Talk:Phone fraud

Copyleft violation
(Some of the) Content literally lifted without attribution on a link farm site: http://www.fraudwatchernetwork.com/website/phone-fraud.html JavaWoman 04:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Marketing copy
The phrase "up to x percent" is marketing copy and has no business in an Encyclopedic article. Editing accordingly. [this anon edit] replaced with a simple supportable statement. --Elvey 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Style / "'Phone"
To write "phone" as 'phone (with an apostrophe before the word) is bizarre. "Phone" is a word that has been in common usage for many decades, and I've never before seen it apostrophed to clarify (to whom?) that it is an abbreviation of "telephone." 97.123.72.154 (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

9800788690 Mejh baul (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

AIT
Artificially Inflated Traffic - needs to be included somewhere in the fraud against telecom suppliers. There is a definition on the BT page http://www.btwholesale.com/pages/static/Pricing_and_Contracts/Contract_Reviews/Artificial_Inflation_of_Traffic.html but this can't be directly copied into WP. John a s (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Bottom Line
"A carrier's bottom line is significantly impacted by billing fraud." is very strong and unsupported. Should this even be under the article's main area without support? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.200.149.30 (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd be wary of unsourced claims like "$2.88 Billion (USD) – By-Pass Fraud", which fail verifiability (no source, and no evidence international callers would be willing to pay an extra $2.88B to call these places were VoIP shut down - they might just not call at all). The "fraud" label is also hugely POV in that a grey route call is one that's actually been paid for at full local mobile rates. The only sites I can find which call this "fraud" are vendors selling software to detect VoIP calls gated to mobile - and they have a vested interest here. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:783 (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit
User Tony85poon added this text to the intro:


 * In Hong Kong, dial 18222 when in doubt and dial 999 (emergency telephone number) when facing emergency situations in general.

I'm sure this is good advice, but it's irrelevant to the subject of the article. It breaks the logical flow of the intro, and even if it should be in the article, it should be somewhere else in the article. It's useful only to people in Hong Kong, and it wouldn't be practical to provide the corresponding information for reaching the police in every location around the world to every article that describes criminal or otherwise dangerous activity.

In short, I believe this material needs to be removed, so I did that, but Tony85poon restored it. Tony, if you explain your rationale here, I'll listen, but until then, I think this material should stay out of the article. 73.92.193.211 (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * User Tony85poon created a link to this information in the External References section, and I think that's a good solution. 73.92.193.211 (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Geographic bias
As a suggestion for correcting geographic bias toward the United States, some of the foreign-language versions of this article have different geographic biases. – Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 19:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Fake contests
It may have been a joke, but in the 1990s, WIBC (FM)'s Terri Stacy told this story about a "National Spelling Quiz" scam where people were asked to call a number that they probably shouldn't, and the test asked the participant to spell "quiz" on a touch-tone telephone. In those days, when mobile phones were considered a luxury item, standard phones did not have a Q or Z on them, so there was no way to spell "quiz" on a touch-tone telephone, so it was impossible to win. Stacy's story was used as a promo for the morning show for quite a long time along with Jeff Pidgeon reading a David Letterman Top 10 List about things that will get you kicked out of a Disney Park.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

"One-ring fraud" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect One-ring fraud. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 26 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

+91 6268 837 441
+91 6268 837 441 2409:40C4:5C:D415:1F4B:D890:DCB:BC99 (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Problem
my girl friend 2409:40E4:2013:5856:66CF:B9CC:7829:A1EB (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)