Talk:Skrill

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Companies Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

"The principal security hole of this service is an inability to verify credit cards safely." This (approximately) was the second of the two sentences which comprised the first revision. It was written by an anonymous user. I can't find any evidence of this. Perhaps the anon had an axe to grind? Pending evidence, I've deleted it. Tualha (Talk) 15:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what it means by "verify"? Evercat 11:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following edit:

Ebay has previously stated that it is just a venue. After acquiring paypal it has become more than a venue by listing in auctions whether the buyer accepts paypal (no other payment options listed) and allowing buyers to sort by paypal. In August 2005, it required that sellers who take paypal not refuse credit card payments, which result in fees and may result in chargebacks due to credit card and other buyer fraud. Beginning in January 2006, ebay now prohibits any online payment system except Paypal, as stated here. Ebay deceptively gives bidpay.com as an alternative, but bidpay has already gone out of business. This singularly requires that online payments through ebay must use ebay's system. Issues of illegality and antitrust have been raised over this decision. [1] Ebay specifically prohibits E-gold, a legitimate competitor to Paypal.

Based on ebay's policy, here, a seller can have their account banned for accepting payment through Moneybookers.

Please feel free to reinsert it after it's been toned down from being an anti-eBay rant to being something close to what you'd read in an encyclopedia. kmccoy (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some editing. Anyone who feels it still needs more but does not want to edit it, please specific which sentences so it's easier to figure out what you wish. Thank you. DyslexicEditor 02:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that the entire paragraph should be struck. The title is too long and the whole section is principally about Paypal, not Moneybookers. The tone is whiny and it generally comes off as complaining that Moneybookers has been shut out of a lucrative market. Your edits did litle to address the general negative tone of the section. Jasongetsdown 22:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's work together on revising it, but keeping the basic information. DyslexicEditor 22:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moneybookers won't refund stolen money

Important: Moneybookers terms see the front of customer data to the police, tax Kontrole transferred. If someone third a money transfer is made.

Bold text

Moneybookers333 (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+

Could an established user please add to the "Major drawbacks as reported by users include:" section that Moneybookers refuse to refund money stolen from an account by criminals. We recently lost £450.07 in 4 Send Money transactions to moneybookers@pay-pro.com and multipurposeadmin@spidernet.com.cy on 24 and 25 April 2008. This cleared the account. Maybe they hacked the login, maybe it was an inside job, moneybookers aren't saying. All they said was "Unfortunately the hacked ammount cannot be refunded - we are really sorry for the inconvenience caused."

Moneybookers333 (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ebay prohibits buyers and sellers from using moneybookers for its auctions

Ebay has previously stated that it is just a venue. After acquiring paypal it has become more than a venue by listing in auctions whether the buyer accepts paypal (no other payment options listed) and allowing buyers to sort by paypal. Next, sellers with Paypal accounts that have issues such as chargebacks or stolen cards from buyers result in their ebay accounts being closed as well. In August 2005, it required that sellers who take paypal not refuse credit card payments, which result in fees. [1] Beginning in January 2006, ebay now prohibits any online payment system except Paypal, as stated here. Ebay only gives Bidpay.com as its alternative, a company that has already gone out of business before the policy. This singularly requires that online payments through ebay must use ebay's system, paypal. Questions of illegality and antitrust have been raised over this new rule. Ebay specifically prohibits E-gold, a legitimate competitor to Paypal.

Based on ebay's policy, here, a seller can have their account banned for accepting payment through Moneybookers.

If something must be included I would revise it to something like the following...

Beginning January 2006, ebay's Safe Payments Policy prohibits the use of Moneybookers for auction payments [2]. Based on ebay's policy a seller can have their account banned for accepting payment through Moneybookers.

Even in this abbreviated form I still do not think this is relevant information, especially considering that the policy makes no mention of moneybookers and is far from exclusive in its list of allowable payment options. It is simply not NPOV.

If the only reason that moneybookers is not allowed is that ebay owns Paypal then there is no reason for this here. If it was prohibited because of questions about its security or reliability then I could see it getting a mention. Jasongetsdown 18:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The smaller version is more precise, but it needs to explain why. Ebay of course never says they're prohibiting everything except paypal because they own paypal. They claim it's for safety reasons and what not. So Jasongetsdown, Ebay says it's security or reliability. But most people think it's because ebay owns paypal. DyslexicEditor 08:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we say this then, DyslexicEditor...

As a result of ebay's purchase of Paypal, beginning xxxx 2005 ebay's Safe Payments Policy prohibits the use of Moneybookers and some similar services for auction payments [3]. Based on ebay's policy a seller can have their account banned for accepting payment through Moneybookers.

Also, it would appear that the "ban" started before this month [4]. Can you pin down the date that the policy changed? The linked post is from october, shall we go with that? Jasongetsdown 15:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I need to correct the date. It's 2006. The whole rule is right here. http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/safe-payments-policy.html That's the whole thing. It starts on the 15th of January, 2006. Reports from earlier were just because people heard about it. I believe ebay announced it, but their help system can not find this URL at all so the information is kind of hidden. But welp, it starts the 15th of this month and that URL is the whole policy. And I suppose that description is good enough. They trimmed it up in the egold article from what I put, too. DyslexicEditor 18:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 2006. The links above take you to the ebay policy "Accepted Payments" At the bottom of that policy is a box which says "Some examples" Clicking on this gives a range of payment examples which are and are not permitted. Moneybookers is in the permitted section.

I've made the changes per our discussion. Thnx for being constructive. Jasongetsdown 15:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

straight poop

Ok, someone added this...

However, according to ebay Canada's country manager Jordan Banks Moneybookers is still an acceptable form of payment.

...And now I'm confused. I've asked eBay support for the official line. They should be getting back to me in a bit. Jasongetsdown 14:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebay's told me no many times. DyslexicEditor 01:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They told me no as well. I've been busy so I didn't get back to this. I'm removing that line. There's sufficient evidence to show its not true. Jasongetsdown 17:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

currency list

The previous list's ordering was highly inconsistent. The currencies were ordered alphabetically by currency name, except for dollar and krone which were ordered by country (interspersed between the others), except for koruna, where the countries were given in brackets. I have changed this.

Ebay now accepts moneybookers.com

as stated at http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/accepted-payments-policy.html -- (James McNally) (talkpage) 02:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specify time period please

"Moneybookers claim to have over 2.4 million users and processed over €2,000 million in transactions" - is this per year, per day? --Cryout 07:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their turnover and member numbers are since inception. --trademe 14:23, 23 January 2007 (NZDT)

Currency conversion fee between USD, GBP and EUR is 0.95%

anyone can explain this fee, by using an example? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nkour (talk • contribs) 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Affiliate spamming of Moneybookers

Affiliate ID 1188674

Spam sock accounts

Nnnlll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
84.174.32.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.174.61.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
de.88.70.62.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
de.84.174.28.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
de.Nasowas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
84.174.35.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
de.

Affiliate ID 3872559

Spam sock accounts

Affiliate ID 3462058

Spam sock accounts

67.68.153.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Affiliate ID 1405659

Spam sock accounts

87.250.113.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Affiliate ID 3174545

Spam sock accounts

87.212.129.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Affiliate ID 321266

Spam sock accounts

Enwik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Affiliate ID 2894426

Spam sock accounts

88.191.19.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Affiliate ID 815360

Spam sock accounts

83.99.36.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.135.227.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Affiliate ID 466479

Spam sock accounts

Fiach6383 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Affiliate ID 316906

Spam sock accounts

81.190.146.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Affiliate ID 3224340

Spam sock accounts

Daviesoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please remove Affiliate spamming, thanks --Hu12 (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moneybookers impostors scam - Buyer Beware!!!

I find it interesting that this page has been locked for editing, yet requests source information. The following is an article from the Baltimore Sun, a credible news outlet.

Car Bargains Used in Wire Payment Fraud

If someone overseas is offering to sell you a popular car for less than its Kelley Blue Book value, don't get rolled over, the Better Business Bureau of Greater Maryland warned.

Advertising such cars through online classifieds and trade magazines, scam artists pose as sellers from outside the country. To give the buyer a false sense of security, the seller claims the transaction will be completed through Moneybookers.com, which is a United Kingdom-based service that is similar to PayPal.com.

Follow-up e-mail messages from the seller are drafted to appear to be from Moneybookers. Buyers are then asked to send a fully insured and refundable 30 percent down payment on the car and they're instructed to wire the money to the seller in London, contrary to Moneybookers' policies.

The BBB warned that this scam has developed into a multilevel strategy in which consumers are sent e-mail modeled after the Moneybookers format. Links to online chats with scammers posing as Moneybookers reps are included in the e-mail to lure unsuspecting buyers.

The scam has been so successful that documented reports to the BBB have shown that some eager buyers lost thousands - and then sent an additional 30 percent to the scam artists.

When it comes to sending money via wire services, take Western Union's advice: The Western Union Money Transfer Service is not intended to send money to someone you don't know. Americanpooje (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is protected, but only for those people who are not logged in or if logged in, but their account is less than 4 days old. Since you just created your account today, you will be unable to edit this article until sometime on 22 April. If you believe something should be in the article, put a draft here on the talk page and other editors will be along, review, help make better and maybe insert into the article. Please ensure that the text you want to put in is written in a neutral point of view with reliable sources so the information can be verified. If I can be of any assistance let me know, either here or on my talk page. Jons63 (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Type

Moneybookers is a payment service as well as a money transfer service - can someone edit the type definition in the box at the top of the page to read 'Online Payment and Money Transfer Service'? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyjwalsh (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parent company

The parent company of Moneybookers is now 'Investcorp Technology Partners' - this needs to be amended as is it currently reads Gatcombe which is a factual error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyjwalsh (talk • contribs) 11:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography?

I would like to question the objectivity of this article. It is my concern that the author might be Skrill itself. Please add citations and make sure that this article meet the wikipedia standards. --109.70.49.30 (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Sebastian[reply]

Done. Naturally, feel free to improve it further. kashmiri (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. I wanna thank you for your fine work on this Kashmiri, but I don't know where to message you. It has really helped a lot!

--173.255.160.184 (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Sebastian[reply]

Terms of Service

re: this edit: Most sites have TOS, and violating them can lead to suspension or termination of the account. For example, Section 4 of the PayPal User Agreement says something similar.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To put it differently, Terms and Conditions form part of a contract between the two parties (the website operating company and the individual). If one of the parties is in intentional breach of the contractual terms (esp. the essential terms), the other party can lawfully regard the contract as terminated. kashmiri 10:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ianmacm, kashmiri, it's a financial issue I'm trying to explain. You mentioned PayPal User Agreement, which is saying "...your access to the Service may be suspended or terminated". Don't you see the difference? Termination of access to a service vs. closure of an account? Simple example: you go to your bank which suspects you in money laundry. Instead of a normal practice to freeze your account, they just close it. If you don't have account, there is no place to keep your money -> you loose your money because they only suspect you in a laundry. Doesn't it seems ridiculous? Another part of PayPal User Agreement: "You will cooperate fully with PayPal Wells Fargo, MasterCard or VISA to investigate..." Is this still "similar" to TOS of Moneybookers? Obviously not. That's was my message: termination of contract is absolutely normal practice, but if somebody is deciding on their own discretion (and without any involvement of interested party) of whether they can own somebody's money, that's outstanding fact in financial operations, isn't it?

Wikiuserleo 16:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Wikiuserleo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It is hard to comment on this because I'm not sure if we are getting the full picture here. If you have been involved in a dispute with Moneybookers which led to suspension or termination of the account, it is beyond the scope of the article unless there is reliable sourcing. After another read through of Section 17 of the Moneybookers Terms of Use (Section 17), it does seem to be broadly similar to PayPal on the circumstances that would lead to account suspension or termination without notice.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "broadly similar". I'm specifying and very concrete parts of these two documents, no generics. Because I was not aware of those facts and most importantly, their interpretation, I lost my money, and it turned to be lawful! Before creation of an account with Moneybookers, I consulted Wikipedia as one of sources that could tell me about that organization. Now I have additional knowledge that Moneybookers may keep somebody's money because they'll decide so on their own discretion and according to their TOS, as it turned out. Doesn't it seem to be a knowledge that other people using Wikipedia should have? Do you want to put censorship at this point? Otherwise please suggest how can the page can be improved to account this ridiculous, as I see, financial terms of usage, which has little to do with usual practice of *safe* financial operations in today's world.

Wikiuserleo 17:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Wikiuserleo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

PayPal does have complaints about restricting customer access to money, this site was found in a quick search. Since the edits here relate to a specific case where all of the facts are not known, it is not within the scope of the article in its current form.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you persistently don't understand the key issue. Even taking the two points from your last comment: 1) the url you provided mentions about a *procedure of resolution* of a case, while I'm saying that Moneybookers can just say (in simple words for better understanding, but according to the legal document they issued) "we decided so, and we don't want to hear any objection". 2)The edits are not about a specific case, but about a valuable note of existing documents of the company, which is not obvious on their own - that's why I insist on added value of the comments. Wikiuserleo 17:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiuserleo, this is a very complex matter that you seem not to have studied in full. Please be aware that in many legislations, the ownership of the money - be it in a bank account or deposited with another company (like PayPal, Moneybookers, and any else) - remains with that company. Legally, you do NOT own the money in your bank/company account: you only have a right to demand a payment from that bank/company. While banks are usually subject to legislation that limits the risk to the depositor, money paid to an "ordinary" company can usually be lawfully kept by that company and they are under no obligation to make any payments to you once you stand in breach of the contract. It makes no real difference whether it is Moneybookers, PayPal, or ABCDEF Ltd., and Google search shows that most if not all payment companies sometimes take such action.

Then, I am not sure that you see a difference between losing access to funds (due to "account suspension/termination") and losing the funds. Even if your "account" is terminated, you can still be paid the balance. Having an active "account" is not prerequisite to being paid.

All in all, your edit to the article did not bring anything specific to Moneybookers (as I wrote, any company can lawfully keep the funds - because they are theirs) and only promoted a personal opinion that "Moneybookers is not to be trusted". You are welcome to discuss the matter of fund ownership in more depth, e.g., on the talk pages of the E-commerce payment system article. While any controversies related specifically and only to Moneybookers should naturally be highlighted in this article - however, promoting a personal opinion based on (mis)understanding of Terms and Conditions (and perhaps original research) is not really acceptable.

Hope you agree. kashmiri 17:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US to non US and non US to US both banned?

The lead says " Also, US-based customers cannot receive money from non-US accounts, and non-US customers cannot upload funds using cards or accounts located in the United States." But should it say something like "US based customers cannot send money to, nor receive money from, non-US accounts"?