Talk:Megaupload

Time Format Context

In the lead, last paragraph, Mega's launch time is given in 12h time. MOS:TIME states that "Context determines whether the 12- or 24-hour clock is used". But I cannot figure out what the context is.

Kim Dotcom was born in Germany, but his company was based in New Zealand, but it was fought in a US court case.

By which standard do we go for this article? – SarahTehCat (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

is->was

"was" is appropriate for companies (not software), that get bankrupt (or "shut down"? is the company still alive as a zombie/shelf company?)) And "was" seems ok here. Article says to look at the talk page, I scanned quickly and didn't see (maybe in the archives)? If the service was shut down, then it's not longer online either. I propose "Megaupload was a company for online".. Mega, the successor (a different company and domain) is however alive and "is" is ok three. comp.arch (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

2017 version question

What is the exact date for the opening of the new Megaupload website? It's January 2017 now, and I'm still waiting. Thanks.70.189.241.157 (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Back in July 2016, Kim Dotcom said that he was planning a relaunch of the original Megaupload in 2017. This BBC News story says that the service "would be formally launched on 20 January - five years to the day since his home was raided by police." However, there doesn't seem to be any real chance of this happening according to more recent news stories, so it is a good example of why WP:CRYSTAL applies to events postulated to occur in the future.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. 70.189.241.157 (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The wording in the article is going to have to be changed soon, because a January 2017 relaunch now looks unlikely.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Eh, that's too bad. I was looking forward to the Megaupload comeback; I still miss Megaupload. I remember using it right before it shut down in January 2012 (I remember that incident as well). 70.189.241.157 (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

2012 Indictments / Data Retention…… Help

At the end of the Data Retention segment under the 2012 Indictment category, there is a standalone sentence which has been tagged with needs clarification. This tag is quite old and has not been addressed, I would normally just remove or rephrase the information, however this sentence is directly tied to its own reference source. I am not sure what the protocol is in cases like this, but any help is greatly appreciated. Herenow44 (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)