Jump to content

User talk:2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a minimum number of days and made a minimum number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

[edit]

Information icon Hello, 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Djm-leighpark! I have no conflict of interest here. I'm just clearing the mess because the article is not neutral and based on blog reviews. Also, in the =Reception= section it has comparison with other VPNs which is looks nonsensical and not relevant. I just see that the comparison of one VPN with another has to be on the page "Comparisons of VPN" and not here. Otherwise, it looks like advertising of other VPNs and this mess I'm trying to clean up. If you don't find the comparison of the VPNS as advertising, please, bring your arguments here. Also, if you think that the negative information has to be in all sections of the articles based on one blog review, please, explain me how it can be an encyclopedia neutral article. Otherwise, I would think that you have a conflict of interest.--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5 (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is PureVPN which I should have placed above but failed to do so. Please explicitly confirm you have either have or do not have a WP:COI with PureVPN or a competitor. I assume good faith either way and can try to help or direct to try to help people with a conflict of interest to get changes to the article. But please explicitly state your position either way. If you do not reply a WP:COI will be assumed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Djm-leighpark! I explicitly confirm that I don't have any WP:COI with PureVPN or a competitor. I already confirmed it in the message above, so I'm surprised to see it again. I also surprised to see that you you first put the COI tag on the page and then asked me about COI. Does it mean that you first rely on your opinion and then on the rules of the Wikipedia? --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5 (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I asked again but its actually helpful to have that really explicit. At present because you are using an anon. IP, which is fair enough, you effective show as an WP:SPA named account hitting a page on my watchlist. Ideally I'd go through everything carefully in detail but I have real life and my favourite TV program to watch and I don't want this dragged back to WP:AFD again because a WP:PAID has got at it. A slightly less 'I am going to this might have been helpful' but the seeming anger and annoyance in the edit summaries looked a little like a red flag (well at least amber) and its best to go into a Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You may think I was a little fast on the draw ... bear in mind we deal with at times a lot of anon IP and fresh user account vandalism. Hopefully though you do not feel too bitten.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to tell the truth I first felt confused and discouraged from any editing at all on Wikipedia as what I first learnt (about that everyone can edit Wikipedia and also is assumed to have a good faith unless the opposite is proven), in reality looks like a closed club to the chosen members of Wikipedia. It really feels that way because I came with the best intentions and instead of constructive approach to my edits, I was immediately accused of COI and had to tell twice that I didn't have any interest or close connection the VPN. I just looked at the other VPN pages and all found all the criticism in the appropriate sections such as "criticism" or "Controversy" while this page had negative info in all the sections and this looked very suspicious and prejudiced to me (I wonder who put it?). After I started to verify the negative info, I found that almost all of it was based on review blog from the old archives which contradicts for at least two rules (blog reviewers are usually prejudices as they could be paid by the competitors and the review was very old as well). All that hardly counts as "neutral" encyclopedia article, so I encourage all the users to double check it. I accept your apology but I would like to mention that Wikipedia was created for everyone to edit and it looks like that the rumors about the attacks on newcomers are true and this is very embarrassing and discouraging.--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5 (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5&oldid=924996862"