Talk:Sensory Sweep Studios

message: I don't see why this article has been tagged.  The company (Sensory Sweep Studios) is of importance, as it has released and is releasing numerous games of note.  In fact, Street Fighter II: Hyper Fighting is one of the top 10 selling XBLA titles of all time. Umzingeli 19:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Say so and cite it. Right now it's just a company that makes products.   Toddstreat1 19:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better?Umzingeli 20:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much.  I added a references section and removed the other tags.  Nice!  Toddstreat1 20:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a few more sources from online gaming review sites, so hopefully everything is sitting pretty now.  :)Umzingeli 20:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagged?

message: I'm a little disappointed that the citation needed flag was removed.  "It is one of the largest independently owned game production studios in the United States.", says who?   When I was last down there on the south end of Salt Lake, their building was much smaller than other studios at the time.  I believe Sensory Sweep was smaller at the time than either Treyarch or Pandemic before each were bought, and I believe Aspyr is about as big or bigger today.  If they're the largest, exactly who said so, and where's the citation? Bwagstaff (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the above article, plus a search on Google News, provide sufficient reliable sources for this to remain in the article now, as far as I'm concerned. ArakunemTalk 17:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still needs sources. 

message: Heh the vandal remover removed part of the original article along with the vandalism.  I'll have to remember that when I want to try to remove something from wikipedia.  65.44.114.33 (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that...there are plenty of links about sanitation companies on the next page. Cdprop (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

text: We need a specific cite to where that PDF can be found; and a full name, title, etc. of the source document of that PDF. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 14:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, that's a clearcut legal threat (and a confession of meatpuppetry and/or sockpuppetry). Poopski has been blocked, of course. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 23:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

text: That was not a promise to take down their own wiki; that was a clear-cut threat of legal action against Wikipedia. Meantime, Bwagstaff is making claims of information, but not posting those claims to the article. I have, however, removed the inappropriate external link. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 03:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So as to not be libelous, I've collected the actual Utah state court case numbers.  They can be requested from the court if you want.  For individual paychecks and partial paychecks that I was talking about, the court case numbers are: 036922712, 046905790, 046914470, 046924264, 056904024, 056906389, 056909837, 056912929, 056912986, with the courts ordering payment totaling $91525.25.  For those tracking the fooptube case, it's number is 090900665.  It names "FOOPTUBE LLC", "SENSORY SWEEP LLC", "RUSHTON, MAUREEN D", and "RUSHTON, DAVID" as defendants. Bwagstaff (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter if it's a legal threat to one page or all of wikipedia, the policy on legal threats is clear. If the case isn't accurate, please make your case in specific terms. Just saying a legal document isn't accurate isn't enough. Dayewalker (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Please read this link here for a full explanation of what constitutes a legal threat on wikipedia, and why that editor was blocked. Dayewalker (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: A legal threat is a legal threat, a threat of legal action; that's got nothing to do with any absurd claim that such a threat is illegal. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 04:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I mention the legal threat because you kept asking about it. Where does it say that SSS is "in no way involved"? Dayewalker (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: That's not what you said above. The founder and president of this company has been named in a sizable lawsuit. Again, where does it say SSS is "in no way involved?" Dayewalker (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I'll sum up again. The founder and president of this company has been named in a sizable lawsuit, which belongs on this page because it very well affects the company. You said it didn't and you could prove it because the lawsuit specifically said SSS wasn't involved. However, you either won't or can't prove this information. If you have information that proves this sizable lawsuit involving unpaid wages does not in any way involve SSS, please provide it. Dayewalker (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It does not clearly state that, nor does it say that SSS has no part in this. If you have proof of such a claim, please show exactly where it comes from. Dayewalker (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm in from the same report as above; my concern here is that the section refers to a lawsuit and only points to the court docket as a source. Is a court docket a good reference for this kind of thing? Dockets don't provide any analysis of the suit - they just say "there is a suit." Anything outside of that is indeed original research. I'd be far more comfortable with this section if there's some sort of media coverage of it that could be used as a reference instead. Otherwise, it might be best to remove it entirely while the action is ongoing, and see whether there's coverage of it after. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The court case does reference SSS directly.  The Utah court case number is 090900665. It names "FOOPTUBE LLC", "SENSORY SWEEP LLC", "RUSHTON, MAUREEN D", and "RUSHTON, DAVID" as co-defendants.  There is no original research required for this public record.    	FOOPTUBE, L.L.C. is Utah business entity 5820795-0160 with MAUREEN D RUSHTON (Dave Rushton's wife) as the registered agent.  Again, that is a public record rather than original research.  Bwagstaff (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As a footnote to the above, both Dave and Maureen can be sued jointly and individually because the married couple has shared assets. The primary source (a public record) clearly names SSS as a defendant in a $2M lawsuit, so inclusion on the SSS page is relevant. Secondary sources, OR, or synthesis on the SSS/FOOPTUBE relationship itself isn't really encyclopedic content, but it isn't present so that's not an issue. Bwagstaff (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Not "playing games" here, I assure you. I have no connection either way to any involved party, either in the article, or the real world. I'm only looking out for the interests of Wikipedia, which in a nutshell, means until it can be properly verified that SSS=Fooptube, then we don't put it in the article. You are correct that following the title list may lead to more reliable proof, and when/if that happens, then problem solved. As to the Kotaku article, I find it interesting, though not compelling at this point. I'm looking into the reliability of Kotaku as a source, but the fact that the link to the case docket misrepresents the title of the case (link states d/b/a SSS, though the docket does not make that connection), doesn't bode well for that. ArakunemTalk 15:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: As I mentioned above (but out of sequence, so copying it down here as well), a search on Google News now provides sufficient reliable sources for the Lawsuit section to remain in the article as-is, as far as I'm concerned. ArakunemTalk 17:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dept of labor 

message: Why do my requests for a Speedy Deletion keep being deleted?  I know the request for deletion was properly placed on the "Talk" page so please explain why it keeps getting deleted. Oregano eater (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because your request is not based on one of the speedy deletion criteria. Take a look at that page for proper use of speedy deletion. --aktsu (t / c) 07:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to want this page deleted because you don't like it, which won't result in a deletion. Dayewalker (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Request 

message: Can an admin please add a fact tag to the lead where it reads  It is one of the largest independently owned game production studios in the United States, thank you, --72.221.70.224 (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you could have done that yourself! --Orange Mike  |  Talk 17:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.gamespot.com/ds/rpg/justiceleagueheroes/news.html?sid=6152416, http://www.synapticgaming.com/index.php?q=node/15, http://www.gamingexcellence.com/companies/546/index.shtml  I just don't know how to put them in the article.  Umzingeli (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If these are reliable sources, then the procedural details would be found at :WP:CITE. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 18:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Sensory Sweep still has over 120 employees and every current employee has been paid past the October 20th paycheck.  It is still the largest studio in Utah especially with EA and Disney laying people off in the last couple weeks.  They actually have potential of pulling out of most of this with some up coming projects and getting everything resolved.  In my opinion you are completely wrong and are just pulling information out of the wrong places.  With studio's every where having financial issues they still are one of the largest independently owned game production studio's in the united states.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.107.3 (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: As a reminder, this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article only, and not to be used as a soapbox. It seems that we've fallen into personal attacks and completely unsourced accusation. I'm going to suggest we get back on topic, and remain civil. Dayewalker (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add fact tag to

message: This article is one of a  number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes"  would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pending changes