Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2024

edit

Dave Plummer “temporarily” made the Windows Format dialog, which stayed as-is for thirty years now;[1] yet this article does not seem to mention it, and I think it's notable enough to add to the lead section. 91.94.116.205 (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Note: On hold, if someone else thinks this is notable then they can do it. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Not done:Meh. I don't think it's notable enough. If the requestor wants to reopen this as a discussion for consensus rather than using the Edit Request template, they are welcome to do so. PianoDan (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2024

edit

Please change this:
In 2006, Plummer's SoftwareOnline.com company was sued by The Washington State Attorney General’s Office for alleged violations of the Consumer Protection Act after complaints were made about two products called "Registry Cleaner" and "InternetShield".

to this:
"In 2006, Plummer's SoftwareOnline LLC was sued by The Washington State Attorney General’s Office for alleged violations of the Consumer Protection Act after complaints were made about two products called "Registry Cleaner" and "InternetShield" [2][3]. SaranSDS008 (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Speed, Richard (2024-03-27). "Windows Format dialog waited decades for UI revamp that never came". The Register. Archived from the original on 2024-03-27. Retrieved 2024-06-06.
  2. ^ Complaint issued by Washington State in King County Court, WA: https://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Another/News/Press_Releases/2006/SoftwareOnlineComplaint.pdf
  3. ^ Court Lawsuit and Verdict Document on Washington State vs SoftwareOnline LLC issued by King County, WA: https://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Another/News/Press_Releases/2006/SoftwareOnlineJudgment.pdf
The citation for that statement in the article[1] says "Attorney General’s Office Sues, Settles with Washington-based SoftwareOnline.com".
The press release you yourself cited above[2] says "STIPULATED JUDGEMENT AND ORDER AS TO SOFTWAREONLINE.COM AND DAVID W. PLUMMER".
--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The lawsuit was indeed initiated by the Washinton State Attorney Office on behalf of Washinton State in King County Court, WA as indicated by the 1st citation. The amount was ordered to be settled by the court (as indicated by the press release documents). The press release documents goes into detail on the purpose of the lawsuit (including the misleading popups, and scam imvolving fake registry cleaners, fake antimalware, fake "memory cleaners", etc, which has been proven to have existed, and can be viewed using wayback machine (site does require flash to fully load tho)) and also on the details of the cost of settlement. It also include the signatures of the parties involved in the lawsuit. Dave Plummer himself later confirmed of his ownership of the domain, and the softwares, and also acknowledged the lawsuit in Twitter/X, but misrepresented the details of it.
Apparently, he also owned another company called "Sharewareonline LLC" as well in the past (circa 2003-2006), which made similar softwares as "Softwareonline LLC" (which came in later after "Sharewareonline LLC") and also used similar tactics.

Dave's mentioning of the lawsuit on Twitter/X:
https://twitter.com/davepl1968/status/1815862221634953264?t=EyYkQ8oH1eF5mGfKHFRDSA&s=19

Dave himself in Twitter/X acknowledging the ownership of a scam software he wrote called "Memturbo" which served popup ads, misrepresented functionality of the app and wasn't fully uninstalled from the os (of which he was sued for by washington attorney office on behalf of washington state):
https://twitter.com/davepl1968/status/1815859807561343276?t=2Fi2GFn5_j0jbVRwm926sQ&s=19

A post from MSFN Forums around 2006 highlighting the popup scams associated with "Memturbo", a software made by dave (he acknowledged this in his own tweets) under "Sharewareonline LLC":
https://msfn.org/board/topic/28550-popup-problems/

I haven't included the originial site"s link due to it's malicious nature (it has been tested in virtual machines and has been confirmed to be Adware, Scareware and PUP).

please add the aftermentioned details, as it's authenticity have been verified, and appropriate links have been enclosed to prove it's legitimacy. SaranSDS008 (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
None of the above has the slightest relation to your edit request, which was to change the company name from SoftwareOnline.com to SoftwareOnline LLC. Adding a reference to Yet Another Company Name (Sharewareonline LLC) didn't help.
Reported at ANI:[3] --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
if you look close enough, I've also added 2 citations as well to the edit request. SaranSDS008 (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
You included two citations in your original edit request[4] and haven't edited it since. Neither supports the change from .com to LLC that you requested. Both are WP:PRIMARY,
You misleadingly titled one of those citations "Court Lawsuit and Verdict Document on Washington State vs SoftwareOnline LLC issued by King County, WA:" when the actual document was filed against SoftwareOnline.com Inc. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Here's a patent filing list assigned to the company of softwareonline LLC under the name of of David Plummer:
https://patents.justia.com/assignee/softwareonline-llc
http://www.patentbuddy.com/Company/Profile/SoftwareOnline-LLC/628737
The "softwareonline.com" operated as a domain registered under the company "Softwareonline LLC", but was also used to sometimes describe the company itself.
Some news websites incorrectly report it as "softwareonline.com Inc" as seen here:
https://www.computerworld.com/article/1593468/internetshield-vendor-pays-to-settle-deceptive-ad-suit.html.
Some also refer the company as just "softwareonline".
but the real name of company is "Softwareonline LLC as seen in patent filings.
As with the court document, they did just mention the domain name, and not the name of company behind it. SaranSDS008 (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
" It isn't our job to decide that computerworld (a reliable secondary source) incorrectly reported something based upon our reading of some WP:PRIMARY documents. And it is especially not our job to decide that the primary documnts from the State of Wahington are worn and the primary document from the Justia and Patent Buddy are right.
Also, it is fairly ordinary for someone to own an incoporated company called Softwareonline.com Inc. and to also own an LLC called Softwareonline LLC. And indeed, according to patents.google.com[5] patent US20070199073A1 is listed as " Current Assignee: SoftwareOnline LLC Support com Inc"
Plummer He also founded Xeriton Corporation, whose major product was the Blue Phone technical support service. In December 2009, Xeriton was sold to Support.com for $8.5 million.
You appear to have completely ignored everything I wrote above, and instead you responded with links to whatever crap whatever you found by doing a a Google search for "softwareonline LLC" without actually checking to see if the material you linked to supports your position. You have wasted enough of my time. I am not going to engage with you any further until you address the issue of the name of the company that the State of Washington sued. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Not done: The ANI thread and analysis from Guy Macon speaks for itself. Closing this out. —Sirdog (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2024

edit

Remove or change "He holds the world record score for the video game Tempest" in the opening paragraph: his record is in the Points [Extreme Settings] category, which is the least popular of the available categories for tempest on TwinGalaxies.

Pitust (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Done Specified the relevant category. —Sirdog (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Granted, but it's the *hardest*, which may make it noteworthy, fwiw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.34.83 (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply