Talk:LiveJournal

message: There is 1 citation still needed, but it wasn't previously marked so I'm leaving it for a bit. I've removed any commentary which isn't directly supported by the current citations. If other reliable sources are found to support any of that material feel free to re-add it with the appropriate material. Please remember that a users journal isn't reliable, nor are the comments made in response to journal entries. Analyzing those comments is original research.--Crossmr 16:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up Controversies and criticism 

message: Shouldn't LiveJournal#Encyclopedia_Dramatica mention Wikipedia as a satire/attack target alongside "DeviantART, YouTube, 4chan and other popular Internet forums" ? —AldeBaer 15:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point, slightly invalidated by your use of the letters W, T and F. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 19:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ED 

message: From what a couple Slashdot posts say (see [] and the replies to []), the W.F.I. link is "loaded with spyware", "will infect you with malware", and other similar comments. I wasn't sure if there was a standard Wikipedia policy for what to do in these situations, so I added a note to the references warning of this. (Though not citing the specific posts.) I figured it was better to get the warning up there than mess around and try to figure out the "right" way to do it first. I will return to this page later to see if it has been changed to see how for future reference. EvanED 07:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And these are reliable, verifiable sources how? They certainly do not meet the criteria that we use here on Wikipedia. Kyaa the Catlord 19:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK WfI has been blamed for ^a's decision-to-suspend by a whole slew of people; 6A have not confirmed it, and WfI's web-site simply makes a claim to have been the cause -- rather like any other anonymous caller to the newspaper claiming responsibility for the latest terrorist/anti-abortion/political outrage. -- Simon Cursitor 13:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, this isn't verifiable and shouldn't be given as much weight as it had been. I editted it to reflect that WFI's only been given passing credit as the instigator of this, maybe we should note somehow that they have been demonized by the LJ fandom "community". Kyaa the Catlord 08:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the "LJ fandom 'community'" include C|Net's news.com?  "In posts to her personal blog, Sues describes herself as an ardent conservative who views homosexuality as 'sick' and a 'twisted agenda' and lumps gays and lesbians into the same category as pedophiles and rapists." -- http://news.com.com/LiveJournal+apologizes+for+mass+deletion/2100-1025_3-6187960.html?tag=nefd.top --Chibiabos 04:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with this conversation, but it's an interesting link. -- Kesh 05:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sues is a representative for Warriors for Innocence.  --Chibiabos 07:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warriors for Innocence links 

message: Rather than removing the last paragraph in the privacy section, I've placed a dubious tag. This seems contradicted by the preceeding paragraph which gives two examples of how not to have a community listed on your profile page. In any regards, this needs a complete rewrite as it is very hard to follow. Kyaa the Catlord 22:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uh oh, dubious tag!

message: The first part of this is pov. There is no reliable source provided which identifies this as either a criticism or a controversy. I'm sure there are some users which referred to it as such in their journals, but that isn't a reliable source. Currently all that has been done is a link provided to their prior statement, and a link to their new plan. While factually true, its been made pov by its placement in the article. If no reliable source can be provided which identifies it as either of those things I'll remove it.--Crossmr 03:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Livejournal and advertisements 

message: Firefox news appears to be a user submitted news site. Does this meet wp:RS? Kyaa the Catlord 21:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it clearly does not ... especially in this case, since those trying to cause a ruckus at LiveJournal are using it as a publicity vehicle. Pitamakan 22:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've also posted this over at the RS noticeboard. I wonder if I can use that wonderful little "wider attention" tool to draw some more input on this.... Kyaa the Catlord 22:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether or not it is, there is an article at CNet that might be more appropriate in the interest of ending the edit war. (Unless people are saying CNet is not valid either? I see it referenced on multiple Wikipedia pages, so I'd guess it is.)  Shadowstar 23:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I suggested over at RS that if a more substantial and less controversial source could be found to verify the claim then that might solve this dispute. I would consider CNet to be valid. :) Xdenizen 23:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is... that is still a user submitted blog post. Blogs do not meet WP:RS. Kyaa the Catlord 00:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit that I have difficulty with this stuff, but I've seen "blogs" credited as valid when they are actually a part of valid media organizations. My understanding from this is that not all blogs are created equal. For example, Kotaku.com is considered a "blog," but it is referenced in (for instance) the MGS4 article. The WP:ATT FAQ seems to imply that while most blogs are not reliable sources, some are. Shadowstar 01:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:SPS's footnote: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control; that is, when it isn't really a blog. Posts left on these columns by readers may never be used as sources." The blog in question does not appear to be under any sort of editorial control, rather, it seems to be out of control. Just like the vast majority of other blogs covering this same topic. (And for full disclosure, my friend guma_kuwauso was quoted in that piece and I still don't support it being used as a source in this article.) Kyaa the Catlord 01:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. After reading it a bit more thoroughly... Point taken. I wonder if the German source is any good... (Well, probably not for the English page.) Shadowstar 01:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You asked for wider attention, you've got some. In my opinion, neither firefox.org nor that CNET blog meet the WP:RS criterion.  Neither one seems to be subject to any sort of editorial control.  In this case, since the article is ABOUT a social "blog-style" website (yes, I know, LJ isn't blogs, but you get my drift), I'd almost say that nothing that claims to be a blog will meet WP:RS in this case.  You'd have to have an article from the main webspace of a reliable news organization to be able to source from it. --Darkwind (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Firefox news RS scrutiny

message: I've created /Archive 2 and moved everything up to the first of this year into it.  The page took way too long to load even with my cable internet. --Darkwind (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived! 

message: As far as I know, the information about LJ's deletion spree regarding fanart has not been added. I'm not horribly proficient regarding the editing of articles, but all the information can be found at ljstaff's livejournal, as well as posts by specific users.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.47.154.87 (talk • contribs).
:Calling the deletion of two accounts a "spree" is stretching it. The deletion of two accounts for TOS violations does not meet the standards for inclusion in an encyclopedic work, it would be a blatant case of undue weight. Kyaa the Catlord 10:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The size of the reaction, involving thousands of Livejournal users, makes it notable.  However, finding reliable citations for it may be a problem.67.158.78.159 12:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's only a reaction within LJ, it's probably not notable. Are news sites covering it? If not, it's a storm in a teacup. Totnesmartin 16:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been 0 non-"blog" news reports on this two user deletion controversy. Kyaa the Catlord 16:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Deletion Controversy 

message: With the hundreds independent reliable sources available for this article, why is this article cited to so many sources that are not independent of LiveJournal? Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The LiveJournal website is not a third-party published source for this article. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Independent sources and replace the footnotes taht are not independent of LiveJournal with footnotes that are independent of LiveJournal. -- Jreferee (Talk) 08:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: many of those are sourcing statements made by staff. Those kinds of citations shouldn't need to come from independent 3rd parties. When it comes to how Frank feels about his company why not take it directly from Frank's mouth if it can be done so through reliable means?--Crossmr 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Independent reliable sources

message: WELL, which is linked to in the first paragraph, is a disambiguation page. Can an editor please change it to WELL (virtual community)?  83.70.235.149 15:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Is it really protected since August 8?  Is it time to unprotect it? 83.70.235.149 15:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Registered users please edit

message: As I posted there:
 
: I noticed many months ago an ongoing campaign to misuse WP:RS to keep any information critical of LiveJournal management out of the article, eventually becoming so angry that I gave up and stayed out of the article for quite some time.
: I went back to it last night and found some of the same editors still misusing RS to keep the article POV, including the blatant deletion even of the POV and other tags. The article and talk page histories show many, many incidents of this misuse. Unfortunately, this ongoing campaign again got me hot under the collar, so I respectfully request that other editors without axes to grind with regard to LiveJournal in either direction please review the histories.
: Thank you.
 
-- Davidkevin (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable Sources/Noticeboard 

message: This image doesn't seem to be required or rationalized on its page for (fair) use on this article. Is there any pressing reason why this is being used here? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead Journal logo

message: As you may have noticed, List of sites running the LiveJournal engine was recently split off from this page. It could use participation by more editors, particularly regarding a discussion on its talk page I have been having with Davidkevin regarding what standards we should use for including sites in the list. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now it's listed for deletion. Although merging back here rather than deleting the information altogether is one of the possible outcomes, it is not currently one with much support at the deletion debate. Again, if you have an opinion on whether and how this information should exist within Wikipedia, please participate. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of sites running the LiveJournal engine]] 

message: As mentioned on the List of sites running the LiveJournal engine deletion page, LiveJournal is actually three separate things: a company, a service, and software. (It is also possibly a community, too.) I was thinking we should split the article into separate articles to reflect this, so we would then have LiveJournal (software), LiveJournal (company), and LiveJournal (service), along with a disambig page, of course. In my opinion, LiveJournal would then redirect to LiveJournal (service), because that's what most people would be looking for. (Of course, there would be the appropriate links at the top to help others get to where they want to be if they're not looking for the service.) Admiral Memo (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Split? 

message: As many LJ users know, these sites have indexed posts of user's entries that have been made private and friends only (tho were apparently originally made public) alot of people are obviously really pissed off about this since yr whole life on LJ can be googled easily. it would be helpful to include this info here since there is seemingly nowhere to go now to rally about it. ljfind have a post on their journal that addresses this issue (http://ljfind.livejournal.com/9924.html) but it's slowly looking defunct, plus they removed comments so it's harder to find a common place to discuss this. this is a serious issue with livejournal, i think it should be in the controversies section. 24.60.66.216 (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Crossmr (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add info on ljfind.com/ljseek.com 

message: Why does Deadjournal redirect to Livejournal?  They're two completely different websites.  It's like redirecting Pepsi to link to the article on Coca-Cola.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daecon (talk • contribs) 11:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be an article for DeadJournal, but it was redirected because there weren't sources to establish notability (see Talk:DeadJournal). I presume redirection was considered preferable to deletion, and it redirects to the section which talks about other sites running the LiveJournal engine (your analogy would only be true if Pepsi wasn't notable enough for its own article, and they were, e.g., using the same recipe as Coca-Cola). Mdwh (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to point to comparison of sites using the LiveJournal codebase instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadjournal is not Livejournal 

message: Was LJ the first mainstream blog in the internet? Bennylin (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It's not clear that it even is "mainstream" or a "blog" at all, and it certainly wasn't the first under any reasonable definition of those words.216.59.230.119 (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  first 

message: Why does there need to be a US State top 5 breakdown of user count on the LJ page?  I never understand why things that are global, even if based in the US, always seem to have such statistics.  The approximate country count to actual country population for both the US and Canada is 10%, so why is it important how many users are in specific states, as opposed to how interested Canadians may be to look oat their provincial statistics, or Swiss cantons?  All this does is show that the 5 most populous states are also the 5 largest users by state on LJ.  Coincidence?  Yes.  There's nothing spectacular about that statistic.  If it was Rhode Island, I'd be impressed and find it interesting.  I'm not advocating sensationalism, but why waste space on that level of detail when LJ is obviously a globally enjoyed service?--WPaulB (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The LiveJournal stat page only reports statistics for U.S. states. The problem stems for LiveJournal's record keeping, not Wikipedia editor bias. Neitherday (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  Then out it goes.  Just because LJ reports it doesn't mean it's necessarily encyclopaedic for Wikipedia.--WPaulB (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your removal of the U.S. state statistics on notability grounds. They didn't add much (if anything) to the article. Good move. Neitherday (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centricism 

message: The very first part of this article seems to stop at 2007, but things continue.  SUP is adding features, fixing bugs and being much more pro-active in user relations, although sometimes (e.g. advertising on basic accounts), still annoying a n unknown (but loud) proportion of their users.  I don't feel confident in adding this information, especially as it requires authoritative (non-LJ) sources.  But I hope someone can update it. -- Avirr (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs 2008 update? 

message: How come there isn't a background information or history section for this article? I cannot add one because I don't have reliable sources, but I do believe the story went that Brad Fitzpatrick wanted to host his thoughts online. So he created a little journal for himself on the web in 1997, but in '98 or '99 he got an epiphany and decided to make it into a journaling site for everybody. Then it grew so much that it became the community with eight digits of users as it is today. This article seriously needs that... and some cleanup on the lead. ★Dasani★ 20:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: LiveJournal history

message: Although very similar to LJ, it's not the same site. Blurty is not mentioned once in this article (except in passing in a footnote) so the redirect is not very helpful 86.132.138.159 (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to redirect instead to comparison of sites using the LiveJournal codebase, which does mention Blurty. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "Blurty" redirect here? 

message: The article has been tagged at the top "This article needs additional citations for verification" since 2009. It already has many citations. It does not need a larger number of citations; what it does need is additional citations *for specific paragraphs and sentences that do not have them*. The tag at the top is obviously ineffective at accomplishing this goal; individually tagging the statements in need of citation would be a much better strategy. For this reason I am removing the tag, but  (whose only contributions that I can see to this article have been to slap tags on it) clearly disagrees and has instead slapped more tags on the top. Additional opinions would be helpful here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *So you want to start out by being uncivil? Yes, I placed those tags and contrary to your uncivil characterization as a "tagging spee", I actually stated why in the edit summaries. A ridiculous percentage of the references in the article are primary sources. That is a problem. The article has an overly promotional tone, which is another problem. It sounds like a sales pitch. Look at the features section for example. Pure promotional material (and nothing that special about it). I gave reasons in the edit summaries. Repeatedly removing them before the issue is discussed is not acting in good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *The features section to me looks like an objective description of the features of the site that differentiate it from other similar sites. Are you suggesting that an article about a networking service should not actually describe the service in any detail? That seems nonsensical to me. As for the primary sources: they are ok to source non-controversial factual information about the site, not ok for other things. The existence of primary sources, even many of them, is only a problem in your imagination. The fact is that the article has many secondary sources. It also has many primary sources. Slapping a tag at the top of the article does little or nothing to help distinguish the statements in the article that are adequately sourced from the ones that are unsourced or inappropriately primary sourced. You are making the article ugly and by doing so degrading Wikipedia, without actually doing anything constructive about improving the article. Your time would be better spent editing the actual content of articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *I was in the process of starting a discussion here when you started your incivility. Don't act like there was a span of day or even hours between the time the tags went up and you started being unsulting and reverting without discussion. Further, I don't need your advice about what I should be doing with my time. I could similarly suggest that you spend your time finding significant coverage from reliable third party sources instead of complaining about tags. Now for your whining complaining about how it looks "ugly", that's a non-starter. I've identified something I feel is a problem. Now we discuss it. Then we solve it. I'm more concerned about the article being encyclopedic than how pretty it is. Now....yes, I am suggesting that the section describing the features is overly detailed. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have to say, to me the Features section reads like a sales pitch. Converting it to prose and limiting it to discussion of features that have garnered significant coverage from reliable third-party sources would be, to my mind, a vast improvement. As to "Citation Needed" tagging; my feeling is that if multiple sections need improved tagging then it is appropriate to tag the article; tagging specific points that need clarification can be a useful addition, but is not required, and one does not supercede the other. Honestly, for an article tagged for CN since 2009 I'd feel perfectly justified in either deleting the unsourced material outright or moving it here for possible later sourcing. Regarding civility - WP:AGF folks. Do either of you have a concrete reason to believe the other is not ultimately concerned with improving the article? If not, then let's not throw accusations around and instead focus on making the article better. Doniago (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Don't lump me in with him. I added the tags, left an edit summary with the additions and was actually in the process of explaining why on the talk page when David reverted the additions, removed the other one and began his incivility by calling it an "indiscriminate tag spree". Then he comes to the talk page and his first post on the topic is to start attacking. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Could we please talk more about the article and less about civility or a lack thereof? I think that would be a more productive line of discussion, and frankly I really don't care whether or not anyone was incivil as long as the discussion going forward is civil and about the article...this Talk page isn't the forum for discussing civility in any case. Doniago (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Needs additional citations" 

message: Should the outage resulting from an on-going DDoS attack be noted in the article? Source: http://status.livejournal.org/ Retrieved 7/27/11  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.181.75 (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have adequate third-party sources? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also retrieved 7-27-11 http://downrightnow.com/livejournal Probably not a sufficient source, I will wait to see if any news articles arise. News articles can also be found about a previous attack in March. Because of the frequency of attacks this year, I thought it might warrant space in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.181.75 (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A sentence or two about both sets of attacks doesn't sound out of place if it can be properly sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/hacker-attacks-paralyze-livejournal/441237.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.181.75 (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added it under the controversy section because some of the sources accuse the Russian government or political activists of causing these attacks. Fyrebyrd (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  DDoS Attack 

message: In the section "Demographics by gender", either the numbers or the barchart (or both) are badly inaccurate. The barchart shows twice as many women participating as men. The numbers make the proportion much closer to parity. "Demographics by gender" lacks footnotes to the data. Someone who knows where to find the data will have to be the one to fix the problem. MetaEd (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed per  - it's 55%/45%. --McGeddon (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics by gender badly inaccurate 

message: I just checked and LJ is not blocked in China now. No sources to back this up, but I'm in China and I can load it. 222.128.101.35 (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block in China 

message: Right now, the history section pretty much starts with the acquisition by Six Apart, does anyone have any good sources for the early history of LiveJournal under Brad Fitzpatrick and Danga Interactive? I haven't had any luck on Google News Search. -- Gordon Ecker, WikiSloth (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early history - LiveJournal under Brad Fitzpatrick 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 34 external links on LiveJournal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150419050234/http://lj-dev.livejournal.com/854104.html to http://lj-dev.livejournal.com/854104.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091222225728/http://news.livejournal.com/104520.html to http://news.livejournal.com/104520.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110318041431/http://community.livejournal.com/lj_dev/profile to http://community.livejournal.com/lj_dev/profile
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091115140720/http://community.livejournal.com/lj_biz/profile to http://community.livejournal.com/lj_biz/profile
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100502042253/http://community.livejournal.com/suggestions/profile to http://community.livejournal.com/suggestions/profile
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080318100631/http://news.livejournal.com/106731.html to http://news.livejournal.com/106731.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080318100642/http://news.livejournal.com/106909.html to http://news.livejournal.com/106909.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150203214713/http://news.livejournal.com/148548.html to http://news.livejournal.com/148548.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831115301/http://community.livejournal.com/lj_dev/493562.html to http://community.livejournal.com/lj_dev/493562.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100502042253/http://community.livejournal.com/suggestions/profile to http://community.livejournal.com/suggestions/profile
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060203033440/http://frank.livejournal.com/profile to http://frank.livejournal.com/profile
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619161445/http://community.livejournal.com/frankthecomic/profile to http://community.livejournal.com/frankthecomic/profile
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100409232849/http://news.livejournal.com/121612.html to http://news.livejournal.com/121612.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100409232911/http://news.livejournal.com/122786.html to http://news.livejournal.com/122786.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090110222412/http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/profile to http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/profile
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201072438/http://community.livejournal.com/lj_maintenance/122809.html to http://community.livejournal.com/lj_maintenance/122809.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201214122/http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/31879100.html to http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/31879100.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412063338/http://community.livejournal.com/lj_maintenance/128204.html to http://community.livejournal.com/lj_maintenance/128204.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100530150815/http://news.livejournal.com/82926.html to http://news.livejournal.com/82926.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013043244/http://valleywag.com/tech/brad-fitzpatrick/livejournal-creator-leaves-as-six-apart-fails-to-spin-286218.php to http://valleywag.com/tech/brad-fitzpatrick/livejournal-creator-leaves-as-six-apart-fails-to-spin-286218.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080328030045/http://community.livejournal.com/lj_2008/3384.html to http://community.livejournal.com/lj_2008/3384.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100628030216/http://community.livejournal.com/lj_advisory/1840.html to http://community.livejournal.com/lj_advisory/1840.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100407100124/http://news.livejournal.com/74165.html to http://news.livejournal.com/74165.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061022210621/http://community.livejournal.com/boob_nazis/1763041.html to http://community.livejournal.com/boob_nazis/1763041.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316225101/http://news.livejournal.com/91919.html to http://news.livejournal.com/91919.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.livejournal.com/site/contract.bml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071117193641/http://community.livejournal.com/lj_ads/4176.html to http://community.livejournal.com/lj_ads/4176.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123114501/http://community.livejournal.com/lj_2008/4979.html to http://community.livejournal.com/lj_2008/4979.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.cnet.com/Mass-deletion-sparks-LiveJournal-revolt/2100-1025_3-6187619.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021032539/http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html to http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107180714/http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html to http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021021021/http://news.livejournal.com/99515.html to http://news.livejournal.com/99515.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100125150502/http://community.livejournal.com/lj_biz/241428.html to http://community.livejournal.com/lj_biz/241428.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821080326/http://community.livejournal.com/lj_biz/241884.html to http://community.livejournal.com/lj_biz/241884.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on LiveJournal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080318104536/http://eng.cnews.ru/news/top/indexEn.shtml?2008%2F03%2F13%2F291948 to http://eng.cnews.ru/news/top/indexEn.shtml?2008%2F03%2F13%2F291948
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100522003051/http://www.livejournal.com/site/contributors.bml to http://www.livejournal.com/site/contributors.bml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070812210920/http://company.yandex.ru/news/2006/0926/index.xml to http://company.yandex.ru/news/2006/0926/index.xml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207105305/http://livejournalinc.com/aboutus.php to http://www.livejournalinc.com/aboutus.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100207033623/http://www.izbrannoe.info/30184.html to http://www.izbrannoe.info/30184.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609034327/http://livejournalinc.com/press_releases/20090106.php to http://www.livejournalinc.com/press_releases/20090106.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091218105330/http://www.promom.org/bf_info/pr.html to http://www.promom.org/bf_info/pr.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110503233908/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/01/account_hijackings_force_livej.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/01/account_hijackings_force_livej.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070707220510/http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40013 to http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40013
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100226081112/http://firefox.org/news/articles/408/1/Six-Apart-Deletes-500-LiveJournals-Many-Fannish/Page1.html to http://firefox.org/news/articles/408/1/Six-Apart-Deletes-500-LiveJournals-Many-Fannish/Page1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080601051658/http://valleywag.com/394077/social-networks-advisory+board-election-sparks-talk-of-death-threats to http://valleywag.com/394077/social-networks-advisory+board-election-sparks-talk-of-death-threats
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/617iAdXKz?url=http://www.livejournalinc.com/ to http://www.livejournalinc.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on LiveJournal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109065306/http://www.livejournal.com/support/faq/183.html to http://www.livejournal.com/support/faq/183.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109052930/http://www.livejournal.com/shop/diskquota.bml to http://www.livejournal.com/shop/diskquota.bml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615082705/http://eng.cnews.ru/news/top/indexEn.shtml?2007%2F08%2F07%2F261770 to http://eng.cnews.ru/news/top/indexEn.shtml?2007%2F08%2F07%2F261770
*Added  tag to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,UZB,4562d8cf2,5062e894b,0.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)