Talk:LiveJournal/Archive 2

message: Another controversy has recently arisen when several users were asked to remove default user pictures containing images of breast feeding that were considered inappropriate as they contained a view of nipples or aureolae.
:Non-controversial statement that is true from glancing at the site. (This has nothing to do with bulletin boards or Usenet as LJ has a reliable account structure). It isn't OR to state the obvious if it isn't making a novel claim.
::LJ doesn't have a reliable account structure. Anyone can create an account with any verifiability of who they are. Its not OR to state the obvious, but it does require a citation. An official statement (which I know someone made) on the subject would satisfy that. 
The owners of some of the user pictures felt that they should be permitted to keep the images because they depicted breastfeeding and were not simply nudity. The involved users also contended that LiveJournal's position on the matter conveyed a negative attitude towards breastfeeding.
:Again, this is verifiable by glancing the referenced link.  We aren't quoting any particular user as none by themselves are notable, but the general uproar is plain and the specific sentiments are spelled out.
::The referenced link is a FAQ on the TOS. This doesn't at all satisfy sourcing user opinions. This is the only thing linked in the entirety of that paragraph: http://www.livejournal.com/support/faqbrowse.bml?faqid=111 maybe you're reading something else. Unless user opinions have been reported by credible press, they can't be sourced. 
On June 6th 2006 a boycott of LiveJournal was arranged, with a number of users deleting their journals for the day in protest at this specific issue and at more general problems of customer service that this affair has highlighted.
:This, along with actual sidewalk protests of the Six-Apart offices, actually did make the press. I don't have a handy link.
::Well a link will be necessary. As unsourced information can't be left here. 
The second paragraph has been there forever and was referenced with previous items. The paragraph has become detached from the context in which it was originally written but still closes the section fairly well.  I'd hate to see it go because the "teen diaries and social networking VS real web publishing" debate is a very real one.
:SchmuckyTheCat 00:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately regardless of how long its been there, it shouldn't be there. Unless there are credible sources showing that users are leaving LJ for other places and why, its unsourced opinion and is original research. --Crossmr 00:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Break it down

message: Something should be noted that the decision to allow ads on some user pages has resulted in malware being installed on user machines. SchmuckyTheCat 04:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the two citation links I posted above. Your citation for that bit of information, true or not, does not meet the requirements. I don't see burr86 identify themselves by name as a verifiable employee of SixApart, nor does their user information. --Crossmr 23:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Malware

message: I think this dispute is becoming excessively heated.  I don't really have a strong view either way here, but I suggest you take this to mediation; I am confident that with calm discourse the issue can be resolved. Just zis Guy you know? 11:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest mediation 

message: I changed it so it's about ads in general, seperated the claims into two paragraphs, and clarified that LiveJournal took actions against the ad in addition to apologizing.
LiveJournal is a lightning rod for drama these days, isn't it. 209.150.61.247 21:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement Subsection 

message: I suspect that this may be the intended citation for the June 5th 2006 Six-Apart event referred to, though I don't think it really holds up as a reference for Wikipedia myself. Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly a notable event.--Crossmr 20:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 5th 

message: List of social networking websites is currently an AfD candidate.  You are invited to partake in this discussion. Czj 18:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of social networking websites on AfD 

message: I don't think there is any reason to merge this. Just toss it as original research. its completely unsourced  a grand total of 21 unique google hits. This is a non-notable neologism and an attempt to push it into the article.--Crossmr 00:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - are we really going to mention every non-notable LJ meme made up by some people a couple of days ago? I'll remove the merge tag, since what to do is under discussion in the AfD anyway. Mdwh 14:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Livejournal fake day 

message: We need to work on keeping this list manageable and also evaluate the necessity of this list as being part of the article. This could possibly be moved to a separate article "List of notable livejournal users" and linked as a see-also at the bottom of this article.  If these individuals are notable and livejournal is a notable part of what they do or their life, it should be mentioned on their articles to start with.  This list could easily grow to extreme and overtake the article. As such I propose a list to contain it, and leave the small paragraph about it and link to the actual list.--Crossmr 05:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went bold and made List of notable Livejournal users. rootology (T) 08:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only change I would make would be to leave the introductory paragraph there. Though I suppose thats debateable. Maybe we'll try it a couple days like this and see if we think it needs that.--Crossmr 16:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Journals 

message: : Thus the apparent result that there are 7 million users outside the US (10 million minus the 3 million visible US users) is not correct. The majority of users are still in the US.
Can anyone provide a source for this? Eludium-q36 13:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing no. if someone can, it can be re-added.--Crossmr 13:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Of those users who provided their date of birth, the vast majority were in the 15-24 age group.
Not according to the raw data. If you examine the raw data (http://www.livejournal.com/stats/stats.txt), you'll find significant anomalies such as 29657 members aged 100 years or more, 1184650 6 year olds (almost twice the number of 19 year olds, the biggest year group in that 15-24 age group), 759584 7 year olds, etc. Sylc 09:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the raw data again (ignoring the fact that the 6 and 7 year olds are likely people lying about their age, as well as the 100+) There are a total of 8224381 user with 4455797 falling within the 15-24 age range, inclusive. That is more than 50%. While its not "vast" it is the majority.--Crossmr 20:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: The bottom sections of the article (LiveJournal#References and below) are right justified. I suspect this has something to do with the table in the LiveJournal#LiveJournal_timeline section. 24.126.199.129 04:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the change, it was fine in the previous edition. I can't possibly see what was added to throw off the alignment like that. Perhaps someone else who knows it a bit better can have another look see if they see anything off.--Crossmr 06:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Fixed - the close-table code got removed. Mdwh 14:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bottom sections

message: Removed 2 of the 3 search sites linked from 'External Links'. LjSEEK.com and LjTags.com don't both need to be listed. The latter is a near-identical site run by the same organization, probably using the same indexes, searching entry tags rather than entry body text. I kept the link to the most established one.
I felt LjFind dot com did not yet seem sufficiently mature to warrant inclusion: The Livejournal (sic) search site contains a sidebar of dubious 'Top Searches'. Most of the listed search items are common spam keywords. LjFind .com states it's produced by Macranet. That organization describes itself on their website as a search engine optimization company offering to 'boost traffic to client sites'. Both websites contain many spelling errors/typos, and have (IMO) an 'instant website template' feel. Whitehorse1 20:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added the link for ljfind back as well as a few others. I understand the concern, but I think it's relevant and doesn't seem anymore dubious to me than ljseek. If it's still controversial, then it might be best to put it to a vote. --- Craigtalbert 09:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not a democracy. This article's about Livejournal, not ljfind or ljseek. Keep it relevant. 76.18.34.232 14:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pruning of linked 'resource sites'

message: Hi! We here, in Russia, found, that on Saturday, October, 4th, 2006, LJ servers didn't work because of some electricity malfunction at datacenter in USA. But some other people say, that it is some political sabotage here, in Russia. Supposedly, some forces don't want opposition to use LJ to coordinate it's actions. Is it right? Can someone in USA confirm, that LJ didn't work on that day in USA also? Thanx, and excuse my English. Dims 01:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was worldwide - see the timeline section of the article, or . Mdwh 23:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Worldwide in that LiveJournal only has a single datacenter in San Francisco.  If there is an outage there, LiveJournal is not accessible anywhere to anyone. SchmuckyTheCat 23:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LJ malfunction on Saturday, October, 4th, 2006? 

message: For those LJers here at Wikipedia, here is a userbox to set up for placement on your userpage.
--PremKudvaTalk 05:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: There seems to be an issue over this: suggest that rather than start an edit war we talk it out on the talk page.
The definition of a fad according to the root category is: 
:A fad, also known as a craze, refers to a fashion that becomes popular in a culture (or subcultures) relatively quickly, remains popular, often for a rather brief period, then loses popularity dramatically, as it either fades into obscurity, or becomes a regular part of a society's culture.
Livejournal seems to fit into this definition. Yonmei 08:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read again the definition. At what point did Livejournal loss popularity dramatically? It gained popularity quickly, I've seen no evidence of it losing it. Unless there are reliable sources which consistently reference it as a fad, calling it such is a WP:NPOV issue.--Crossmr 14:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And a quick google search doesn't reveal any reliable sources that reference Livejournal as a fad . So unless you have some, please do not reinsert the category.--Crossmr 14:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: and read WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Since this is POV, the burden is on you or whoever wants it included to provide reliable sources referencing Livejournal as a fad. None of the few random comments about users who reference it as a fad in their profiles are acceptable as reliable sources WP:RS.--Crossmr 14:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Whatever is going on in the yoga article is of no consequence here, they are two different things. The yoga article is not a reliable source for calling Livejournal a fad. I've seen no evidence of a dramatic drop in popularity or any non-trivial reliable sources provided which reference it as a fad.--Crossmr 16:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  At what point did Livejournal loss popularity dramatically? At what point did yoga or low-carb diets lose popularity dramatically? Yet they're listed as fads. Yonmei 17:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a discussion about Livejournal. Not yoga. Yoga isn't a reliable source for whether or not Livejournal is a fad. If you'd like to discuss the yoga article and its categories I'd recommend doing so at the yoga article. I haven't seen a single reliable source indicate that Livejournal is a fad. Should you be able to provide some reliable sources that indicate that livejournal is a fad and that its not a trivial minority view point I have no issue letting the category stand.--Crossmr 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Then Yoga and Low-carb diets shouldn't be fads either, feel free to remove them from the category too. I actually raised this issue on Category_talk:2000s_fads a while ago, pointing out that whilst many may be trends, they are not fads, and I removed entries such as LiveJournal and MySpace. Mdwh 03:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the link to the talk page - I should have looked there myself. The discussion there clarified my thoughts on the matter, and I realise I was confusing fad with trend. Sorry. Yonmei 14:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000s fads