Talk:Sensory Sweep Studios

Tagged?
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)
 * Say so and cite it. Right now it's just a company that makes products.  Toddstreat1 19:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Better?Umzingeli 20:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Much. I added a references section and removed the other tags.  Nice!  Toddstreat1 20:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Still needs sources.
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)

I have provided a few citations for you on your own talk page and asked if you could insert them, because I'm not exactly Wikipedia savvy.Umzingeli (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Another citation needed. "Founded by Dave Rushton", that's true in that money came from the Rushton family, Dave filed the paperwork and "hired" the others who should have been other co-founders, and Dave's nepotism has kept them in control, but at least one other name, Mike Butterfield, belongs there even though the Rushton family would rather forget about him. I can't cite these because they aren't published. Dave and Mike together went to the E3 conference after leaving Saffire to get their first big deal, but many people who know both Dave and Mike know that when starting up, Dave was telling people how the company had "about 20" employees, and begging for their first job, but it was Mike who, when asked by their first prospective contract, told them "they were just starting out and didn't have many employees" rather than the 20 that Dave was spreading around, and the company owner responded, "I'm glad you were honest that you were small, most people lie and say they have about 20 people when it is obvious they're just two or three." When they incorporated, Dave filed the incorporation documents without naming Mike, and it was only Mike's inexperience that kept him from demanding his name was on the documents. Later on, Dave became upset with Mike, withheld and mishandled his money, illegally mishandled his previously withheld taxes, and ended up losing a legal battle with both the state and the IRS when Mike left over these issues. Bwagstaff (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

While the above may or may not be true, as you said, nothing has been published (and cannot be cited), and therefore none of this belongs in the article.Umzingeli (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to use this edit thing but I find it odd that the entire gaming bloggers seem to also know SSS is named in the lawsuits and is also related to fooptube as those who dispute they are seperate. (BTW one on these news articles have Chris Rushtons response to the article admiting the lawsuit for SSS, this would be the Gamasutra link) Maybe these gaming news websites links can be used as references also look for the up and coming article in the local deseret newspaper. Additionally with these games listed in these news blogs and in the court records (some of these announced for release and some yet not released offically) can also be found on SSS very own website linking the two companies. This to me seems to be too hard to deny at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.120.170 (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC) http://kotaku.com/5138893/labor-dept-says-utah-dev-owes-workers-2-million http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=22006 http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/692690/Did-Sensory-Sweep-Stiff-Workers.html http://www.developmag.com/news/31169/Sensory-Sweep-in-trouble http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/26/suit-sensory-sweep-owes-employees-over-2-million/ http://www.gabbr.com/blogs/2009/1/37628/Suit:-Sensory-Sweep-owes-employees-over-$2-million/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.120.170 (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

How about a news report from a widely used local agency http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705280770,00.html. There is comment from SSS attorney as well. I hope we are done here trying to prove this is SSS who is in legal troubles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.120.170 (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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. Arakunem Talk 17:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dept of labor
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)

How was the article vandalized? The user properly put a citation. 68.6.248.178 (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you are right, my bad. It does not appear to be in any of the guidelines for Vandalism, but 68.178.10.194 must have removed it because it appeared to violate the Neutral Point of View policy. Actually, now that I look at it, perhaps it was a random act of vandalism that removed the DoL addition. Feel free to add it back in, perhaps worded more neutrally or in its own appropriate section and format, and we'll see if the admin and huggle really do think it is unfit for wikipedia. 65.44.114.33 (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I think it was the Nicaraguan sweat factory mention. Funny, but biased. Lol. I put the ref back in for the court case. Thanks to whomever corrected the entry and added the extra info. 68.6.248.178 (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been a few objective posts about the legal issues that are being removed by someone in the IP range of Sensory Sweep. I would assume that it's simply because they don't like the spread of that information. That seems to be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.76.216.203.127 (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was an article about Sensory Sweep? The article only sites Fooptube and does not once mention Sensory Sweep. You should read it a little more carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOneTrueSweeper (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Users involved in the edit war here should be aware of the Three-revert rule. 65.44.114.33 (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

According to everything I can find on the net, Fooptube LLC is a sanitation consulting company. It may be where Dave Rushton got his money, but unless we can find some evidence linking SSS to this, it's gonna have to go. Simple blanking, however, continues to constitute vandalism and will be treated as such. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. From what I understand, Fooptube is a shell company that employs all of Sensory Sweep's employees for tax purposes. I understand there are some public documents to that end, and they should definitely be posted here.76.216.203.127 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Typing in Fooptube in Google brings up this page, just a few links down: http://www.synapticgaming.com/index.php?q=node/6 It lists Fooptube as a partner with Synaptic Gaming & Simulation and lists www.sensorysweep.com as their web address. The only thing I found about a sanitation consulting company was from a yellow book search page. Cdprop (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Scratch that...there are plenty of links about sanitation companies on the next page. Cdprop (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Synaptic Gaming link is weak, unclear and not from a reliable source; we need something more solid than that, as we're verging on BLP territory here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I will try to find something more solid. Cdprop (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The most recent "Legal Troubles" post now has the actual law suit cited, which states that Fooptube is Sensory Sweep by way of a filed DBA. It can be found in section 2-1 paragraph 2 of the actual legal filing. We found it by grabbing the full pdf. Wasn't sure how to cite that, so I'll leave it to more experienced wiki editors. We're still having a problem with people from Sensory Sweep blanking the article, so it may need to be resurrected in the history.76.216.203.127 (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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  &#x007C;   Talk  14:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The way it is currently worded it does not explicitly say that Sensory Sweep is DBA Fooptube. It does state that the person involved in the lawsuit is the same person who is the founder and president of Sensory Sweep. Hopefully this will not be blanked. 68.6.248.178 (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why this keeps going up since it has nothing to do with Sensory Sweep Studios. It must be a disgruntled loser trying to take some sort of vengeance against Dave Rushton. It is funny how fast people turn on someone who would bend over backwards for anyone. Fooptube is in this situation cause of uncontrollable circumstances. Checked with the state and there is nothing I repeat NOTHING filed against Sensory Sweep Studios. I hope in the near future Karma comes back and kicks everyone in the face who is constantly trying to degrade Dave Rushton in any way possible. There are several of us that will keep deleting anything that goes up about the fooptube lawsuit on the Sensory Sweep page. Sensory Sweep is currently working with their attorneys to get this page taken down to once and for all get rid of this childish immaturity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poopski1998 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a clearcut legal threat (and a confession of meatpuppetry and/or sockpuppetry). Poopski has been blocked, of course. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one who put up the comments, but I personally know two people who have taken them to court in order to get their paycheck. I have just asked them to look up the court case numbers for it. When I get the numbers I'll add them here as citations. In the mean time, some disgruntled employees and ex-employees have been working on a site, that says the company is currently 3 months behind in paychecks and almost a full year on improperly using the 401(k) money. Bwagstaff (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am confused Orange Mike, Poopski was merely expressing a point of view about how it is wrong that information about a lawsuit in the name of Fooptube keeps ending up on Sensory Sweep's wiki and that Sensory Sweeps' lawyers are merely going to take down their own wiki. No direct threats just saying that Karma can come back and bite people and they are blocked? However you are letting Bwagstaff place direct solicitation to a web site that is clearly slander? Please explain... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.57.192 (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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  &#x007C;   Talk  03:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

Please read the final line in Poopski’s post, it states: “Sensory Sweep is currently working with their attorneys to get this page taken down to once and for all get rid of this childish immaturity.” It never once references Wikipedia as a whole only “this page” (in reference to Sensory Sweep’s page). By Poopski saying they want to take down "This Page" looks to me that it is due to information that is not accurate and is hurting their credibility and could potentially hurt their business. It is not their fault that Wikipedia has an editor that continues to let irresponsible editing and information not credited by facts to be put on the site about them. Let me remind you that in previous posts you say that this purported case involving Fooptube has no reference whatsoever to Sensory Sweep yet you continue to let this section be posted. Then people want to remove it because it is irresponsible and inaccurate and Wikipedia locks the site so it must stay up there. People continually ask the question and want to know what is wrong in America? It is irresponsible actions like this that can result in losing business for a company. In essence putting them out of business where several hard working people will lose their jobs in the mean time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oregano eater (talk • contribs) — Oregano eater (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)

There is absolutely no legal threat, simply it is obvious their lawyers have suggested that their entire wikipedia page be removed because people are trying to put a company such as Sensory Sweep through the mud because of a lawsuit in the name of Fooptube. It even states in the Dept of Labor section that Sensory Sweep is not named in the lawsuit. Please explain why such information should remain on Sensory Sweeps site if they are not named in the lawsuit. How is it necessary to provide more proof that Sensory Sweep is in no way involved when it says that on the page itself? One final question, when did it become against the law to state that a wikipedia page should be taken off of wikipedias site due to misinformation? I was not aware that whatever goes up on wikipedia is set in stone and a simple suggestion that a site should be taken down due to unfair circumstances that wikipedia continues to condone is a threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oregano eater (talk • contribs) 04:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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  &#x007C;   Talk  04:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that you only mention the legal threat and fail mention anything else from my post. I am no longer going to defend my interpretation of Poopski's post because it doesn't matter what anyone else interperates because it is obviously ultimately only determined by what you believe was meant. By the way I think you might want to read posts with more care becuase the phrase "against the law" is a simple figure of speech I was not implying that it was in any way actually illegal. In the link you referenced you may want to read into that as well because Orange Mike is in violation of your own "What is a Legal Threat" section which states: "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved." which he obviously failed to seek explanation since he immediately blocked Poopski. I would however appreciate some answers to my other points that were mentioned in my previous posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oregano eater (talk • contribs) 05:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

Did you try clicking on the link to the lawsuit? Please click, read, and show me where it names Sensory Sweep as actually being involved in this lawsuit. From what I can see the defendants are Fooptube and Dave Rushton, not Sensory Sweep. Please explain to me why this belongs on Sensory Sweeps page and why it has been condoned to remain on their page.
 * 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)

You simply answered a question with a question. I still do not see where in the lawsuit it mentions that SSS IS involved and you have failed to show me how SSS is involved. Obviously I am running into the issue again of what you believe should be, will be. However, I have yet to see SSS included in this lawsuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oregano eater (talk • contribs) 05:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

It clearly states that the unpaid wages are due to employees of Fooptube. Please explain how a lawsuit against a named company like Fooptube for unpaid wages to its employees effects the employees of another company such as SSS. I think you are missing the concept that is seems that these are two SEPERATE companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oregano eater (talk • contribs) 06:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

(New uninvolved opinion): Referred here from WP:COIN. It seems to me that if the lawsuit does not mention Sensory Sweep Studios, but just the founder who happens to also be the founder of Fooptube, then the mention of it here doesn't really advance the interests of the article; it's more like "Dave Rushton Trivia". The statement that the outcome of the lawsuit may adversely affect SSS is synthesis without any additional supporting information. If in fact SSS is d/b/a Fooptube, or vice-versa, or if the plaintiffs otherwise have or will get paid by SSS as a result of the lawsuit, or if Dave Rushton's involvement with SSS is a factor in the lawsuit, then that connection should be called out if the lawsuit section is to remain. Arakunem Talk 16:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Kotaku just posted an article about this lawsuit on their site specifically naming Sensory Sweep. Does that help qualify the legitimacy of the information and tie between Sensory Sweep and Fooptube? [] 208.110.156.119 (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The list of games that, according to that Kotaku article, are subject to the government's request for an injunction are indeed all developed by Sensory Sweep Studios. Do we know where they got that list? Because it isn't on the docket, but if we can find an official document showing that connection, it would be more more piece of evidence to throw onto the pile. The people above who are trying to deny that Fooptube and Sensory Sweep are linked are playing games. All of Sensory Sweep's 200+ employees and ex-employees know that their paychecks said Fooptube on them, and it's only a matter of time before this is proven to Wikipedia's standards. Cdprop (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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. Arakunem Talk 15:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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. Arakunem Talk 17:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I cited an additional news source from a credible newspaper that clears up some additional details. Also from this source: "In supporting documents to the complaint, which was filed Jan. 14. in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, the government claims that Salt Lake-based Fooptube, which operates under the name Sensory Sweep, has failed to pay minimum wages and overtime to an estimated 198 employees.". That should pretty definitively establish that Fooptube and Sensory Sweep are one and the same. Can we now remove some of the banners from the top of the article? Semi-protection is still warranted, but I think the COI, neutrality, and maybe even the reliable source issues are resolved. DeFaultRyan (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Request
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) — Oregano eater (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)
 * 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)

Please add fact tag to
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)
 * Actually, you could have done that yourself! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * If these are reliable sources, then the procedural details would be found at WP:CITE. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be mean or anything but the part where it says "It is one of the largest independently owned game production studios in the United States." may need to be omitted or changed. They went from over 200 people there to under 100 and they are still getting smaller by the week, since they still have not paid anyone past the October 20th 2008 paychecks. They are the fastest declining company in Utah in my opinion. This will also be shown as the numerous court cases for the state and federal go forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.120.170 (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

I don't wish to submit the last pay check of my family member who currently works there but I can. SSS still has not paid its employees current and past since the Oct 20th 2008. The Feb 9th document with the actual numbers of who is owed will prove this. You know the one the Feds asked for to allow SSS to keep functioning. http://kotaku.com/5143565/developer-reaches-back+pay-deal-with-government So I am patiently waiting to get my hands on this new document to prove once again how wrong you are. Also it’s a fact people are leaving SS each and every week and until this new document is submitted there is a hiring and creating freeze on the company. Let’s take numbers reported by the Feds of 198 current and past employees from the beginning of SS current financial problems of last year. Then take the KSL number reported of how many they are aware of that filed state complaints of at least 40, knowing of course there are more. http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5453287 Then take the number Dave has laid off or quit and have not filed due to being ignorant and hoping he will pay them. Then add that number to the people who leave every Friday, just as recent of last week, when yet "I will pay you this Friday" meeting happened and no one was paid except for a promise of “Sorry no paycheck BUT next paycheck will be this Friday”. So again I contest that SS is still the fastest shrinking company in Utah and by no means the biggest in the United States. I would like to see where you can imagine (in this world) this would ever be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.113.155 (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You should read the papers a little bit closer. There is nothing in there that states there is a freeze those papers are filed stating what the state would like to do. Currently SSS has a deal with the department of labor. It is not the fastest sinking company since no one has left in over 3 weeks. You should gets your facts right if you are capable and then talk the facts not random numbers that a website posts or you pull out. The department of Labor is not going to be posting that little document you are hoping for. If Dave always lies then why are so many people still here? It is sad to see how hell bent you are on trying to put this company out of business when you say a family member of yours works there. I am happy you are not my family, there would be a good chance you would rob me. If your family member still works here don't you think you would want things to turn around? It must be a step family member, someone you don't care much about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.107.3 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like I hit a nerve or maybe its just the truth I spoke and I am willing to tell people all about it regardless of the cost, since you are bent on lying about your company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.113.155 (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to say that it is not my company and thankfully I am just an employee. I just see the class of people that used to work here and I hope that none of you get your money. I do get upset when loser spread slander about a company I work at and love. Dave has bent over backwards for every one of you losers and now you will stop at nothing to ruin everything for everyone. I have told Dave that he should tell all past employees to go shove it but he is more about doing the noble thing and trying to get everything straightened out. It is funny that you will stop at nothing to close a business that you know nothing about. All top management that really knows the truth is still in tact and all you were was a lowly employee. Dave and the management have opened up to all the employees and have shown most of us the facts. It is proof not lies; it is signed contracts, emails, etc... I am standing up for Dave and the Rushton's because I know the truth and I hate to see scum spreading lies and rumors about them. Dave and the Rushton's refuse to get involved and Dave is doing everything in his power to straighten this out, but every step he takes forward he has losers like you spreading lies trying to push him back. I know you will keep spreading lies and rumors based on the class (or lack there of) you have. I will be here cleaning up the losers of the internet who keep spreading lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.107.3 (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

Anyway this can possibly be added to page? http://www.utcourts.gov/cgi-bin/cal/display.cgi?fn=7 Just look for Rushton and you will see both Dave and his wife have a warrent out for thier arrest. Too bad his daughter and son are not listed yet. Needless to say the company is a bust and no more employees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.119.118 (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at 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).