Talk:Facebook

There is a major technical problem with the Facebook Wikipedia page

There is a problem with the EDIT feature and this page is UNUPDATEABLE!! How can this be fixed???????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facebookfan77 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected, which means editing privileges are restricted to autoconfirmed users.--Rollins83 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 80.229.6.173, 28 August 2011

The table concerning the growth of the number of users of Facebook has a small error. This is the table headed number of active users situated in the section headed ownership. This shows the number of days between 8th April 2009 and 15th September 2009 as 150. This is incorrect; the correct number is 160. All the other numbers of days are correct.

80.229.6.173 (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Finally found it and fixed it. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No comments about one project Wikipedia&Facebook with support of "Faculty of metallurgy - Zagreb - CROATIA",only the following link, and all from XY, 23 October 2011

http://webograd.tportal.hr/bspadina/facebookandscience

83.131.70.71 (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 202.56.7.147, 2 September 2011

Can I Release a One site, same as Facebook? & can copy some data from Facebook?--202.56.7.147 (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

202.56.7.147 (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Your question is very vague, and I'm not quite sure what you're asking. If you're asking whether you can copy data from Wikipedia's article about Facebook, the answer is yes, as long as you follow the terms of use described at this page. If you're asking whether you can copy data from Facebook itself, then you're asking at the wrong place. You would need to contact Facebook about that. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Abhilashsnair, 10 September 2011

the universal facebook mobile application : <spam link removed>

Abhilashsnair (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done, non notable--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Visitors...!

Hi. I am Aditya Kansal. I feel there should be an advancement in FACEBOOK that will tell the user about the recent visitors to his/her profiel or groups. Can this be applied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.32.179 (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC) No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.98.249 (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Facebook has made it technically impossible to keep track of your profile visitors. Maybe a third party developer will make this available one day. Marlzbrooke (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Update to footnotes

Hi, the link in footnote 80 is dead. The correct link is:

http://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=210552142308915&ref_query=pok

Thanks EK 70.114.16.147 (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

"Nevertheless, Facebook's market growth started to stall in some regions, with the site losing 7 million active users in the United States and Canada in May 2011."

How about the other regions of the world, besides America and Canada? Was the loss of active users as great in let's say, the United Kingdom? I think the statistics of Facebook's occupancies should be kept up to date as possible, considering the fast-pace society we live in. Eamodeo (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

800 million users?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/09/facebook-f8-media-features.html Change member number to 800 million according to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.60.201 (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 109.158.189.35, 24 September 2011

please let us edit the page none of this stuff is true and i would like to fix it and make it right!!!

109.158.189.35 (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: requests for page protection or unprotection should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 16:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Political Impact Edit

"In 2011 a controversial ruling by French government to uphold a 1992 decree which stipulates that commercial enterprises should not be promoted on news programs. President Nicolas Sarkozy's colleagues have agreed has said that it will enforce a law so that the words 'Facebook' will not be allowed to be spoken on the television or on the radio."

This should really say "In 2011, a controversial ruling was made by the French government to uphold a 1992 decree which stipulates that commercial enterprises should not be promoted on news programs. President Nicholas Sarkozy's colleagues have said that the government will enforce a law so that the words 'Facebook' will not be allowed to be spoken on the television or on the radio."

Edited for clarification.

Little-angel-73 (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)i love facebook ya suckers

Timeline

With Facebook preparing to launch a new feature called Facebook Timeline, it seems to me that the existing redirect of Facebook timeline to Timeline of Facebook could quickly become confusing. Should it be redirected? 108.28.169.42 (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit: First paragraph

I noticed, when reading the first paragraph, that the final sentence with the phrase "Web page," seems quite awkward. Can it be changed to "the service?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Multi128 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarifications needed

I need help with some issues I've run across while (lightly) copyediting this article (I'm not familiar with FB):

1. The lead says users may do various things, "including automatic notifications when they update their profile." I assume this means setting up things so their friends are notified, as opposed to the users themselves? This needs to be clarified.
2. The Ownership section should specify the date as of which the figures are accurate. Also, only a single source is cited, after the third owner, and none of the rest of the percentages are footnoted. It doesn't look like the cited source gives all the percentages, so where are they coming from?
3. The last paragraph of the Revenue section mentions "Wall posts", but that feature hasn't been explained yet in the article.

Thanks... - dcljr (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Accessability in Vietnam

The wiki article says that facebook is banned in Vietnam, but this is not true. My wife lives in Vietnam and I have visited this country and let me assure you it is alive and very well in Vietnam! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.5.234 (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The citation in the article speaks of the possibility of a blackout in Vietnam, it does not state that one has taken place. Unless a reliable source can be found that states that FB has actually been banned in Vietnam, that should be removed from the article.--Rollins83 (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Contact FACEBOOK Administration

How about adding some information (if anyone has it) on how to contact Facebook administration? The site does not post any telephone or e-mail contact information, or even a street address that one might send a hard-copy letter to. In trying to contact them myself I've encountered hundreds of similar requests around the web. How can a business of this magnitude operate completely /incommunicado/?

Perhaps this needs to be added to the "criticism" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It is going to be

Facebook, One Hacker Way, Menlo Park, California 94205 RichardBond (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 17 November 2011

Dead Link #52 - here's a living one: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_hits_1_trillion_pageviews.php Gressenicher (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Porn problem

Most of you may have even noticed yourselves that FB has been under minor/moderate attack lately with images invading people's feeds depicting porn or gore images, being spawned by malware traps. If you are not aware of this outbreak, there are more than enough sources to back this up. Simply search "facebook porn" in the news option on Google for more information and coverage. I'm just curious if this should be added to the article. • GunMetal Angel 13:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can make a virus section for all successful and harmful viruses on FaceBook. Btw that virus could be The Fawkes Virus realesed by the group called Anonymous. But maybe it would be good to have a part dedicated to FaceBook viruses. User:Calibreslicer

There has been several sources regarding that the virus was not released by Anonymous, however, mentioning their denial of responsibility worth it is worth nothing. The flood is officially over, just now it's still a mystery, I believe, on who is responsible. • GunMetal Angel 12:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

RECHECK HISTORY PLEASE

I am quite sure Facebook existed in some form prior to 2003. In fact the site probably goes back to 2001/2002 time frame or before that. It used to be a real college search/hookup tool, and in order to have an account a user needed a valid school email account, i.e. @collegename.edu type email ... a user couldn't use hotmail or gmail, etc. i am thinking that it was easy for facebook to erase the history of the website over time naturally, because all of the search/posts/apps provided more linking material for the web... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.67.226 (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Previously there were two companies one thefacebook.com which was founded by Mark Zuckerberg in 2004 and the other earlier company which is now named About Face http://www.aboutfacecorp.com. Mark Zuckerberg on advice of Sean Parker paid the other company to acquire the name. RichardBond (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 November 2011

Facebook should be investigated for violation of Federal AntiTrust legislation. The site does now allow links from competing sites posted. Facebooks used privacy settings to flag competitor links as spam/malware thus preventing competitor sites from gaining any ground against facebook.

Bustin1986 (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a request--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yahoo patents could throw a monkey wrench into Facebook’s IPO hopes

Interesting tidbit - but where does it fit http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/08/yahoo-facebook-patent-dispute/ ? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to create a section or subsection on the Menlo Park Campus

Facebook, One Hacker Way, Menlo Park, California RichardBond (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

alternate lowercase spelling

This alternate spelling is used often quite evidently, and I think it's silly to get into a revert war over this. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

According to this source, the "official spelling is lowercase". Hmm. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:V I would need to see some extremely good references for this (i.e. not dictionary.com). Are they available? --John (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A very respected Language Log linguist works for its sister site. I don't see why an alternate spelling reference needs to be "extreeemely good" -- can't it ust be good? Why the extra bar? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks specifically deprecates this sort of usage on Wikipedia. Thus we would need a very good reason to diverge from this guidance. --John (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

But it has lowercase branding. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

MOS:TM specifically deals with this. We say Adidas, not adidas, Facebook, not facebook. It's also ironic that in the last story you linked, Facebook is capitalised throughout. --John (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not ironic. "Facebook" is used officially, but "facebook" is also an accepted alternate spelling, often used in branding, that's all. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

...but not on Wikipedia, per MOS:TM unless there are very good reasons to do so. Are there? I'm not seeing them...--John (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternate spellings are noted in the lede. They do not necessarily have to be used throughout the article. For example, the Chinese name for Lee Kuan Yew is not used throughout the article, but we note it in the very beginning. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't an alternate spelling, it's a lowercase branding. Could you possibly read MOS:TM and come back? --John (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that it is an alternate appellation that can be noted in the lede. MOS:TM applies to body text in the rest of the article. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Can it? Should it? Does it? I don't think you are going to get this any time soon; let's ask for a third opinion. --John (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternate spellings are allowed in the lede, even if they aren't used in the body. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks, "facebook" is not the official spelling; outside of its logo, the website consistently refers to itself as "Facebook". —David Levy 12:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

CIA uses facebook to collect imformation on people.

Facebook should broadly explain this to people that sign up and existing users. This should also be one of the first things listed in wikpedias page on facebook. i didnt see it anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.161.246 (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source confirming that "fact"? HiLo48 (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Fox news, MSNBC, and an array of other news agencies have all cited this. Vengeful librians is the name of the group that operates within the CIA to gather information about what people do and say on facebook. Christopher Sartinsky CIA director admits using facebook to gather information from people on onion news clip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.161.246 (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Then please click on the blue link, reliable source, and see if you can satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for adding your claim to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As easy as it my sound this task will take me some time and i will work on it. I am very greatful for your comments and look foward to any insight you may provide.To be honest im not sure how this whole editing of wikpedia works or how to navigate internet to get the reliable source. i promise to be diligent to either prove or disprove the subject in question. It is not my intention to mislead or guide anyone in any direction. I would just like to see this if true added to wikepedia for peoples research needs thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.161.246 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Social impact

I think it is generally acknowledged that facebook has been a disruptive force changing the way the internet is used, and has altered the social norms of the demographics into which it penetrates most deeply. It therefore seems to me that the section "social impact" is rather short (even the political impact section is longer), and does not feature in the article summary. The article is full of technical details about the site's interface, but is rather lacking in a discussion of the wider impact of facebook, which I think creates an unacceptable imbalance for something so important in modern life (and certainly a reason to prevent featured article status. Thoughts ? Nossac (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what you and I think of Facebook, but what reliable sources say. If you can find such material to add to the article, feel free to do so. It could be valuable to discuss it here first. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

the chart under #revenue & the infobox @ the top give two different est. revenue numbers for 2010.

one says 1.6B one says 2B. can we make it clear why these numbers are different or........... make them the same? aight. skakEL 19:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Facebook (directory) deserves the main namespace for "Facebook"

Just like how "Apple" is reserved for the article about the fruit, no matter how well known the company of the same name may be. A facebook is a dictionary word. Just like how Yearbook is about the book rather than the website MyYearbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.84.196 (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

won't get it. deserves it? eh.. ya know what would prob work? facebook lowercase. and while I'm at it, the tumblr article title should be 'tumblr.' skakEL 18:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The 2007 Microsoft deal

Wikipedia, of all places, should not be furthering the false notion that the deal placed a valuation of $15 billion on Facebook at hte time. Leave that to the ignorant blogs. Microsoft paid most of that money for the ad exclusivity rights. (They paid about the same amount as Google did for ad exclusivity on MySpace...with no ownership at all.) NOBODY at Microsoft nor Facebook felt that the deal placed a value of $15 billion at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.98.193 (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

this is incorrect, Microsoft purchased an equity stake at a $15 billion valuation, in addition to extending their advertising deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huwa (talk • contribs) 02:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A few corrections

Under "History" in the 5th from last paragraph is speculation about the IPO. Now that the S-1 is filed this data should be deleted or updated, specifically the section regarding "Facebook has been identified as a possible candidate for an IPO by 2013.[48] The Wall Street Journal has reported that Facebook is looking to raise as much as $10 billion in its IPO and that it plans to file paperwork as early as February 3rd.[49][50][51]"

The "total active users" table in this same section should be updated to include the new 850 million user count included in the S-1 filing.

Under the "company" section, all of the ownership numbers can now be updated with correct figures from the S-1 filing.

Under "revenue" the table for "revenues" should be updated to include factual information from the S-1 filing.

The section "menlo park executive offices" should be renamed "Menlo Park Headquarters", as the new location isn't just for executives; it's the company's HQ for all employees.

The section "Functionality issues" under "Website" should be erased, as (1) G5/PPC processors are a slim minority of total Macs deployed in the world and (2) this error isn't related to Facebook, but is instead a Flash problem that Facebook isn't responsible for.

At the end of the "reception" section the wording should be corrected. "In January 2012 just before Facebook Intitial Public Offering" should be "In January 2012, just before Facebook's S-1 filing," and "All of them above totally 309 million members" should be "all of the above total 309 million users"

banning

when people get banned from this site it is for a reason , so why allow them back onto it within days ????? also why allow people to use different names , in this day and age i would think this is a high security risk ,this is supposed to be a social site , NOT for tittle tattle and lies about people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.255.248 (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 February 2012

There are a few links on the Wikipedia Facebook page that no longer work - I would like to correct them.

Thank you.

Mattios550 (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk|Contribs} 08:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2012

86.51.33.136 (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No request made--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Open source contributions

I just reverted an edit by Raysonho (talk · contribs) that included a developer.com reference that said that Facebook made extensive use of FLOSS technologies, and described the benefits that these gave FB. The text however, also said "Facebook's contributions include: HipHop for PHP, Fair scheduler in Apache Hadoop, Apache Hive, Apache Cassandra, MySQL, and the Open Compute Project." I have no idea about most of these, but the reference to a Facebook page (that any member of the public could have created and added to) certainly does not count as a reliable source in WP:RS terms. I know that some of the statement is wrong, because I was using MySQL in 2000 (before Facebook existed) and so I know that it was not contributed to the open-source community by Facebook as stated. As I say, I have no idea about the other projects, but we can't have unverifiable information mixed up with gross errors in an important article. Perhaps something useful, true and well-sourced to reliable 3rd party citations, can be written on this topic, but I fear that this was not it. --Nigelj (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Where did I say that MySQL is contributed to the open-source community by Facebook?????? If you don't read things properly, and I can't help you. MySQL has contributions from facebook - if you think my addition is misleading, then improve it.

Also, you don't know other stuff and you reverted it all?? I bet you will need to remove 99+% of the changes based on how careful you read. There is a simple website called Google. You can google search and research - much better than wasting my time replying and explaining simple things to you. Raysonho (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you have Wikipedia back to front: if you want to contribute content, you have to do the googling, and provide cited, verifiable text that can be checked. Where you said that is in the sentence, "Facebook's contributions include: [...] MySQL". Please have a look at some core WP policies and guidelines such as WP:V and WP:RS. --Nigelj (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nigelj, answer me - Where did I say that you need to do the research for me????? Did I ever say that?????? Really, did I?????

As I put in the edit summary, at most you can add the cite tag, not just removing anything you don't understand. Again, you don't read things properly, and I can't help you. Raysonho (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

When you said, "There is a simple website called Google. You can google search and research - much better than wasting my time". --Nigelj (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry too, I wonder whether you can read properly. Did you read the sentence, "Also, you don't know other stuff and you reverted it all?? I bet you will need to remove 99+% of the changes based on how careful you read. There is a simple website called Google...". *How many more times do I need to repeat myself* ?? I can't help you if you can't read. Do you need a new pair of glasses?? Raysonho (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(This is actually a reply to David Levy, and I posted similar contents on his talk page): I may have sounded rude, but that does not mean that I am wrong. If anyone here thinks that I deliberately tried to add wrong info here (that Facebook as the contributor of MySQL), then let me tell you that MySQL, like many opensource projects, has many contributors. Listing Facebook as a contributor is not equal to saying that the MySQL project was founded by Facebook. And Facebook contributed code and started a few bigdata (Hadoop) OSS projects, and Nigelj did not bother to even click on any of the Wikipedia article and claimed that the content is wrong and reverted the whole thing, or David who removed the content here with the reason that reminding someone of the 3RR (and giving me a lecture on 3RR) as gaming the system. Raysonho (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

1. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and the onus is on you to properly attribute the claims to reliable sources.

2. You didn't merely remind Nigelj of the three-revert rule. You attempted to exploit it by declaring that you inevitably would prevail (because Nigelj would "hit 3RR first" and be forced to stop reverting). That's highly inappropriate. The three-revert rule is a bright-line rule, not an entitlement to edit war until reaching three reversions. —David Levy 00:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I just replied to David on his talk page, but let me respond to the comment above.

1. If Nigelj is unsure, then don't claim that I am wrong - this is highly inappropriate to say that I am wrong when he is not sure.

2. I reverted his change and left a reply here. He immediately reverted it. Doesn't that sound like an edit war??

3. I wouldn't mind adding references to back my claims - all one has to do is to ask politely. Raysonho (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Nigelj expressed certainty that a statement, as he interpreted it, was incorrect. This appears to be true. (You replied that his interpretation was erroneous.)

2. Yes, it does. But it takes two (or more) to edit war.

3. Nigelj did ask you to "provide cited, verifiable text that can be checked", and he did so without hurling insults (such as your comments about wondering whether he can read properly and whether he needs a new pair of glasses). —David Levy 00:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ We can find better sources, but the truth things like HipHop and more are extremely prominent in the open source world and widely known as Facebook creations. The subject deserves treatment in the article. Steven Walling • talk 00:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

David, I am not asking you to judge. And I am not asking but questioning. And, if you say that I am uncivil, then you yourself is not that much better (see point 2).

I am just reminding him not to 3RR just because he warned me about the edit war. This does not mean that I am gaming the system (and I really think that you wrongly accused me about this).

He said that I am wrong first but he does not know about the subject (he himself said that he's unsure). So if he is unsure, he should have asked nicely. And in the 2nd revert, he did not even read the ref. And then started claiming that my edit states that MySQL is invented by Facebook. So it is not unreasonable and I have doubts whether he could read or not. (Yes, I did not deny - I am rude to anyone who is rude to me.)

Steven - I agree that I should improve the refs a bit. Raysonho (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

David, I am not asking you to judge.

Judge what?

And I am not asking but questioning.

I don't know what you mean.

And, if you say that I am uncivil, then you yourself is not that much better (see point 2).

No. Opining that someone has behaved in an uncivil manner is not an act of incivility. It's constructive criticism of his/her conduct. Asking a fellow editor whether he/she can read properly and whether he/she needs a new pair of glasses is not constructive. Those are personal attacks.

I am just reminding him not to 3RR just because he warned me about the edit war. This does not mean that I am gaming the system (and I really think that you wrongly accused me about this).

You could have written "Let's avoid hitting the 3RR". Instead, you noted that Nigelj would "hit 3RR first", thereby conveying that you could revert once more with impunity after Nigelj reached the limit.

Fortunately, that isn't how Wikipedia works. Editors aren't entitled to three reversions each.

He said that I am wrong first but he does not know about the subject (he himself said that he's unsure).

At worst, Nigelj was mistaken. It appears that he misinterpreted one of the statements that you added, which was unclear. (I would have read it the same way that he did.)

So if he is unsure, he should have asked nicely.

He asked you to add attributions to reliable sources. You responded by demanding that he research the claims via Google.

So it is not unreasonable and I have doubts whether he could read or not. (Yes, I did not deny - I am rude to anyone who is rude to me.)

I see no such rudeness on Nigelj's part. But even if he were to violate Wikipedia:Civility himself, that still wouldn't give you the right to act in kind. As a veteran Wikipedian, you should realize that. —David Levy 02:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

re

(This is a total waste of time. You keep saying, "not this, that" all the time, David.)

Judge what?

If you are not playing the judge here, and if he did not formally ask you to speak for him, then what are you doing here?? You keep explaining (or guessing?) his claims.

You said, "Nigelj expressed certainty that a statement, as he interpreted it, was incorrect. This appears to be true." at 00:52, didn't you?? You and Nigelj don't have the knowledge to tell whether it is right or wrong. At most, both Nigelj and you could have said that you were not sure whether it is right or wrong.

You could have written "Let's avoid hitting the 3RR". Instead, you noted that Nigelj would "hit 3RR first", thereby conveying that you could revert once more with impunity after Nigelj reached the limit.

Nigelj could have written "Let's avoid an edit war". Instead, he warned me not to start an edit war: "Do not edit war", thereby conveying that if I were to revert his revert, then I would be blamed for starting an edit war.

And you, David, accused me of gaming the system (this is an insult, really). You also could have written something with more civility. Both you and Nigelj started off not assuming good faith.

He asked you to add attributions to reliable sources. You responded by demanding that he research the claims via Google.

First, he started off with saying that he himself used MySQL since 2000 as the reason that my edit is wrong. This is basically original research if I were to play this Wiki rules game here.

I added to the article that the Facebook page is written by engineers working at Facebook on MySQL. That page, as far as I know, is a reliable source (remember, context is important - and not every page on facebook is public generated content, which he claimed it was). However, if he did not read it and keep on reverting it, then I really can't help those who can't read (esp. English is his first language - so no, I can never be his English teacher).

I see no such rudeness on Nigelj's part.

Well, I interpreted his comments differently.

But even if he were to violate Wikipedia:Civility himself, that still wouldn't give you the right to act in kind.

I don't think I am incivility. Asking someone whether they could read or not is not uncivil when I have reasons to doubt the ability.

As a veteran Wikipedian, you should realize that.

No, I don't think I behaved incivility - as much as you yourself don't think that accusing me of gaming the system incivility. Raysonho (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are not playing the judge here, and if he did not formally ask you to speak for him, then what are you doing here??

I'm commenting on the situation (based on my perceptions thereof). I began participating in this discussion after you addressed me here ("This is actually a reply to David Levy"). Up to that point, I was more than willing to confine my comments to our talk pages.

You keep explaining (or guessing?) his claims.

I'm going by what was written above.

You said, "Nigelj expressed certainty that a statement, as he interpreted it, was incorrect. This appears to be true." at 00:52, didn't you?? You and Nigelj don't have the knowledge to tell whether it is right or wrong. At most, both Nigelj and you could have said that you were not sure whether it is right or wrong.

You appear to have misunderstood. I'm saying that the statement, as he interpreted it ("Facebook created MySQL."), is incorrect. But you've explained that you didn't intend for it to be interpreted that way. I'm not claiming that your intended meaning ("Facebook contributed to MySQL.") is incorrect.

Nigelj could have written "Let's avoid an edit war". Instead, he warned me not to start an edit war: "Do not edit war", thereby conveying that if I were to revert his revert, then I would be blamed for starting an edit war.

"Do not edit war" ≠ "Do not start an edit war". Nigelj pointed you to WP:BRD, so that clearly was the process that he wanted to follow.

And you, David, accused me of gaming the system (this is an insult, really).

It's a comment on your conduct, not on you as a person.

Both you and Nigelj started off not assuming good faith.

Neither of us has accused you of a malicious motive (such as a desire to intentionally add inaccurate information to the article), and I certainly don't believe that you possess one. I simply believe that you've behaved inappropriately.

First, he started off with saying that he himself used MySQL since 2000 as the reason that my edit is wrong. This is basically original research if I were to play this Wiki rules game here.

No, that's merely what led Nigelj to believe that the claims were suspect. He explained that he removed them because they weren't properly sourced (in his view).

I don't think I am incivility. Asking someone whether they could read or not is not uncivil when I have reasons to doubt the ability.

You have no reason to question Nigelj's literacy, and I don't believe that you seriously do. Likewise, I doubt that you suspect an uncorrected problem with his visual acuity. It was fine to comment on his actions (by asserting that he hadn't read the relevant information properly), but you then attacked him on a personal level (by suggesting that he's apparently unable to read properly and perhaps needs new glasses). This is sheer mockery, not constructive criticism.

No, I don't think I behaved incivility

You've already acknowledged that you were "rude" (and claimed that it was justified because you perceived Nigelj's comments as such). —David Levy 04:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I said, "I may have sounded rude" - not acknowleding.

We live in a world that is not binary. And yes, I said that "I did not deny - I am rude to anyone who is rude to me", so the logic is: if he is not rude to me, then I am not rude to him. AND according to you, he is not rude, so no one is rude to me, and thus I am not rude. So the baseline is that I did not acknowledge that I was rude.

You reverted my edit again and that's why I wanted to pull you in. But that's not important now... As:

Let's not spend more time on this - I just spent 5 mins and added references to back the statement related to facebook's contribution. (We all don't even work for facebook (I assume) and we all have spent too much time on arguing who's right and who's wrong, but really whether the section is there or not does not really bother me. - But, if initially it were just a "citation needed" tag added then we all could have the article fixed with less than 1/10 of the time.) Raysonho (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And yes, I said that "I did not deny - I am rude to anyone who is rude to me", so the logic is: if he is not rude to me, then I am not rude to him. AND according to you, he is not rude, so no one is rude to me, and thus I am not rude. So the baseline is that I did not acknowledge that I was rude.

You stated above that you interpreted Nigelj's comments as rude. My contrary interpretation has no bearing on that.

You reverted my edit again and that's why I wanted to pull you in.

And that's fine. But don't "pull me in" and then complain about my presence.

But, if initially it were just a "citation needed" tag added then we all could have the article fixed with less than 1/10 of the time.

When an editor suspects that an unreferenced article segment comprises inaccurate information, it's entirely reasonable for him/her to remove it instead of tagging it. Otherwise, we'd never be able to remove unreferenced material. (As an extreme example, someone could add the statement "The idea for Facebook was conceived by Benjamin Franklin." and insist that it be tagged "citation needed" instead of being removed.) The onus is on those who seek to include information to ensure that it complies with Wikipedia's editorial standards. —David Levy 05:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

So you don't really want this topic to die off.

I said, "I interpreted his comments differently." - but I did not say that he is rude. Not true != false, unless you are operating in binary logic. I am just saying that he is not polite (in my book, one is not that polite when he claims that others are wrong when he himself is unsure about the subject - And I've said multiple times here - e.g. all one has to do is to ask politely).

My main complain was that you keep interpreting his comments and explaining why he is so right. And, I have a problem with the "gaming the system" comment from you.

This is common knowledge in the computer world. And, a quick Google would return the information needed, and not claiming that the information is wrong. Raysonho (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I said, "I interpreted his comments differently." - but I did not say that he is rude.

Wow.

I am just saying that he is not polite

I disagree.

(in my book, one is not that polite when he claims that others are wrong when he himself is unsure about the subject

He was sure (and correct) about one fact in particular. He merely misinterpreted your text's meaning (so his knowledge was inapplicable).

And I've said multiple times here - e.g. all one has to do is to ask politely).

He did.

My main complain was that you keep interpreting his comments and explaining why he is so right.

My criticisms have nothing to do with the factual accuracy of your additions to the article. Let's assume that those statements are 100% correct.

This is common knowledge in the computer world.

Again, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

And, a quick Google would return the information needed,

Again, the onus is on those who seek to include information to properly attribute it to reliable sources.

and not claiming that the information is wrong

Again, Nigelj interpreted a statement to mean something different from what you intended. I don't understand why you perceive this as some sort of insult. —David Levy 06:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

re

Wow.

Why is it such a surprise to you??? You sounded like everything is "if it is not true, then it needs to be false".

I disagree.

Whether you agree or disagree is not the point. Really, you are twisting the logic here. It is a response to your "You stated above that you interpreted Nigelj's comments as rude.", and I am saying that I don't feel that he is polite, and thus need to say that "I interpreted his comments differently."

We were talking about whether I interpreted Nigelj's comments as rude, and thus with my "I am rude to anyone who is rude to me" comment would lead to the conclusion that because I felt that Nigelj was rude, that justified me to be rude to him. So I replied and said that I did not say that he is rude, but he is not polite nethier.

Again, whether you agree or disagree has nothing to do with whether I was rude or not, which really was your initial claim for that particular point.

He did.

I did not interpret his comments that way or find in his comments that he wanted to discuss it with me with an open mind (other than reasoning his use of MySQL since 2000 as the prove that I was wrong), other then blindly saying that the Facebook MySQL project page is an unreliable source.

Again, the onus is on those who seek to include information to properly attribute it to reliable sources.

As far as I know, we don't have references for well-known facts. Where is the reference for "1 is a number"? And where is the reference for "2" is the natural number following 1 and preceding 3?? You might not know that facebook contributes to opensource, and it is also perfectly possible to find someone who does not know that 2 is the natural number following 1 and preceding 3.

Again, Nigelj interpreted a statement to mean something different from what you intended.

Since he is not here, and he did not ask you to represent him, let's not continue that discussion.

And we have pages long of discussion on why Nigelj & I needed to start the reverts, yet I honestly am not sure that he wanted to have the discussion continue this way.

I don't understand why you perceive this as some sort of insult.

Again, don't twist the logic here. I did not say that I feel that I was insulted because of his action or comments. He warned me "do not edit war", and thus I was pointing out the fact that he is hitting the 3RR first if he keeps on reverting. However, I feel I am insulted because you said that I was gaming the system. While you defend yourself as it is a comment on my conduct, not on me as a person, I still think that it is an insult, as I as a person should be and needed to be responsible for my conduct.

At this point, I am not worried about whether other things are right or wrong except your comment about me "gaming the system" - so you thought that I took advantage of the 3RR so that he could not revert, and thus I was using this trick to win the content dispute. This is really not my original intention, or else I wouldn't even bother to mention the 3RR and then started discussing on the talk page. If you insist that my original intent was to game the system, then I am not OK with that - and we really need to sort this out (and really, the talk page is not the best place to discuss, send me a private message and we can talk about what is and what is not an insult using VoIP). -- Raysonho (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is it such a surprise to you???

You wrote, "Yes, I did not deny - I am rude to anyone who is rude to me." I responded that "I see no such rudeness on Nigelj's part", and you replied with "Well, I interpreted his comments differently." Now you claim that you didn't mean to suggest that he was rude. Just that he was "not polite" (as though that's a dramatically different statement).

You sounded like everything is "if it is not true, then it needs to be false".

If I "see no rudeness" and you "[interpret] his comments differently", that can only mean that you see rudeness. (Otherwise, your interpretation would have been "no rudeness" too.)

We were talking about whether I interpreted Nigelj's comments as rude, and thus with my "I am rude to anyone who is rude to me" comment would lead to the conclusion that because I felt that Nigelj was rude, that justified me to be rude to him.

What other reason was there to write that?

And frankly, whether you think that you were rude or not doesn't affect reality. For goodness sake, you suggested that Nigelj can't read and asked whether he needed a new pair of glasses.

I did not interpret his comments that way or find in his comments that he wanted to discuss it with me with an open mind

He wanted you to cite reliable sources, as required by policy. You responded by telling him to perform the research.

(other than reasoning his use of MySQL since 2000 as the prove that I was wrong),

Again, he misinterpreted your claim.

other then blindly saying that the Facebook MySQL project page is an unreliable source.

Apparently, he was mistaken.

As far as I know, we don't have references for well-known facts.

Our policy is that it is "necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged".

Since he is not here, and he did not ask you to represent him, let's not continue that discussion.

When you stop bringing up his assertion that your claim was wrong, I'll stop noting the reason behind it.

Again, don't twist the logic here. I did not say that I feel that I was insulted because of his action or comments.

You described his comments as "insulting" on my talk page:

"I find it insulting enough when someone who is unsure about a subject says that I am wrong." [diff]

He warned me "do not edit war", and thus I was pointing out the fact that he is hitting the 3RR first if he keeps on reverting.

...thereby conveying that his reversions were futile, as you were destined to prevail in the end.

However, I feel I am insulted because you said that I was gaming the system. While you defend yourself as it is a comment on my conduct, not on me as a person, I still think that it is an insult, as I as a person should be and needed to be responsible for my conduct.

By that logic, no one could ever comment on another editor's conduct.

At this point, I am not worried about whether other things are right or wrong except your comment about me "gaming the system" - so you thought that I took advantage of the 3RR so that he could not revert, and thus I was using this trick to win the content dispute.

You noted the inevitability of such a scenario.

If you insist that my original intent was to game the system, then I am not OK with that - and we really need to sort this out (and really, the talk page is not the best place to discuss, send me a private message and we can talk about what is and what is not an insult using VoIP).

As far as I'm concerned, the underlying situation has concluded. (At this point, I'm merely responding to your messages.) If you believe that an issue stands to be resolved, you're welcome to message me. —David Levy 06:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"I interpreted his comments differently" only means "I interpreted his comments differently". Similarly, "I don't disagree with you" only means "I don't disagree with you", NOT "I agree with you", and of course not "I disagree with you". And by the same token, I disagree with your "no such rudeness" comment does not mean that "I think he is rude". (Again, I mentioned multiple times, this is not binary logic.)

And, "I am rude to anyone who is rude to me" means that it is always 2 eyes for an eye (Israel's military strategy - works so well!).

What's wrong to ask someone to Google if the person is behaving stubbornly (commenting on his conduct) and unwilling to accept the fact that that facebook page is a valid reliable source (it is not public generated content - or else we can add a script that can blindly (a script cannot read and does not need glasses, but can perform the same function as some human editors) block all facebook pages used as reference). A quick Google search would return all the information needed, and would save my time, save his time (and the person would learn something new as well in that process), but instead someone chooses to spend all the time trying to aruge whether it is true or not true based on his experience (which he himself acknowledged that he does not know much about the subject). This is as if a person who insists that all cars have 6 wheels, because 12 years ago he rented a car with 6 wheels. So this super intelligent person posted on the car talk page saying that "I know that some of the statement is wrong, because I was using driving a 6-wheel car, so I know that cars have 6 wheels and not 4 as stated in the Wikipedia article".

So, asking someone to perform a Google search is not the wrong thing, as I am not telling the person to find a valid reliable source to prove whether my statement is right or wrong, but to search whether that page is a valid source or not. It is logical for facebook to put information on Facebook (they are not that stupid enough to drive web traffic to other sites, I believe - and most people with common sense would understand that), and thus the Facebook MySQL opensource project homepage is on facebook.

I know the "Verifiability policy" - again, that page is not a purely public generated content, which he was unwilling to accept that fact and blindly kept on reverting the edits. Really, if someone (I really mean anyone, not just Nigelj or you, David) has limited knowledge in a cerrtain area, it is perfectly OK to stay away and let people who have domain specific knowledge to comment on that topic - or at least perform some research before saying that someone (who might be an expert in that subject) is wrong.

I missed that when I searched for "insult" to see where I said that on this talk page. (My bad, but then that's why I asked you (and potentially others) to go to this talk page such that I can keep track of what I said and what you said.) I did not say that I was insulted by him (so your claim "Again, Nigelj interpreted a statement to mean something different from what you intended. I don't understand why you perceive this as some sort of insult" is not true). Insulting enough might not be the best phrase for this, but something like "I find it stupid enough when someone who is unsure about a subject says that I am wrong." is more suitable - "insulting" from the original version (or the "stupidness" in the current version) does not he tried to insult me, but more like this whole situration causing all the trouble of wasted time & energy and I am also stupid enough to spend time on this - while my time could have been spent on many things more productive.

"You noted the inevitability of such a scenario" - I still don't think that this can be used as the reason for claiming me "gaming the system". The rules are in place for everyone to follow (and of course many times rules are meant to be broken). I was discussing on the talk page and thus I wanted to get a conclusion first before him replacing my edits again. He warned me not to edit war, and I sent his a friendly reminder in return. I see nothing wrong with my action really. And besides, I mentioned that that page is a valid source, and he did not listen. I can't see this is the wrong approach - and without the reminder, could you guarantee that it would not have been turned into a true revert war??

"If you believe that an issue stands to be resolved, you're welcome to message me." - I think the talk page approach is not efficient, so VoIP (actual voice conversation) is really the way to "talk". -- Raysonho (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Number Of Active User Account

Is it possible to include the figure of active user account? As per my understanding, there are many fake users created by some Page admin. Those admin tried to increase the number of friends who "like" their page. They would create a huge number of Facebook user and like their page. Although Facebook requires a phone number for new registration, those admin would purchase pre-paid mobile phone SIM card, valued at around HKD50 or USD6.5 each, to setup new account. It is one of the reasons why there are so many users in Hong Kong. I believed that similar situation should be happened in other countries. We need to find out the actual amount of Facebook user in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterloowar (talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)