Talk:IPVanish

Computing Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (assessed as Low-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Answer question about Same-origin_policy
Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Callmeseetea (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (Special:Diff/841905667)

BOLD edits incoming[edit]

Hey y'all, I ended up here using the "Pages Needing Cleanup" randomizer from community tasks. I reviewed the history of this article, from its likely COI origins through a few bouts of spammers trying to sneak in their reflinks.

I appreciate the tagging of sketchily sourced areas earlier this year, and given the overly extensive coverage in this article (potentially undue amounts of detail for a random little commercial VPN), I'm going to cull some of the weird primary-sourced bragging that was previously tagged. If people want to know the promotional claims this company makes, they can easily click through to the site itself as linked in order to read them.

Please ping me with any questions or concerns! Chiselinccc (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiselinccc Howdy! There is a Consumer Reports document, noted with hidden HTML comments in 'Technical details' section, containing analysis which should be incorporated into that section, and mayhaps rest of the article.

Was gonna offer: don't hesitate if ya' needed explanation or guidance on technical issues but… after a glance at your User page I think you got this! ;-)

I don't mind it being "overly detailed" so long as there's an actual RS to back it. As can be seen by the tags: there are some issues with this… and it's also not entirely clear if Ziff Davis' publications are RS considering the parent company's financial stake. Happy Trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 05:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsprc thanks friend! I would have missed the existence of that document if you hadn't mentioned it, so I'll dive in. The ZD pub issue you had flagged ends up being a moot point IMO, as the review that was linked is one of those "continually updated" ones which now reflects a totally different reality than the text there.

Now that I've stripped out any poorly/inaccurately sourced content, I'll do another pass from a proper computer at pulling useful info from the existing sources and maybe finding a few new ones. I'll update in-thread here when I do that second pass, just for transparent "process notes" more nuanced than edit summaries allow.

(I also try to do separate edits for anything that might be controversial enough that someone might want to revert it, apologies to page-watchers if that's annoying but it will at least be time-batched sessions!) Chiselinccc (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]