Talk:Quad9

Advert flag

@DavidCWG: noting the Advert flag you've placed on the Quad9 article and recognizing that it still needs a lot of improvement, I put a little time into trying to improve it a couple of weeks ago and would be willing to do more... Are there specific things you can point to for additional attention? EVhotrodder (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

To me the article still reads like it was written by the organization, the tone is not impartial and it relies too much on primary sources and self-published blogs. 31.209.215.159 (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I haven't quoted anything from Quad9's blog, and I think the sentence you deleted was one I wrote; perhaps we have different interpretations of "self-published?" By "self" do you mean the publisher? That would be tautological. I believe I've addressed DavidCWG's concerns to his satisfaction. Can you be more specific about how you think the article can be improved? EVhotrodder (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is the homepage commented out?

@EVhotrodder: I was confused as to why there was no homepage linked in the infobox, and even more confused after discovering that there was one but that it was commented out. I see that you did the same with the founding date, only to later uncomment it once you had a source to cite related to it. I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia norms to know, so I wonder: is it common practice to require a source for such a basic piece of information? Perhaps I have incorrectly assumed why you left the homepage commented out. --Firvqipo (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Firvqipo: I honestly don't remember. I remember grabbing the verbose non-profit infobox template and working through it when I found applicable information to fit the different entries. Perhaps I was worried about duplication between that and the External Links section? Anyway, I've un-commented it now. EVhotrodder (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality issues and some sources needed

> It is the only global public resolver which is operated not-for-profit, in the public benefit.

Source needed. And it's contradicted by OpenNIC's existence anyway.

> Quad9 is currently the only global recursive resolver which is not subject to United States law, as the others are each domiciled in the San Francisco Bay Area and governed by the Northern District of California US Federal Court.[3][4]

Source needed. It's likely false, are really all the other global recursive resolvers domiciled in California or the US?

--Tuxayo (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)