Talk:Facebook/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Revision request, trolling information is misleading

I am shocked that you guys could have such bad information about a very important part of history. Whoever composed this page has no idea about the actual history of how Facebook evolved at college campuses. It is clearly documented in Sean Parker's presentation about how Facebook took on MySpace. It was Ivy Leagues and Berkeley, not Stanford. Then they went after the "enemy" schools because of the social graph overlaps.

Sean Parker explaining the Facebook campus attack clearly showing the first universities were: Berkeley, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard and Yale. https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/284304_10100606547635483_1201519_59987546_1379652_n.jpg Web 2.0 Summit 09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZautIZJu2Y at 9:20

The following sentence should be revised as it implies that all internet trolling is about harassing dead people.

"Facebook has become a target for internet trolling where, when a person passes away and someone makes a memorial page for them, they would upload grotesque photos of mutilated bodies and poke fun at the deceased. Recently, a Delta, British Columbia teenager was attacked and killed, and the trolls pounced on the memorial page, disturbing friends and bringing grief to the family. [129]"

Suggested revision:

"Facebook has become a target for internet trolling. One such example is uploading grotesque images of mutilated bodies or poking fun of the deceased on someone's memorial page. Recently..."

Or something similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeslaine (talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section entirely. It didn't have anything to do with the section it was in, the "reception" of Facebook. Further, it does not seem terribly relevant or important to the subject matter. This article is supposed to tell interested readers about Facebook - its history, operations, success, how it works, the societal impact, etc. I don't think the reader needs to know about one of the many random trolling things that happens - if we went into trolling in that level of details there must be dozens of other things to cover that are equally important. We don't have room and this isn't really the place. Is there anything unique about Facebook that makes it the subject of trolling, where other sites don't? That would have to be sourced but I don't think so. The content is real and sourced, so it might belong somewhere, perhaps in an article about trolling. Or we could create a new article about the various and sundry interesting things that happen on Facebook - there's a companion article for Craigslist that describes things that happen on Craigslist but aren't part of Craigslist itself. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the information about trolling should be included though not to a great extent only brielfy, so that people are aware about it. If people would read this page they would want to know everything about facebook. Therefore I think it should be mentioned briefly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisstudent09 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This information is completely irrelevent about Facebook, it looks like a biased opinion to me and useless for the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisstudent10 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving of controversy

I moved the controversy part of the article to the body, because the intro was getting to be too long. Also other pages in thesocial network services have controversies in the body of the article.NCSS (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What do others think of this? To me it seems odd to not mention controversy at all when there's a 9000+ word article on Criticism of Facebook. I note WP:LEAD explicitly states that notable controversies should be summarized in the lead. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Adrian J. Hunter. Good job looking up the rules for this in WP:LEAD, too. It is very odd to not mention it. It would be a much stronger article with some mention of controversy in the lead. Would you like to re-add it? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SusanLesch! Though I'd like to give others time to respond first, just to be sure consensus is clear. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it should be mentioned in brief in the lede.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've restored the section to the lead with minor tweaks for prose and to clarify the target of the privacy wikilink. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it back to the body. Controversy sections are not encyclopedic to begin with, and this is a hodgepodge (albeit short) of unrelated things that are incorrectly labeled a controversy. Being banned in Pakistan, PRC, Vietnam, etc., does not make an American-based social media site controversial. Nor does being blocked in workplaces as a time-waster. There are indeed controversies over privacy, but the notable thing is that they are privacy issues, not that there is a controversy over them. Any website, or other enterprise, as large as Facebook is going to have a number of instances of disputes and controversies. Unless there is something particularly and fundamentally controversial about facebook, this stuff is better covered in the body of the article as it applies to the various topics. The job is to inform the reader about the subject. It's not particularly informative to have pro and con sections about different subjects, just for the sake of pointing out controversies and criticisms. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Rebecca Javeleau Story

There has been an article made on the Rebecca Javeleau news piece, in which a 14 year old girl managed to attract 21000 people to "myy birthdayy partyy". Although in occasions slanderous, it is sourced and verified and with some clean-up (or preferably none; Javva the Hutt is hilarious) it would be suitable, I believe as an anon, to link to in Controversies or otherwise. Leavin' dis heah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Javeleau_Birthday_Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.38.135 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Employee count growth

Please include a box displaying employee count growth RichardBond (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A new book related to Facebook

I present a very important work which is about two books on experiences of Facebook by Amitabh Thakur. I would request this work to be incorporated in the title Facebook in Media. Here is the addition requested-

• Amitabh Thakur, an officer of the Indian Police Service in UP, India has taken up the project of writing one book each in Hindi and English based on his inputs from the social networking site Facebook, which is underway.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutanthakurlko (talk • contribs) 10:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Shareholders

1. Mark Zuckerberg: 24% , $5.3 billion

2. Accel Partners: 10% , $2.2 billion

3. Digital Sky Technologies: 10% , $2.2 billion

4. Dustin Moskovitz: 6% , $1.3 billion

5. Eduardo Saverin: 5% , $1.1 billion

6. Sean Parker: 4% , $880 million

7. Peter Thiel: 3% , $660 million

8. Greylock Partners: 1.5% , $330 million

9. Meritech Capital Ventures: 1.5% , $330 million

10. Microsoft: 1.3% , $286 million

11. Li Ka-Shing: 0.75% , $165 million

12. Interpublic Group: 0.5%, $110 million

13. Early Facebook Employees (Adam D'Angelo, Matt Cohler, Jeff Rothschild, Chris Hughes and Owen Van Natta): 1%

14. Mark Pincus and Reid Hoffman: own a chunk of Facebook stock

15. Western Technology Investments: Own a % of Facebook stock

16. Facebook employees and investors coming in through secondary markets own the rest

REFRENCE - http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-facebooks-soon-to-be-billionaire-shareholders-2010-5#mark-zuckerberg-owns-24-of-facebook-worth-53-billion-1

BOOK - The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company That Is Connecting the World ; AUTHOR - David Kirkpatrick

Edit Request

{{Edit semi-protected}}

Grammar

Source (17/12/2010)

In September 2009, Facebook said that it had turned cash flow positive for the first time. In November 2010, based on SecondMarket Inc., an exchange for share of privately held companies, Facebook value was $41 billion (surpassing eBay's slightly), and it became the third-largest US Web Company after Google and Amazon.

Correction

In September 2009 Facebook said that it had turned cash flow positive for the first time. In November 2010, based on SecondMarket Inc., an exchange for shares of privately held companies, Facebook's value was $41 billion (surpassing eBay's slightly) and it became the third-largest US Web Company after Google and Amazon.

There's more... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.203.147 (talk)

 Done except for the first comma. Correct grammar would require that comma to be there. Stickee (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please add Canada to the political impact section

Facebook and Prorogation Why did more than 200,000 people join the Facebook group “Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament,” and why should anybody care?

http://www.rideauinstitute.ca/file-library/Facebook-and-Prorogation.pdf

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.124.116 (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

rumor that FACEBOOK WILL END ON MARCH 15th!

anyone seen this? FACEBOOK WILL END ON MARCH 15th! http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/27321/facebook-will-end-on-march-15th/ comments, James Michael DuPont (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/01/09/facebook-will-not-end-on-march-15th-hoax-news-story-spreads-like-wildfire/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelzeng7 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There's only one problem with the story. It's not true. Facebook is not going to end on March 15th, and Mark Zuckerberg never said any such thing. James Michael DuPont (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and also Google and Wikipedia. No of course not! That's just silly. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to include that in the article, after all, it's a rumor, not a fact. Case closed. --Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

financial figures for 2009 and 2010

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebooks-profitability-tops-youthful-googles-2011-01-20?pagenumber=1 http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/05/report-facebook-revenue-was-777-million-in-2009-net-income-200-million/

might want to integrate this into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.176.247 (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

International Headquarters - Wellington, New Zealand specifically

The page lists Wellington, New Zealand, as the headquarters for the Oceania region, but I can't find any evidence of this. The bottom of the Facebook factsheet lists its nearest international office as Sydney: http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?factsheet. Anskrev (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Tencent_QQ: 636.6 million active users as of 2010 - bigger than Facebook

The article mentions a source that claims that Facebook is the most used social network service, but that's at odds with other data: As of September 30, 2010, there were 636.6 million active QQ IM user accounts of the Chinese company Tencent. This is enough to make Tencent_QQ the world's largest online community. (The number of simultaneous online QQ accounts exceeded 100 million.) Quiname (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. The Tencent numbers may be accurate, but there's one problem. The Facebook numbers are independently sourced (i.e., from a reliable source other than Facebook). To change the article, please provide independent sourcing for the Tencent data. Cresix (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the {{notdone}} is doing there, I can't see the OP making any request whatsoever, just a somewhat vague observation. I think the Tencent_QQ numbers are a bit irrelevant given that it refers to the IM service users, not necessarily the social networking aspect of the site, which is what is being referred to in this article. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let me add WSJ and Bloomberg. And surely that's part of the social networking aspect of the site. I guess this contrarian data should be mentioned in the article. Quiname (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

RaseaC, since the article is semi-protected, I thought Quiname was requesting an edit to the article. In any event, you are right if the Tencent figures include IM. If there's no specific data on the social networking part of Tencent, the Facebook article should stay as it is. Cresix (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the precise difference, if there is any? This source of 2 years ago already mentions 200 million for Qzone (out of date by now) and says: "... we’re not sure where QQ the communication (IM) service ends and where QZone the social network begins.": http://techcrunch.com/2009/02/24/chinas-social-network-qzone-is-big-but-is-it-really-the-biggest/ Quiname (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

RaseaC, you deleted my statement: "making Facebook the second largest online community after Tencent QQ with 636.6 million as of November 2010". Why? You said I should contribute to the talk page, but I did - see above. The statement is backed by WSJ and Bloomberg. It's not clear "where IM ends and the social network begins" (see above), but I circumvent this issue by writing "online community" instead of social network. Quiname (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This section is about a social networking site, not an online community. 'Online community' is too vague a phrase. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

600 Million Users

Facebook hit 600 million users according to these sources [1][2]. Can we update the table on the page to represent this? DanielDPeterson (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook and Wiki?

Is it valid for a facebook page/ group to be included as an alternate "see also link" on a wikipedia page? cheers Bankhallbretherton (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh? raseaC^{talk to me} 21:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be allowed under WP:NOADS.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:SEEALSO, the "see also" section is specifically intended for internal wikilinks. A link to another site that can meet the inclusion criteria of WP:EL and WP:NOT would be more appropriate in the "External links" section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't call Wikipedia "Wiki"! --Cybercobra (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So in the "External Links" area i would be allowed to link in a facebook group for reference? Bankhallbretherton (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.194.201.107, 7 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The sentence, "To accomplish this, Zuckerberg hacked into the protected areas of Harvard's computer network, and copied the houses' private dormitory ID images." has a misplaced comma. The comma between "network" and "and copied" does not divide independent clauses and thus is ungrammatical. 67.194.201.107 (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Done. 123Hedgehog456 07:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Canadians Are Online On Facebook Than any Other Country

{{edit semi-protected}} Canadians spend more time online than users in any other country, and and while they’re surfing the web, many visit Facebook.

Facebook had been the most trafficked site in all of Canada in 2007 according to Alexa, although though there was speculation that something might have been wrong with Alexa’s tracking numbers.

But according to Socialbakers.com, Canada is no longer dominating Facebook. The country has more than 17 million users on the site and is coming in 9th to 10th place, either in front of or behind India. More impressive and relevant: 51.2 percent of Canada’s total population, or 65.9 percent of the country’s online population, uses Facebook, which makes it one of the most significant demographic groups on the social network.

Reference http://techbebo.com/canadians-online-longer-other-country/ 120.56.205.172 (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The statement does not state that Canada has the most Facebook users. It states that Facebook is the most trafficked site in Canada (in other words, the site that is visited most often within Canada) and that Canada also happens to be the most active country on the internet. Whether India has more users on the site is irrelevant to time spent on it. I won't decline or accept this as I am not familiar enough with this information, but I did want to clarify that point. --ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 02:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The part about it being the most popular site in Canada is already in the article. The rest is not done per above. -Atmoz (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, etc.

The revolutions going on in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Yemen, etc. were all organized on Facebook, perhaps that should go in the "political impact" section of the page?--68.186.160.22 (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all there aren't any revolutions in Saudi Arabia, at least not yet. Since uprisings became contagious after Mubarark stepped down. Tunisia uprising was not organized on Facebook, since number of Facebook and Twitter users in Tunisia are too little. I can say the Egyptian Revolution was organized by Facebook, Since Egypt has Multi-Million Facebook users. That's why on the first day of Revolution the Egyptian Government blocked Facebook and Twitter,which didn't happen in Tunisia. The 25th of Feb youth movement,who called the Egyptian people to revolt at 25th of Feb ,was the mastermind of the Egyptian Revolution ,was actually a Facebook Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.238.173.169 (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats exatly what i wanted to post and you already posted it. This issue must be put in the plitical impact for sure. --68.68.11.243 (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Hey could an etsablished editor please add something about how registered names with fake names get their accounts suspended? here are links about it : BBC, Fox news 84.13.59.203 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think it's a notable feature of Facebook. Wikipedia does pretty much the same thing, albeit with a different "list" of unacceptable names. The Fox article states "Once the site disables an account it deems fake, its holder has to contact Facebook to prove it is real". Surely there is no issue. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Facebook paragraph

The criticism section which is supposed to summarize the main article of Criticism of Facebook is hardly doing so. 89.139.7.56 (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

What's missing? raseaC^{talk to me} 16:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Facebook (disambiguation)

The name of an Egyptian female who was named in honor of the role the social network played in the 2011 revolution in Egypt. Sp07019 (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to buy facebook

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia Mark Zuckerberg $150-billion to buy Facebook. The stated motivation being to stem the rising tide of pro-democracy demonstrations in Saudi. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to an article, not general discussion about a subject. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If the question is whether to include this in the article, the rumors got wide reportage (according to the source), but are untrue. Under the circumstances I would argue that this factoid is by far too irrelevant and unimportant to be mentioned in an encyclopedic article about the company as a whole. Given the extent of reportage, perhaps there is a place for the information somewhere if it can overcome WP:NOT#NEWS, but offhand I cannot think of where that would be. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I know it a rumor but its funny as hell and it did get a lot coverage. if we add it, i think in goes in media -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Facemash

I propose add in this article reference to the today's implementation of service Facemash ( http://www.atenwood.com/facemash/ ), which is a precursor of Facebook. Anwer2011 (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{edit semi-protected}}

Hello, i believe this page could be improved if the "website" section was cleaned up a bit. I specifically wanted to add the subheading 'privacy' and consolidate the little info there concerning privacy settings and then add my own. For example:

Privacy settings To allay concerns about privacy, Facebook enables users to choose their own privacy settings and choose who can see specific parts of their profile. The website is free to users, and generates revenue from advertising, such as banner ads. Facebook requires a user’s name and profile picture (if applicable) to be accessible by everyone. Users can control who sees other information they have shared, as well as who can find them in searches, through their privacy settings.

Facebook is constantly updating and adding new kinds of privacy settings for its users.

• You can set your profile where you can be unsearchable or where only friends of your friends can search you.
• You can select what you want available to people that aren’t your friend
• You can block your pictures from anyone or pick and choose who can see them.
• You can block some of your statuses from being seen by some people
• If you need to you can take your wall away or block it from being seen
• If you don’t want people commenting on your pictures you can take that ability away from them

Not done:I don't think such a list is necessary. The section already elaborates on a number of the issues your list raises in a way that reads less like an advertisment. A bulleted list isn't really appropriate because it's too brief. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Total active users table

In the table "Total active users", the "(in millions)" should go in the "Users" column title and not in the table title. Maybe it would be even better adding the zeros in the table itself, as it is such as small table, and it would be far less confusing that way. 46.116.176.5 (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed I went with the former suggestion, as the latter might imply too many significant digits. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. 46.116.176.5 (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

History of Facebook

I would have to agree with the 2004 date.

I remember the original facebook was launched much earlier than 2003 maybe sometime between 1997-2002 even. The first generation of facebook was a real hookup website for college kids, and you had to have a real email address with a college domain address ".edu" to join. There was a pretty lengthy detailed page that was probably the key to how folks could find each other, because it covered sexual preference stuff in detail. It was later extended to high school students with school email addresses probably after myspace and other sites appeared.

Did Zuckerberg steal the facebook site from someone else in addition to his classmates?

I think the history of f-book needs to be researched more thoroughly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.67.226 (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You may want to provide some sources...raseaC^{talk to me} 20:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Any idea when Fb started pulling from Wikipedia?

If you find a certain article on Wikipedia and then put that same name in the search bar of Facebook one (or more) of the results you get back will be that same Wikipedia article with an option to "LIKE" it. Does anyone know around when did Wikipedia start pulling Wikipedia pages? I noticed this when I did a search for "Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation" and saw the article I mostly wrote and upon testing my theory I looked up "Barbados", "Barbados National Trust", and "Grantley Adams International Airport", with all having text I wrote to a large degree. CaribDigita (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Around the end of last year I believe. raseaC^{talk to me} 11:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Australia is mentioned as if it were a country in Asia. That is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.181.240 (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)  Done -SusanLesch (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The part of the article stating "It soon opened to the other Ivy League schools, Boston University, New York University, MIT", should be edited to include Georgia Tech in that list as Georgia Tech was the 8th school added to face book, and was part of the face book network before MIT and also before several Ivy League schools.121.96.163.29 (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources would be needed to grant the request. Can you provide some?--Rollins83 (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The newly launched Facebook Questions are dealing with 100,000 weekly active users! :)

fb software

facebook is made in which computer language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.248.95.35 (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Mostly PCP. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would seriously dispute revenue and users

I would seriously dispute revenue and user estimates, they are hyper inflated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.11.51 (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Company section

Forgive me if this has been covered and rejected before.

I suggest that the Company section contains subsections: "Revenue", "Management" (or something like that), and "Ownership".

I went to the page as a visitor looking for who owns it and it took me a while. It would have been helpful to see "Ownership" in the Table of contents. Just my two cents. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

889 users watching this talk and no comment? Odd. Ordinarily I would just go ahead and change it, but I've never edited this article, and it is a major one, so I thought I'd mention it here first. Maybe I'll just go ahead and do it if there are not objections. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the subheadings. I suspect that it has remained the way it was because there are those who wanted the table of contents to look as clean as possible. Well, in my opinion, the table of contents is now more useful. Feel free to revert. I'm just one voice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Eduardo Saverin is not a Computer Science student.

The page says "Facebook was founded by Mark Zuckerberg with his college roommates and fellow computer science students Eduardo Saverin, Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes."

But the Eduardo Saverin page says "In 2006, Saverin graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University with a Bachelor of Economics."

This would mean the page contains an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karan.kbm (talk • contribs) 01:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

--78.178.166.87 (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Facebook/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

1a.) Compared with the latest reviewed version of the article, the prose is very choppy and unclear. In some sections, every sentence seems to function as its own paragraph, while in other sections there are random paragraph separations where there shouldn't be. The entire Website section is a mass conglomeration of Facebook features that needs to be sorted out in some way. Also, the section hierarchy is absurd. The Media impact, Social impact, and Political impact sections are stubs that should be merged together or even into the Reception section.

4.) From an organizational standpoint, putting criticism of a topic in a separate Criticism section makes sense, but in terms of neutrality it just drives the article down a path of POV. Notice how the entire Reception section is entirely positive. Not a single negative review is documented. Furthermore, the Criticism section, which seems to be the only place where negative criticism exists, is a mere five or six sentences, and judging from the massive size of the Criticism of Facebook article, I'm sure that's not all that can be said. IMHO, criticism should not be concentrated in one section, but rather distributed throughout the entire article, as it gives the reader a better representation of the topic while their reading a given section (I recently made this change in the Google article as an example). Regardless, even with the separate Criticism section, there is not much coverage of the other side of Facebook. (Also, it should be noted that the lead section makes no mention of Facebook criticism, a vital hole in what is supposed to be a summary of the entire article.)

6.) I know images are usually a good thing, but there seems to be an overload of images here. No reader is going to want to see the 2005, 2007, current, and mobile screenshots of Facebook one on top of the other. The 2005 and current screenshots should suffice.

In my opinion, this article needs a really good copy-edit in order to meet GA criteria again, and the criticism of Facebook needs to be better distributed throughout the article so that readers do not get a one-sided view of the topic. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of the Media section?

It seems to have little to do with what I understand as media, and is largely just a list of trivial facts somehow associated with Facebook. It adds little to the article. I think it should be deleted. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Email or postal address to facebook?

Is there any email address or even postal address to facebook? I haven't found any. So if there is a one, please write it here. Btw. Is it normal, that so huge company, a "social network", dosen't want to communicate with poeple? rmh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.105.21.11 (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

one of the biggest criticisms of Facebook is that it is extraordinarily difficult for users to contact the company. About a year ago, I searched extensively for an email address or phone number and was unable to find one that was of any use. That may have changed since then - I don't know. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• • So perhaps Wiki should mention about that? I came here because I have got a problem and thought Wiki would help me to resolve this problem (the common knowledge). I have never, ever found an email to the Facebook company. Neither I can't find a postal address to FB. I just can't communicate with the biggest social network on globe. Isn't it ironic? I know that FB has no office in my state (Europe), but why can't I find a postal address to FB in USA? There is no corporation site of FB? Why? Is it the official politics od FB? I don't understand that. Never mind about my problem, but the global problem is FB and his politics. rmh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.105.22.50 (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It's actually mentioned in the article Criticism of Facebook - we might mention it here in this article too. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

700 Million Users?

Did it hit yet? Carachi (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

== EDIT Request Facebook is becoming increasingly popular tying physical events with Virtual Events via RFID- creating a connection to the physical world. The biggest example is that Vail Resorts deployed the EpicMix program that tracked skiers vertical feet, earned them badges, etc. There are also numerous trade shows and sporting events now using RFID to connect to Facebook in real time. Refrences:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8gbvaYpYdw , http://www.wired.com/playbook/2010/09/vails-epicmix-app/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.188.158.66 (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder though, just checking the statistics page on Facebook, it lists that they have "More than 500 million active users". Has there been other official statistics reported regarding the number of users in any recent news sources? 76.174.220.6 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request- lost users

Can someone include the attrition of its user base in the US and UK? Also notable is its slowing growth. Source http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/13/facebook-growth-slows-for-second-month — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.230 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

facebook social impacts

I want to add more details on the social impacts that Facebook has. It seems that there is not enough information on certain "negative" effects that it has. For example it should be included that the Facebook status update can create a false sense of accompaniment.

LOL unusual (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

In May 2011, health experts cited Facebook in contributing to rising teenage STD rates. (See: "Facebook cited in rising teen STD rates")

Petey Parrot (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The hilarious bit in that source is the mother who "Even though she's tech savvy,...never thought teens could use social networking such as Facebook and dating websites to hook up for casual sex." Overall, it sounds like speculation. Kids had sex long before Facebook. Not sure how good a source that is. HiLo48 (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Tragic seeing though sex is suppose to increase the IQ. Must be more wankers than anything in the West.

Petey Parrot (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Community pages are wikipedia pages on facebook, you can add them to your profile. How to create a Wikipedia community page?117.195.65.163 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe community pages are created through facebook but then replicate Wikipedia content. This page within Facebook's help center may help you. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(od)The above page is of no help. Facebook has all of wikipedia, uploaded. It is amazing how deceptive these organisations have become, they beat around the bush. Well I think I have found the answer by trial and error. Spent many many hours. Correction I have only part of the answer. For example you want to put Vinoba Bhave, as a person whom you have been inspired by in your profile here is how one goes about...

1. you first type Vinoba Bhave in Facebook's search window
2. As you type you may get suggestions, select page that links to Wikipedia, ... see for Vinoba Bhave it was simple, as there was only one page, don't know what to do if there are numerous pages
3. Click on the like tab of the Vinoba Bhave facebook page
4. Check your profile, Bhave may already be there, perhaps not where you want him, delete him where you don't want him and add him where you do, if you think this is confusing, you are right. 117.195.65.163 (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't work for C.I.D. (TV series) and 22 June 1897.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

My previous revision

I want to thank those who undid my edit, as Facebook was up and running a short while after the URL ended up going to a different website. I also want to stress that my edit was true at the time it was made. I was going to fix it. But like i said, other people quickly helped. That is the point of Wikipedia. Zzomtceo (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)zzomtceo

This makes no sense.

In July 2011, German authorities began to discuss the prohibition of events marked the site. The decision is based on several cases of overcrowding or receipt of persons not invited to private events.[150][151] In the event of the 16th anniversary of a girl in Hamburg, who was accidentally configured as an audience, 1500 "guests" attended the party and after reports of disturbances in overcrowding, more than a hundred policemen had to be deployed for crowd control.

The above part is uh.... is English your fourth language? 67.185.251.75 (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the bad language, not really needed. --JetBlast (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed the bad language? The entire paragraph is still completely nonsensical. "In the event of the 16th anniversary of a girl in Hamburg, who was accidentally configured as an audience?" "...the prohibition of events marked the site?" This has obviously been babelfished. If someone who can translate from the original German into proper English would do so, it would be much appreciated. 207.68.249.150 (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

reference 71

its broken http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook#cite_note-73 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.71.67.8 (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Query about this categorisation of this article

Why is this in the category "Websites which mirror Wikipedia"when Wikipedia is not a social networking website? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tahazul4, 22 July 2011

"please change Mark Zuckerberg to Taha Zulfikar as Taha originally created Facebook.Markjust stole his idea"

Tahazul4 (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Got a source for that?--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Advertising: "more tech savvy"

I think it may be time for an edit regarding the speculation that the clickthrough rate is lower because users tend to be more tech savvy. Given the size and structure of the membership base it's pretty clear this is no longer the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.228.143 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

ipv6 support link broken

the IPv6 facebook link is broken. BravoNovemberGolf (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This is incorrect. You need to be using an ipv6 capable connection, or gateway. The actual website, when viewed correctly, is perfectly functional. The link rot tag needs to be removed.

115.70.38.220 (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed by someone else. Jnorton7558 (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Add to Further Reading

Kirkpatrick, David. The Facebook effect : the inside story of the company that is connecting the world. New York : Simon & Schuster, [c2010]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddstuhlman (talk • contribs) 20:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary as that work is already used as source in the last sentence in paragraph Facebook#Ownership. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Superflyriley, 7 August 2011

The website's membership was initially limited by the founders to Harvard students, but was expanded to other colleges in the Boston area, the Ivy League, and Stanford University.

This is factually incorrect.

Sean Parker explaining the Facebook campus attack clearly showing the first universities were: Berkeley, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard and Yale.

Screenshot of preso: https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/284304_10100606547635483_1201519_59987546_1379652_n.jpg

Web 2.0 Summit 09

Full preso: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZautIZJu2Y

Talks about Facebook campus warfare at 9:20

Superflyriley (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done The source already states that it was "extended" to other Boston Universities, implying that it wasn't there to begin with. And you're linked-to video doesn't mention a timeline. ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:44, 14 Av 5771 / 14 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a major technical problem with the Facebook Wikipedia page

There is a problem with the EDIT feature and this page is UNUPDATEABLE!! How can this be fixed???????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facebookfan77 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected, which means editing privileges are restricted to autoconfirmed users.--Rollins83 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 80.229.6.173, 28 August 2011

The table concerning the growth of the number of users of Facebook has a small error. This is the table headed number of active users situated in the section headed ownership. This shows the number of days between 8th April 2009 and 15th September 2009 as 150. This is incorrect; the correct number is 160. All the other numbers of days are correct.

80.229.6.173 (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Finally found it and fixed it. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No comments about one project Wikipedia&Facebook with support of "Faculty of metallurgy - Zagreb - CROATIA",only the following link, and all from XY, 23 October 2011

http://webograd.tportal.hr/bspadina/facebookandscience

83.131.70.71 (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 202.56.7.147, 2 September 2011

Can I Release a One site, same as Facebook? & can copy some data from Facebook?--202.56.7.147 (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

202.56.7.147 (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Your question is very vague, and I'm not quite sure what you're asking. If you're asking whether you can copy data from Wikipedia's article about Facebook, the answer is yes, as long as you follow the terms of use described at this page. If you're asking whether you can copy data from Facebook itself, then you're asking at the wrong place. You would need to contact Facebook about that. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Abhilashsnair, 10 September 2011

the universal facebook mobile application : <spam link removed>

Abhilashsnair (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done, non notable--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Visitors...!

Hi. I am Aditya Kansal. I feel there should be an advancement in FACEBOOK that will tell the user about the recent visitors to his/her profiel or groups. Can this be applied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.32.179 (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC) No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.98.249 (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Facebook has made it technically impossible to keep track of your profile visitors. Maybe a third party developer will make this available one day. Marlzbrooke (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Update to footnotes

Hi, the link in footnote 80 is dead. The correct link is:

http://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=210552142308915&ref_query=pok

Thanks EK 70.114.16.147 (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

"Nevertheless, Facebook's market growth started to stall in some regions, with the site losing 7 million active users in the United States and Canada in May 2011."

How about the other regions of the world, besides America and Canada? Was the loss of active users as great in let's say, the United Kingdom? I think the statistics of Facebook's occupancies should be kept up to date as possible, considering the fast-pace society we live in. Eamodeo (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 109.158.189.35, 24 September 2011

please let us edit the page none of this stuff is true and i would like to fix it and make it right!!!

109.158.189.35 (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 16:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Political Impact Edit

"In 2011 a controversial ruling by French government to uphold a 1992 decree which stipulates that commercial enterprises should not be promoted on news programs. President Nicolas Sarkozy's colleagues have agreed has said that it will enforce a law so that the words 'Facebook' will not be allowed to be spoken on the television or on the radio."

This should really say "In 2011, a controversial ruling was made by the French government to uphold a 1992 decree which stipulates that commercial enterprises should not be promoted on news programs. President Nicholas Sarkozy's colleagues have said that the government will enforce a law so that the words 'Facebook' will not be allowed to be spoken on the television or on the radio."

Edited for clarification.

Little-angel-73 (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)i love facebook ya suckers

Timeline

With Facebook preparing to launch a new feature called Facebook Timeline, it seems to me that the existing redirect of Facebook timeline to Timeline of Facebook could quickly become confusing. Should it be redirected? 108.28.169.42 (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit: First paragraph

I noticed, when reading the first paragraph, that the final sentence with the phrase "Web page," seems quite awkward. Can it be changed to "the service?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Multi128 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarifications needed

I need help with some issues I've run across while (lightly) copyediting this article (I'm not familiar with FB):

1. The lead says users may do various things, "including automatic notifications when they update their profile." I assume this means setting up things so their friends are notified, as opposed to the users themselves? This needs to be clarified.
2. The Ownership section should specify the date as of which the figures are accurate. Also, only a single source is cited, after the third owner, and none of the rest of the percentages are footnoted. It doesn't look like the cited source gives all the percentages, so where are they coming from?
3. The last paragraph of the Revenue section mentions "Wall posts", but that feature hasn't been explained yet in the article.

Thanks... - dcljr (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Contact FACEBOOK Administration

How about adding some information (if anyone has it) on how to contact Facebook administration? The site does not post any telephone or e-mail contact information, or even a street address that one might send a hard-copy letter to. In trying to contact them myself I've encountered hundreds of similar requests around the web. How can a business of this magnitude operate completely /incommunicado/?

Perhaps this needs to be added to the "criticism" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It is going to be

Facebook, One Hacker Way, Menlo Park, California 94205 RichardBond (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 17 November 2011

Dead Link #52 - here's a living one: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_hits_1_trillion_pageviews.php Gressenicher (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Porn problem

Most of you may have even noticed yourselves that FB has been under minor/moderate attack lately with images invading people's feeds depicting porn or gore images, being spawned by malware traps. If you are not aware of this outbreak, there are more than enough sources to back this up. Simply search "facebook porn" in the news option on Google for more information and coverage. I'm just curious if this should be added to the article. • GunMetal Angel 13:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can make a virus section for all successful and harmful viruses on FaceBook. Btw that virus could be The Fawkes Virus realesed by the group called Anonymous. But maybe it would be good to have a part dedicated to FaceBook viruses. User:Calibreslicer

There has been several sources regarding that the virus was not released by Anonymous, however, mentioning their denial of responsibility worth it is worth nothing. The flood is officially over, just now it's still a mystery, I believe, on who is responsible. • GunMetal Angel 12:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

RECHECK HISTORY PLEASE

I am quite sure Facebook existed in some form prior to 2003. In fact the site probably goes back to 2001/2002 time frame or before that. It used to be a real college search/hookup tool, and in order to have an account a user needed a valid school email account, i.e. @collegename.edu type email ... a user couldn't use hotmail or gmail, etc. i am thinking that it was easy for facebook to erase the history of the website over time naturally, because all of the search/posts/apps provided more linking material for the web... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.67.226 (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Previously there were two companies one thefacebook.com which was founded by Mark Zuckerberg in 2004 and the other earlier company which is now named About Face http://www.aboutfacecorp.com. Mark Zuckerberg on advice of Sean Parker paid the other company to acquire the name. RichardBond (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 November 2011

Facebook should be investigated for violation of Federal AntiTrust legislation. The site does now allow links from competing sites posted. Facebooks used privacy settings to flag competitor links as spam/malware thus preventing competitor sites from gaining any ground against facebook.

Bustin1986 (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a request--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yahoo patents could throw a monkey wrench into Facebook’s IPO hopes

Interesting tidbit - but where does it fit http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/08/yahoo-facebook-patent-dispute/ ? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to create a section or subsection on the Menlo Park Campus

Facebook, One Hacker Way, Menlo Park, California RichardBond (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

alternate lowercase spelling

This alternate spelling is used often quite evidently, and I think it's silly to get into a revert war over this. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

According to this source, the "official spelling is lowercase". Hmm. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:V I would need to see some extremely good references for this (i.e. not dictionary.com). Are they available? --John (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A very respected Language Log linguist works for its sister site. I don't see why an alternate spelling reference needs to be "extreeemely good" -- can't it ust be good? Why the extra bar? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks specifically deprecates this sort of usage on Wikipedia. Thus we would need a very good reason to diverge from this guidance. --John (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

But it has lowercase branding. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

MOS:TM specifically deals with this. We say Adidas, not adidas, Facebook, not facebook. It's also ironic that in the last story you linked, Facebook is capitalised throughout. --John (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not ironic. "Facebook" is used officially, but "facebook" is also an accepted alternate spelling, often used in branding, that's all. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

...but not on Wikipedia, per MOS:TM unless there are very good reasons to do so. Are there? I'm not seeing them...--John (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternate spellings are noted in the lede. They do not necessarily have to be used throughout the article. For example, the Chinese name for Lee Kuan Yew is not used throughout the article, but we note it in the very beginning. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't an alternate spelling, it's a lowercase branding. Could you possibly read MOS:TM and come back? --John (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that it is an alternate appellation that can be noted in the lede. MOS:TM applies to body text in the rest of the article. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Can it? Should it? Does it? I don't think you are going to get this any time soon; let's ask for a third opinion. --John (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternate spellings are allowed in the lede, even if they aren't used in the body. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks, "facebook" is not the official spelling; outside of its logo, the website consistently refers to itself as "Facebook". —David Levy 12:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

CIA uses facebook to collect imformation on people.

Facebook should broadly explain this to people that sign up and existing users. This should also be one of the first things listed in wikpedias page on facebook. i didnt see it anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.161.246 (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source confirming that "fact"? HiLo48 (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Fox news, MSNBC, and an array of other news agencies have all cited this. Vengeful librians is the name of the group that operates within the CIA to gather information about what people do and say on facebook. Christopher Sartinsky CIA director admits using facebook to gather information from people on onion news clip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.161.246 (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Then please click on the blue link, reliable source, and see if you can satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for adding your claim to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As easy as it my sound this task will take me some time and i will work on it. I am very greatful for your comments and look foward to any insight you may provide.To be honest im not sure how this whole editing of wikpedia works or how to navigate internet to get the reliable source. i promise to be diligent to either prove or disprove the subject in question. It is not my intention to mislead or guide anyone in any direction. I would just like to see this if true added to wikepedia for peoples research needs thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.161.246 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Social impact

I think it is generally acknowledged that facebook has been a disruptive force changing the way the internet is used, and has altered the social norms of the demographics into which it penetrates most deeply. It therefore seems to me that the section "social impact" is rather short (even the political impact section is longer), and does not feature in the article summary. The article is full of technical details about the site's interface, but is rather lacking in a discussion of the wider impact of facebook, which I think creates an unacceptable imbalance for something so important in modern life (and certainly a reason to prevent featured article status. Thoughts ? Nossac (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what you and I think of Facebook, but what reliable sources say. If you can find such material to add to the article, feel free to do so. It could be valuable to discuss it here first. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

the chart under #revenue & the infobox @ the top give two different est. revenue numbers for 2010.

one says 1.6B one says 2B. can we make it clear why these numbers are different or........... make them the same? aight. skakEL 19:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Facebook (directory) deserves the main namespace for "Facebook"

Just like how "Apple" is reserved for the article about the fruit, no matter how well known the company of the same name may be. A facebook is a dictionary word. Just like how Yearbook is about the book rather than the website MyYearbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.84.196 (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

won't get it. deserves it? eh.. ya know what would prob work? facebook lowercase. and while I'm at it, the tumblr article title should be 'tumblr.' skakEL 18:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The 2007 Microsoft deal

Wikipedia, of all places, should not be furthering the false notion that the deal placed a valuation of $15 billion on Facebook at hte time. Leave that to the ignorant blogs. Microsoft paid most of that money for the ad exclusivity rights. (They paid about the same amount as Google did for ad exclusivity on MySpace...with no ownership at all.) NOBODY at Microsoft nor Facebook felt that the deal placed a value of $15 billion at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.98.193 (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

this is incorrect, Microsoft purchased an equity stake at a $15 billion valuation, in addition to extending their advertising deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huwa (talk • contribs) 02:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

banning

when people get banned from this site it is for a reason , so why allow them back onto it within days ????? also why allow people to use different names , in this day and age i would think this is a high security risk ,this is supposed to be a social site , NOT for tittle tattle and lies about people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.255.248 (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 February 2012

There are a few links on the Wikipedia Facebook page that no longer work - I would like to correct them.

Thank you.

Mattios550 (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk|Contribs} 08:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2012

86.51.33.136 (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No request made--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Open source contributions

I just reverted an edit by Raysonho (talk · contribs) that included a developer.com reference that said that Facebook made extensive use of FLOSS technologies, and described the benefits that these gave FB. The text however, also said "Facebook's contributions include: HipHop for PHP, Fair scheduler in Apache Hadoop, Apache Hive, Apache Cassandra, MySQL, and the Open Compute Project." I have no idea about most of these, but the reference to a Facebook page (that any member of the public could have created and added to) certainly does not count as a reliable source in WP:RS terms. I know that some of the statement is wrong, because I was using MySQL in 2000 (before Facebook existed) and so I know that it was not contributed to the open-source community by Facebook as stated. As I say, I have no idea about the other projects, but we can't have unverifiable information mixed up with gross errors in an important article. Perhaps something useful, true and well-sourced to reliable 3rd party citations, can be written on this topic, but I fear that this was not it. --Nigelj (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Where did I say that MySQL is contributed to the open-source community by Facebook?????? If you don't read things properly, and I can't help you. MySQL has contributions from facebook - if you think my addition is misleading, then improve it.

Also, you don't know other stuff and you reverted it all?? I bet you will need to remove 99+% of the changes based on how careful you read. There is a simple website called Google. You can google search and research - much better than wasting my time replying and explaining simple things to you. Raysonho (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you have Wikipedia back to front: if you want to contribute content, you have to do the googling, and provide cited, verifiable text that can be checked. Where you said that is in the sentence, "Facebook's contributions include: [...] MySQL". Please have a look at some core WP policies and guidelines such as WP:V and WP:RS. --Nigelj (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nigelj, answer me - Where did I say that you need to do the research for me????? Did I ever say that?????? Really, did I?????

As I put in the edit summary, at most you can add the cite tag, not just removing anything you don't understand. Again, you don't read things properly, and I can't help you. Raysonho (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

When you said, "There is a simple website called Google. You can google search and research - much better than wasting my time". --Nigelj (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry too, I wonder whether you can read properly. Did you read the sentence, "Also, you don't know other stuff and you reverted it all?? I bet you will need to remove 99+% of the changes based on how careful you read. There is a simple website called Google...". *How many more times do I need to repeat myself* ?? I can't help you if you can't read. Do you need a new pair of glasses?? Raysonho (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(This is actually a reply to David Levy, and I posted similar contents on his talk page): I may have sounded rude, but that does not mean that I am wrong. If anyone here thinks that I deliberately tried to add wrong info here (that Facebook as the contributor of MySQL), then let me tell you that MySQL, like many opensource projects, has many contributors. Listing Facebook as a contributor is not equal to saying that the MySQL project was founded by Facebook. And Facebook contributed code and started a few bigdata (Hadoop) OSS projects, and Nigelj did not bother to even click on any of the Wikipedia article and claimed that the content is wrong and reverted the whole thing, or David who removed the content here with the reason that reminding someone of the 3RR (and giving me a lecture on 3RR) as gaming the system. Raysonho (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

1. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and the onus is on you to properly attribute the claims to reliable sources.

2. You didn't merely remind Nigelj of the three-revert rule. You attempted to exploit it by declaring that you inevitably would prevail (because Nigelj would "hit 3RR first" and be forced to stop reverting). That's highly inappropriate. The three-revert rule is a bright-line rule, not an entitlement to edit war until reaching three reversions. —David Levy 00:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I just replied to David on his talk page, but let me respond to the comment above.

1. If Nigelj is unsure, then don't claim that I am wrong - this is highly inappropriate to say that I am wrong when he is not sure.

2. I reverted his change and left a reply here. He immediately reverted it. Doesn't that sound like an edit war??

3. I wouldn't mind adding references to back my claims - all one has to do is to ask politely. Raysonho (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Nigelj expressed certainty that a statement, as he interpreted it, was incorrect. This appears to be true. (You replied that his interpretation was erroneous.)

2. Yes, it does. But it takes two (or more) to edit war.

3. Nigelj did ask you to "provide cited, verifiable text that can be checked", and he did so without hurling insults (such as your comments about wondering whether he can read properly and whether he needs a new pair of glasses). —David Levy 00:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

We can find better sources, but the truth things like HipHop and more are extremely prominent in the open source world and widely known as Facebook creations. The subject deserves treatment in the article. Steven Walling • talk 00:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

David, I am not asking you to judge. And I am not asking but questioning. And, if you say that I am uncivil, then you yourself is not that much better (see point 2).

I am just reminding him not to 3RR just because he warned me about the edit war. This does not mean that I am gaming the system (and I really think that you wrongly accused me about this).

He said that I am wrong first but he does not know about the subject (he himself said that he's unsure). So if he is unsure, he should have asked nicely. And in the 2nd revert, he did not even read the ref. And then started claiming that my edit states that MySQL is invented by Facebook. So it is not unreasonable and I have doubts whether he could read or not. (Yes, I did not deny - I am rude to anyone who is rude to me.)

Steven - I agree that I should improve the refs a bit. Raysonho (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

David, I am not asking you to judge.

Judge what?

And I am not asking but questioning.

I don't know what you mean.

And, if you say that I am uncivil, then you yourself is not that much better (see point 2).

No. Opining that someone has behaved in an uncivil manner is not an act of incivility. It's constructive criticism of his/her conduct. Asking a fellow editor whether he/she can read properly and whether he/she needs a new pair of glasses is not constructive. Those are personal attacks.

I am just reminding him not to 3RR just because he warned me about the edit war. This does not mean that I am gaming the system (and I really think that you wrongly accused me about this).

You could have written "Let's avoid hitting the 3RR". Instead, you noted that Nigelj would "hit 3RR first", thereby conveying that you could revert once more with impunity after Nigelj reached the limit.

Fortunately, that isn't how Wikipedia works. Editors aren't entitled to three reversions each.

He said that I am wrong first but he does not know about the subject (he himself said that he's unsure).

At worst, Nigelj was mistaken. It appears that he misinterpreted one of the statements that you added, which was unclear. (I would have read it the same way that he did.)

So if he is unsure, he should have asked nicely.

He asked you to add attributions to reliable sources. You responded by demanding that he research the claims via Google.

So it is not unreasonable and I have doubts whether he could read or not. (Yes, I did not deny - I am rude to anyone who is rude to me.)

I see no such rudeness on Nigelj's part. But even if he were to violate Wikipedia:Civility himself, that still wouldn't give you the right to act in kind. As a veteran Wikipedian, you should realize that. —David Levy 02:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

re

(This is a total waste of time. You keep saying, "not this, that" all the time, David.)

Judge what?

If you are not playing the judge here, and if he did not formally ask you to speak for him, then what are you doing here?? You keep explaining (or guessing?) his claims.

You said, "Nigelj expressed certainty that a statement, as he interpreted it, was incorrect. This appears to be true." at 00:52, didn't you?? You and Nigelj don't have the knowledge to tell whether it is right or wrong. At most, both Nigelj and you could have said that you were not sure whether it is right or wrong.

You could have written "Let's avoid hitting the 3RR". Instead, you noted that Nigelj would "hit 3RR first", thereby conveying that you could revert once more with impunity after Nigelj reached the limit.

Nigelj could have written "Let's avoid an edit war". Instead, he warned me not to start an edit war: "Do not edit war", thereby conveying that if I were to revert his revert, then I would be blamed for starting an edit war.

And you, David, accused me of gaming the system (this is an insult, really). You also could have written something with more civility. Both you and Nigelj started off not assuming good faith.

He asked you to add attributions to reliable sources. You responded by demanding that he research the claims via Google.

First, he started off with saying that he himself used MySQL since 2000 as the reason that my edit is wrong. This is basically original research if I were to play this Wiki rules game here.

I added to the article that the Facebook page is written by engineers working at Facebook on MySQL. That page, as far as I know, is a reliable source (remember, context is important - and not every page on facebook is public generated content, which he claimed it was). However, if he did not read it and keep on reverting it, then I really can't help those who can't read (esp. English is his first language - so no, I can never be his English teacher).

I see no such rudeness on Nigelj's part.

Well, I interpreted his comments differently.

But even if he were to violate Wikipedia:Civility himself, that still wouldn't give you the right to act in kind.

I don't think I am incivility. Asking someone whether they could read or not is not uncivil when I have reasons to doubt the ability.

As a veteran Wikipedian, you should realize that.

No, I don't think I behaved incivility - as much as you yourself don't think that accusing me of gaming the system incivility. Raysonho (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are not playing the judge here, and if he did not formally ask you to speak for him, then what are you doing here??

I'm commenting on the situation (based on my perceptions thereof). I began participating in this discussion after you addressed me here ("This is actually a reply to David Levy"). Up to that point, I was more than willing to confine my comments to our talk pages.

You keep explaining (or guessing?) his claims.

I'm going by what was written above.

You said, "Nigelj expressed certainty that a statement, as he interpreted it, was incorrect. This appears to be true." at 00:52, didn't you?? You and Nigelj don't have the knowledge to tell whether it is right or wrong. At most, both Nigelj and you could have said that you were not sure whether it is right or wrong.

You appear to have misunderstood. I'm saying that the statement, as he interpreted it ("Facebook created MySQL."), is incorrect. But you've explained that you didn't intend for it to be interpreted that way. I'm not claiming that your intended meaning ("Facebook contributed to MySQL.") is incorrect.

Nigelj could have written "Let's avoid an edit war". Instead, he warned me not to start an edit war: "Do not edit war", thereby conveying that if I were to revert his revert, then I would be blamed for starting an edit war.

"Do not edit war" ≠ "Do not start an edit war". Nigelj pointed you to WP:BRD, so that clearly was the process that he wanted to follow.

And you, David, accused me of gaming the system (this is an insult, really).

It's a comment on your conduct, not on you as a person.

Both you and Nigelj started off not assuming good faith.

Neither of us has accused you of a malicious motive (such as a desire to intentionally add inaccurate information to the article), and I certainly don't believe that you possess one. I simply believe that you've behaved inappropriately.

First, he started off with saying that he himself used MySQL since 2000 as the reason that my edit is wrong. This is basically original research if I were to play this Wiki rules game here.

No, that's merely what led Nigelj to believe that the claims were suspect. He explained that he removed them because they weren't properly sourced (in his view).

I don't think I am incivility. Asking someone whether they could read or not is not uncivil when I have reasons to doubt the ability.

You have no reason to question Nigelj's literacy, and I don't believe that you seriously do. Likewise, I doubt that you suspect an uncorrected problem with his visual acuity. It was fine to comment on his actions (by asserting that he hadn't read the relevant information properly), but you then attacked him on a personal level (by suggesting that he's apparently unable to read properly and perhaps needs new glasses). This is sheer mockery, not constructive criticism.

No, I don't think I behaved incivility

You've already acknowledged that you were "rude" (and claimed that it was justified because you perceived Nigelj's comments as such). —David Levy 04:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I said, "I may have sounded rude" - not acknowleding.

We live in a world that is not binary. And yes, I said that "I did not deny - I am rude to anyone who is rude to me", so the logic is: if he is not rude to me, then I am not rude to him. AND according to you, he is not rude, so no one is rude to me, and thus I am not rude. So the baseline is that I did not acknowledge that I was rude.

You reverted my edit again and that's why I wanted to pull you in. But that's not important now... As:

Let's not spend more time on this - I just spent 5 mins and added references to back the statement related to facebook's contribution. (We all don't even work for facebook (I assume) and we all have spent too much time on arguing who's right and who's wrong, but really whether the section is there or not does not really bother me. - But, if initially it were just a "citation needed" tag added then we all could have the article fixed with less than 1/10 of the time.) Raysonho (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And yes, I said that "I did not deny - I am rude to anyone who is rude to me", so the logic is: if he is not rude to me, then I am not rude to him. AND according to you, he is not rude, so no one is rude to me, and thus I am not rude. So the baseline is that I did not acknowledge that I was rude.

You stated above that you interpreted Nigelj's comments as rude. My contrary interpretation has no bearing on that.

You reverted my edit again and that's why I wanted to pull you in.

And that's fine. But don't "pull me in" and then complain about my presence.

But, if initially it were just a "citation needed" tag added then we all could have the article fixed with less than 1/10 of the time.

When an editor suspects that an unreferenced article segment comprises inaccurate information, it's entirely reasonable for him/her to remove it instead of tagging it. Otherwise, we'd never be able to remove unreferenced material. (As an extreme example, someone could add the statement "The idea for Facebook was conceived by Benjamin Franklin." and insist that it be tagged "citation needed" instead of being removed.) The onus is on those who seek to include information to ensure that it complies with Wikipedia's editorial standards. —David Levy 05:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

So you don't really want this topic to die off.

I said, "I interpreted his comments differently." - but I did not say that he is rude. Not true != false, unless you are operating in binary logic. I am just saying that he is not polite (in my book, one is not that polite when he claims that others are wrong when he himself is unsure about the subject - And I've said multiple times here - e.g. all one has to do is to ask politely).

My main complain was that you keep interpreting his comments and explaining why he is so right. And, I have a problem with the "gaming the system" comment from you.

This is common knowledge in the computer world. And, a quick Google would return the information needed, and not claiming that the information is wrong. Raysonho (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I said, "I interpreted his comments differently." - but I did not say that he is rude.

Wow.

I am just saying that he is not polite

I disagree.

(in my book, one is not that polite when he claims that others are wrong when he himself is unsure about the subject

He was sure (and correct) about one fact in particular. He merely misinterpreted your text's meaning (so his knowledge was inapplicable).

And I've said multiple times here - e.g. all one has to do is to ask politely).

He did.

My main complain was that you keep interpreting his comments and explaining why he is so right.

My criticisms have nothing to do with the factual accuracy of your additions to the article. Let's assume that those statements are 100% correct.

This is common knowledge in the computer world.

Again, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

And, a quick Google would return the information needed,

Again, the onus is on those who seek to include information to properly attribute it to reliable sources.

and not claiming that the information is wrong

Again, Nigelj interpreted a statement to mean something different from what you intended. I don't understand why you perceive this as some sort of insult. —David Levy 06:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

re

Wow.

Why is it such a surprise to you??? You sounded like everything is "if it is not true, then it needs to be false".

I disagree.

Whether you agree or disagree is not the point. Really, you are twisting the logic here. It is a response to your "You stated above that you interpreted Nigelj's comments as rude.", and I am saying that I don't feel that he is polite, and thus need to say that "I interpreted his comments differently."

We were talking about whether I interpreted Nigelj's comments as rude, and thus with my "I am rude to anyone who is rude to me" comment would lead to the conclusion that because I felt that Nigelj was rude, that justified me to be rude to him. So I replied and said that I did not say that he is rude, but he is not polite nethier.

Again, whether you agree or disagree has nothing to do with whether I was rude or not, which really was your initial claim for that particular point.

He did.

I did not interpret his comments that way or find in his comments that he wanted to discuss it with me with an open mind (other than reasoning his use of MySQL since 2000 as the prove that I was wrong), other then blindly saying that the Facebook MySQL project page is an unreliable source.

Again, the onus is on those who seek to include information to properly attribute it to reliable sources.

As far as I know, we don't have references for well-known facts. Where is the reference for "1 is a number"? And where is the reference for "2" is the natural number following 1 and preceding 3?? You might not know that facebook contributes to opensource, and it is also perfectly possible to find someone who does not know that 2 is the natural number following 1 and preceding 3.

Again, Nigelj interpreted a statement to mean something different from what you intended.

Since he is not here, and he did not ask you to represent him, let's not continue that discussion.

And we have pages long of discussion on why Nigelj & I needed to start the reverts, yet I honestly am not sure that he wanted to have the discussion continue this way.

I don't understand why you perceive this as some sort of insult.

Again, don't twist the logic here. I did not say that I feel that I was insulted because of his action or comments. He warned me "do not edit war", and thus I was pointing out the fact that he is hitting the 3RR first if he keeps on reverting. However, I feel I am insulted because you said that I was gaming the system. While you defend yourself as it is a comment on my conduct, not on me as a person, I still think that it is an insult, as I as a person should be and needed to be responsible for my conduct.

At this point, I am not worried about whether other things are right or wrong except your comment about me "gaming the system" - so you thought that I took advantage of the 3RR so that he could not revert, and thus I was using this trick to win the content dispute. This is really not my original intention, or else I wouldn't even bother to mention the 3RR and then started discussing on the talk page. If you insist that my original intent was to game the system, then I am not OK with that - and we really need to sort this out (and really, the talk page is not the best place to discuss, send me a private message and we can talk about what is and what is not an insult using VoIP). -- Raysonho (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is it such a surprise to you???

You wrote, "Yes, I did not deny - I am rude to anyone who is rude to me." I responded that "I see no such rudeness on Nigelj's part", and you replied with "Well, I interpreted his comments differently." Now you claim that you didn't mean to suggest that he was rude. Just that he was "not polite" (as though that's a dramatically different statement).

You sounded like everything is "if it is not true, then it needs to be false".

If I "see no rudeness" and you "[interpret] his comments differently", that can only mean that you see rudeness. (Otherwise, your interpretation would have been "no rudeness" too.)

We were talking about whether I interpreted Nigelj's comments as rude, and thus with my "I am rude to anyone who is rude to me" comment would lead to the conclusion that because I felt that Nigelj was rude, that justified me to be rude to him.

What other reason was there to write that?

And frankly, whether you think that you were rude or not doesn't affect reality. For goodness sake, you suggested that Nigelj can't read and asked whether he needed a new pair of glasses.

I did not interpret his comments that way or find in his comments that he wanted to discuss it with me with an open mind

He wanted you to cite reliable sources, as required by policy. You responded by telling him to perform the research.

(other than reasoning his use of MySQL since 2000 as the prove that I was wrong),

Again, he misinterpreted your claim.

other then blindly saying that the Facebook MySQL project page is an unreliable source.

Apparently, he was mistaken.

As far as I know, we don't have references for well-known facts.

Our policy is that it is "necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged".

Since he is not here, and he did not ask you to represent him, let's not continue that discussion.

When you stop bringing up his assertion that your claim was wrong, I'll stop noting the reason behind it.

Again, don't twist the logic here. I did not say that I feel that I was insulted because of his action or comments.

You described his comments as "insulting" on my talk page:

"I find it insulting enough when someone who is unsure about a subject says that I am wrong." [diff]

He warned me "do not edit war", and thus I was pointing out the fact that he is hitting the 3RR first if he keeps on reverting.

...thereby conveying that his reversions were futile, as you were destined to prevail in the end.

However, I feel I am insulted because you said that I was gaming the system. While you defend yourself as it is a comment on my conduct, not on me as a person, I still think that it is an insult, as I as a person should be and needed to be responsible for my conduct.

By that logic, no one could ever comment on another editor's conduct.

At this point, I am not worried about whether other things are right or wrong except your comment about me "gaming the system" - so you thought that I took advantage of the 3RR so that he could not revert, and thus I was using this trick to win the content dispute.

You noted the inevitability of such a scenario.

If you insist that my original intent was to game the system, then I am not OK with that - and we really need to sort this out (and really, the talk page is not the best place to discuss, send me a private message and we can talk about what is and what is not an insult using VoIP).

As far as I'm concerned, the underlying situation has concluded. (At this point, I'm merely responding to your messages.) If you believe that an issue stands to be resolved, you're welcome to message me. —David Levy 06:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"I interpreted his comments differently" only means "I interpreted his comments differently". Similarly, "I don't disagree with you" only means "I don't disagree with you", NOT "I agree with you", and of course not "I disagree with you". And by the same token, I disagree with your "no such rudeness" comment does not mean that "I think he is rude". (Again, I mentioned multiple times, this is not binary logic.)

And, "I am rude to anyone who is rude to me" means that it is always 2 eyes for an eye (Israel's military strategy - works so well!).

What's wrong to ask someone to Google if the person is behaving stubbornly (commenting on his conduct) and unwilling to accept the fact that that facebook page is a valid reliable source (it is not public generated content - or else we can add a script that can blindly (a script cannot read and does not need glasses, but can perform the same function as some human editors) block all facebook pages used as reference). A quick Google search would return all the information needed, and would save my time, save his time (and the person would learn something new as well in that process), but instead someone chooses to spend all the time trying to aruge whether it is true or not true based on his experience (which he himself acknowledged that he does not know much about the subject). This is as if a person who insists that all cars have 6 wheels, because 12 years ago he rented a car with 6 wheels. So this super intelligent person posted on the car talk page saying that "I know that some of the statement is wrong, because I was using driving a 6-wheel car, so I know that cars have 6 wheels and not 4 as stated in the Wikipedia article".

So, asking someone to perform a Google search is not the wrong thing, as I am not telling the person to find a valid reliable source to prove whether my statement is right or wrong, but to search whether that page is a valid source or not. It is logical for facebook to put information on Facebook (they are not that stupid enough to drive web traffic to other sites, I believe - and most people with common sense would understand that), and thus the Facebook MySQL opensource project homepage is on facebook.

I know the "Verifiability policy" - again, that page is not a purely public generated content, which he was unwilling to accept that fact and blindly kept on reverting the edits. Really, if someone (I really mean anyone, not just Nigelj or you, David) has limited knowledge in a cerrtain area, it is perfectly OK to stay away and let people who have domain specific knowledge to comment on that topic - or at least perform some research before saying that someone (who might be an expert in that subject) is wrong.

I missed that when I searched for "insult" to see where I said that on this talk page. (My bad, but then that's why I asked you (and potentially others) to go to this talk page such that I can keep track of what I said and what you said.) I did not say that I was insulted by him (so your claim "Again, Nigelj interpreted a statement to mean something different from what you intended. I don't understand why you perceive this as some sort of insult" is not true). Insulting enough might not be the best phrase for this, but something like "I find it stupid enough when someone who is unsure about a subject says that I am wrong." is more suitable - "insulting" from the original version (or the "stupidness" in the current version) does not he tried to insult me, but more like this whole situration causing all the trouble of wasted time & energy and I am also stupid enough to spend time on this - while my time could have been spent on many things more productive.

"You noted the inevitability of such a scenario" - I still don't think that this can be used as the reason for claiming me "gaming the system". The rules are in place for everyone to follow (and of course many times rules are meant to be broken). I was discussing on the talk page and thus I wanted to get a conclusion first before him replacing my edits again. He warned me not to edit war, and I sent his a friendly reminder in return. I see nothing wrong with my action really. And besides, I mentioned that that page is a valid source, and he did not listen. I can't see this is the wrong approach - and without the reminder, could you guarantee that it would not have been turned into a true revert war??

"If you believe that an issue stands to be resolved, you're welcome to message me." - I think the talk page approach is not efficient, so VoIP (actual voice conversation) is really the way to "talk". -- Raysonho (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)