Template:Did you know nominations/2012 LinkedIn hack

The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 LinkedIn hack

(

)

... that LinkedIn (logo pictured) was hacked on June 7, 2012, resulting in the release of over 6 million user passwords?

Reviewed: Not applicable, as I'm not the creator/expander
Comment: Pending at ITN, but appears likely to fail there.

Created/expanded by Dipankan001 (talk), Jenks24 (talk), Muboshgu (talk). Nominated by Muboshgu (talk) at 17:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Both the article and the hook seems okay. Good to go. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hook is good and interesting..article is long enough...good to go..:) ƬheⱾtrike Ҿagle ^™ 08:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio. Compare: "Graham Cluley, member of internet security firm Sophos, said he believed the breach was genuine and warned that the passwords were now likely to be in the hands of criminals" vs "Graham Cluley, of internet security firm Sophos, said he believed the breach was genuine and warned that the passwords were now likely to be in the hands of criminals"; "Vicente Silveira, a director at LinkedIn, confirmed the hack on the company's blog on Wednesday afternoon and said that LinkedIn was taking steps to deal with the situation. He wrote that those with compromised passwords will notice that their LinkedIn account password is no longer valid" vs "Vicente Silveira, Director at LinkedIn, confirmed the hack on the company's blog Wednesday afternoon and outlined steps that LinkedIn is taking to deal with the situation. He wrote that those with compromised passwords will notice that their LinkedIn account password is no longer valid."; "LinkedIn said it sent emails to members whose passwords were affected, explaining how to reset them since they were no longer valid on the site" vs "LinkedIn said it sent emails to members whose passwords were affected, explaining how to reset them since they were no longer valid on the site." Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

, sorry, it was my mistake. Fixed. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 05:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was, but no, it hasn't. Compare: "Graham Cluley, one of the members of internet security firm Sophos, said he believed the breach was genuine and warned that the passwords were now likely to be in the hands of criminals" vs "Graham Cluley, of internet security firm Sophos, said he believed the breach was genuine and warned that the passwords were now likely to be in the hands of criminals"; "Vicente Silveira, a LinkedIn director, confirmed the hack on the company's blog on Wednesday afternoon and said that LinkedIn was taking steps to deal with the situation. He said that those with compromised passwords will notice that their LinkedIn account password is no longer valid" vs "Vicente Silveira, Director at LinkedIn, confirmed the hack on the company's blog Wednesday afternoon and outlined steps that LinkedIn is taking to deal with the situation. He wrote that those with compromised passwords will notice that their LinkedIn account password is no longer valid." Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I had modified it and therefore they longer hold copyright. Read it up: "I had modified it". Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 13:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure". See also WP:Close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't close this just yet. I'll take over and rewrite it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I just put every source in the article through the duplication detector and rephrased a few close paraphrasings that remained. This and this is due to attributed quotes. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Better, though there's still a bit of close paraphrasing - for example, current FN10. Also, I don't think "the website was hacked on behalf of the company" is really what you wanted to say. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was bad rephrasing there. I took care of the rest of it from FN 10. Should be fine. [1] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

A side note: now that you've added yourself as an expander, Muboshgu, you've put yourself in line for a QPQ as well, I'm afraid. No good deed goes unpunished, or something like that... BlueMoonset (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. And all I was looking for was a simple nom... – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dr. O'Dowd

The problems are fixed and this can now be promoted. Thanks Muboshgu!

Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 16:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Dipankan, you cannot ever put a tick on an article you created, expanded, or nominated. That's the definition of conflict of interest. Let's let Nikkimaria, who has identified the problems, say whether they've been settled to her satisfaction. I've found that she's quite happy to do so once the paraphrasing has been fixed. Muboshgu, thanks for the QPQ. I very much appreciate it. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all, looks alright now. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)