money are locked for investigation. Hurricane Katrina or otherwise. This article is also 2 years old which also raises the question of whether or not paypal still operates under this policy, and if they still have an exclusive deal with united way.--Crossmr 21:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact it would seem paypal encourages its use for charitable donations  .--Crossmr 21:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They do. Here's a less inflammatory version of the Katrina story. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The story itself wasn't inflammatory, in fact I found it pretty neutral and well written. The problem was the text being used in article to describe the criticism. The person quoted wasn't criticizing them for freezing the account, he was criticizing their customer service for how they handled the closing of the account, which barely makes it notable. What company of any real size has never had a single complaint about its customer service by someone?--Crossmr 12:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added criticism 

message: === Praise/Criticism ===
==== Customer Satisfaction ====
VocaLabs is the only company I've found which has conducted a survey on PayPal and released some results, although it's only an overview--not like what you'd get from a scientific study.  I also don't see their methodology, so it's possible that it's not scientific.  See the summary page and various PDF files which have a larger version of the graph and information which is divided across them: Newsletter 32, Newsletter 33 and Newsletter 34.
:Yes, something on their practices and reputation might be useful in determining if this study is usseful in anyway. But what are you going to draw from it? Paypal like many other companies has an up and down customer service record and fits in the middle of the pack?--Crossmr 04:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: ==== Customer Satisfaction ====
VocaLabs is the only company I've found which has conducted a survey on PayPal and released some results, although it's only an overview--not like what you'd get from a scientific study.  I also don't see their methodology, so it's possible that it's not scientific.  See the summary page and various PDF files which have a larger version of the graph and information which is divided across them: Newsletter 32, Newsletter 33 and Newsletter 34.
:Yes, something on their practices and reputation might be useful in determining if this study is usseful in anyway. But what are you going to draw from it? Paypal like many other companies has an up and down customer service record and fits in the middle of the pack?--Crossmr 04:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praise/Criticism 

message: VocaLabs is the only company I've found which has conducted a survey on PayPal and released some results, although it's only an overview--not like what you'd get from a scientific study.  I also don't see their methodology, so it's possible that it's not scientific.  See the summary page and various PDF files which have a larger version of the graph and information which is divided across them: Newsletter 32, Newsletter 33 and Newsletter 34.
:Yes, something on their practices and reputation might be useful in determining if this study is usseful in anyway. But what are you going to draw from it? Paypal like many other companies has an up and down customer service record and fits in the middle of the pack?--Crossmr 04:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Customer Satisfaction 

message: It would be possible to use the SEC filings of any company required to file with the SEC for a basic disclosure about the existence of certain kinds of ciriticism.  This would, at least, include lawsuits and publicly announced regulatory actions.DCDuring 17:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company's Own Disclosure of Lawsuits and Regulatory Problems 

message: Wouldn't it be useful to have some kind of external link to criticism sites, at least with some basic effort to determine whether a given criticism site was 'independent', 'competitor-supported', 'attorney-supported', or 'unknown'. DCDuring 17:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Disclosure for Corporate Criticism Sites ? 

message: Article is now protected for one week. Please try and find common ground, and if you cannot do that alone, seek help from other editors by pursuing the dispute resolution process. If you are ready to resume editing before the protection expires, or to contest this protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is good, I want to get other people involved in debate.  I've added an RFC a while back and tried commenting on other talk pages about this too.  I hope crossmr tries to do some work himself and actually try to get people involved, so I don't have to do everything. -Nathan J. Yoder 05:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I think it is important to state clearly in the article that it describes the Paypal service as it is in the US. Paypal policy in other countries (Germany, for example) is, in part, significantly different from the one described in the article, especially when non-eBay purchases are concerned. Personally, I consider issues like these much more important than the question if a real person is involved or not when a money transfer is cancelled. After all, a mistake is a mistake, no matter how exactly it was made. --217.232.224.10 10:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important and not-so-important issues 

message: I came over from the Request for Comment, and the discussion here is so voluminous that I have no idea where to comment, so I'll start a new section.  I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a Criticisms section, if it is well-cited with reliable sources (I would not include PayPalsucks.com as a reliable source; they're obviously coming from a biased point of view on this subject). There are many legitimate criticisms of Paypal that I've heard through the years and to say that none should appear in the article seems odd to me.--Gloriamarie 22:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's kind of the issue. The discussion wasn't about the existence of the section, but using proper sources and avoiding sensationalist and other inflammatory writing in the creation of it.--Crossmr 23:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the above, anti-paypal sites are not reliable sources and should not be cited. They are original research and not verified in any way. Arcticles like this http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,101525-page,1/article.html and http://money.guardian.co.uk/consumerissues/story/0,,1450350,00.html are reliable and i dont see why info about lawsuits cannot be included. --Neon white 00:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the PC World one is well over five years old, and a bit stale, I'd think. The Guardian one seems like it might be useful. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I included it laregely because it metions the law suits which i think are relevant even if they were 5 years ago, though there should be better sources on those. --Neon white 13:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, it was, because you had previously suggested that even making the section one sentence was generous and fought vigorously to keep it one sentence.  When I tried adding more than one sentence, you repeatedly removed it on the grounds of semantics and instead of rephrasing it, you removed it entirely.  I can even quote you: "Since there is no reliable criticism of the subject, it becomes a trivial viewpoint."  You could at least be honest about it, even if you disagree.  -Nathan J. Yoder 06:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: ... cannot be kept in an article if challenged. See WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And editorializing on a fact can't be done without a reliable source having done so first.--Crossmr 14:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research and unsourced claims... 

message: Can someone verify that Paypal also played a part in the adult fillm industry before 1999, i.e. website on videos pointed to payment via this company.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.117.153.94 (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I find/feel there's been a concerted effort to misrepresent the Co. and the nature of critical links (as not appropriate for reference) and remove neutral links like http://www.epinions.com/finc-Financial_Services-Online-Bills-PayPal/display_~reviews/pp_~1/sort_~date/sort_dir_~des/sec_~opinion_list#list and critical links like http://www.fuckpaypal.net, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PayPal&diff=prev&oldid=170911328;  Paypalsux.com, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACommunity_sanction_noticeboard&diff=156257660&oldid=156222656#Proposal_to_ban_User:Crossmr_and_User:Njyoder_from_PayPal_and_Talk:PayPal; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PayPal&diff=169429265&oldid=169318755 despite the efforts of several to discuss the issues and achive NPOV:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PayPal/Archive_1#External_links_.3D_spam.3F, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PayPal/Archive_1#Why_are_the_critical_sites_being_deleted.3F that I've been unable to resolve; if all critical links are considered 'attack sites', then a NPOV violation is nigh inevitable.  The very selection and omission of external links is far from NPOV.  All in-article criticism except for one anecdotal (and relatively well-resolved) case has been removed.  "Newspaper articles have reported that disgruntled customers who have been unable to contact anyone at PayPal to resolve their disputes have created their own website providing consumers with difficult-to-find customer service numbers and reporting their own frustrations with PayPal's service. According to these accounts, PayPal has a backlog of over 100,000 unanswered customer complaints, a fact that has led the Better Business Bureau to revoke its seal of approval." - http://pub.bna.com/eclr/021227.htm  There are also misrepresentations on :Talk of what attack sites are, in the context of Wikipedia policy (e.g. the policy definition is specific/narrow, and none of the sites mentioned come close to attacking Wikipedia/Wikipedians, which is required by the definition in policy.  The record over the past year and a half shows that efforts to achieve consensus between successive editors have repeatedly failed. For example, having my words misrepresented and mis-characterized repeatedly has led directly to an escalation of animosity and made efforts at resolution of the issue increasingly unfriendly, difficult and complex, but I see that several others have tried before me and encountered similar obstacles in discussions largely with Crossmr. --Elvey (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire article violates NPOV 

message: Why can only Promotional non informational sites that promote PayPal against everything including the media and promote its use be posted? 
Are advertisements allowed to be posted? 
A pro PayPal Puff piece is hardly a natural point of view.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit Fixer (talk • contribs) 11:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Jpgordon.  Regardless of whether User:Jpgordon has a conflict of interest, that does not change the fact that nearly all of the negative sites which certain users have been trying to add links to in recent months are unreliable sources.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can the bad sites not be posted... 

message: I deleted the "public relations problems" section because it is unencyclopedic, unsourced, and it sounds as if somebody has simply copied and pasted some text from PayPal's public relations website. Furthermore, it repeats itself about 3 times and contains very little useful information, apart from the fact that gripe sites against paypal exist. This fact is hardly notable (there are gripe sites for all major companies) can be mentioned in a sentence. A whole paragraph is not necessary. Cambrasa (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Relations Problems 

message: ... are not weapons to assert one's viewpoint. If there are specific concerns about NPOV, discuss them in talk. These tags have been there for way to long and without efforts made to explain the reasons for these tags. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tags 

message: According to :
The word "institution" is defined as
which means that PayPal is an "institution" as defined in this EU treaty.
I've never seen an IBAN or a BIC anywhere on the statements for my account at the bank (read: institution) PayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. & Cie, S.C.A. Does that mean that this bank is breaking against the law? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PayPal IBAN and BIC information? 

message: Should MercadoPago be mentioned here somewhere? It is owned by a subsidiary to eBay, so it is somewhat related to PayPal, and it works in the same way as PayPal, only you need one account per country you wish to send payments to. MercadoPago is a kind of South American version of PayPal.
eBay also operates similar alternatives to PayPal in other countries, working basically in the same way. For example, India has PaisaPay. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MercadoPago 

message: Well?
-Bordello (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to improve 

message: sorry for my lack of wiki editing quality, I'm still not to familiar with this. I just wanted to bring attention to refrence #57. "aboutpaypal.org" is attached to the scammer site free-merchant.com. more info here:
http://forums.macresource.com/read.php?1,642555,642555
http://www.ciao.co.uk/Buyer_Beware_urgent_warnings_about_products_services_to_avoid_at_all_costs__Review_5519524  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.124.18 (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'll change it to http://paypalsucks.com/ 71.34.146.193 (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It too points to the same alleged scammer site. 85.76.3.176 (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  scammer website 

message: Why is this section even in the article?  The article is about PayPal - not what some people who are (or at least were) associated with PayPal do outside of the company.
To me, this entire section should just be purged.  The article should be about PayPal, not everything remotely related to PayPal.  As it stands, the section comes accross as off-topic feel-good propaganda - trying to show indirect community involvement. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a thick enough skin to undo "example 2" (mentioned above), or remove this section.  I smell a whiff of advertorial, but not a stench bad enough to prompt me into action.  The entrepreneurship content is quite notable and I think it adds to the article.  But then, I'm involved in entrepreneurship myself, so perhaps I'm biased.--Elvey (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the value to the articles about the people who made the investments into other companies and organizations (and possibly mentioned in the articles about the recipients) ... but unless the funding was made by PayPal itself, I don't see why those mentions are relevant to this article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the section is (with the exception of the facebook entry) about founders, not funders; it speaks to a PayPal culture and/or network that is cited in the source.  --Elvey (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I'm not fully convinced of the sections value, but I can understand your argument for keeping it.  Still, I think even if kept, the section seems a bit weighty to me, and could stand some trimming - it doesn't need to be all-inclusive, just some examples to support the statement would suffice.  Purging down to only those in the cited article would probably be enough. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.--Elvey (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Entrepreneurship by former employees 

message: I recently tried to open an account, and noticed that the accounts are upheld against Singapore law. --Kebman (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legislation 

message: The section on the security key is self-contradictory.  It describes the use of the key as two-factor authentication, meaning that logging in requires both something you know (the password) and something you have (the hardware security key).  But then a couple of sentences later, the article says the security key is not required; the credit card number can be used instead.  That's a helpful convenience, but it's no longer two-factor authentication. The credit card number is the same type of factor as the password -- something known.  (Furthermore, it's not even a secret if it's ever been used to buy something.)
If that's really the way PayPal has implemented the process, the article should not call this scheme two-factor.  Or at the least, there should be a big caveat. Spiel496 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two-factor authentication 

message: Would anyone mind if I expanded this? Since their takeover by eBay PayPal seems to have become the World's Least Contactable company. I have just spent a hour talking to a machine, then I sent an email with a straightforward technical support request and all I have recieved is two emails advising me to talk to the number with the machine on it. It's all very frustrating and I am seriously thinking of looking for an alternative. Other customers will do likewise.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Be certain to have reliable sources for any additions - additions of personal experiences are original research, and will likely be quickly removed.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Numerous requests to lift the blacklisting of Lebanon from paypal have led to absolutely no answer (I know, I participated to many of them). We tried different approaches, but we never got even an email. I know it is hard to provide proof for this but I wanted to point the fact at least on the discussion page (Xannax (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I went through the article and it mentions that Paypal is available in 190 countries. Googling it revealed that there are 194 countries in the world. In which four countries are Paypal's services not available? For the sake of completeness of the article, can these countries be listed in the main article with the reasons for the unavailability of the service, if any?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 450w (talk • contribs) 14:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Paypal is available in the countries listed at , but only some features are available in some of the countries. For example, you might not be able to withdraw money, or only withdraw money into foreign bank accounts. A few countries are not listed there at all. I can't find Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba or North Korea in that list, but there may be more countries missing. (Stefan2 (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Also add Pakistan to the list of countries where Paypal services aren't available at all. 58.65.181.201 (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And Zimbabwe. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Paypal is also blacklisting Lebanon for no clear reason. Numerous requests, petitions, etc, have not changed this. To my knowledge, paypal even never answered the question of why. It might be interesting to provide a link to : blacklisted countries would know there is an alternative. This said, I have no idea  regarding the reliability of this website. (Xannax (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, how can that blacklist web site open up an account for users from the mentioned countries, if the users can't do it themselves? The relevant addresses and payment methods would still be connected to the blacklisted countries. And if you manage to open an account, what's the point of using it if you can't use it for sending/receiving money? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paypal not available in... 

message: Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: --Oneiros (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automate archiving? 

message: The PayPal acceptable use policy has a series of boilerplate terms  against "using the PayPal service for activities that ... relate to sales of items that "2 relate to sales of ... (c) items that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity, (d) items that promote hate, violence, racial intolerance, or the financial exploitation of a crime, (e) items that are considered obscene, (f) items that infringe or violate any copyright, trademark, right of publicity or privacy or any other proprietary right under the laws of any jurisdiction ..."
That might not be uncommon, but then from the user agreement , "10.8 Acceptable Use Policy Violation - User Fines. If you violate the Acceptable Use Policy then we may hold your funds up to 180 Days, fine you up to $2,500.00 USD for each such violation and take legal action against you to recover additional losses we incur...."
The way I read this, it sounds like if they don't like what you read, you can be out $2500!  Am I misreading this craziness?  Have any eyebrows been raised?  Wnt (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  $2,500 USD fine for ''porn''???