Talk:PureVPN

Request for logo

Logo needs to be added on infobox. Here is the uploaded logo on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PureVPN_Company_Logo.png

Any mods help, will be appreciated

POV April 2019

I have serious concerns about the neutrality of this article. In particular the selection of reviews may have been biased towards promotion of the product. It is unclear how the user re-creating the article on 5 April 2019 came to do so. Comment ... we are currently at AfD. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

More than one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request. Requests that are unduly long, or are not supported by independent reliable sources, are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite 29 April 2019

I believe the re-write on 29 April 2019 has address issues with the article having a somewhat not WP:NEUTRAL viewpoint with likely contributions from COI/UPE editors. It can now also probably be rated above start class if anyone wishes to re-rate.07:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Biased negative information based on a couple of blogs reviews

This page looks like a complete mess and it is definitely not an encyclopedia article for VPN. First of all, there is some negative information skillfully inserted in all the sections. While most of the articles have "Controversy" or "Criticism" parts for that, I suppose it was done on purpose and it looks more like vandalism or an attack and this has to be cleaned up. Second, I found that most of the negative information was selectively retrieved from one or two dubious sources such as personal blogs and reviews. This is not how any encyclopedia article should look like. I'm going to clean the mess and bring new sources of information in order to update the page and make it look more encyclopedic. --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5 (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If you come here in that sort of attitude with a Anon IP address wouyld will I think need to be treated as having a WP:COI even if you are not and please use the WP:REQUESTEDIT system. As you seem to know how to edit I can only assume you have edited before. Alternatively you may seek some other dispute resolution. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Djm-leighpark. Where did you find an attitude here? I've been editing by an IP before and it is completely allowed by Wikipedia (please, see the rules). Are you trying to discriminate me because I don't have any user account? As I clearly stated , I have no conflict of interest here, on the opposite - I started to help to clean this mess. May I ask you - do you have any conflict of interest with cleaning non-neutral information in this particular article? Here what I did: 1) Removed the biased blog review which is not a reliable source 2) Removed negative information based on the blog review from the sections where there is no place for them 3) Removed comparison and advertising of the other VPN (based on price, speed etc).

You are more than welcome to clean up this page as well as it has to be cleaned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not happy with some of the edits, but perhaps more than happy with others. The tone of the summaries, insistance to win an edit war, and removing and replacing in the same edit has not been helpful. The removal of possible WP:UNDUE criticism in the lede may well be correct ... the removal of comparison reviews may not be helpful. Obviously products evolve with time but an article does better if it shows the history and evolution of a product. To a degree its also mindful to respect the WP:AFD's or the article's existence may be in trouble. I've put an under construction manner on this at the moment and hope someone checks this out in a couple of days ... (I need to working on this like a hole in head). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• This seems to be more constructive, comprehensive and wikipedian approach to deal with the issues on the page. As I was already discouraged from the edits and I don't really have time for this as well, I also welcome other reviewers to finish this project as I'm not going to do any more updates here. The only thing, I would like to mention that in the "Reception" section there was a clear comparison of the VPNs in favor of the competitors (please, check the previous versions of the page) and I found that as advertising. There is a page ,where all the comparisons done in neutral way and they are more verifiable and it is more than enough, in my opinion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_virtual_private_network_services --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5 (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

My rough plan is I'm likely to bring the removed comparison criticism back in in a couple of days ... but this isn't my priority and I'd appreciate other views. Also checking out the references added. @Cunard, Jovanmilic97, MA Javadi, SamHolt6, and Störm: (albeit all eventually keepers) from the AfD and Justlettersandnumbers for any comments or actions, if your happy leave as is. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Removed reference

Removed Poladian/Mashable reference: Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Added reference

Added McCue/Forbes reference: Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Revert of removal of negative information by Cunard on 9 November 2019

I am reverting this edit by 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5 (talk · contribs). The edit introduces an article written by a Forbes contributor. Such articles are considered unreliable according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Forbes.com contributors. The edit removes a Mashable article that is written by a staff writer in a reliable publication. The edit removes sourced negative material about PureVPN from the lead and from the article. Reviews primarily contain negative material about PureVPN so it is due weight to include such information in the lead and the article. Cunard (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• I've removed the criticism from the lede where I felt it has too much WP:UNDUE weight. Hopefully this is acceptable. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• PureVPN has received generally negative coverage in the reviews so I do not consider including criticism in the lead to be undue weight. I expanded the lead to include a fuller summary of the article and to include both the criticism and the praise from the reviews to address the undue weight concern. Cunard (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Request edit on 23 December 2021

• What I think should be changed: PureVPN's 2000 servers are located in 140 countries with 87 of those countries having virtual servers that make the servers seem to be in a different country than where they are actually at. -> Change to: PureVPN has over 6,500 servers located in more than 78 countries, with many of those countries having that make the virtual servers appear to be in a different country than where the user is located.
• Why it should be changed: Information is outdated.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Schmidtse29 (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi Schmidtse29, do you have an independent source for this information? Marking declined for now until an independent source is provided; please remove the "|D" in the {{request edit}} and someone will review your reply. Spencer^T•C 06:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)