Talk:Facebook/Archive 4

message: quite funny to see people believe that facebook will close. Bit more information would be needed on this section on the updates of the lawsuit. Under this article  that ConnectU propose that Facebook merge with them but not sure if this is relevant.--88.105.39.88 15:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facebook lawsuit 

message: Here is a source citing court documents through the proceedings provided by this blog.  KyuuA4 20:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Court Documents

message: From a glance at the relative size of the various topics, the page's description of Facebook dwarfs in comparison to the criticism of facebook. While I think the criticisms themselves are valid, I feel like they should be moved to a second page on facebook criticisms simply due tot he size. Any thoughts?152.3.85.176 03:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regards to criticism, if the content of such a section becomes too large, then yes, that material can be moved into a separate article.  For an example, see Microsoft. KyuuA4 15:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: :As of July 2007, the website had the largest number of registered users among college-focused sites with over 30 million members worldwide (also from non-collegiate networks).[2] This makes Facebook the second most visited website on the World Wide Web. 
IT'S NOT TRUE.  It's can be more visited websited specific on college-focused webpages or such but not just say "the second more visited website".
Anyways many statisticals are representatives to US states (plus UK) and not for the rest of the world.  If you  say that google, yahoo and such are widely popular then you can be right mainly because they are localized to many countries but if you say that Facebook... oh my!, is popular but in China, Japan and the rest of the world..
--Magallanes 20:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User Count

message: Why Americans always seem to be totally oblivious of the world around them, I haven't a clue, but from my experience, that attitude doesn't go down well on an international community like Wikipedia.  I removed "Scotland" from immediately after "Uni of St Andrews", because there is no reason to annouce the location of it simply because it isn't in the US!  If that weren't the case, we should be announcing the location of all universities, regardless of country.u want to know where it is, click on the link.martianlostinspace 21:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The United States is a large enough country such that it is not impossible that an institution of similar name might also exist there. Considering also that Facebook originated in the United States and is still composed mainly of Americans makes it quite likely that removing the clarification is the greater of two ignorances. Regardless of whether or not it is a faux pas in the internationalist wikipedia community, the location tag "Scotland" is still relevant.68.249.204.118 06:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would dispute the fact that Facebook is composed mainly of Americans - here in the UK Facebook is huge. Still, I see no problem with a university having 'Scotland' placed after it's name, to aid locating it. TheIslander 21:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The single most represented country on Facebook is the US. It's not clear whether the majority or merely plurality of users are American, though I suspect the former. In any case, given that there are other institutions called "St. Andrews" (e.g., ), I agree with you that it might be wise to keep the clarifier. S. Ugarte 23:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scotland

message: Does anyone know what happened to "Pulse"? Both the public and logged in versions are redirecting me to home.php although the "Election Pulse" remains. Does Facebook plan to sell this data to marketing research companies or is this a temporary 404? --LEKI (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know the answer to that question.  Pulse has always been hard to find...never a good link placed anywhere, I had to bookmark it...but now, who knows?  Does anyone know anyone within the FB organization who could discover the answer to this question? David 05:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the page have London as being the biggest network. You shouldn't really look at the total number of people from a country, but more the percentage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.65.39 (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to Pulse? 

message: The article mentions that Facebook is now open to all Internet users, and describes the validation techniques now in place. However, it doesn't exactly state what restrictions were in place before it became an "open" site, so I have no idea of the significance of this move.
I assume that the site was restricted to members of particular institutions (hence the references to certain colleges "having" or "not having" Facebook), but how was this membership validated? Was it purely by e-mail address, or were there other methods in place? Presumably undergrads could retain their Facebook membership after graduation, but was it possible for alumni of that institution to gain Facebook membership? 217.155.20.163 19:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To sign in with a network, one needed to confirm through a ".edu" email address at the participating school.  For example, anyone with a _____@sampleuniversity.edu email could join the Sample University network.  This was the extent of the confirmation process, but combined with the limited networks, it seemed to repress MySpace-style spamming. Hope this helps. - Plasticbadge 05:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was also possible for alumni to join the individual school networks if they had something like an ____@alumni.sampleuniversity.edu email address, or the equivalent.  NBS525 13:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for the clarification. Can I therefore assume that it was (is?) not possible for an alumnus to join the Sample University network if Sample University did not provide alumni with e-mail addresses? 217.155.20.163 23:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge that was (and is) correct. NBS525 15:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facebook is now "open", but to what extent was it "closed" before? 

message: Where do Facebook get their money from? It's a free service and I don't see any advertisements... --Josteinaj 17:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither do I, but that's because of Adblock :-P They have a DoubleClick banner on most pages as well as occasional sponsored links in the news feed.  They also have a number of sponsored groups.  — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see they've put up advertisements now. --Josteinaj 17:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quite a few advertisements in the applications now as well, Gifts cost money even though most users use a free gift app, sponsored polls, marketplace adds, etc., and from what I've heard they are selling data to researchers Bbqturtle 03:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Income 

message: I think someone should add in something about peopleradar.com. I'm not sure what date facebook started it, but it is sure to become a controversial issue pretty soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.105.169 (talk • contribs) 
:PeopleRadar is one of many services developed using the Facebook API, and is not associated with Facebook. — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 18:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PeopleRadar 

message: I think some mention needs to be made of the latest Facebook feature. It was introduced as a temporary thing and for charity, but the charity aspect of it seems now to have disappeared without any notice. *smb 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When gifts were introduced in early February, it was stated that the proceeds from gifts purchased during the month of February would go towards a charity.  Facebook never claimed that gifts would be termporary or that the proceeds would go to charity indefinitely.  NBS525 10:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, because individual gifts are non-notable . . unless for some reason there are actually multiple reliable sources talking about them non-trivially. –Pomte 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Pretty much the whole Features section is non-notable. Facebook features should be treated no differently from the features of automobiles. --Tysto 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gifts 

message: "Another problem is that Facebook users may be under the impression that deleting something from one's Mini-Feed deletes it from the News Feed as well. It does not."
So why does the dialog that comes up when you click the 'x' to delete a story in your feed say "Hiding will remove the story from your Mini-Feed and prevent anyone from seeing it."?  87.112.83.155 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does exactly what it says on the tin. It removes it from your mini-feed, and prevents anyone seeing it there. The wording is poor, however, since it remains on other users' news feeds. If you click to remove it from your profile, then when another user visits your profile, that feed item will not appear. However, the information from that item will still appear on your friends' main news feeds. In effect, you only change what is seen by visiting your own profile. — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mini-feed 

message: "On 2 March 2007, a survey was conducted by eMarketer.com that discovered Facebook was the most viewed site by females in the United States (69%) ages 17 - 25 in 2007 and also the most viewed website by males (56%).[78]"
By "males" does it mean all males or only those in the mentioned age group? It's not clear, and the source requires subscription. MickO'Bants 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ambiguous statistic 

message: Uh, anyone know what the TOC was set to be 80% of the regular font size? EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC font size? 

message: Wikipedia is not a link repository. The article (before this posting) had 31 links under the "External links" heading. That's WAY too much; most of those are just random news stories that really need to be reincorporated into the article as sources; if not, they need to stay gone.
Anyway, here are the links from the article; this is just a straight copy/paste from the article, as I've removed them entirely from the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my.  Feeling bold tonight, are we? :)  --ElKevbo 03:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, quite true; of the four edits I just made to the article, only one of them didn't involve removing content...Also, given the sheer number of links, I'm enclosing them in a scrollable box; that should make just looking at them a bit easier...EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I put a link to the WikiSummaries.org summary of the Facebook TOS (check it) in the "Privacy concerns" section of the article.  The original link was to WPs general TOS article; this link readers may find more relevant.  Anyhow, this is more of a suggestion, but I feel it fits within the context of the article. --Geneffects 16:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed links 

message: If you go to this poll, you can see that most Facebook-users clearly dislike the new layout. Is it unreasonable to mention a change Facebook made that nearly 60% of the users disliked? - Hmwith 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously claiming that a poll of 101 users is representative of the entire Facebook user base?  --ElKevbo 01:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And where can we find out more about the methodology being employed in this poll?  What is the sampling strategy, who is conducting the poll, etc.?  --ElKevbo 02:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As a Facebook user, I've seen that poll, and voted in it. It's definitely not a reliable source. --ALL IN 02:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New layout

message: "The name of the site refers to the paper facebooks that colleges and prepatory schools give to incoming students, faculty, and staff depicting members of the campus community."
There is no source for this. I fact tagged it and that was removed with the explanation that "it's obvious." If it's that obvious it shouldn't require saying. However, without a source, this constitutes original research and should be removed. "Look at the disambiguation page" is not a source. A perfect example of how Wikipedia can sometimes create and perpetuate truisms. Savidan 16:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine then. .  Gdo01 21:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for tracking those down. It be better if there was a way to cite this to Zuckerberg or facebook itself, but one of those would be fine. Savidan 23:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper facebooks 

message: The section on the Virginia shootings is not cited.  I think it should be removed unless anyone can find a reference to back it up.
70.51.247.126 23:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to saunter over to the Virginia Tech massacre article and grab the correct citation(s) from there.  If there are no such citations in that article, then you're probably right in that the section could be deleted.  But there are definitely citations to be had and I'd hate to see this deleted because it's easier to delete it than spend a few minutes adding a reference or two.  --ElKevbo 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't it just be added in the memorial section? -  hmwith talk 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virginia Shootings 

message: I'd love to know what the most popular group (i.e. group with the most members) is on Facebook, but I can't seem to get hold of this information.  If someone could help that would be most appreciatted.80.229.225.16 22:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably "The Largest Facebook Group Ever" , but I have no reliable source saying that the group is actually the most popular. --ALL IN  22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "The Largest Facebook Group Ever" is not the largest... I don't know what is though... Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Popular Group on Facebook and other statistics 

message: Hi guys,
I found a great profile on Mark Zuckerberg that I think should be added on to the external links section, but someone took it down. It clearly added value and was relevant to the topic. When people come on here to read about facebook, it is logical to expect there to be information present about the founder and CEO.
Thoughts?
(Babar54BabarBabar54)
:It would be a good addition to the page on Mark Zuckerberg. Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: Added new marketplace entry and placed it with gifts under a new section entitled additional features to break it from the Responses sectionBoston2austin 13:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Features Section

message: Hey folks. I made the time line into prose, but wasn't logged in when I did it. Anybody know a way I can revert it and put it under my name? I'd like to have it in my edit history, because I worked pretty hard on it. I'll try to write a lead-in later. Benuneko 05:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: try to sign in for future contributions. Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prosed! 

message: This section is no longer out of date and, as usual, I don't have time to fix it.  Could someone, perhaps?  The problem is that the quotes from Facebook's privacy policy are out of date.
132.162.240.52 02:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Privacy Concerns

message: I'm not sure if it's encylopedic or not, but recently Facebook has been closing down quite a few accounts (taking part in a radio contest for The Edge), on the grounds of 'spamming other members'.
One such account that was closed happened to be a charity trying to earn money to donate towards 'Sick Children's Hospital' in Toronto.
Again, not sure if it's encylopedic or not, but Facebook seems to care more about their users than they do about helping out dying children. JimmmyThePiep 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Facebook's terms of use are very clear in that they do not allow groups or organizations to set up accounts; only individuals are allowed to use the service.  If you can find reliable sources backing up your ridiculous assertions, we might be able to add them.  Until then, let's leave the conspiracy theories and blatant agenda-pushing to others.  --ElKevbo 17:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facebook Hates Sick Children 

message: Article states: "The following month, Facebook threatened to seek costs of up to $100,000 from Quizsender.com for copyright infringement for allegedly copying the "look and feel" of Facebook" but according to the soure (13) it was the domain that was the issue facebookquizzes.com or something. Someone please correct (a quick look over archive.org here: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.quizsender.com/ shows that the design has never been similar to facebooks) 82.163.36.55 07:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect

message: This article should have some information on how facebook is coded (it is pretty advanced, with a lot of dynamic stuff going on), as well as facebook developer stuff, and how developers can create applications that integrate with the facebook data. it's a somewhat open-content project. i don't know enough about it though. Bonus Onus 20:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - some info on Facebook's underlying technology would be really interesting (Is it Ruby on Rails, LAMP, .NET or what? I have no idea) Mattmm 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Facebook URLs tend to have a .php suffix, so I'm assuming PHP. Their HTTP server reports: Server: Apache/1.3.37.fb1. I don't consider this particularly noteworthy, though the mention of their developer API should, perhaps, be expanded. S. Ugarte 23:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coding and developer stuff 

message: Can someone put the actual function of the website somewhere, preferrably in the intro? It's not actually in the article anywhere. If it is, it's hard to find. Voretus 20:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sentence added. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Voretus 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, but what is it? 

message: I just wanted to explain for Rrjanbiah why both Pomte and I reverted his inclusions.
First:
:As of June 2007 number of users in face book became more than My Space.
Aside from the grammatical errors, this claim needs to be verified, and the text should not have been included where it was — namely, in a previous reference. Provide a notable reference for your claim and it should be added.
Secondly, I'm not sure that a couple of remarks by Digg users is worthwhile mentioning. You may disagree with me here, but I think it'd need to be a more notable and larger article to merit inclusion here. I agree with Pomte that the Harvard comments may be a personal attack, and indeed Facebook does already use PHP.
Hope this helps. — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 16:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert answered for [[User:Rrjanbiah|Rrjanbiah]] 

message: What is the deal with the platform? The programming language?  Where is it going?  I read a very interesting article about Zuckerberg's expectations of the platform and its future and the potential business to be done if one were to program with the platform.  Fortune questioned whether it was a delusion of grandeur, but I am doubtful.  Does anyone know anything about this?
Kitra101 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Facebook Platform is a programming language, and the idea is that facebook gives the business a platform to stand on, to potentially start a business and make $$$. Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLATFORM 

message: One of the primary investors of thefacebook.com has ties to the CIA. Google searching the references will give you multiple verifiable sources for the information.
http://digg.com/security/Facebook_s_CIA_ties?offset=51
An interesting point about how Facebook is really a site for data mining and spying:
by danielson on 12/13/2005
code error?
I was on facebook one time and I clicked on one of my friends link and it for some reason it came up with a bunch of the php source code. One thing that kind of caught my attention was this part of it(I took a screenshot because I can't post code here.): http://www.danieljanderson.com/images/source.jpg
"That's only a part of the code...."
Original link gone, but available now at:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060110032336/http://www.danieljanderson.com/images/source.jpg
:Quite scary! --maxrspct ping me  19:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't surprising, the government probably sends facebook millions of dollars just for information... It kind of pisses me off when then get their HTML screwed up... maybe thats what happens when you process 400 terabytes a day! Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA in bed with Facebook 

message: I just gave facebook a shot for the first time, and was absolutely DUMBFOUNDED when part of the application asked for the password to my EMAIL ACCOUNT!  Sure, it was optional, but that's completely unacceptable.  That, my friends, is a gigantic red flag.  Facebook is not to be trusted.  I mean.. think about it.  Have you ever seen a legitimate website ask for such information?  Of course you haven't.  Facebook is shady.  Period.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.146.216 (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too was shocked to see Facebook asking for my e-mail account password - and how difficult it was to add friends without doing so (you cannot just enter a list of email addresses--you have to provide a contact list in one form or another; eventually I found the instructions for exporting a contact list from Thunderbird and uploading that).  Seriously, though -- this seems like an enormous security breach -- I can't understand why Facebook gets away with this. 66.92.197.122 17:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it does present a huge security risk, but if you don't want to enter your details, don't. Not that this is an excuse, but there are other sites that use the same procedure for people to perform mass contact searches, and not many offer the safer version of uploading an exported contact list. If you want to find lots of your friends at once, try looking at people in your network and look for groups relating to your university, college, school, place of work — the list goes on. Bottom line, it is a security risk, but you don't have to use it. — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 17:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was amazed to think they could get away with asking for people's email passwords but then horrified that almost everyone I know blithely provided their passwords. I'm mean some of these people are pretty clever people, but they all responded "oh, was that wrong?" I've seen some other sites have started doing this as well. It's a creepy technique but it obviously works well and is legal. CRS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.211.62 (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all, this talk page is a place to discuss ways to improve the Wikipedia Facebook article, not just a general forum on Facebook.  Second, in responce to your concerns, Facebook only asks for your password to confirm your identity/ownership of the email address, and also to build your friend list.  Now, to the paranoid mind, this is not a very good idea, which does kind of make sense.  However, if you're concerned, simply change your email password, give that one to Facebook once, and then change your email password back.  I did this and gave Facebook a temporarily changed password, and I have no reason to believe they used it inappropriately.  In case you were wondering, MySpace also will ask for your email password to help build your friends list.  Besides, I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of internet users use the same password, for everything, so in all actuality Facebook probably already has your email password.  But they do not save it for any reason, that would be agains their own privacy policy. Darkage7 18:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facebook asks for e-mail account password 

message: I've got an issue with the opening sentence: "Facebook is the second most visited social networking website on the World Wide Web with over 28 million members. It is surpassed only by MySpace." According to Alexa and each site's own given statistics (don't know if that's a valid source), Orkut is a more popular site. I didn't see any justification in any of the talk archives. This really needs to be justified by someone or changed. Maybe second most popular in the North America? Or the USA?
Keammo1 04:50, 02 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User your common sense, why would someone join a site where they can't really be sure of whose profiles they're looking at? --66.188.79.122 17:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it is a very good point, but perhaps it would be better if you had a reliable source to back it up. Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd most popular? 

message: what is facebooks policy abut handing over ip addresses to cops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctordugihauser (talk • contribs) 
:I imagine they're quite co-operative, like any other law-abiding website. Why? Octane [improve me]  27.07.07 0156 (UTC)
::Actually I think most websites keep their customers' IP addresses confidential unless a warrant is given.. usually. Knippschild 07:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If i were facebook i would sell them... is that legal? i never do read the fine print... Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you say in your privacy policy that you will be distributing IP addresses to the highest bidder (*cough*,Gov't Agencies), I very highly doubt it's legal. Information that could eventually be traced back to you to is being given to agencies that have the means to trace it back to you without your consent or knowledge. I honestly have not read the privacy policy, but I'm sure they say something to the effect of agencies requiring a warrant for an IP address disclosure. Hell, I could be completely wrong, but I will look into it later today. Knippschild 13:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ip address 

message: Under the section of the article that briefly talks about the poke feature it is said that the poke is used as a sexual advance.  The source is from a college newspaper and -- at least to me -- is an obviously satirical article.  It is quite a funny read, but I don't think it is appropriate for a source.  It is footnote 103, here is the article link: http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/04/03/Features/Facebook.poke.Leads.To.Awkward.OneNighter-1777165.shtml?sourcedomain=www.browndailyherald.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com
Redtemplar 14:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable source 

message: I stress that a semi-protection is placed on the article.
It's getting vandalized every minute. Koolgiy 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm keeping an eye on it. I don't think we need to lock it down quite yet, but we're pretty close. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've requested it be semi-protected.  --ElKevbo 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As the article is now semi-protected, I'm adding the appropriate tag. Trvsdrlng 13:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, it's already there, although not obvious. Trvsdrlng 13:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandals 

message: If you search for drawball, it leads you to this article. Any idea why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.47.38 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 August 2007
:Look at Facebook#Customization and security: “…featuring a streaming video and a flash game from Drawball.” — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawball? 

message: Hi everybody,
Great job you are doing with this page. 
I was wondering, why does facebook install so many cookies whose descriptions are of an ad nature? like ad-manager...? Is this worth looking into? (unsigned)
:They like seeing what you like to give you better adds, its a google thing. Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third party cookies 

message: This article should mention that facebook has been blocked by many big banks and other companies, not because of the themes mentioned in the article but because of concerns of time wasting, abusing company computer facilities as well as being used to slag of the company (many users have set up groups like "my company directors are bunch of w***ers" etc.).  Surely many universities woukld criticise such use of faceboo, and other similar sites as it deprives people with legitimate reasons, like for university work, access to computers.  I believe these points should be raised in the article.
I also believe thatthe article should mention more about facebook in other countries for example the United Kingdom.
Franny-K 18:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome.  --ElKevbo 19:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking by many big organisations in London (and propabally other places too)

message: Who tagged the page with the Globalize tag? That makes no sense.  Facebook is based in Palo Alto in the U.S. and caters to a U.S. audience so it makes no sense to discuss a worldwide view that doesn't really exist.  That would be like trying to write an article on koalas from an worldwide view (which also makes no sense as they are indigenous to Australia). --Coolcaesar 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide view issue?! 

message: How come this article mentions nothing of the new Facebook Video application? . You can find out more about it on their video FAQ . This information is very relevant to this article. The application has over 7 million users. You fail to mention this fact, but yet you focus extensively on trivial features like poke. You are doing a disservice to your viewers not to even talk about it once.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzlemctwizzle (talk • contribs) 01:27, August 26, 2007 (UTC) 
:Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome.  --ElKevbo 04:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty good!  I made some minor editorial changes and requested a citation for one assertion.  The reference citations also need to be cleaned up significantly (see WP:CITE) but overall it looks good.  Thanks for adding it!  --ElKevbo 19:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facebook Video 

message: In the article it says that by the end of 2005 Facebook had over 11 million users. This is misleading - if you check the source, the data states that 11.1 million was the number of visitors to the site for that year, which is not the same thing.
According to Trendcatching  it only just reached 7.5 million users by July 2007, and 25 million as of now. I don't want to mess with the page but if someone wants to find the correct statistics for 2005 they should change it.
-Leo
124.170.182.66 11:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate info 

message: As of now, the "Applications" sections lists the most popular apps, such as iLike, Graffiti, etc. I would argue that the "Honesty Box" application is as large as any of these and deserves mention.
--BeastKing89 01:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a list of facebook Apps page? it would be nice... Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honesty Box 

message: Anyone seen this: Facebook campaign forces HSBC U-turn? I reckon it's interesting enough for inclusion - it shows the clout that the Facebook community delivers. Against a massive corporation, no less. Seegoon 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facebook campaigning works 

message: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/technology/01facebook.html?hp
We need to update to reflect this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by James.petrille (talk • contribs) 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zuckerberg ripped off Greenspan 

message: I don't know if a personal e--mail can be counted as a reference even in full citation, but my account was permanently disabled today, apparently for adding too many friends to quickly.  That should be a warning to others until and unless Facebook offers me another explanation for what I did wrong.  That a person can have their account disabled for engaging in a major raison d'être of the site is most definitely notable, but difficult to verify. --Scottandrewhutchins  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottandrewhutchins (talk • contribs) 02:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't find it too surprising if they have filters on private messages to detect obscene words/phrases and flag messages as such, especially since it says right in the terms of use that such messaging is not allowed.  There may also be some system in place to monitor how many of a massive number of spontaneous friend requests were confirmed or ignored, where too many being ignored infers a violation of the 'unsolicited friend requests' rule.  I don't know anything for sure, but those would be my speculations. 128.253.228.176 timrem Sorry, forgot to log in15:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's odd, What if I do a mass-add of buddies based on my AIM buddy list? Beings I am using their software to *legally* massively add friends.. I don't know if that's true though, it seems kind of TOO strict for a public resource such as facebook is.Knippschild 18:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark Zuckerberg has stressed in many interviews that Facebook isn't for meeting people. Even in the recent Newsweek interview, he claimed something along the lines of Facebook being more for keeping in touch with people you already know, unlike MySpace, which is more for meeting new people. I agree with you being blocked for that reason, and I think most other Facebook users would, as well. As for adding it to the article, I agree that it is WP:OR, and it cannot be added as of now.  hmwith  talk 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I question the intelligence of anyone who thinks I should be blocked for adding friends of friends. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, Zuckerberg went to Harvard and now he's laughing all the way to the bank.  And I concur that Scottandrewhutchins' proposed edit is inappropriate original research as well as POV.--Coolcaesar 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zuckerberg probably doesn't know what's going on as far down as individual members.  I keep asking for an explanation beyond the form letter, and they're refusing to give it to me, so I'm going to have to call them again and try to get past the receptionist. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted for too many friend adds too quickly

message: I'll be honest, I haven't read the entire privacy policy nor the entire privacy policy section on Wikipedia (skimmed through it). I didn't see any bit of the rumour of a costumer's information being kept long after or even permanently after they have their account deleted. I've heard this from a lot of unrelated sources. Is there any truth to this and does anyone think it'd be prudent to create a section about this? As far as i am concerned this is a major reason for people not creating an account.  And if it is true, it should be in the privacy policy section. Knippschild 07:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They described my account as "disabled," but I had some people write to me and ask what happened to my profile and posts. Maybe they only take your stuff away if you DON'T want it taken.  --Scottandrewhutchins 14:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information Retained After Deletion Rumour? 

message: It says that this article is 'low' on the importance scale. Is this entirely accurate now that Facebook is the most visited site in the world besides google? It is very possible that i misunderstand the purpose of this scale. 
Bbqturtle 02:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That scale is relative to the San Fran wiki project, so perhaps others felt other articles and components were more important. I wouldn't say FaceBook is visited #2 most, either :P Knippschild 17:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Is this entirely accurate now that Facebook is the most visited site in the world besides google?" <-- ROFL.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.41.159 (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance Scale? 

message: Could somebody add the corresponding links in other wikipedia languages. I tried to add vkontakte, the russian clone, but the wikipedia url is very long: it's something like this: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B5  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadyes (talk • contribs) 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar services in other languages / clones 

message: This picture, even though titled on the image page, is not a description of facebook, rather a description of the domain of linkedin social networking site. you can view this by clicking the image and scrolling down to the description... Should the description be fixed or the image removed? Bbqturtle 14:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image for paragraph labeled Model of the domain 

message: The part "Origins and expansion", says the following:
"The following month, Zuckerberg, McCollum and Moskovitz moved to Palo Alto, Russia, to continue work on Facebook's development...".
Isn't Palo Alto in CALIFORNIA? Or am I just stupid?  Nasht 15:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia??? 

message: There should be listed only sites that focus in some way on students, otherwise there could be listed pretty many site. Studentsn.com increased it´s userbase only through blogmarketing, by that it may be a social network in some way but more an online community.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.9.210 (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar Services 

message: I know little about Facebook, but I came across the following list of leading Facebook apps:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/08/facebook-apps-ruled-by-the-few/
I went to lookup "Top Friends" in Wikipedia, and it redirects to MySpace (?). I eventually found my way to this page.
Guanxi 22:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some analysis to consider regarding the link above: http://www.centernetworks.com/facebook-app-usage-report Guanxi 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of leading applications and app developers 

message: This section seems to border on original research and encyclopedic, but I'd like to get more opinions on this.  69.12.143.197 05:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the "Model of the domain" section needed?