Template:Did you know nominations/Technical support scam (2nd nomination)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Technical support scam
- ... that Microsoft has banned all third-party tech support advertisements on Bing due to a rise in technical support scams? Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-to-bing-users-no-more-shady-third-party-ads-for-tech-support-password-recovery/ ; https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/05/bing-bans-tech-support-adsbecause-theyre-mostly-scams/
- ALT1: ... that technical support scams can be initiated through fake pop-ups? Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-beware-this-fake-windows-bsod-from-tech-support-scammers-malware/ ; https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-security-heres-tech-support-scammers-latest-ploy-says-microsoft/
- ALT2: ... that technical support scams were named by Norton as the top phishing threat to consumers? Source: https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/tech-support-scams-have-become-top-phishing-threats/article37188112.ece
- ALT3: ... that the preferred method of payment in a technical support scam is through gift cards? Source: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/protecting-older-consumers-2019-2020-report-federal-trade-commission/p144400_protecting_older_adults_report_2020.pdf page 12
- ALT4: ... that Norton blocked over 12.3 million technical support scam URLs between July and September 2021? Source: https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/tech-support-scams-have-become-top-phishing-threats/article37188112.ece
- Comment: No preference for any hook, this is my second DYK nom so I think I'm exempt from QPQ.
Improved to Good Article status by Pahunkat (talk). Self-nominated at 20:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC).
not a full review, but the article can't be approved for DYK while the POV template persists. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron, dispute appears to have come to an end now, but would not mind waiting a few more days to make sure. Pahunkat (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- sounds good—in any case, the nomination hasn't received a full review yet. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron, dispute appears to have come to an end now, but would not mind waiting a few more days to make sure. Pahunkat (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Reviewing this now... DanCherek (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
Great job on a very interesting and important article. All hooks are approved but my personal preference, from high to low, is original > ALT1 > ALT4 > ALT3 > ALT2. I'll leave the rest up to the promoter. DanCherek (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Promoting the main hook to Prep 4 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)