Talk:Ebuyer/Archives/2012

Fair use rationale for Image:EbuyerLogo.png

Image:EbuyerLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that this is an article about ebuyer should constitute a fair use of their logo? This proberbly should be returned? Samlaw (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EbuyerLogo.png

[[Image:Nuv

Article biass

This article appears to be POV against this reputable company. Very few of the criticisms have been cited. I have used this company a number of times and have been happy with their service. They also appear to have very favourable feedback on the various websites with customer store reviews.

It would be much more noteworthy and encyclopedic to concentrate this article on the mechanism that ebuyer use to directly link their bulk-buying price savings for customers. As I understand it, the more popular an item is, the further they are able to undercut the RRP. 76.21.186.200 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

> Hmm, this sounds a lot like someone from the company trying to remove any negative things from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.132.78 (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

> Ebuyers customer service is famousy bad, I have never personally heard any good reports of it, just criticisms, I think the highly rated comment about its customer service is a joke. People, like me, use it because it is cheap, it has a comperensive range of products/parts and is easier than using a range of sources to get everything you want. But definately not because of it's customer service. Samlaw (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

> I agree with SamLaw. I still use ebuyer because its cheap. Its just a risk you take with a cheap company but I have never met anyone who had anything good to say about the customer service. The stooge at the top of this thread should be reminded that the enote system is hardly as immediate or any less likely to cause a problem in interpretation than the phone (if they would like to give statistics for the average waiting time on this I would be most intrigued as I have never managed to spend enough time on it to speak to a person.) The tone of the text is pretty even handed given sites like www.ebuyersucks.com & citylink is hardly without its detractors either... Its a simple calculation less customer service costs less and therefore you get a cheaper product. You takes your choice... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.12.16 (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

> I totally agree with the three posts above. The OP sounds more POV against the Wiki entry, than the entry sounds POV against EBuyer. Ebuyer fills a necessary niche in the rapid turnover electronics market. In order to achieve the lowest cost products a compromise must be made between happy customers, volume of products sold, and diminishing returns on profit spent on improving cutomer services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.24.116 (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

For those trying to get through the telephone numbers can be found here: http://www.denyerec.co.uk/posts/176 just remember you will be on a long time and the 0871 numbers cost a bomb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.12.16 (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do work for ebuyer, but have shopped here for much longer. You can find all the numbers to get in touch on our page, ebuyer.com (click contact us on the homepage, top right). CS is open till 10pm, and the stats for call wait times shown on that page are automatically fished out of the phone system. Currently 2 minutes 6 seconds average - that's not terrible is it? I can't think of any other computer retailers who have better phone support, better prices or a better returns system - hell, some companies refuse to even speak to you after 28 days have passed! I've been buying at ebuyer.com since about 2002, working here since last January, and most people I've spoken to (even really angry customers!) go away happy. Awaken (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have used Ebuyer (and now pretty much limit my online electrics shopping to them) for a couple of years and their service has been flawless. With the free delivery they nearly always have it to me next day anyway. I think this listing is flawed as it only points out the negatives (without citation) and not the positives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.209.252 (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Advertisement

I am going to remove the first sentence of the Customer service section as it is uncited and sounds far too much like advertising. If you are going to replace it please cite the reference to the study, place it chronologically to the 2005 stuff (i.e. after) and write it critically, not subjectively. Thank You. Samlaw (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Customer Service

Added details of telephone number's, as a lot of customer complaints seem to focus on them.

Personal Details

Removed details of the groups private ownership, incluing personal details of majority shareholder. --89.107.46.3 (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing legally disputed allegations

Removing unsubstantiated allegations of defective products - reference cited is a website owned by an aggrieved customer. No evidence of the defect with these products has been presented apart from the customer's own website posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebtch (talk • contribs) 17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

CSD A7

For the record, this article clearly makes assertions of importance sufficient to avoid deletion under Speedy Deletion Criteria A7, including largest independent online retailer of computer and electrical goods in the United Kingdom. Monty₈₄₅ 15:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)