Talk:PostSecret

message: Is LJSecret really notable enough to warrant a mention in this article? It's not the only spinoff of PostSecret (there's Text Secret, for one) and it's not necessarily the best one. 203.100.24.127 09:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Livejournal Secret 

message: I'm kind of curious, where do the profits for this book go? I'd love to imagine that it all goes to a suicide prevention organization (taking some out for personal compensation is reasonable) but somehow I doubt that the cause is really so noble. Is Warren just an entrepreneur? Does he actually care? I'm curious about this because the book is advertised, but a site like this really seems to lend itself to donating to a good cause and that's not pointed out anywhere (that I've seen). --RoadDoggFL 06:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some info in the Wikinews interview linked from the article. DMacks 07:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profits? 

message: According to the bookjacket in the first book, PostSecret has received over 10,000 peices. I'm going to update the article. 
Zidel333 21:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  500 peices 

message: It seems to me that the whole section about controversy is mainly just the opinion of the person who wrote the section. Without citation, to claim that "there are several who feel several of the postcards mailed in are attention-getting devices rather than true 'secrets'" and that "it is also felt by many that the claims of suicide wishes are over-exaggerated," doesn't seem like a well-researced fact. Maybe you could mention that there is no way to be sure that all entries are true, and that they may be embellished or made up, without claiming that "many people" feel that way? Or else I think it should be cited.67.176.255.157 04:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I've been watching the site all day (today, Frank's first day back, 08 July 2007) through NetNewsWire, which keeps track of edits and shows changes made. Frank has been editing a few of the email responses throughout the day...both the contents and the time-stamp he posts alongside them. It appears to me that the changes are being made to make the stories of the cards more appealing and perhaps sensationalizing them. 
The email edits that are most active today are the ones following the "Amanda, you suck at being in love" card.
Earlier this morning, the first email response was something along the lines of "Joshua(?), you suck at being in love too." This was then followed by another email saying "I know I do, I'm sorry."
Right now, however, the "Joshua..." email has been removed leaving the "I know I do" email to appear as the initial response...and leading a viewer to believe that it was "Amanda" who wrote this "I know I do, I'm sorry." and not "Joshua," as was earlier suspected. Another email response has been posted that states "we both suck. thats why i love you" which leads a viewer to believe that this response was from "Joshua."
As someone who has been watching all this happen, it all seems awfully suspect to me. Anyone else notice this? Anyone else think this is a big deal? I think, considering how it has been demonstrated above that it is hard to find Frank's email address, that it isn't crazy to ask who is really writing these emails... Naglenagle 00:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Email Edits

message: Reinstated "Briefgeheimen," which certainly deserves a spot on this list.--Kslain 00:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crikey, is everyone and his mother is going to start adding some random blog or livejournal page and claim it's really an at-least-mildly important or notable spinoff of PostSecret? If no objections, I'll be doing some brutal cleanup here next week. DMacks 04:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be a great help if this talk page could come to some consensus about what the standards should be for listing spinoffs. # of pieces of art shown, mention in reliable sources, and links from PostSecret itself might be ideas to start with. That list badly needs updating, you're right. 64.126.24.11 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning a spinoff or two doesn't seem like a bad idea, but we shouldn't become a web directory, either. Which are the largest? Which have received the most attention from third parties? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, DMOZ already has a web-directory related to this type of thing (I just added it to the "External links" section). DMacks 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fair, to me, if no one has any objections. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Simple in theory, rather difficult in practice. Do any of these meet WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABILITY, as you put it? And if so, how? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:WEB for help. Exxolon 10:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy to say, difficult to apply. I'm looking for specifics, not generalities, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spin-offs section needs cleanup 

message: The way this should be organised is this :- Those sites that meet WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABILITY should have their own articles, and should be linked to in a "See Also" section. Simple. Exxolon 19:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple in theory, rather difficult in practice. Do any of these meet WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABILITY, as you put it? And if so, how? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:WEB for help. Exxolon 10:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy to say, difficult to apply. I'm looking for specifics, not generalities, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Break

message: It seems to me that some of the information in the overview (about the site not being updated this week) is repeated unecessarily later in the article. Does this information really belong in the overview section, or should it just be included in the recent events section? Minidictionary 05:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview 

message: Obviously at some point the header 'recent events' will need to be changed.  It makes sense to me to go ahead and do it.  Suggestions on the new section title?
: I was about to try and re-organise the recent events section a little, maybe just as small a change as splitting off the more recent turmoil with the site not being updated and being brought down into its own section. I'll do that right now. — metaprimer (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ach - I didn't fully take in what I read. I assumed this was talking about the History section, but the recent events thereof. If I've responded irrelevently then it's because of the lack of signature(!) — metaprimer (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Recent Events" 

message: Someone is updating the page with information about the site.  While it is all accurate, as far as I can tell, I was wondering if there is any way to go deeper since there seems to be no purpose. MaxoremNihil 14:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm noticing that there are updates about the site giving an error instead of just being reverted to the "nicole" layout, however when I checked, it was the same layout as before only with the name "yoshie" instead of "nicole". Is there any evidence that this is Blogger thinking it's a spam site and not someone trying to attack the site? — metaprimer (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Events of September 16th, 2007 

message: The article says it's a postsecret archive (albeit static and not updated lately)... but seriously, there's like a dozen pics in it.  I don't see this as anything more than an excuse to work a link into the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.200.96 (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concurred. I have removed it. DMacks (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defunktion.net link, a pointless ad?

message: While it is notable that secrets have been put up in some schools and universities, is it really necessary to specify the Martingrove Collegiate Institute as one of them? It just sounds like one of the students at the school added it for kicks- in general I fail to see its relevance (If it is relevant, may I elect the University of Florida to be linked too? lol) Oroneko (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability? 

message: It seems that archive.org's wayback machine has a fairly complete record of all the postsecrets.  You'll need to turn off javascript to make it work, as the photos resize themselves to 1x1 pixels with it on. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the section about previous postsecrets, since my reading of the article was that it was impossible to find previous postsecrets.  I just discovered the site an hour ago and I wanted to see previous ones, so I tried archive.org 68.118.224.229 (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  archive.org 

message: PostSecret was recently featured in a CSI:NY episode where it was the basis of the plot. This should be mentioned somewhere in the article? It is definite notable exposure for the site. I don't feel comfortable writing it because I haven't personally seen the episode - has anyone seen it and wants to write it? Kitty16700 (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSI:NY Episode 

message: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-9890153-52.html  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  source? 

message: I'm moving possible source links here from the external links section, which is WAY overloaded. momoricks 22:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving interview possible source links here from external links section 

message: This idea of sharing secrets while still staying anonymous gives people the ability to say anything they want without having their identities revealed. It empowers the readers to confess about their depression, dreams, stories and experiences that otherwise in other situations they probably wouldn’t share with others. In the  book My Secret by Frank Warren he talks about his experiences with how people all around the world were so inspired by the postcards and how it got many people addressing things that they would otherwise never discuss. 
In this book he said, "I have been inspired by the stories they have told me, stories that begin with a secret and end with a hope," But, in my opinion this sense of 'hope' doesn't seem to be the most healthy way to deal with these serious issues that most readers post about.
In an article by USATODAY it said
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-03-14-postsecrets_x.htm 
"But Evan Imber-Black, a family therapist and author of The Secret Life of Families, says telling secrets has no meaning except in the context of family relationships. 
"We live in a time where people have the mistaken idea that you tell a secret to the multitudes on TV — and move on," she says. "But opening a secret is just the first step. (Posting on PostSecret) might offer some measure of relief, but I'm not sure how long it lasts. When a secret opens, it usually takes time and relational work to get a new equilibrium." "
I think that there should also be an emphasis on what harm PostSecret might have on a reader and also on an anonymous sender.
Conniechong (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the place for such a discussion. No original material should appear here, and neither should debates, speculation, and opinion. If you want to cite a relevant article as "criticism", leave out your own opinion. Just report on the fact that such a view was raised by someone notable. Many articles mention criticism of the subject, but it must be cited properly and within Wikipedia guidelines. The way it looks now, on the main page, does not follow the guidelines. - Whateverlolawants (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is PostSecret a healthy way to share secrets and cope with one another? 

message: An image used in this article, File:Newpostsecret.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 21 September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Newpostsecret.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: I've added PostSecret's postal address, as well the email, to this article. I know the email is being actively discussed, but I think the physical address is an important part of this article too. Obviously, it's something readers would be interested to know and it's not always available on the PostSecret blog. Some weeks it is, others it's not. Right now the first result when searching for it in Google is a Yahoo Answers result. --JonathonSimister (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not Wikipedia's job to be an email or postal directory.  We have a link to the official site, that's sufficient.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When you removed the address you reverted another unrelated edit (removing section heading) and a perfectly good sentence about the iPhone app. Please try to be more careful next time. --JonathonSimister (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postal address 

message: I wasn't sure if this comes under Neutral Point Of View, Citation Needed or No Original Research. I put the Citation tag on. This paragraph in the History section struck me as subjective:
"This idea of sharing secrets while still staying anonymous gives people the ability to say anything they want without having their identities revealed. It empowers the readers to confess about their depression, dreams, stories and experiences that otherwise in other situations they probably wouldn’t share with others."
That kind of statement should be cited. JaffaCakeLover (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This may well be Warren's opinion or analysis of his site and traceable to something in his writings/interviews rather than a wider blanket statement. Either way, the wording should be clarified and cited. It may actually be a summary/introduction to the cited statement that follows it, in which case that paragraph needs some rewording to be clear on that point and avoid being so redundant. DMacks (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamental principle breach

message: An image used in this article, File:Postsecretgoneagain.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 2 January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Postsecretgoneagain.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion