Talk:Facebook/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Homeschoolers

I think it would be good to include a little bit on the discrimination against homeschoolers controversy. It has even been reported by the Washington Post.[1]

WikiManOne 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Applications

In the applications section, would it be a good idea to list the 3 or so most popular applications, so that users can get an understanding of what kind of applications are popular? I added it in the article, but some biased user had it deleted before I could get any feedback. Tavix (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. That information would constantly change, and what apps are popular isn't hard to figure out anyway, just look at what the article talks about (i'd be willing to bet x-me and superpoke! are in the top 10 apps, and they are referenced elsewhere in the article) Darkage7 (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Tavix, as I've said before, the information would change constantly. At most, a link to the Facebook apps page would suffice as that would contain a live list of current popular apps. ~~ [Jam][talk] 09:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

02138 articles

There's lots of stuff in 02138 Magazine, article Poking Facebook and The Facebook Files which needs adding to the Wikipedia article. Francis Irving 07:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it add anything in particular that isn't already covered in the article? ~~ [Jam][talk] 08:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Quail

Saw something unusual on Facebook and thought it might have relevance here on Wikipedia. Look at the bottom of your friends list, and just above "Facebook (c) 2007" is a piece of watermark text that says, "Only the craftiest of quails survive hunting season." Does this have any significance to Facebook (e.g. company motto)? Mayor Coffee Bean 22:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


I'll make this easier. I highlighted the text and took a screenshot. Can anybody explain what this is? --Mayor Coffee Bean (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think this is relevant for inclusion in Wikipedia, IMHO. I doubt it's a motto, but there does seem to be a recurring theme for small things like this — I think it was mentioned in the article ages ago (again, removed for lack of relevance) that each search page tended to contain certain quirky footers ("I'll find something to put here" seeming to be the only survivor). These footers are now labelled as quails. There seem to be some Easter eggs associated with the Mobile application, including something about quails. The photo FAQ mentions something about quails. I guess they're just trying to maintain some sort of underlying humour. That being said, I must go back to my first point that none of this really seems to merit inclusion in the article, and I've kind of bent the rules here simply by using this as a forum to discuss the article's subject! — cBuckley (TalkContribs) 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Karmoush (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC) There is a way that people can view your first 18 pictures that you posted and/or that people tagged you in. I thought this should be brought to everyone's attention. Here is how it's done. You search for any person on Facebook and click on the "view friends" link. Go to the bar where the url is and copy the number after id=. Say for example it was id=4567890. Then you go to your profile and view either a picture you tagged or someone tagged you in and paste that number, "4567890", on top of the number after subj= and id=. Then press enter. It will take you straight to that person's pictures. If you use a picture that you posted then you view pictures that that person posted. If you use a picture that someone posted of you, then you see pictures people posted of that person. It may not work sometimes as some people do not post pictures of themselves nor do they have pictures people posted of them.Karmoush (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Largest Facebook Group Statistic

Frank1470 19:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)the group 1,000,000 strong for Stephen T. Colbert made Facebook history by accumulating over 1,000,000 members in 10 days. Why would this not be worthy of mention? here is the ref http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9044305

It may be worth mentioning. It's already in Stephen Colbert presidential campaign, 2008. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it's trivial. KyuuA4 21:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
But a list of Facebook's 10 biggest groups, say, would be interesting to see.. 131.111.24.187 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's set and break a Guiness Record!!!! Approved by guinnessworldrecords.c is currently larger than "1,000,000 Strong For Stephen T Colbert" by almost double. 99.252.7.24 (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Facebook.info

Dollarq 14:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC) I think facebooknotes.info should be added to external links. I get lots of visitor every looking for help on how to use the functionality of Facebook. Such as deleting friends, how friend requests work. Currently there are no other sites with this info.etc help section: facebooknotes.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=6&id=18&Itemid=28 I use answers.yahoo.com to find question people ask about facebook, then I write a article/tutorial about. Google then indexes the page and I get Search engine traffic from people looking for info on that. Obviously people are looking for that info.

See WP:NOT#GUIDE Gscshoyru 14:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User Box

Is there a user box for Facebook? Tigersfan1992 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

{{User:UBX/facebook}}, {{User:Dan0 00/Userboxes/Facebook}}, {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/Facebook}}, and {{User:3R1C/Userbox/Facebook}}. EVula // talk // // 04:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

VIRUS ALERT

It should be noted that one of the Facebook applications, the Talking Smileys (The Webfetti Toolbar application) has a Trojan horse virus, my Avast! Antivirus was able to detect and quarantine the virus, as reference to my experience, here's a link to a forum discussing the problem: http://www.greatcanadianforum.ca/showthread.php?t=31890...

Can this information be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.225.217 (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I added this information myself into the article, because I believe information like this is worth being added, and especially because of what I and a handful of people had experienced with this Webfetti Toolbar, and I believe sharing this information will save others from downloading this virus... - Joshua —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.225.217 (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, see WP:NOT#GUIDE. Gscshoyru 04:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but what I'm stating are facts, Webfetti Toolbar has a virus, and I'm not depriving people of that information, but if so, where can I post this, cuz I believe wikipedia is a good place, cuz many people use it, instead of going to public forums, so where can I post this in the Wiki commununity? - Joshua —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.225.217 (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I realize that -- but wikipedia is not a help ref or a guide, so you can't put it in the article unless it is notable -- say it screwed up a number of people's computers. Additionally, forums are not reliable sources -- see WP:V and WP:RS. If a reputable newspaper reports on it, then it's probably notable enough for inclusion. Otherwise, it's help-guide material, and wiki is not a guide. So, long answer short -- you can't. Sorry. Gscshoyru 04:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, but if I wanna complain about this virus, where can I e-mail my complaint to, I tried Facebook, but they seem not to answer, or care, and the sources I cited are reliable cuz I experienced the virus, thank god for Avast... - Joshua —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.225.217 (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you should try and get in touch with the person who created the application. They might not realise it has a virus. If they knowingly put a virus in there, you might be able to report them to Facebook. Otherwise, I doubt Facebook staff will get involved. Either way, Wikipedia isn't the place to raise this kind of thing (even just as a "where do I post this" query). JamminBen 04:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I tried that and I reported it to Facebook, and they didn't answer, can Facebook be charged, if they know that one of their applications has a virus, cuz I think there's a law against that, because it seems that they know that there is a virus, since they are not answering my report... - Joshua
As I said, Wikipedia isn't the place to discuss this. If you are having no luck, that doesn't make it OK to keep on talking about it here. Also, please indent your replies and remember to sign your name using four tildes as it is making the discussion very difficult to follow if you don't. Thanks. JamminBen 05:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Joshua... if you want to ask a question, why not actually use a question mark? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkgd2007 (talkcontribs) 00:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The "$15 billion valuation"

Quite frankly, I don't think it belongs in this article. It's just hype driven by Facebook itself and the media. Assuming that estimates of Facebook's annual revenue at $100 million aren't inflated, it's nothing close to $15 billion. Facebook isn't worth $15B for the simple fact that no one in his right mind would pay $15B for a 100% stake. The MS stake price is irrelevant because you can't multiply it by 62.5X and assume that's what people would pay to acquire the entire company. For this article, just a simple "Microsoft bought a 1.6% stake for $240 million" would suffice.

Exponential user growth can't last forever, and as I see it, much of Facebook's "value" is driven on nothing but unproven hype. I think growth will almost certainly slow down in the next year or two and the Web 2.0 bubble may at last burst prior to the end of this decade. Wikipedian06 10:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


This is the way it is being reported. If you want to point out that many people feel that this is not a fair way to estimate a company's value then that's wonderful. Just be sure to include a citation.

--RedHouse18 21:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, reporting it this way is automatically POV, because it originated from Facebook's own press release. Many external articles simply cited FB's press release and didn't bother disputing it. Wikipedian06 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The valuation appears to be nothing more than rumour, coming from an incorrect assumption. Microsoft bought a 1.6% stake for $240 million- correct. But what's being missed out is that part of the deal included all advertising outside the US (which Microsoft already had.) If that advertising deal were worth $240 million to Microsoft, then it would effectively value Facebook as worthless. But this is the internet, where rumour quickly becomes 'insider information', which then a few citations later becomes established fact... 193.201.135.244 (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If anything, $15 billion is the most accurate valuation for the company. That is it's market value and anything else truly is speculation. If someone paid 1.6% stake for $240 million then that's 150 million per 1% and times 100 is $15 billion. That's how EVERY publicly listed company is valued, i.e. what the company's last share sold for. If anything, 100% could be worth more since MSFT has no control over the company. Microsoft will be paying FMV for any advertising and we cannot assume it will not. As stated in the following article "Van Natta also made clear that the ad deal is not financially a part of the equity investment. 'These are two completely separate transactions,' he told me." http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/24/magazines/fortune/fastforward_microsoft_facebook.fortune/index.htm?section=money_topstories Mdlawmba (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Only the craftiest.png

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Only the craftiest.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Tautology in intro

The current introduction reads: "Facebook is a social networking website that allows people to communicate with their friends and exchange information." That is a tautology: all social networking websites allow people to communicate with their friends and exchange information. Not to mention that a gazillion other websites allow the same thing. In other words, the intro is not very descriptive.--82.92.181.129 (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Social networking" is a lift from the way FB describes itself and not descriptive or, therefore, encyclopedic. Also, the meanings of the two words in that phrase overlap significantly. Social activity is networking and networking (when applied to people, as it is here) is social. FB lets you communicate with strangers as well as friends. "Exchange information" is pretty vacuous too, implying communication, which so many other things do. Better to start with what FB is, maybe in terms of its uniqueness.

Beacon ad system discontinued due to backlash

Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3212997.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedian06 (talkcontribs) 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why no mention of News Feed/Mini Feed

I know there was a talk page about the controversy, but that aside, the News/Mini Feed is one of the most important aspects of the site and I think it should be mentioned. It could either be mentioned as a feature, or in the history section by the date it was added (sometime fall of 2006 I think). 146.151.102.63 (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Guardian opinion column

An anonymous IP persists in adding a Guardian opinion column bashing the founders of Facebook for being successful entrepreneurs, or some other jealous rubbish, I don't have all the time in the world. It's a painfully stupid read which has nothing to say about Facebook the company and website and nothing useful to say about those involved in the company. Unfortunately, at the time of page protection it had been readded for the third time. It serves no purpose in the article. It should be removed. John Nevard (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have more sympathy for someone who, while anonymous, includes a link to a critical Guardian article in what would otherwise be a rather partisan list of external links, than I have for someone who would remove it, while describing the article as "whiny", "jealous rubbish", and "painfully stupid read", and Tom Hodgkinson as "jealous guardinista".
That's just knee-jerk though.
Where your case really fails with me, is when your description of the article fails to match reality:
"Nothing to say about the company or the website"? Are we even reading the same article? Among other things, it ends with a lengthy section consisting of briefly commented excerpts from the Facebook privacy policy. Has Facebook's own privacy policy nothing to say about Facebook the company and website now?
Not in the reality in which I live.
Just leave that link there. It's not as bad as you think, and it balances that section somewhat. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Um... let me summarize the article better then. Perhaps I should have said it has 'nothing substantive to say'. 'I hate facebook, and the internet, and life was better when I was your age. Ew, competition. Lots of people like facebook. I also have real reasons to dislike facebook- the cofounder who left the board of directors and is actually kinda minor but forget about that- is a libertarian! And he has made himself lots of money! He's competitive and "he does not apologize" for this! And a neoconservative! And a captitalist!..." etc etc for the other 2/3rds of the article... which does include a typically bizarre section of 'comments' on excerpts of the Facebook privacy policy (which is typical of internet company's privacy policy) as you said. It surprises me that there's only one incredibly blatant factual error which the Guardian was forced to note (whether this was the product of ignorance, malevolence, or reading too many paranoid internet sites, I have no idea). The rest of the article is gloss and jealousy. There's nothing valid in the article which isn't in ours, and a lot of rubbish which shouldn't be. Even a link makes the article worse by association.John Nevard (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
in particular "even if you don't buy the idea that Facebook is some kind of extension of the American imperialist programme" (even if you've stopped reading the article by this point) "Thiel is trying to destroy the real world"... and he is "avaricious" (greedy, grasping, to quote one dictionary).
In other words, it's a not just an opinion column that would be an potential link, or a bad opinion column with lots of hyperbole and a faint sense of bias that would be dubious to link, but a particularly bad opinion column with acknowledged factual errors and bare-faced hatred of the subject (which is in fact one of the founders of facebook) which should never be linked on Wikipedia by someone acting in good faith. John Nevard (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it has bias alright. That's how it balanced the external-links section. :)
As for the rest of your comments, it seems to me you are objecting to its style, not its contents. And in doing so, you are yourself employing hyperbole and showing your bias ...
Yeah, there's that knee-jerk again.
I had primarily Wikipedia:EL#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view in mind when I argued for the inclusion of this link. An other way to satisfy the guidelines would be to trim the section. Really, the only link that needs to be in that section is the link to facebook itself, right? If I remove the others ... and frankly, it seems to me that WP:EL section 4 tells us to avoid that kind of links anyway ... that should do it.
Now, let me go do that ... there. Better now? — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a point of view on Facebook. It is not an interview with the (notable) Facebook founder and CEO where he makes real claims about Facebook. It's not the Facebook developers or the Facebook PR blog... which make actual statements about and relevant to Facebook. What it is, is hatred for a minor co-founder of Facebook who is minimally involved in the company, and a political rant. This isn't Facebook conspiracy theories, or WP:POINT/Sandbox, it's the Facebook article. John Nevard (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, the undue weight guidelines do quote Jimbo: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia"... and surprisingly enough, hating Facebook because one of their employees is an eeeevil libertarian does qualify for exclusion on those grounds. John Nevard (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Clarity? A viewpoint critical to facebook is held and pushed by a majority of news media over here. What reasons any individual may have for holding that viewpoint does not change that fact. By all means, if you have a better cricital link, use it instead.
But really, if one party's own blog belongs on the list of external links, the critical POV also belongs there. Reinserted. — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm with John. This link shouldn't be included. I read the page it links too, and it doesn't belong as a reference to an encyclopedia. It's more of a blog against Facebook than a helpful article. If this gets to be added, we should add a link to every blog with an opinion on Facebook. How about my own? I can write a blog about how poking means you want to have sex, and we'll include that in the encyclopedia. Sorry, but it just doesn't fit in. Darkage7 (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think such links would be fairly redundant, even if not as ... outlandish ... as what you describe here, so I don't think that would be a real problem. But okay, I hear you. How do you feel about getting rid of the facebook blog and developers' links while we're at it? (That was my second attempt at balancing the links.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
John Nevard? Please! I've edited the article twice and only once did I revert (adding that link). How does that even get close to "violate WP:3RR"[2]?
What with you reverting to remove it thrice [3] [4] [5], and reverting, in part, my other revision [6], aren't you the one who should start worrying?
Granted, only three of those reverts were within a 24-hour period (within a single clock-hour, for what it's worth), so by the letter, you're still safe. Still, you have some nerve, man. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting a Facebook account

I found a blog entry [7] by a Sun employee that discusses his campaign to get Facebook to delete his account (rather than just deactivate it) and some related media coverage and privacy concerns. Could this go in the Privacy section somewhere? --TrickyApron (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"F*** the Troops"

Hey I was just wondering if any of you thought we should maybe add a criticism section that mentions the fact that facebook has not shut down the group titled "F*** the Troops" even though it seemingly goes against their policy for group requirements. To keep it NPOV, it would be important to first give the mission statement for the group then to quote facebook's policy on groups. Then those that read it can decide for themselves as to whether or not it should be allowed. This has really drawn a lot of criticism and I think it would maybe be important to mention. What do you all think? - Brad Kgj08 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of becoming forum-ish, I don't think this should be included because it's not particularly notable. Even if it is against Facebook policy imagine the legal stink groups like the ACLU would raise over the restriction of freedom of speech. But that's me. DaRkAgE7 (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Freedom of speech isn't applicable whatsoever in this case. Since when do the courts have jurisdiction over Facebook's policies on allowing/disallowing certain groups? This is a very common criticism. If I can get some other backers, I say we put it. Kgj08 (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Since never. It's not that bad on this article- the MySpace one even has a subsection head about 'Censorship'... something that is only practiced by governments, and organisations they delegate censorship powers to.
As for hypocrisy.. well. Presumably their core advertisement clicking group, stupid people, and this particular group coincide. That's just the way it is. John Nevard (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Facebook in Spanish

Since now, Facebook is also available in Spanish, and it will soon be offered in French and German too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.106.229 (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Revenue

Hi. I see someone deleted my addition of the first metric we have for the amount of data Facebook collects about its users for the purpose of targeting advertising. I apologize if that was too specific for this high level page (and would be happy to reword it). But, how do you plan to explain the company's revenue model? Or do you mean to say the whole shebang is run on private capital? -Susanlesch (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need information on where Facebook's revenue comes from, but yes, I did not think that the information that you added was very encyclopedic. Let's try and find some references for revenue information and add that to either an existing section or a new 'Business' section. Gary King (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, most of the revenue is from advertisements. They are also a private company and therefore are not required to disclose any financial information. But, if we can get information on, say, how much they make on the Gifts that you can buy on the website, then that would be useful to include. Gary King (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply. I can make a second try based on the metric and the company FAQ. Feel free to move or adapt that text. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence that you added is useful and can be expanded on. The second sentence, in comparison, is in my opinion too technical and therefore not useful to a general audience. I'll check the reference and see what else I can add. Thanks for helping out! Gary King (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the specific aren't needed here. I deleted the number of data points and added only perspective of the top data collectors. I am quite sure this information is needed (it is precisely the subject of Microsoft's desire for Yahoo!). Thanks again. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Reworded. Gary King (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yessir, looks good. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 19, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes, though the style is a little terse.
2. Factually accurate?: Fully sourced to reasonably reliable sources.
3. Broad in coverage?: Absolutely.
4. Neutral point of view?: Long-lasting controversies mentioned appropriately; some, such as Beacon and ConnectU, well-worked into the text.
5. Article stability? OK, though a high-profile article.
6. Images?: OK.

Nicely done, User:Gary King and others. Comprehensive and careful. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Relata refero (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

merge proposal

The article facebook features seems excessive and unnecessary. It is my opinion that it should be merged into the features section of this article. DoC352 (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not support this merge proposal. I split the content from this article into a new article for the reason that it bloated this article while we are trying to make it a WP:FA and the content from that article is too detailed and lengthy for an encyclopedic article on the topic. Gary King (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I would not be completely against removing some of the information from the other article because as you said some of it seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I really just don't think that there should be an entire article dedicated to the features of a website. DoC352 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The article has more than enough content to substantiate the creation of a new article. It will expand over time. Also, there already exist articles that solely focus on features, such as Features new to Windows Vista, to name one. I do think that we should expand the Features section of this article, though. Gary King (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Facebook in other countries

Facebook now exists in several other countries other than USA. For instance it has a large presence in th UK, but this article does not even mention the UK. I therfore state that the article should be exapnded to mention facebook in other countries. Franny-K (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2008 (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 Edit this page link at the top. 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. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --ElKevbo (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Add the information that you think should be added regarding the United Kingdom to the article instead of adding a globalize tag, because otherwise we do not know what you think is missing - specifically. This article appears to be US-centric because the company is US-based. Gary King (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Spacing before article begins

Could someone fix the line break that happens before the first line in the lead? I don't know why it exists but it's bugging me. Gary King (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. –Pomte 09:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I see how you did it. D'oh, I should've guessed! Gary King (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

hello facebook my sames password and log thank you on open chrome facebook not again over said why said stop my same correct thank you