Talk:CREDO Mobile

Untitled
This article warrants supervision. The weasle word designation is a good start. Robmoney (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you can mark specific words in the article as weasel words as well. Or can you say which words are weaselly right here? Thanks, Rich Peterson4.246.232.196 (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really see a lot of weasel words in this article. By the way, is there any estimate of the actual percentage of revenues that Working Assets donates to these causes?  That would be a useful stat.Ndriley97 (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I attempted to end a small edit war by moving the disputed paragraph on CREDO Mobile's cost-effectiveness to the "Criticism" section and tagging it as original research. Perhaps someone can cite a source.  2-2-2008.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.105.43 (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Attempted to source paragraph on cost-effectiveness but failed; as CREDO representative notes below, wireless plans seem to change all the time. Lacking sources for verification, the original research more properly belongs in this discussion section. 2-21-08.

Original research
Enough is enough. The subsection on the Criticisms section over the company's rates vs. Sprint's is blatant original research. That blurb has been tagged for several months before and no one had offered any secondary source on the issue and no one seems interested in doing so. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor it is a place where people can publish their own thoughts or findings. As such, I've removed the section and will continue to remove it until someone provides sources that comply with WP's policies. hateless 18:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

CREDO or Working Assets?
This article has a self-reference redirect of Working Assets, which results in ambiguous identification of the entity. The correct legal name of the company is Working Assets Funding Service, Inc. doing business as Working Assets. Working Assets provides the services CREDO Mobile (formerly Working Assets Wireless), CREDO Long Distance (formerly Working Assets Long Distance) and the Working Assets credit card [|Working Assets about]. See also Florida Public Service Commission Docket Number 070681 Acknowledgment of name change on IXC Registration No. TI063 from Working Assets Funding Service, Inc. d/b/a Working Assets Long Distance to Working Assets Funding Service, Inc. d/b/a Credo Long Distance, effective November 5, 2007[].

Does it make more sense to leave the title as CREDO as the company is generally known by the services it provides or to redirect from Credo_(company) to Working Assets? --BoboLink81 (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Inc. 500
It is significant that Working Assets Funding Service made the Inc. 500 five consecutive years between 1992-1997 and ranked as high as 42 in 1995. If there are no complaints I will add this.--BoboLink81 (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Terrible sentence
"...CREDO Action started an initiative called Pollworkers for Democracy, in which hired volunteers to staff polling places and ensure fair voting practices."

Besides the fact that it's grammatically incorrect, what is a "hired volunteer?" Historian932 (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Remove stub tag?
I may add a few references and then delete the stub tag. This doesn't look like a stub to me... opinions? - Sara FB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree.75.43.217.16 (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an ADVERTISEMENT clearly written by EMPLOYEES
Article is in need of either a total rehaul or even deletion. The entire thing is a scripted sales brochure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.62.125 (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Stubbing is preferable to deletion
I agree that this article is written in a clearly promotional way, indicated even by content on this talk page. It's been marked as problematic for 2 months now, so I think a major overhaul is justified. Deletion of the article, however, would be far from ideal. It should be stubbed, with basic information included in the lead section. This way it can more easily be started over with proper citations included. It should be ok to keep some of the few pieces of information that are cited, but all that is not except for the basics should be deleted in order to make it verifiable and get rid of the promotional bias noted beforehand (on behalf of 70.231.130.234) Black Kite (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)