Talk:Uk.chicntech: Difference between revisions
Add topicLatest comment: 10 October 2025 by Sojourna in topic Relevancy
→Relevancy: new section |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Only incident mentioned is individual and falls under fraud. The website itself having since become inaccessible — bad SSL certificate and only leads to CloudFlare error — raises questions as to whether the "business" was even legitimate. If nothing else comes up after a week, I'm moving to have this article deleted. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 00:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC) | Only incident mentioned is individual and falls under fraud. The website itself having since become inaccessible — bad SSL certificate and only leads to CloudFlare error — raises questions as to whether the "business" was even legitimate. If nothing else comes up after a week, I'm moving to have this article deleted. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 00:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC) | ||
I know it hasn't been a week yet, however I'm going ahead with flagging this for deletion as information about the website indicates it was fundamentally a scam ran by an operator registered out of China. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 23:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:54, 10 October 2025
Relevancy
[edit source]Only incident mentioned is individual and falls under fraud. The website itself having since become inaccessible — bad SSL certificate and only leads to CloudFlare error — raises questions as to whether the "business" was even legitimate. If nothing else comes up after a week, I'm moving to have this article deleted. — Sojourna (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I know it hasn't been a week yet, however I'm going ahead with flagging this for deletion as information about the website indicates it was fundamentally a scam ran by an operator registered out of China. — Sojourna (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)