Talk:Messenger Plus! Live

Page focus
Reading the article, I can only assume that MPL is something to do with Windows Live Messenger, but this is purely guesswork...  As the author's name is not 'Messenger Plus! Live', then the page's relevant content would seem to be limited to the (broken) info box at the top. The author's MVP status or lack thereof is not relevant in the slightest. --212.178.222.21 12:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is as relevant as the petition. Shani Gerti (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Update
Sine Plus! live was released today i added more content and updated a few of things. it looks all good now keep updating it!

History
Think we need a section on the history (how it started, milestones, blah). Who wants to write it? - b3virq3b 09:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

This looks like cheap advertising to me...

It is a major add-on for a major messaging system used by enormous numbers of people so I think it would be fair to say that IM & Messenger Plus are part of the culture of the early 21st century and as such it is reasonable to have some information about it in Wikipedia. /\/\

Neutrality
"...making the impact on the user as slight as possible and adding functionality while avoiding a separate interface where possible."

That sounds more like a sales pitch than something that should be in an encyclopedia article. ApocalypseCow 00:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have made some improvements to the wording, I also added for instance the part about how there was no EULA for Plus! when users were getting confused with the sponsor agreement. It still isn't entirely neutral, and someone needs to add something about how although you can uninstall the sponsor from Plus' uninstall there still isn't a clear separate uninstaller with the company's name on it. 61.69.0.246 08:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Contributor

Im going to write a history bit for it soon i have a big page.

Messenger Plus Live!
MPL! (Messenger Plus Live!) is now due for release in te next week or two now that Windows Live Messenger is public beta. This should get added to the Msgplus page. If anyone wants screen shots I have them too. It works full features with WLM now and shall be released soon too public. I have the 4.0.0.214 version that was leaked a day or two ago, not the virus that has been going around. If no one objects I'll add it and someone can touch it up for me. There is an article about it at Mess.be, betaxp, and msgshit razorwave 11:04pm, Mar 27, 2006 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, It will be released when WLM reaches a final release version (or thereabouts). It is currently in closed beta. Check the news on the official site. According to Patchou, the version that was "leaked" was not created by him, it is probably a virus of some kind. Aldoliel 22:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is a virus version, but this is a beta that wasn't supposed to get out that did. The version 4.0.0.214, the one that works, is virus free and all features work with WLM. I was cautious of it too because its not directly from msgplus, but if you look in their forums there is topics of it everywhere, same with mess.be and msgshit.com, in-fact, all sites even show how to make it enabled past the beta closed so it works harm-free. However, if you're using Windows Live Onecare the firewall wont allow it to open.-- razorwave 20:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Question
Does MPL v3.63.148 have a virus? Random the Scrambled 11:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No GiantSpider 14:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation, or deletion, needed
I quote:

"Nonetheless, some users harshly criticize Patchou for including adware that they believe has been installed without any consent ... This has proved not to be true ... by a detailed reverse engineering of the installation executable ."

This seems to me to be more than just a needed citation - anyone claiming that a reverse engineering shows this must have some evidence that this reverse engineering has taken place. I'm removing the text unless someone can justify it.

Jameshfisher 10:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

From Gigabytemon Oct 26 2006, 22:01 (+0800)

I quote :

"In October 2006, Patchou was awarded the Microsoft MVP award in the Windows Live Developers group, sparking controversy that someone who includes adware in his programs was given this name."

Sure, there was adware in the programs that he released - but Ptchou still gave it clear that you can still choose to not install it during the installation process.

Original research/Neutrality/Weasel Words - This article has it all
I don't like biased articles - That's a fact. But, as others have pointed out before, this reads like an advertisment for M+!

I move we completely rip this article to shreds, and rebuild it with just the facts. Below is a justification for the edits I have just made.

Thanks. Welshy 00:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Original
Misconceptions (Weasel title)

Nonetheless (Weasel word), some(Weasel word) users harshly(Weasel word) criticize Patchou for including adware that they believe has been installed without any consent (i.e., the acceptance screen never appeared for them). This has proved not to be true(Weasel words) by the many(Weasel word) testers(Original research as no citation is posted) (who make sure that all features work as expected by the author(Weasel words/PR)), and an executable with the acceptance screen disabled has never been found, let alone(Weasel words) one signed by Patchou's digital certificate and/or downloaded from the official site.


 * Hi, I went on and improved the article a little. Maybe you can take a look and say what else needs to be rewritten, before going on and deleting it completely? Thank you ;) Teo64x 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Patchou and the MVP Award
I have removed any mention of the award being revoked, as there are various contradictory sources on the Net. Until this is resolved, I encourage people to leave the current mention of the award in place. RaceProUK 10:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reinstated the information about the award being revoked. Patchou's MVP Profile has been removed from the official MVP Web Site and as quoted in the text that you removed Microsoft has issued a statement saying that the award had been revoked. Some are taking part in semantic arguments about the meaning of "active MVP status" but the fact remains that the profile is gone, and the statement was issued, and Microsoft used the word "revoked". --Shani Gerti 11:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Known issue that failed to be mentioned in the article
There was a known issue with earlier versions of Messenger Plus that caused the spyware to be installed when the user upgraded the application (using the software's own update tool) without the users' consent and I really think this is important to be mentioned in the article, showing some of the application authors "ill-faith" in addition to the ad-ware "justification"

(This actually happened to ME and I was quite bothered by the fact)

Also the interesting fact that Pachouli's websites are using a "Domain Name Shield" service preventing his accountability is a curious fact (DNS provider is Domains by Proxy, which is affiliated with GoDaddy if I recall correcty)

70.22.173.110 19:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Source it. 82.32.40.219 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Please back up the statement that it was a known issue. I am a beta tester since years, and any other tester, including Patchou, will be happy to proove you wrong. There was never an issue in this regards. The sponsor was/is never ever installed without the user explicitly agreeing to the sponsor licence agreement. The update via the program and the installer you manually download from the site are always the same; the updater downloads from the exact same link as the manual download. It are exactly such rumours and conspiracy theorists which lead to misinformation. Also "the author's ill-faith"? Again an extremely biased hearsay fact. If you actually follow the development of Plus!, read the many news articles and participate a bit in the forums you'll notice that Patchou is far from oblivious to user's requests, questions, etc. He also has regulary contests with big prices. He is far from greedy, ill-faith, or whatever else people might call him out of frustration. These things can be verified by anyone who wants to. -- 87.64.222.203 (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I had the issue and thats good enough for me to say its a problem... Its amazing how detrimental information "doesnt happen" when its not in the authors best interest. also the description tag for freeware should be altered to "ad-ware" since there is no full registration option as of the last time I checked. 70.19.237.249 (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not a good enough reason according to Wikipedia's rules, hence the reply above from another users, find a proper source. Also, freeware doesn't need a "full registration option", it think you got it confused with shareware. Menthix (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Whole program is malware if you ask me- it really messed up my computer when i installed it when it was fairly new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.250.185 (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This shouldn't even be up for discussion. MPL is malware, ipso facto. The software industry abandoned the dodgy innocent program that ships with 'optional' adware / spyware distribution model years ago. It died with Kazaa, et al, and is now utterly discredited as a reputable software marketing tool. MPL is in the same bracket as other trojans such as My Web Search / Smiley Central. forget the 'op-out'; most of my clients neither read nor understand the agreement they are presented with, which is precisely the intention. And in my book, any product that begs me not to un-install it is by definition as dodgy as hell. There is no longer a legitimate need for this lazy and discredited business model. The industry has moved on; I just wish some of the dodgier software publishers would do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitterbug (talk • contribs) 20:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)