Talk:MySpace/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Dispute the Neutrality of this Article

1) "...and knowledge about who is visiting or 'stalking' the profiles of women and children." Sexist - implies that it is ok or at least a lesser crime to stalk men, than it is to stalk women.

2) There are dozens of similar profile/social networking websites that all have the same issues regarding youngsters and paedophilia. If Myspace did not exist, then all the 'bad apples' would simply be using similar sites, sites that would other wise share the load that Myspace takes.

Anon - 12/09/2006 23:12GMT

Good point... I think. I can sort of see where you're coming from, sort of. IE im lazya nd will look it up later. -- Chris chat edits essays 04:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

anons!

Some anon reverted my changes gradually to the old version which gave "groups" and "bulletin surveys" huge sections. I reverted back, cause mine was better. Maybe this should be semi protected because thye didnt discuss the changes at all.

oh sorry, this is me. -- Chris chat edits essays 00:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, before reverting my work, lets discuss this stuff, OK? Now it's stuck at the crappy version cause I cant break 3rr...-- Chris chat edits essays 00:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think that it's crappy? 203.49.223.254 00:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry (thats a little uncivil of me) but I don't think "bulletin surveys", an entirely user-made feature, deserves a Level 2 section. Groups and bulletins are standard features that should go in one community section, like I put them. Censorship is also a bit of a weasel word. If you have any specific objections to my revision (other than some valdalism I missed reverting), please cite it now. -- Chris chat edits essays 00:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bulletins are not a user made feature. It deserves its own section. 203.49.223.254 00:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

bulletins maybe ( a lvevl 3 one under an "other features" roof). Surveys, hell no. -- Chris chat edits essays 00:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do the anons think they can make hundereds of edits but I, an experienced editor, can't touch their work without discussion? If you don't want your work to be edited mercilessly, don't submit it!-- Chris chat edits essays 13:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed Media outlets on MySpace section

I removed this section because...
1. It doesn't seem encyclopedic
2. It mainly mentions low-key radio and tv stations
3. I'm sure that a lot of other radio and tv stations have MySpace profiles
4. It's mainly US-centric
Comments?
58.163.144.86 13:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Top Friends?

Why is the top friends thing in here? really it seems to me that people should grow up. not being on someone top friends is something you got upset over in grade school. so i dont see how that should effect someones life. i think it should be removed. any takers? Thenewjackblackk 20:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Something about top friends should be in this article, it's sort of what gave myspace it's own niche, and is a constant source of teen angst lol. However, it's a lot less relevant these days than it was when there was only a top 8 friends.

BIG QUESTION

Is it possible to see who exactly visited your profile? THis is clearly a privacy issue...For example, if i visit a person's space through MSN Messenger (because they are one of my contacts) will they know that I visited their space? Thanks.

Wikipedia Discussion pages are for discussing the article, not MySpace itself.
No. If you care about privacy, make your profile private.-- Chris chat edits essays 01:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It is possible. There is at least one site which allows this functionality. It's not a privacy issue because you are not on public property while surfing MySpace.

No.. Myspace trackers are illegal.--168.254.226.35 14:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, that last Annon.. IP comment was from me.--XMBRIAN 19:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected page

Due to an editorial dispute, I have protected this page. Please reach consensus on these editorial issues here. B/c I have no vested interest in this article, I am willing to try to mediate any disputes--if the editors wish me to do so.--Alabamaboy 20:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What?

There's nothing wrong with the edits made by the anonymous IPs. They were in fact constantly reverted by User:Ccool2ax. Ccool2ax made the article worse by forcing his opinion "that's not a feature", etc. and reverted changes and in doing so actually made the article worse. Myspaceaddictaust 20:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The protection is neither an endorsement of or disapproval of User:Ccool2ax's edits. The fact that a building edit war appears to be taking place here is why the protection was placed. As I said, I'm happy to help mediate this disagreement. In addition, anonymous and registered editors can take part. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, aren't you one of the anons, Myspaceaddict? -- Chris chat edits essays 03:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

To be completely open about the latest editing on this page, a large number of the Australian IP edits were by the same user (often going back over sections that were reverted or changed and reverting them again to their exact version using the same editorial style). Until the page was sprotected, this common editor (using multiple IP addresses) was pushing a particular direction on the article (and also made similar style contributions to the DOPA Act of 2006 article, Windows Live Messenger, and a few others from each of the IPs). Once sprotected, a new user, Myspaceaddictaust, appears and continues the same editorial style and has all of these same articles on their watchlist. To speak about "the anonymous IPs" in the third person is a bit disingenuous.

Specifically to article content now, I had removed and fixed up a number of sections for PoV, lack of verifiability, extremely original research-based additions...just to return the next day and find the anonymous IP editor from Australia had undone everything I had accomplished in complete ignorance of my edit summaries asking for discussion and spelling out how my changes fixed OR/V/RS problems with the article. I figured someone else could take up the cause since I was getting nowhere and my appeals to the AI boards were ignored. It looks like Ccool2ax tried to take up the gauntlet, but is finding the exact same issues of reversion and article ownership from other editors. ju66l3r 21:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any problems with the current version of the article? Myspaceaddictaust 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes. that's why were, i don't know.. editing it. Now let use edit our page without reversion s we don't have to keep it protected. I'll make a /Temp:Ccool2ax revisons page so I can work on a propsed revision to discuss. -- Chris chat edits essays 03:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Subpage done. My main objection to the anon/Myspaceaddict was that he told me to discuss changes, yet made major changes without any discussion. Huge violation of WP:OWN. He claims that my opinion shouldnt influence the article, like I'm less worthy or something. -- Chris chat edits essays 04:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Top Friends Criticism NOT NEEDED

I think someone took criticism a bit too far. I deleted it once, and when it becomes unprotected I'll do it again. There is no need for a top 8 criticism becuase friends don't put you on there. Crticism is when a company (MySpace) does something that is sneaky or untruthful. This is friends doing untruthful things. If there was a Wikipedia page of Christina's friends and someone added that to her article that criticism is upon her that she didn't add Olivia as a friend, then fine. But it is NOT MySpace's fault that Christina did not add Olivia into her top friends. Anom8trw8 00:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Anom8trw8 Septmember 6, 2006 4:51 PM PST

It's deleted in my temp revision page, which hopefully will gather consensus to edit. -- Chris chat edits essays 04:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

proposed revision

So, guys, let's have a straw poll about this revision to the article: /Temp:Ccool2ax revisions. What do you think? Comment here. After I think we've got consensus, ill use {{editprotected}}. -- Chris chat edits essays 04:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with your version. Myspaceaddictaust 04:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you bother to look at my version? Myspaceaddictaust

what's wrong ith it? Point out examples so we can work together to make the MySpace article suck less. (Also, I haven't checked yet, but don't edit the subpage I made.. make your won so that they can more easily be compared). -- Chris chat edits essays 04:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

nm what you did is fine. -- Chris chat edits essays 04:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a comparison of our versions. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMySpace%2FTemp%3ACcool2ax_revisions&diff=74271303&oldid=74253753

Myspaceaddictaust 04:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok let's go through it one difference at a time. Myspaceaddictaust 04:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

what I don't like about your proposal!

here's the diff

MySpace is commercial. Just because it's free does not make it non commercial.
The "Top Friends" feature causing despair doesn't need to be in the article. It's like saying "basketball makes people angry" in the Basketball article.
Get rid of the Virus Bulletin, Survey, and Chain Bulletin sections. Please. It is original research and is not too important to the context of the article.
I don't see what wrong with my International or Mobile sections at all.
Some of the stuff in your Censorship category has little to do with censorship at all.
Use my shortened version with the word "blocking" because it's not censorship... censorship would be burning down MySpace's servers.
I'm logging off at 12:00 CDT, so if this gets unprotected, stop reverting it when someone other than you cahnges it please. -- Chris chat edits essays 04:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

my response

1. MySpace is commercial. Just because it's free does not make it non commercial.

DISAGREE: It said that it was mixed before but I changed it to yes without being sure.

2. The "Top Friends" feature causing despair doesn't need to be in the article. It's like saying "basketball makes people angry" in the Basketball article.

DISAGREE: I believe that I made a reasonable compromise by removing it from the Criticism of MySpace section and it should remain in the article under Friends Space.

3. Get rid of the Virus Bulletin, Survey, and Chain Bulletin sections. Please. It is original research and is not too important to the context of the article.

DISAGREE: It is important enough to be left in the article. I'm sure we can find a source.

4. I don't see what wrong with my International or Mobile sections at all.

DISAGREE: It's clearly erroneous, the spelling and the terms you use. There's no need to call it access when my version specifies the proper term used on MySpace.

5. Some of the stuff in your Censorship category has little to do with censorship at all.

DISAGREE: How so?

second and third paragraph. -- Chris chat edits essays 12:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove it from my version. Myspaceaddictaust 12:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

6. Use my shortened version with the word "blocking" because it's not censorship... censorship would be burning down MySpace's servers.

DISAGREE: Maybe we should just incoporate into the Criticism of MySpace section.

This one kind of makes sense, although the people blocking MySpace aren't doing it to criticize it. -- Chris chat edits essays 12:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

7. I'm logging off at 12:00 CDT, so if this gets unprotected, stop reverting it when someone other than you cahnges it please.

DISAGREE: I've already compromised on this enough. If it was such a big a deal other editors would be involved in this petty argument.

So you disagree that when this becomes unprotected, you'll stop reverting it? Basically, you've just stated that once an admin unblocks this article, youw ilol keep it your way, allowing no one else to edit but you. Way to compromise. I suggest you talke a long hard look at WP:OWN. -- Chris chat edits essays 12:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Myspaceaddictaust 05:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Does CDT = Central Daylight Savings Time? Myspaceaddictaust 05:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

yes. Of curse you disagree.. but luckily, you don't own this article, so I can gather consensus without your personal opinion. -- Chris chat edits essays 11:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

editprotected

Chris chat edits essays 18:37, 7 September 2006

make it match /Temp:Myspaceaddictaust_revisions. We agree on the edit. -- Chris chat edits essays 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made the change. Please check the page and make sure it is correct. Once the involved parties verify here that consensus is achieved (just say aye or yep or something) I'll remove the protection from the article. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just recently, I've noticed a few minor changes I might make, but otherwise this page should be semi-stable. This should be unprotected if we promise notto simply revert, but work with each other. -- Chris chat edits essays 18:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In future I'll use edit summaries more and discuss dramatic changes. Besides there's not many articles on my watchlist anyway so it should be easy! Myspaceaddictaust 18:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll unprotect the page in a moment. If either of you ever need any assistance, just drop me a line. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Date format

About this. When showing the difference between the American and other date systems, it is traditional to use day numbers which are greater than 12 to show which are days, and which are months. e.g. 30/09/2006 vs. 09/30/2006. If this example is going to be tediously incremented each day, on the 9th of September it will say that the difference between the US and other date system is that one says 09/09/2006 and the other says 09/09/2006, which doesn't make sense. Those are two reasons for the change. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If nobody objects I will change it back. Because you don't understand something doesn't mean you have to revert it. See WP:OWN. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is bullshit. You're arguing about stupid topics. Just leave it the way it is, gees. Myspaceaddictaust 21:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've raised two reasons to explain why this minor edit would be an improvement. Could you address those instead of profaning? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. Myspaceaddictaust 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

have you read WP:OWN yet? if an edit isn't what you'd do, theres not reason to revert it. only change it bcak if it makes the article dramatically worse (e.g. vandalism). -- Chris chat edits essays 22:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

On a similar note, I re-wrote the copy for the entire International sub-section, clarifying it (and improving the English and the accuracy) only to have it reverted back in a series of bite-size edits - twice now - for no other reason (as far as I can see) other than it wasn't what they'd written before. This is tedious and pointless.

MySpace doesn't "have" the option, it "offers" it - that's just plain good English.
It doesn't actually work - you get what you're given not what you choose.
The addition of the fact that it was introduced earlier this year. (Historical perspective.)
Clearer explanation of what the regionalisation is attempting to achieve. (Localised content and advertising, and networking.)
Proper English as regards the dates and languages, not the pidgin it was written in before.

Add to that a couple of other tweaks (visual edits to the source ot make comparisons and editing on the citations easier in future (as I've explained before), for instance.

All improvements in one form or another. All reverted out of hand. That's not just reversion, it's vandalism itself. Cain Mosni 16:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Luckily Myspaceaddict is premablocked. He wouldn't let anyone change it.. y'know, thats what wikis are for. -- Chris chat edits essays 21:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Software

I looked up this article to see what OS and webserver software MySpace uses. But there was no information on that. That would be a good thing to add, if someone knows the answer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.21.109 (talk • contribs).

Added. Thanks for the suggestion. If someone has a better location/sub-topic to put that information in, feel free to move it. As an aside, if you need OS/webhost software info in the future, you can try http://www.netcraft.com for most websites. ju66l3r 06:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it should be as the first entry of "Myspace features", it is only relevant for geeks. Maybe it should be under the topic "Other".

Yeah, only "geeks" care about it. Of course, since MySpace is so hip, its article must be hip too and place important details in designated non-hip sections, of course. 66.82.9.52 15:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

better version?

I've created a better version of the article with some minor tweaks here... [1] MySpacefreak 10:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd like to tell us exactly what you've changed, so that we don't have to sit comparing the two articles line by line? Cain Mosni 16:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is it... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMySpace%2FTemp%3AMySpacefreak_revisions&diff=75511436&oldid=75508761 MySpacefreak 17:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't get very far through. How do you consider the phrase "myspace has 300 employees" is better English than "MySpace employs 300 people"? One should be avoiding the generic use of "has" and "have" wherever possible. Ditto the repetition of "MySpace" where edits have deliberately been introduced in the past to reduce such repetition. Oh, I see why - hello Myspaceaddict... Your sock's showing. Cain Mosni 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with my version?? MySpacefreak 17:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Give it up, Pnatt. -- Chris chat edits essays 18:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How can I tell it's you? I used a nonstandard revision form in the talk subpage with my username. NO one else uses that form but me, and Pnatt. Plus, you have the same editing style. -- Chris chat edits essays 18:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought my explanation of just the first couple of reason's why it was bad were perfectly lucid and concise. Cain Mosni 18:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I wanna quit. MySpacefreak 18:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Good... because you're not supposed to come back after a permablock. -- Chris chat edits essays 19:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about the gay ass rules and policies. I stopped caring ages ago. Wikipedia is full of unnecessary bureaucracy. 203.49.189.225 19:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary? It IS necessary because of people like you. The rules are not "gay," they are in place so that we can make this a legitimate encyclopedia, not some free forum of content. We're not UrbanDictionary over here, ya know. --CanesOL79 22:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay, now we have one more IP adress we know Pnatt uses!

What should we do about this serial sockpuppet user now? User:Pnatt has been at it for months now. Enough is enough. Aflfinals 15:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

We'll simply remove each one as it shows up and pretty soon it will become so mundane that people won't even feel compelled to comment on it at the article talk pages, leaving you the tedium of trying to interject your edits around the ban while not gaining any recognition for having done so. ju66l3r 17:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Heather Michelle Kane

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_fe_st/myspace_murder_plot

This should be added somewhere, but Im not sure exactly where. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azslande (talk • contribs).

I read that article earlier today and also thought the same thing. The reason I didn't do so is because MySpace does not appear to be involved itself (other than being the source of her evidence for wanting to kill someone). Other than that, it's just any other "murder for hire" scheme and so I don't really see it as notable (to MySpace) that she saw this guy with another woman on MySpace rather than a friend calling her after seeing him around town with the other woman or herself spying them together from across a bar. ju66l3r 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

MySpace has been under increasing criticizm because of the links between it and crime. In the last several years there have been several kidnappings, murders, and sexual assaults attached to it. I think that this should be added to the article. There have even been some links found that suggest that Duane Morrison found some of his intended targets on MySpace. 72.161.217.83 21:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

additional criticism

I've noticed that Myspace seems to lose a good portion of message traffic. Quite frequently I've sent messages but haven't had them show up in my sent mail, nor did the recipients acknowledge receiving them. Also, three times now I've been notified I had a new message, but looked to find nothing in my inbox, other than the page stating it was displaying 1-3 of 3 messages. Is this phenomenon common enough to list as a criticism of Myspace's reliability? I made a YTMND noting the fact some time ago, and several people (4/9 reviewers, out of ~250 viewers) mentioned that it has happened to them too. ~ Eidako 03:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is what is considered original research and is not useable directly. You need to find an independent reliable source (like a well-read newspaper or magazine) that presents this problem and criticizes MySpace in order for us to be able to point to that source as the verification of the criticism. ju66l3r 04:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Myspace has many errors, but messages disappearing are not one of them. But it is annoying. For the record, I can’t see why talking about this as a criticism wouldn’t be okay on the main page here. It is a very major issue on myspace. But they know about it. http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=86892 See, messages mostly disappear when someone deletes their myspace account or is removed my myspace. Even the messages were sent to “you” it is stored on their account. When their account is deleted so is the message you were sent. If you receive an email that you have new messages or “friends” request but when you click to see it and it isn’t there that is because the person who sent a messages or added you was removed from myspace or removed his or her own account for whatever reason. I hope my info helped you.--John4grey 04:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it does. I searched half of Google, but it didn't return that page for some reason. It still doesn't explain why half of my outgoing messages don't show up in my sent mail, but I can't find any other such mentions elsewhere. I guess I'm the only one :p. ~ Eidako 05:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you guy(s). WP:OR is a fundamental, vital policy that should never be broken (except for simple things... a MySpace bug is not one.) -- Chris chat edits essays 12:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Another sock to add to the giant list: User:Hockeypuck. -- Chris chat edits essays 13:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

consideration

It should also be noted in the article that most kids set their profile to private. Also most kids only add and request their real freinds that they really know.

No. You can't make an assumption about a general group of people. Besides, you need a source.

Claiming just over 107 million accounts. There are currently more than 111 million accounts on MySpace. 149.135.39.169 03:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we understand, however, unless you have a source, we cannot add it. Wikipedia's policy is verifiability, not truth. -- Chris chat edits essays 03:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe common sense should prevail regardless of the policy. MySpace currently has just over 111 million accounts. It is erroneous to say that it has just over 107 million accounts. Wikipedia should be a resource that's kept up to date. If the policies intervene with these simple truths, then maybe the policy should be changed. 149.135.39.169 04:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If policy needs changing, this is not the place it's going to happen. In the meantime, if we can't quote a reliable source as we have for the "over 107" statement, then it doesn't get listed. WP can only move as fast as the sources which it quotes for truth. ju66l3r 04:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well where is the current sources claiming that there is just over 107 million accounts? 149.135.39.169 05:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. Problem solved. ju66l3r 05:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe the number of friends that Tom has is close to the number of accounts, right? I know there has to be at least that many accounts. --Max 02:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't make any claim to the "current" user count and the exact number of accounts is really unimportant so long as we're discussing the right ballpark and giving a suggestion of how fast it's growing. Otherwise we'd need some sort of debt clock/calculator that just kept tallying 100,000 higher every hour or so. That level of precision is just not necessary. The three articles giving 2 different counts for certain dates and a rate of growth will suffice and if new articles are found giving new tallies, this article can be amended higher then. Directly using Tom's friend count is part original research and part biased by how many people keep him in their friend list (IIRC, I removed him the day I started my account just to avoid any spam he might mass mail out). ju66l3r 04:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is getting very frustrating. It seems like that every sentence on Wikipedia now has to have a source even if it's trivia. 149.135.39.169 05:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, unless it is what is considered "common knowledge" (e.g. "The Sky is Blue" or "George bush is American"), citations are needed. How else can we be reliable? -- Chris chat edits essays 04:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Would the counter in the top right of every homepage count as a reliable source? I think that is the official number. Mchmike 02:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, a corporation's own counter is the first thing that could easily be biased and lacks verifiability. You can determine what is a reliable source at this page. ju66l3r 03:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

International Access

Just wanted to add a note that I corrected a factual error under "International Access" in the article. It previously stated that "e.g. North America: "favorites", mm/dd/yyyy; the rest of the world: "favourites", dd/mm/yyyy" I changed "North America" to "United States" as Canada favours the dd/mm/yyyy format, but both are common. 'Favourite' is the accepted spelling as well. Plutoxin 05:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It also should be called "MySpace International". 149.135.39.169 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think either title serves the purpose, so I'm not going go about changing that. Plutoxin 05:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be called MySpace International... It doesn't matter whether or not we use the semi-official name used in one preference pane. -- Chris chat edits essays 13:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The link to the page is labelled 'MySpace International', so it would be accurate, but it doesn't sound like an accurate topic heading for an encyclopedia. 'International access' sounds better, but still doesn't really cover the fact that even just the .com address offers international access. Something which captures the dynamic nature of the site's address would be ideal. Perhaps something like 'international sites'. Martin Jensen 15:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

How about language editions so it's not us-centric? -- Chris chat edits essays 15:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Male users in profile search

John4grey (talk • contribs) has been repeatedly adding a passage about how male profiles supposedly show up in a new member search. It has no sources at all and is original research. It should not be re-added unless there's a verifiable source for the claims. szyslak (t, c, e) 07:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a fact tag to the paragraph. If it really isn't original research, it shouldn't be difficult to provide a source.--IanUK 08:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think, since it makes an accusation like sexism, we should remove it entirely until we find a source. Therefore, it's gone. -- Chris chat edits essays 14:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not sexism. But it is a current bug. Although where you find a reference for that is a good question (other than trying it yourself).Citizensmith 15:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact tag is not a chaperone for original research. Within the No Original Research policy is a great explanation for why this segment from John4grey is unacceptable here. While I trust that everything he wrote is probably a true bug in their site currently, this article is just not the venue for it as it is a personal analysis requiring each reader to "try it themselves" to get the analysis necessary to verify it as true. If or when it gets picked up by a reliable source, then it will be an interesting section of the article. ju66l3r 16:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. Just pointing out that it was more likely a bug and not intentional sexism.Citizensmith 16:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, my response was to IanUK's use of the fact tag. ju66l3r 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, maybe fact tags are the wrong way to go about it. But John4grey (talk • contribs) needs to be told to stop persistently reverting it to his version. In fact, I tried the "try it yourself" link he added to the paragraph and frankly, I couldn't tell if the profiles there were up to date or not. Even so I still think that even if it's not an original research issue, the information should be verifiable. IanUK 08:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

He's broken 3rr. someone block him!-- Chris chat edits essays 13:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please? -- Chris chat edits essays 13:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay, now he's personally attacked me on my talk page. I hope an admin will come and block him. -- Chris chat edits essays 20:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

now he's claiming that he has 5 different degrees in college, thereby giving him absolute authority on MySpace articles worldwide. He hasn't even read WP:V or WP:OR yet. -- Chris chat edits essays 01:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

here's his vandalism to my talk page:

Chris, I didn't change my user name. What are your talking about? You abuse the system here. I've seen your history. If someone makes you mad you try to get them banned. You are the worse kind of person here by doing that. It hurts the whole place. And oh I have an AA. B.A.. M.S. M.A. in passing Ph.D. and a J.D. for your record. Stop deleting my adds!

Will he stop? Can someone help mediate? -- Chris chat edits essays 01:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If he has five degrees, he should be well accustomed to referencing his articles for pitty's sake! There are now several people deliberately vandalising this article. How can we stop that, other than reverting it several times a day? There must be an official procedure to stop this.--IanUK 09:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Full protection. -- Chris chat edits essays 13:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Impersonation

Why is there nothing in this article mentioning impersonation? There are hundreds of people posing as celebrities (and often when there is already a page for the actual celebrity) and fictional characters yet nothing is mentioned. It is a very important bit of information to go in this artcile. Mr.bonus 15:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reference for that? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Search for some celebrities or fictional characters (eg, Batman, Alan Partridge, Ross Geller) and you will see for yourself. I would have wrote it myself in the article but I don't know how to word it and where to put it. There is a see also link to impersonation, but nothing about it is mentioned in the main article. Mr.bonus 15:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It is probably more important to get reliable sources so it fits with the policy of no original research. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't need an actual reference for something that is blindingly obvious to anybody willing to look at it. This is the same as published materials/media (films, books, video games) not needing references cited on Wikipedia as per their contents; anybody could find it to be true by viewing the work itself. "The sky is blue.", "Have you got a reference for that?"....Unless you think that George W. Bush actually has a myspace page, the existence of the page is your reference. Mr.bonus 15:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is a hell of a lot more obvious that the sky is blue then if some celebrity has a fake MySpace. They don't really fit in the same category of common knowledge. References are incredily important for Wikipedia's reputation. -- Chris chat edits essays 15:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

REMOVED CONTENTS

Who deleted my disscussion on MySpace and Miley Cyrus?--Cutie 4 life 21:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Check the archives. -- Chris chat edits essays 13:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

proof-reading grammar

The following text from the article (after "However"), is not grammatical English:

Profiles also contain an "Interests" section and a "Details" section. However, fields in the "Interests" and "Details" sections have the ability of not being displayed on the page by simply not filling them in.

This would better read as:

However, fields in these sections will not be displayed if members do not fill them in.

I don't have to *argue* for this, do I? I'm a little surprised that no one has picked it up before. OTOH, it might be even better to simply leave the "However, ..." line out altogether. I mean this with all due respect, but surely this is a detail of very little consequence. abzorba 12:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, but the second one does sound a lot better. I'll add it in. -- Chris chat edits essays 16:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Celebrities

I realise this might prove to be a can of worms but what the hell ... How about a seperate article listing all celebrities with a page on MySpace? We can easily define "celebrity" for this project as "someone with a wikipedia article about them". The problem will be sorting the impersonations from the genuine articles ... Too complicated? --Stenun 23:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's just occured to me the criteria we can use for including a myspace page on the list. It must be sourced from a non-myspace official page of the celebrity in question. For example Warren Ellis links to his myspace pageon warrenellis.com. --Stenun 23:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The word listcruft springs to mind. MySpaceFan 23:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The second paragraph of the article you linked to makes a strong case in FAVOUR of such a list. There already is a section about celebrities on myspace, so why not a list of them? --Stenun 23:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That may be so - you appeared to be asking for an opinion. You should probably see the experience with the categories Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_19#Category:Celebrities_with_MySpace_accounts and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_celebrities_and_musicians_with_a_MySpace_profile. MySpaceFan 23:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I *was* asking for an opinion but that doesn't mean I can't disagree with it *g*. However, these two links now provided do seem to put a stop to my idea. Thanks, I think *g*. --Stenun 00:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

myspace worth $15 billion

should this news be on myspace page?http://www.enn.ie/news.html?code=9820797 Felisberto

Please don't add signatures that are not your own. If you are a user, please login and add your signature and do not manually write it in; it can easily be confused as a dishonest attempt to use someone else's name. As for the article, I believe that it would be pertinent information to add, yes. ju66l3r 22:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

would you do it?as i've problems editing articles.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C216285%2C00.html Felisberto28September 2006;18:10(UTC)

Biggest?

Is it the biggest social networking site in the world? 84.69.185.140 15:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to define big? According to a report in July it received 80% of visits to social networking sites [2] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's also tough to define social networking. A great many websties are adding "social networking" components. Mathiastck 17:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Alexa Criticism

1. Alexa is dependent on a toolbar plugin that has low penetration among web users and excludes all but Internet Explorer users. For this reason, Alexa is highly skewed and subject to wildly inaccurate results. I have removed mentions of Alexa from the article in order to present a more accurate depiction of its popularity. 66.32.151.246 01:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Alexa's popularity is not the subject of the article. Despite its flaws, it's the de facto standard for Web popularity. Therefore, I've reverted. -- Chris chat edits essays 03:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, isn't google ranking the de facto standard? Google will give you all sorts of metrics. Mathiastck 14:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Alexa ranking is (unfortunately) used for WP:N tests. Google can be distorted by the number of links to a page (that's how Wikipedia's always on top). -- Chris chat edits essays 15:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Like it or not, Alexa samples user browsing very well. Alexa is not IE-exclusive and is available on Firefox/Mozilla as well. Highly visited sites will have very accurate data. You can read more about Alexa's rankings here. ju66l3r 18:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought you could only get some Alexa tools in FF, and that the tracker is only included with the IE version of the tools. -- Chris chat edits essays 11:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

MySpace in popular culture?

As we know, popular sites like Wikipedia are often parodied in popular culture. Are there any similar cases for MySpace?

I'm looking for examples such as:

songs or music videos mentioning MySpace
comic strip characters viewing other characters' MySpace profiles, etc.
talk shows discussing MySpace (a la The Colbert Report)

If there are any such notable examples, should we add them to the article? --Ixfd64 05:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a lot of references, but most could not be cited in a third party source. Besides, it's not very encyclopedic to say "MySpace was mentioned in 3 episodes of TV Show". -- Chris chat edits essays 11:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

ITS not Right Delete this article!!

I couldnt report this article for some reason but i think it should be deleted. I have seen articles like ps3forums.com and others that had people work hard to make a page here that was very descriptive and hardly advertised the site, and yet wikipedia deleted the page. Now i dont see that its fair if a article on myspace whish is knows as a site is being aloud to have a article, its no differnt than the ps3forums article. Just because its a big site now doesnt mean it should be a exception, it isnt fair at all! People worked hard on the other article and it was deleted in a day, now myspace is a exception?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soldier one (talk • contribs).

I don't know about ps3forums.com, but MySpace is one of the world's most popular websites, is used by millions, and has achieved way more than enough notability for an article. —tregoweth (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

SO WHAT!!! Just because its big and you happen to know about it, it becomes a exception? The forums and a few others are just as big and some are three times bigger but just because you cant see pics of some underaged chick they are not aloud? I dont see it as fair at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soldier one (talk • contribs).

I vividly agree, Both should be aloud or both should be deleted period! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Supaman223 (talk • contribs).

ZOMG a sock/meatpuppet agrees with you! MySpace has gathered enough attention from the media for the article to have full independedt sources, while PS3Forums has not. How does one "vividly agree", anyway? If you are to continue on wikipedia, please read WP:POINT and WP:N (I personally disagree with WP:N, but WP:V works in this case against you as well).-- Chris chat edits essays 04:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So what just because someone agrees you decide to call him names?? It doesnt make sense, so your saying if that forum got media behind it than it would be ok? Well look around gaming sites and see for yourself. What about playstation.com? It has more members than myspace will ever have and yet you guys would probably delete that as well. Next time support your self without insulting others and use something other than "O myspace was on the news" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soldier one (talk • contribs).

Playstation.com is the official site of the PlayStation series of video game consoles, and is linked to in the external links section of the articles on the various PlayStations (1, 2, and 3). *Dan T.* 12:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, Soldierone, you don't understand. MySpace has over 100 million members. It has received widespread coverage in the media, and is the subject of heated debate and criticisms. A "meatpuppet" as you said I called you, is a neutral term for a friend you invited here to agree with you. How does one "Vividly agree" anyway? I don't mean to add fuel to the fire, but this consone is better ( i didn't use this as rationale for deleting ps3forums.com, i just felt like being a fanboy) -- Chris chat edits essays 12:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Myspace has 100 million people using it, it has become a pop-culture icon, it is discussed in the media frequently, it a bigger business than playstation, it appeals to a wider range of people than playstation and people would expect wikipedia to have an article on myspace because of these reasons. Wikipedia should (and does) have an article on PS3 but it doesn't need one for the forums. It doesn't have an article about the xbox.com forums, but that would be relevant to a product currently for sale, still it doesn't need one about xbox forums or playstation forums. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 17:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/y/s/Talk%7EMySpace_Archive_3_98c9.html"

Category: Talk archives