Talk:Kim Dotcom/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Embezzlement figures

The share manipulation figures in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kim_Dotcom&oldid=481216893 don't add up. Bought for 375K, sold for 1.5E6, paid 280K then went bankrupt? Where did the rest of the money go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.216.103 (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Megabox Conspiracy

Stating these two articles as my source, I believe that MegaBox should be included in or near the MegaUpload section.

MegaUpload Is Now Launching a Music Service Called MegaBox...

What Really Killed MegaUpload? Megabox, that's what... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triaddraykin (talk • contribs) 06:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Megaupload#FORBES:_Is_This_The_Real_Reason_Why_MegaUpload_Was_Shut_Down.3F. The FBI investigation was spread over two years, and Megabox did not pick up any media coverage until December 2011. It seems unlikely that this was a major factor, as the Hollywood studios and TV companies were furious with Megaupload for a long time.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


Statements of Justice Winkelmann

Given the New Zealand Justice's statements concerning the warrants, what does this mean for the websites that were taken down by US Department of Justice? Are the seizures also annulled, or is there still something (legal until proven otherwise) preventing the DoJ from releasing their hold on the network? Schiffy (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What Judge Helen Winkelmann said is that US authorities must show evidence of internet piracy before Dotcom is extradited.[1]. The possibility of the Megaupload site returning is still WP:CRYSTAL, although Kim Dotcom has hinted that the site will return.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Money

So Kim Dotcom apparently has tons of money [3] - where did he initially get his investment capital, and where did his current fortune come from? I'm mainly just curious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.109.70 (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is just a guess, but it's likely that his network of sites had plenty of advertising customers, much like any other website. I highly doubt that he made any money off of the content of his websites, if that's what you were thinking. Schiffy (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This is OT but note that it'sobviously not as simple as you suggest. While the sites generally didn't directly charge for the content, some did charge for premium subscriptions. And the advertising revenue only came because people visited the sites, and the reason people visited was obviously what they could do on the sites, including retrieving the content. I don't believe much of this is disputed by even the defendants. The issues of dispute are things like whether a significant amount of the profit arose because of content which shouldn't have been there. And more significantly, whether the distribution of such content was encouraged. And if not whether sufficient efforts were made to remove such content. I.E. ultimately how much responsibility the defendants have for the distribution of content that shouldn't have been distributed. If you're still confused, imagine if someone in the US starts a website hosted in the US where they personally upload popular content they know they don't have the necessary permissions redistribute. Content which they then make available to all for free but supported by advertising. And because the FBI is asleep for a year, you make millions while ignoring all DMCA complaints. The fact the profit in this hypothetical scenario came from advertising rather then directly selling the content isn't going to make a big difference when the FBI wakes up. Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Sensational presentation of selected facts combined with overly cynical presentation of others, using a hostile tone throughout, mars the accuracy and neutrality of this article. Examples of the hostile tone and wobbly accuracy of this article abound:

  • Kim "tried" to parlay his hacking experience into a career in data security. Two sentences later: Kim founds a data security company. Dangling third paragraph - the company he founded was successful enough to be sold to a large European safety consultancy. We're then linked to the dotcom bubble article (!), and reminded that TÜV-DataProtect experienced a bankruptcy after Dotcom's controlling interest was removed. What? This isn't even subtle. It also reads nothing at all like encyclopedic content about Kim Dotcom.
  • Kim's 2002 insider trading case is characterized as "the largest (...) in Germany at the time", but without the important explanation (contained in the cited article) that Germany had broadened its insider trading laws and enforcement powers that same year, and *had only had insider trading laws at all* since 1994.
  • Kim's considerable entrepreneurial and charitable acts, such as funding relief efforts following the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes, are given mention only as something that he is "keen to point out". Again, the bias here is not even subtle.
  • The biographical infobox blurb is clearly stylized to highlight the criminality of his background. Compare this with the similar blurbs on the pages of, for example, Scooter Libby, Dan Rostenkowski, or even the controversial G. Gordon Liddy.
  • The article's entire mass is similarly structured - a huge percentage of the article's textual content is centered around subjects that might, in other articles about similar figures, warrant a paragraph or two at most. Meanwhile, meaningful details about the dealings and associations of a very successful internet-era entrepreneur are either not included at all, factually incorrect (Megaupload was not founded in 2005, it was founded as Data Protect Limited in 2003 and renamed to Megaupload in 2005, the same year that Kim Dotcom changed his name), or included anecdotally (i.e. "Dotcom is also keen to point out his charitable works").
  • Why have a "Personal life" section with one single sentence in it, and then spatter personal details in weird places throughout the article (i.e. "Kim is a large framed man"... in the "Early career" section?!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.205.17 (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In the last few weeks I have made substantial changes to this article and have tried to address all the issues described above. I propose removing the tag. Offender9000

Missing Details About Early Life, Origins, and Career

How did Kim Dotcom get 375,000 Euros to buy stock? How much did DataProtect sell for? What did it actually sell; the article seems to describe a novelty car it made but not anything about the actual business.

Who are his parents? How did he get into hacking and was stealing credit cards his first venture in hacking or the first thing that he was caught doing?

195.191.165.5 (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

Some of the recent edits read more like a LinkedIn profile than encyclopedic material. Also, the sourced content here has been removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Correction of currency

Please someone verify and edit, that the page linked with citation 65 has different currency (in wiki euros are used, but in the article New Zealand dollars) and the currency conversion is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.229.53 (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal challenges

This herald article contains some allegations about way search warrants were applied.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10849627

--Zven (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Involvement of Auckland mayor John Banks

Ianmacm has removed this entire section claiming is is "running into WP:TOPIC and WP:NPOV issues". I think its highly relevant especially in New Zealand - which is where Dotcom lives and where this whole case is going on. What does anyone else think? Offender9000

The article is supposed to be a biography of Kim Dotcom, not an essay about incompetence or corruption in the New Zealand government. Most of the recent edits have attempted to slant the article in this direction, leading to major issues with style and tone.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Dotcom was arrested by the New Zealand police using illegal warrants (and other illegal activities) to arrest him. This will have a significant impact on whether he is extradited to the US and so is a major part of his story. The involvement of John Banks is important to Dotcom's story because Bank's involvement nearly brought down the New Zealand Government. If you don't live in New Zealand you may not be aware of the political impact Dotcom is having here. Offender9000

This is more relevant in the article John Banks. The article is not a political essay, and should stick to basic biographical details rather than drawing conclusions about the politics behind Dotcom's arrest. The thinly veiled allegation of corruption in this section also has WP:BLP issues with regard to John Banks. The section is way too long and has undue weight here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I get your point. But rather than remove the entire section, if you think it's too long, why don't you edit it accordingly. Offender9000 (my tildes are not available for some reason)

It is ridiculous that there is no mention of Dotcom's donation to Banks and the ensuing fallout. It is appropriate to cover this in more detail at the article on Banks than here.
The detailed activities of Megaworld do not seem particularly relevant to this article, but the name of the company should at least appear here.
Dotcom's arrest and subsequent treatment, including the role of the GCSB, is clearly highly relevant to this article. While it should be mentioned in less detail at Megaupload and Government Communications Security Bureau, and the aspects relating to the case against Megaupload at Megaupload legal case, this is the appropriate article to hold the detailed information.
This is supposed to be a biography of Dotcom, as Ianmacm says. I cannot imagine how a biography can fail to cover these events.-gadfium 20:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree.Offender9000 19:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The ramifications of the raid and arrest are beyond the scope of this article, which is a BLP. There is an extensive look at the legal controversy in Megaupload where it is more on topic. There should be caution about stating or implying that John Banks behaved improperly in line with WP:BLPCRIME. This was one of the reasons why the section was reverted, because it appeared to be using the tactic of implying wrongdoing rather than actually proving it. Corruption can lead to criminal charges, which were not brought over Banks' dealings with Dotcom, even if they were unwise.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you seriously arguing that this article should not mention Banks or the GCSB at all? Or are you saying that the previous coverage of these issues was unsuitable? If the former, then we have a major disagreement about what a biography should contain. If the latter, then let's work on exactly how we should present the issues. In the meantime, reverting a tag saying the article should be updated is poor form.-gadfium 07:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The previous material about John Banks had BLP issues. It implied wrongdoing or corruption even though he was not charged with any offences. There were also issues with undue weight, as an entire section about Banks was wandering off topic. This is something that should be dealt with briefly in this article. The article needs a top to bottom rewrite rather than updating.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been rewriting it. Offender9000 19:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Focus of article

Kim Dotcom was not the only person arrested in the January 2012 raid. Several other key staff were arrested and charged at the same time. The article should try to avoid giving the impression that Megaupload is a one-man band run by Dotcom, as it is not. Also, the material relating to Megaupload is becoming spread out over a range of articles, including Seizure of Megaupload and Megaupload legal case which may be unnecessary forks. This article is primarily about Dotcom as a person, not a detailed account of the controversy surrounding the raid and subsequent legal proceedings, which is dealt with in detail in Megaupload.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  • The fact that other people were arrested is largely irrelevant to an article about Dotcom. As you keep saying this is a biography about Dotcom, not about Megaupload - and those other people are not notable enough to warrant their own biographies. A biography is a 'life story'. Right now what is going on in the NZ courts is the current drama in Dotcom's life story. It is probably more relevant on this page than at Megaupload. If you think those other articles are unnecessary forks, why not fix that instead of deleting a critical part of Dotcom's life story. Offender9000 19:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


A few thoughts…
  1. I'm not (by any means) an expert on the subject.
  2. I added an 'update' tag to the article after reading [4], [5], and [6], not having taken a look at the talk page. Sorry!
  3. It looks like the parts about the fallout from, for example, the alleged donation fraud and spying are relevant, but need to be reliably sourced, not given undue weight, and written neutrally.
  4. The arrests of people other than Dotcom are important, but probably should go in the Megaupload article rather than Dotcom's, given that this is his biography, and they are only related to him via the company.
  5. Just my 2 cents. Goldenshimmer (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

My 2 cents worth:

If it's a biographic article, it's missing his background. I find it interesting what the parents were, in what environment the person grew up, which is partly what makes them. Now the surname Schmitz is a dime a dozen in Germany, but it at least hints that his father was the German connection and the mother might have been (or be) the Finnish connection. His obviously very good command of the English language very early on seeems to suggest early practice. Kiel is a naval town, maybe the father was in the German Navy and he spent a bit of time in England? In biographies where a second nationality is mentioned an omission leaves a hole. Isn't it interesting when you check up on a person in the wikipedia to see if the person grew up in a circus, in an orphanage, on a boat - whatever? 144.136.192.70 (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Article cleanup

Re this edit. For some time now, the article has needed a cleanup. Too much material has been added by one particular editor who seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the legal and prison system in New Zealand. While the article should note that the raid on Dotcom's mansion led to legal and political controversy, there is a need to stay on topic for a biography of Dotcom.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Education

Why not write that he went on a German Hauptschule and set a link to the corresponding article instead of trying to compare the German to the English or the American school system? Also he pretended to have a much better education, stating he received the Abitur for intellectually gifted at the Internatsgymnasium Plön (Source, German). Nummer6 (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Founder of correction?

As far as I know, Kim Dotcom doesn't own a site called "Mega.com". He moved away from .com and .net websites. At least Mega.co.nz works (unless it's down already). 85.164.231.167 (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The 1980's: Kim Schmitz colaboration with the German police and other highly interesting facts

This article is lacking massively. There is a huge gap when it comes to Schmitz's activities in the 1980's.

According to the linked German Wikipedia article Schmitz operated mail- and voicebox systems mainly populated by hackers and phreakers. He systematically analyzed the contend provided by his users in order to gain access to high quality information on hacking and phreaking. German sources make it very clear that during this time hundreds of stolen credit cards were found on his system by the police. When the German police targeted him, he decided to provide them with a vast spectrum of information on his users.
Later he cooperated with Günter Freiherr von Gravenreuth an infamous German lawyer specialized in the Abmahnung (a very German way of generating significant amounts money, mainly from naive kids by sending a legally relevant letter and reimbursing hundreds of Euros of attorney's fees in eache case) of users, most of them teenagers, sharing copyrighted software. According to German Wikipedia Schmitz functioned as a decoy for von Gravenreuth in several cases. According to the article this cooperation was later one of the reasons that his two-year sentence was suspended.Nemissimo (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Source of his wealth

It's not clear to me how he made such a large fortune since I thought he was offering people free storage and some of his companies ran into so much trouble. The commenter above suggests much of his wealth was gained through criminal activities. How did he make his millions? 63.143.208.225 (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't. I merely compiled a short summery of the German Wikipedia's article on Schmitz' activities in the 1980's. He left a lot "scorched earth" in Germany btw. Even today, most Germany internet activists and bloggers are extremely critical of him. I guess this happens if you hand a massive amount of your users' confidential information to the police in order to lower your sentence and start targeting teenagers copying games in collaboration with one of Germany's most notorious 'Abmahn' lawyers. The relevant sources are included in the German article. By moving into a English speaking country Kimble seems to have managed to leave the bad press behind.
The question how he made his millions during the last few years could indeed be interesting. Nemissimo (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
How about not "thoughting" so much, and instead reading a little? Megaupload also had for-pay services. The company had 180 million users and a net income of over 175 million USD. --Sumafi (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I was under the impression he had already gained money before megaupload. After reading a whole lot about what is going on today in his life in this article, his past and sources of his vast wealth are of most interest to me.Bcomnes (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Megaupload had free and paid for accounts, and presumably made a lot of money from paid for accounts. Users could pay for faster/priority downloading. I believe it was also possible for users to make money (commissions) from affiliate links. I think the money making concept was that a user could upload a file, such as a movie, post links to it elsewhere, and earn a commission from those users who paid a fee for faster downloading, with megaupload keeping the rest of the fee. Downloading a large movie file from a free account would have taken a long time. Danrok (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Time 100 list

Should we wait, or is it worth a mention already? Be——Critical 16:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems a bit slanted

The coverage of Dotcom's arrest is heavily focused on his view of events (of which there's an entire section) and the - mainly procedural - problems which have arisen with the case against him. While his views and these problems are clearly highly significant, there's not much coverage on what's actually been alleged against him. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Offender9000 added a lot of this material. He is now indefinitely blocked. The current version of the article is slanted towards criticism of the NZ authorities, and needs a cleanup for WP:NPOV.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please, not a hacker

He ran a BBS in the 80s and now runs a business. He is in no way a hacker - other people write for him, and maybe they are hackers, but he is a serial entrepreneur and generally successful self-promoter.

If other people were hacking for him you should provide an appropriate reference - instead you (or someone with the same IP address) just keeps editing hacker in the article to script kiddie. As always wikipedia needs references, and as script kiddie is a subset of hacker the burden of proof is on you - please provide evidence if you want your edits to remain as anything but your POV. FanRed XN | talk 05:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
In no way is script kiddie a subset of hacker. There is no evidence, other than his own bloviating, that he has hacked, in any sense, anything at all. By your own guidelines, hacker also fails NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.33.78 (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I guess folks are loath to admit that setting up an IRC channel and reselling credit card info is not super-l33t haxoring, so I've put in some clarifying terms without removing hacker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.33.81 (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I accept the compromise version. We do need to reflect our sources, and they do call him a hacker. I would prefer if they had called him a cracker as hacker is a positive term in my circles.-gadfium 21:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
@Fanx: The burden of proof is on the person that makes the claim. Schmitz made the claim, yet there's no proof to substantiate it. On the other hand, he has been playing the public for decades now and the mindless wikipedia drones seem to have fallen for it too. The only hacking claim that is at least slightly more substantial (PBX hack) than all the other crap comes from a source that says the following after the cited quote: "There’s no record to substantiate most of this; perhaps some of it is true." This puts things into perspective a lot and yet we don't see this perspective here. So this article cites a source which in effect only relied on Schmitz as source himself, but can't deliver proof and even clearly says so, yet somehow this is self-validating in the hardcore wikipedia editors eyes... Nuff said. Schmitz is no hacker. He may have dealt with some hackers by buying data from them and reselling it, but that doesn't qualify him as one, regardless of his wishful thinking and public regurgitation of his artificial biography.
The fact that among those 80 sources this article uses, only 3 are German speaks for itself. Most links to articles I checked, the authors did not even speak to Schmitz at all. In fact, it's not clear where their sources for their allegations come from. Well, I can work properly. Here's a link to the verdict of 1998 when Schmitz was sentenced for the PBX hack: http://www.rechtsanwaltmoebius.de/urteil/lg-muenchen-6-kls-315-js-18225-94_urteil-kim-schmitz.html
While it mentions the term "hacker" in abundance, it also makes perfectly clear that Schmitz did not write any code or exploited any security holes himself, but was merely a mouth piece that used his own company to sell easily exploitable hardware. If that qualifies as a hacker, then someone should probably rewrite the wiki article for that term... The verdict covers 8 cases of computer fraud in which Schmitz only functioned as a front end while the hacking was done by an accomplice named Thomas Schu. So the OP had the right idea. Schmitz never hacked. I would be surprised if he ever wrote a single line of code. But hey, don't take my word for it. Learn German and read up for yourself...
I suggest also reading the German wiki page for Schmitz. For one this isn't just a retranslation of the English one, but puts his association with the Hackers properly in perspective. Then again, that's to be expected since they used German sources and not just an abundance of sites that rotate and regurgitate other non-German news outlets which in the end leads to the fact that they all just fall back on Schmitz's own words of describing his past....very reliable way of enhancing the truth. That being said, the part of the article that covers Schmitz's activities in Germany are of extremely bad quality and should be rewritten properly with proper sources. Oh and script kiddie is not a subset of the term hacker. Seriously, where did you pull that definition from? 77.190.148.69 (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Divorce

Dotcom did not announce "on Twitter that he was separated from his wife Mona and was filing for divorce". Divorce (technically dissolution of marriage) cannot be sought until after two years separation. Separation thus precedes divorce by 2 years, and cannot happen simultaneously.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Nationality

Re this edit: Residency and nationality are not necessarily the same thing. At the time of the illegal GCSB surveillance, Kim Dotcom had permanent residence in New Zealand, but was not a NZ citizen.[7] The sourcing says that he holds German and Finnish passports.[8]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Residence and nationality are not the same, and are never the same. Mr Dotcom has NZ residency. He will never be an NZ citizen. His nationality remains German/Finnish or whatever it was when he came to NZ.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2014

To become the third paragraph under the section: New Zealand's decision to grant residency

Documents released under the Official information Act show that the SIS opposed Dotcom's application because he was under investigation by the FBI but "dropped their objection 90 minutes after being told there was political pressure" to let him into the country.[1] As Dotcom's extradition case moved its way through the New Zealand court system, various commentators began to suggest that the National Government may have granted Dotcom residence as a favour to the US Government and to Hollywood moguls so that he could then be extradited for trial in the United States.[2][3]

Inkredibel (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It's going to need some wikilinks. It should say who released and why he's saying he released them. "various commentators" is weasealy and needs examples or refs. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this article protected against meaningful edits that may not be quite perfect, as well as vandalism? I thought wikipedia was a collaborative effort that allowed others to improve on your imperfections. Come on give us a fair go mate. I've added two sentences with three references. What more do you want? Inkredibel (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Two of my three criticisms boil down to WP:NPOV issues, and that's why the article was protected. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
This source is a blog so it is unsuitable, while this is an opinion piece about a conspiracy theory. What is not in question is that Kim Dotcom had residency in New Zealand, but never had citizenship.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What is his actual name now?

There are people who claim that he changed his name from "Kim Schmitz" to "Kim Dotcom". However, neither under German nor under Finnish law is it all so easy to completely change one's family name, especially not to something which seems rather nonsensical. So, where is the proof that "Dotcom" is his actual name now? I think that this is rather a pseudonym that he is using. I would be really surprised if the state of Germany and the state of Finland agreed that it's more than just a pseudonym/screen name. 87.178.49.145 (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

When he appeared in court in New Zealand, it was under the name Kim Dotcom. The sourcing says that this is his legal name.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Finland it would be realitvely easy to change your NAME once. But the proof would be a certificate or a passport. Even courts and banks will allow business and other names for some purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.244.74.200 (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

company value

He valued his own company at 200mill - this is not a neutral source and no reference is given. GIVEN that he previously was found guilty of boasting about large amounts of money both during phreaking AND with an investment scam - he is not reliable.

I also wonder where did he get the money he has. 300 000 is not an easy amount to suddenly have to invest, where did it come from are his parents rich? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.244.74.200 (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

New photo of Dotcom

Re this edit: The photo is on Getty Images here credited to Hagen Hopkins. Agency photos are usually copyrighted, so this needs clarification.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ergonomic chair

BBC reports he has his own chair. Looking at him it seems he might need his own specialized transport. IS he clinically obese? Have a health condition? Is there public record about this? Be good to know if so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.244.74.200 (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

He's just German.2601:806:4301:C100:204B:7ACA:A860:C7B7 (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Seth Rich/Sean Hannity involvement

Dotcom has been pushing Seth Rich conspiracy theories with the help of Fox News host Sean Hannity. Would this be an appropriate addition to Dotcom's Wikipedia profile?

Lasalleexplorer (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kim Dotcom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kim Dotcom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

How to update this article?

I am not sure how I could update this article, but I have been hearing that Kim Dotcom: Caught in the Web is a big thing relating to him that has become quite notable at the moment. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 07:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Mega.nz is working for years already

Article says how Mega is defunct, yes, maybe on old domain, but mega.nz is functional since years.

Rcdrun (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rcdrun: The article is not wrong and is not omitting anything. The lead correctly describes Megaupload as "now-defunct" and says that the new site Mega was subsequently started up. The matter is also covered in the "Other activities" section. I see no need for any changes. Akld guy (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

2016 Extradition Hearing Livestream alternative link after removal

The videos of the Court Extradition videos were deleted by the original Youtube channel, named 'Stream TV'. But I found a user that downloaded the majority of the videos before they were deleted. They are hosted under username chughes374 , and here is the link to the playlist. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-V4gyYFdq1znADGeGHC1FCCKSWgEZ7T4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.240.136.164 (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

How he made his fortune

How about some reference to how he became rich earlier on (before Mega Upload). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Fletcher (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Any relation to Rich Dotcom in the TV Series "Blindspot"? If so, should we make an "In popular culture" section?

Very Fantastic Dude (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ The secret Dotcom papers, NZ Herald 15 July 2014
  2. ^ Springing The Trap: Did The FBI Turn New Zealand Into Dotcom's Holding Cell?, Chris Trotter Bowally Road, 15 July, 2014
  3. ^ Bryce Edwards: Dotcom conspiracy - theory or reality?, NZ Herald 16 July 2014
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Kim_Dotcom/Archive_2"