Talk:LiveJournal

Breast Feeding Controversy: Not NPOV

The section on the troubles over breast-feeding user icons does not appear to read as NPOV. Certainly, the text has poor flow, making following whatever POV being made a little difficult. As I have a strong opinion on this matter personally, I'm afraid I shall have to ask someone else to edit this issue. LinaMishima 13:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

the entire section sources a lot of "opinions" of "some people" which is entirely unencyclopedic. Forum and blog posts aren't reputable sources. I'd recommend if it can't be cleaned up appropriately it be removed. --Crossmr 06:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Blog posts by reprentatives of the site itself are certainly reputable. SchmuckyTheCat 23:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately thats not what I see here. I see an entire section added with a single cite, that being the faq from LJ. It doesn't reference anything, and since the vast majority of this can only referenced from the users and not the representitives of the site themselves it falls afoul of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet and becomes original research and reporting.

Another controversy has recently arisen when several users were asked to remove default user pictures containing images of breast feeding that were considered inappropriate as they contained a view of nipples or aureolae. The owners of some of the user pictures felt that they should be permitted to keep the images because they depicted breastfeeding and were not simply nudity. The involved users also contended that LiveJournal's position on the matter conveyed a negative attitude towards breastfeeding. LiveJournal responded by clarifying the FAQ on appropriate content for default user pictures [12]. Unfortunately, a number of the involved users perceived that the attempt to clarify LiveJournal's policies via the FAQ was instead an indication that LiveJournal was changing the stated policy itself. As a result, a number of the involved users elected to allow their journals to be suspended or delete them themselves. On June 6th 2006 a boycott of LiveJournal was arranged, with a number of users deleting their journals for the day in protest at this specific issue and at more general problems of customer service that this affair has highlighted.

A number of users concerned with abuse team policies have made the decision to abandon LiveJournal in favor of other blogging sites. It has, however, exacerbated the opinion held by some that LiveJournal is a fine host for teenage diaries and social networking but cannot be a platform for serious web journaling. Others feel that LiveJournal is a viable choice for serious web publishing, despite the limitations that the ToS place on what may be presented.

There need to be credible sources added to that entire section, or I can't see keeping it. --Crossmr 23:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Break it down

Another controversy has recently arisen when several users were asked to remove default user pictures containing images of breast feeding that were considered inappropriate as they contained a view of nipples or aureolae.

Non-controversial statement that is true from glancing at the site. (This has nothing to do with bulletin boards or Usenet as LJ has a reliable account structure). It isn't OR to state the obvious if it isn't making a novel claim.

LJ doesn't have a reliable account structure. Anyone can create an account with any verifiability of who they are. Its not OR to state the obvious, but it does require a citation. An official statement (which I know someone made) on the subject would satisfy that.

The owners of some of the user pictures felt that they should be permitted to keep the images because they depicted breastfeeding and were not simply nudity. The involved users also contended that LiveJournal's position on the matter conveyed a negative attitude towards breastfeeding.

Again, this is verifiable by glancing the referenced link. We aren't quoting any particular user as none by themselves are notable, but the general uproar is plain and the specific sentiments are spelled out.

The referenced link is a FAQ on the TOS. This doesn't at all satisfy sourcing user opinions. This is the only thing linked in the entirety of that paragraph: http://www.livejournal.com/support/faqbrowse.bml?faqid=111 maybe you're reading something else. Unless user opinions have been reported by credible press, they can't be sourced.

On June 6th 2006 a boycott of LiveJournal was arranged, with a number of users deleting their journals for the day in protest at this specific issue and at more general problems of customer service that this affair has highlighted.

This, along with actual sidewalk protests of the Six-Apart offices, actually did make the press. I don't have a handy link.

Well a link will be necessary. As unsourced information can't be left here.

The second paragraph has been there forever and was referenced with previous items. The paragraph has become detached from the context in which it was originally written but still closes the section fairly well. I'd hate to see it go because the "teen diaries and social networking VS real web publishing" debate is a very real one.

SchmuckyTheCat 00:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately regardless of how long its been there, it shouldn't be there. Unless there are credible sources showing that users are leaving LJ for other places and why, its unsourced opinion and is original research. --Crossmr 00:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Malware

Something should be noted that the decision to allow ads on some user pages has resulted in malware being installed on user machines. SchmuckyTheCat 04:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

See the two citation links I posted above. Your citation for that bit of information, true or not, does not meet the requirements. I don't see burr86 identify themselves by name as a verifiable employee of SixApart, nor does their user information. --Crossmr 23:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

flist

RE: "flist comment" - Not sure how to cite a source on Wiki, sorry, but take your pick: Google's 160,000 results for "livejournal flist" or more specifically: Urban Dictionary definition for "flist" Alanlastufka 04:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

make sure to add talk appropriately at the end of the page. Regarding urban dictionaries definition of flist, this is not a credible and usable source on wikipedia. A credible source in this case would be a credible 3rd party reporting this information, like a news story, or something to that nature. Please start with WP:CITE to learn more about making proper citations here. --Crossmr 05:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Christ, I've seen so many people use that abbreviation on LiveJournal that I couldn't count them all. Whether one likes this neologism or not, it's almost as ubiquitous as water is to a fish.

Nobody is going to write a "news story" (!) about this abbreviation, but it's use is as real as the air you breathe, and literally much more visible. No disrespect intended, but it appears to me that you're being persnickity beyond the bounds of what could be considered reasonable.

Davidkevin 05:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That is your observation. Someone else might not have the same observation. You can't put forth an opinion, or draw a conclusion without proper citation. WP:OR#Definition. As I pointed out on your talk page, this is the same reason I removed the content I asked for citations on. If a proper citation can be provided for that material it can be re-added to the article. Adding any content without proper citation can be seen as adding PoV to an article, because you're adding your experience and not citing a credible source. --Crossmr 05:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And the reason Urban Dictionary specifically is unusable is because anyone can add content to it. We have no idea who added what and for what reason. I'm not saying that isn't what flist means, see this for understanding why WP:V#Verifiability.2C_not_truth--Crossmr 05:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this: "Friends list" is often, although not universally, abbreviated by many LiveJournal users as the neologism "flist" in their personal journals; the neologism is not official LiveJournal terminology" see this WP:WEASEL often? how often? many? how many? neologism?

If I somehow managed to do a count and put in actual numbers, you'd reject it as "original research", so your questions are rhetorically manipulative.

Davidkevin 07:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NEO#Using_neologisms_within_articles essentially, don't use it, defining it is often WP:OR. Essentially you're using weasel words to try and include information that shouldn't be included in the first place. If LJ ever defines the word via a faq or something else, it can be sourced. I believe LJ lets you ask questions through their help system and sometimes includes those as searchable via the help system. Get them to define it there and it can be sourced. --Crossmr 06:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We're supposed to Assume Good Faith, but when there's enough evidence of Bad Faith, there's no point in continuing to do that.

I have no desire to include inappropriate information -- for the record, I never use the neologism myself, as I think it's too easy to misread in most fonts -- but at minimum hundreds -- very possibly thousands, very possibly tens of thousands of LJ users (given the total size of the active user base) use the abbreviation "flist" and you delete reference to it because it isn't mentioned in a FAQ file or in a newspaper article??

I give up. It appears, based on your actions and your responses to me, that you're a Wikipedia fundamentalist, as impervious to reason and as unreasonable as your average Christian, Moslem, or Hindu fundamentalist, swallowing the camel of the rules you select to inflict on others in this context while straining at the gnat of the reality of how people actually use LiveJournal every day.

Either that, or, given that you appear to be acting here on Wikipedia with the same arbitrariness-regardless-of-reality which has caused so much complaint about the LJ Abuse Team, you are perhaps a member of that Abuse Team. Are you?

Never mind, I don't really care. No matter how much accurate information is edited into this article, it is clear that you will remove it if it doesn't meet your personal approval, and since I have children, a wife, and a life, I have better things to do than play the revert-war game. Have fun being the big frog in the small pond. I leave it to others to try to make this article accurate-to-fact and more than the propaganda piece for LiveJournal/Six Apart management you alternatively apparently wish it to be.

Davidkevin 07:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research. So yes, whilst to me, this usage of "flist" is an absolute fact, and one which seems common across much of LiveJournal, it must be possible to verify this on a reliable source. And whilst one could draw this conclusion by surveying many sites, this could count as original research. As for "nobody is going to write a news story", there are sometimes articles featuring websites, and they may sometimes cover the "jargon" used, so it's not unfeasible. Mdwh 10:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The bad faith is on your part. Ensuring wikipedia standards are followed, especially the policies is a non-negotiable position. We don't devalue the encyclopedia by going against those standards because we believe a certain piece of information is really valuable or really true. In regards to how common flist is. I belong to two active communities , some less active ones and have a busy friends page. I can't recall the last time someone used the term "flist". Read WP:V very carefully "These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines, or by editors' consensus"--Crossmr 14:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin requested to review

I have made a personal request of an Administrator to review the edit record of this page with regard to the ongoing pattern of deletions creating POV bias.

Davidkevin 00:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

bring citations. We don't include a theory or opinion just because you or anyone else feels its valid. If you can't properly cite the material, it can't be included in the article. This isn't encyclopedia dramatica, or a soapbox for an agenda. --Crossmr 00:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your ongoing pattern of deletions of factual material appears to me to be abusing Wikipedia policies and procedures in order to deleberately maintain a POV bias in this article. I have requested a review from an Administrator in order to discern whether or not an unbiased observer would see the same pattern and/or whether in his opinion policies and procedures are being abused to created article bias as I have perceived.

Given the number of Wikipedia articles in which true but uncited material is routinely included, I wonder why you so hawkishly monitor this one particular article and so nitpickingly and bureaucratically remove information even you admit is factual. I have no agenda other than a desire to see information I know to be factually true not be removed. I want the article to be factually correct and unbiased.

Incidentally, I am not an editor at Encyclopedia Dramatica, and it or its existence has nothing to do with my desire for a factually correct article here.

I await the Administrator's review of the edit record.

Davidkevin 00:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I monitor a number of articles, this one is nothing special in the pattern of my monitoring. As much as you'd like to believe its factually correct, thats not the policy on wikipedia. Regardless of what may be true, you can only include what you can prove to be true. WP:OR and WP:V are not something to be tossed aside just because you're sure something is really true. You also cannot cite poor behaviour in other articles as justification for abusing the rules for your agenda here. You've been directed to the relevent policies and asked to ensure your edits meet their criteria. --Crossmr 01:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a curious interpretation of OR. And, you like quoting relatively recent additions to the OR policy that I don't think stand up to scrutiny. WP:IAR is also a policy. Use common sense, there are things in this article that are plainly obvious that you insist is original research. It's not, it's writing based on using the site as a primary source for itself. SchmuckyTheCat 01:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

IAR isn't a policy, and it also has no jurisdiction over WP:V or WP:OR. I'm assuming then that you could point to some credible location on the site that would source these things? You can use direct information presented on the site (outside of unverifiable user postings) for any kind of citation, but you still need to point to where the information came from. Putting together user opinion on your own and making a statment based on your observation is original research. You need a credible source that drew that conclusion, you can't do it on your own, because its unverifiable. Someone else could just as easily draw another conclusion.--Crossmr 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it's not a policy, but I gaurantee you that using common sense is more important than strict reliances of words in the policies. SchmuckyTheCat 02:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that there are 3 policies that wikipedia aspires to, no. Strict adherence to the wording is necessary to ensure the quality that is sought. Ignoging the stipulations for original research, verifibility and NPOV, lead to a mess and something unusable in the context its intended. David seems bent on ensuring the article complies to NPOV, yet seems all to ready to throw out WP:V and WP:OR to get there. It doesn't work that way. If all information written in the article is verifiable per the policies, then it will be NPOV. Because no opinion or bias will have been inserted by any editor. Any editor is free to add information that so long as it complies with the 3 policies, and it will continue to be NPOV. Neutral point of view isn't about giving both sides equal time. Have a look at WP:NPOV#Undue_weight even it requires those opposing viewpoints be published by a credible reliable source. You found such a thing for the breastfeeding issue, and I have no qualms over keeping it. This is a major problem with articles on wikipedia. People seem all to happy to add whatever random criticism, opinion, etc they've heard about a subject to an article, and expect it to stay unsourced. As it says, if the criticism is held by a significant minority, then it shouldn't be a problem to find a credible source. If you can't, then it probably isn't. WP:NOT wikipedia is not a soapbox. I have no problem including verifiable credible criticism on any article.--Crossmr 02:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is also why these policies all state that nothing can trump them, neither policy, guideline, or concensus. It creates a standard for all articles on wikipedia. No matter what article someone goes to, they should be able to expect it to conform to a certain degree of verifiability and accurateness. If you began tossing that about whenever it suited you, you would run into severe differences between articles. One article may be very well verified and free of opinion, but another lesser known article, where a few editors got together and consented to new way to write it, is maybe a completely mess with no real usable content in it.--Crossmr 02:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:WWIN, section 2.4; WP:LAWYER.

Davidkevin 02:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with them thank you. See WP:AGF. Just because I'm arguing to aspire to wikipedias standards is not wikilawyering. If you have an argument for inclusion please make it, you said you wanted to ensure NPOV, I've pointed you to the appropriate part of NPOV that addresses your concern. Thats not good enough, so now you want to call me a lawyer and point me to WP:NOT? since I just linked to that, I don't see the point in linking me to it. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to give equal time to any differing viewpoint for who wants it, both WP:NOT (or WWIN whichever you want to reference it by) and WP:NPOV addresses that. The principals expressed by WP:OR and WP:V are quite clear. Content has to be verified, it can't be original research. Linking to that does nothing to strengthen your position. WP:IAR and WP:LAWYER were not created simply to be referenced when you can't make your case.--Crossmr 03:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point for me so well.

To quote Vamp-Willow, "Bored now." I have real work to go do, and I look forward to the Admin review.

Davidkevin 03:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

By pointing to those you were obviously indicating that I wasn't following the spirit of them. Rather than just claim I'm not following the spirit, why don't you actually indicate what you think the spirit of those mean? Its easy to claim that, its another thing to actually show I'm not. If IAR and Lawyer were to be used as you've used them here, no discussion could ever go anywhere. As soon as someone didn't like the way the policies applied, they'd just turn around and claim IAR and do whatever they wanted.--Crossmr 03:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude, it's a wiki. Strict adherence to the words on the policy page are impossible - they are subject to change. Play this little game. I first edited this article in December 2004. Take a look at the first paragraph of the Verify policy on that date [1]. Verification is only "strongly encouraged" not mandated, with a disclaimer towards not removing information. Now two years later you demand everything immediately comply with your interpretation of what the policy says now. Sorry if I don't jump up and down to comply. Your attitude would result in deletion of half the content on this wiki.

In any case, I don't think you have issue with anything in the article at this point. So it is worthless to continue this poop flinging. But I agree with David that your deletions where you claim OR or NV aren't quite OR or NV. SchmuckyTheCat 03:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

moved it to the bottom so we're not in the middle of the other thread if thats okay. And yes, not only was the policy updated, but people have been working on the article since then. If the standards change, the articles need to change as well. If there is a major policy shift, does that mean that it might take some time for all the articles on wikipedia to catch up? yes. but we take it one article at a time. Last I checked there wasn't any kind of grandfather clause to protect information written years ago under different guidelines/policies. Since its not a paper encyclopedia they can be updated. I'd have to go through the article, but I don't believe there is anything I have a strong objection to currently. The NPOV tags aside I don't. However my argument isn't necessarily against any current content but against future content. Any future content can easily be checked to ensure it conforms to the current policies, as such its not unreasonable to ask that they do. Its also not unreasonable to find content on an article that doesn't conform and ask for cites and if none are forthcoming remove the content. I got a general reply that a week was a good time to wait, I waited 10 days in the case of the last stuff I removed (which was actually new content and should have complied with the current policies). Its not like the article has been locked away since you wrote it and then suddenly one day I popped in and demanded you update some 2 year old article by the end of the day to comply with the current guidelines.--Crossmr 03:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

and yes, the BF stuff I removed, while it was true, it was uncited and as per WP:OR, it needs the cite or it is OR, regardless of whether or not its true. The point of these policies is not so you can prove to me that something is true, its so that Joe Blow who shows up and says "Did that really happen?" or "is that for real?" can click the reference and verify the opinion,fact, etc himself. Wikipedia isn't meant as a primary source and needs those citations and references.--Crossmr 03:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggest mediation

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

Advertisement Subsection

I changed it so it's about ads in general, seperated the claims into two paragraphs, and clarified that LiveJournal took actions against the ad in addition to apologizing.

LiveJournal is a lightning rod for drama these days, isn't it. 209.150.61.247 21:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

June 5th

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

Certainly a notable event.--Crossmr 20:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

List of social networking websites on AfD

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

Livejournal fake day

I don't think there is any reason to merge this. Just toss it as original research. its completely unsourced [2] a grand total of 21 unique google hits. This is a non-notable neologism and an attempt to push it into the article.--Crossmr 00:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree - are we really going to mention every non-notable LJ meme made up by some people a couple of days ago? I'll remove the merge tag, since what to do is under discussion in the AfD anyway. Mdwh 14:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable Journals

We need to work on keeping this list manageable and also evaluate the necessity of this list as being part of the article. This could possibly be moved to a separate article "List of notable livejournal users" and linked as a see-also at the bottom of this article. If these individuals are notable and livejournal is a notable part of what they do or their life, it should be mentioned on their articles to start with. This list could easily grow to extreme and overtake the article. As such I propose a list to contain it, and leave the small paragraph about it and link to the actual list.--Crossmr 05:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I went bold and made List of notable Livejournal users. rootology (T) 08:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The only change I would make would be to leave the introductory paragraph there. Though I suppose thats debateable. Maybe we'll try it a couple days like this and see if we think it needs that.--Crossmr 16:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

Thus the apparent result that there are 7 million users outside the US (10 million minus the 3 million visible US users) is not correct. The majority of users are still in the US.

Can anyone provide a source for this? Eludium-q36 13:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing no. if someone can, it can be re-added.--Crossmr 13:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Of those users who provided their date of birth, the vast majority were in the 15-24 age group.

Not according to the raw data. If you examine the raw data (http://www.livejournal.com/stats/stats.txt), you'll find significant anomalies such as 29657 members aged 100 years or more, 1184650 6 year olds (almost twice the number of 19 year olds, the biggest year group in that 15-24 age group), 759584 7 year olds, etc. Sylc 09:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the raw data again (ignoring the fact that the 6 and 7 year olds are likely people lying about their age, as well as the 100+) There are a total of 8224381 user with 4455797 falling within the 15-24 age range, inclusive. That is more than 50%. While its not "vast" it is the majority.--Crossmr 20:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bottom sections

The bottom sections of the article (LiveJournal#References and below) are right justified. I suspect this has something to do with the table in the LiveJournal#LiveJournal_timeline section. 24.126.199.129 04:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked the change, it was fine in the previous edition. I can't possibly see what was added to throw off the alignment like that. Perhaps someone else who knows it a bit better can have another look see if they see anything off.--Crossmr 06:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Pruning of linked 'resource sites'

Removed 2 of the 3 search sites linked from 'External Links'. LjSEEK.com and LjTags.com don't both need to be listed. The latter is a near-identical site run by the same organization, probably using the same indexes, searching entry tags rather than entry body text. I kept the link to the most established one.

I felt LjFind dot com did not yet seem sufficiently mature to warrant inclusion: The Livejournal (sic) search site contains a sidebar of dubious 'Top Searches'. Most of the listed search items are common spam keywords. LjFind .com states it's produced by Macranet. That organization describes itself on their website as a search engine optimization company offering to 'boost traffic to client sites'. Both websites contain many spelling errors/typos, and have (IMO) an 'instant website template' feel. Whitehorse1 20:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I just added the link for ljfind back as well as a few others. I understand the concern, but I think it's relevant and doesn't seem anymore dubious to me than ljseek. If it's still controversial, then it might be best to put it to a vote. --- Craigtalbert 09:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. This article's about Livejournal, not ljfind or ljseek. Keep it relevant. 76.18.34.232 14:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

LJ malfunction on Saturday, October, 4th, 2006?

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

Yes, it was worldwide - see the timeline section of the article, or [3]. Mdwh 23:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide in that LiveJournal only has a single datacenter in San Francisco. If there is an outage there, LiveJournal is not accessible anywhere to anyone. SchmuckyTheCat 23:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wired News has story on Russian LJ

It seems like something very important is going on here. I'm very uninformed on the issue, and would like to see something added to the LJ page about this controversy:

Russia Growls at LiveJournal Deal: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72060-0.html?tw=rss.index

Userbox

For those LJers here at Wikipedia, here is a userbox to set up for placement on your userpage.

LJThis user maintains a LiveJournal.

--PremKudva^Talk 05:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

2000s fads

There seems to be an issue over this: suggest that rather than start an edit war we talk it out on the talk page.

The definition of a fad according to the root category is:

A fad, also known as a craze, refers to a fashion that becomes popular in a culture (or subcultures) relatively quickly, remains popular, often for a rather brief period, then loses popularity dramatically, as it either fades into obscurity, or becomes a regular part of a society's culture.

Livejournal seems to fit into this definition. Yonmei 08:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Read again the definition. At what point did Livejournal loss popularity dramatically? It gained popularity quickly, I've seen no evidence of it losing it. Unless there are reliable sources which consistently reference it as a fad, calling it such is a WP:NPOV issue.--Crossmr 14:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And a quick google search doesn't reveal any reliable sources that reference Livejournal as a fad [4]. So unless you have some, please do not reinsert the category.--Crossmr 14:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

At what point did Livejournal loss popularity dramatically? At what point did yoga or low-carb diets lose popularity dramatically? Yet they're listed as fads. Yonmei 17:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a discussion about Livejournal. Not yoga. Yoga isn't a reliable source for whether or not Livejournal is a fad. If you'd like to discuss the yoga article and its categories I'd recommend doing so at the yoga article. I haven't seen a single reliable source indicate that Livejournal is a fad. Should you be able to provide some reliable sources that indicate that livejournal is a fad and that its not a trivial minority view point I have no issue letting the category stand.--Crossmr 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Then Yoga and Low-carb diets shouldn't be fads either, feel free to remove them from the category too. I actually raised this issue on Category_talk:2000s_fads a while ago, pointing out that whilst many may be trends, they are not fads, and I removed entries such as LiveJournal and MySpace. Mdwh 03:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the talk page - I should have looked there myself. The discussion there clarified my thoughts on the matter, and I realise I was confusing fad with trend. Sorry. Yonmei 14:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Abuse team citation

This: LJ community is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination for this section The abuse team at LiveJournal has come under criticism for their handling of alleged violations[12] and some users feel that the abuse team over-reacts to cases in disregard of the actual Terms of Service (or the reverse, that it disregards blatant Terms of Service violations). Its a self-published source of no obvious notability or reliability.--Crossmr 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

LJ Rabbit Hole Day is tomorrow

I think mention of this LJ/geek holiday on January 27th, the birthday of Lewis Carroll, would make a good addition to this article. Don't forget to create an entry about the day itself and add it to the Geek holidays category. (I would do it, but I should be working right now.) --Geekers 14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day. [5]. In short, no its not a good addition.--Crossmr 15:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No need for an implied attack (it was not an "original idea" by myself or a friend); especially since your user page states the following: "Don't resort to personel attacks and don't take things personally." (sic) and "I believe everyone should strive to behave with respect when in a group."

It would have been sufficient to say that you believe the observance is not of enough importance to be worthy of an article. In that case, what do you feel about some of the other holidays in the humorous observances category, such as "Ask a Stupid Question Day" and "Blame Someone Else Day"? Also, supporting your claim with a very specific Google search (using quotes and LJ instead of LiveJournal or doing the search simply with Rabbit Hole Day) is not a strong endorsement.

In my experience, this "humorous observances" has seen a lot of action in LiveJournals over the past few years. As best I can trace, it was started by LJ user crisper, who refutes your claim that it was "made up in school one day." [6] Even so, I understand the spirit of your statement; essentially that you feel its beginnings are too humble/it doesn't have a verified secondary source. That is a valid reason to not give it its own article, but that does not keep it from being mentioned in the LiveJournal entry itself.

The observance is in memory of a living author, and in my opinion that at least places it as worthy as Towel Day. --Geekers 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no attack intended. That was a simplified and direct way of saying this is a non-notable event in the daily goings on on livejournal. Being direct doesn't constitute an attack. As far as other articles and humorous observances go you'll have to ask on their pages why they exist. We're here talking about the livejournal article and the inclusion of a holiday made up on a journal which has gained no coverage. Wikipedia is also not for things made up on liverjournal one da or anywhere else you could make something up. Whether what you made up is completely nonsensical or a humorous holiday celebrating something real. Crisper's journal, while I'm sure entertaining, isn't a reliable source. The threshold for something having an article or being included in a parent article in terms of Neutral point of view, verifiability and Original Research are identical. If it fails those, it doesn't get an article and doesn't get mentioned in a parent article. Notability makes the distinction between whether something gets a brief mention in a parent article or its own article. The material in all articles must be verifiable, neutral, not contain original research and come from a reliable source. If a reliable source does a news story on it, then it can be mentioned. and I just went through all 151 unique hits, and there isn't anything there that gives any indication this is anything beyond an extremely minor livejournal trend with a very tiny amount of spill over to a couple of other blogs. [7]--Crossmr 23:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up Controversies and criticism

There is 1 citation still needed, but it wasn't previously marked so I'm leaving it for a bit. I've removed any commentary which isn't directly supported by the current citations. If other reliable sources are found to support any of that material feel free to re-add it with the appropriate material. Please remember that a users journal isn't reliable, nor are the comments made in response to journal entries. Analyzing those comments is original research.--Crossmr 16:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

ED

Shouldn't LiveJournal#Encyclopedia_Dramatica mention Wikipedia as a satire/attack target alongside "DeviantART, YouTube, 4chan and other popular Internet forums" ? —AldeBaer 15:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is Encyclopedia Dramatica even linked here? WTF IS THIS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.129.203 (talk • contribs)

A good point, slightly invalidated by your use of the letters W, T and F. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Censorship controversy

Very recently, there has been a mass amount of bannings due to pressure from- I'm not actually sure of all the facts myself, some fundamentalist group. The people at the newly formed Why Does LJ Censor? community know more about it than I do.

Yes, within the last day, hundreds of journals and communities have been deleted. Purportedly due to the group Warriors of Innocence contacting LiveJournal about possible pedophilia-related communities and journals. Controversy has been erupting all over the site, not just in this one community. I think most people are currently trying to just grasp what happened right now (questioning and ranting) so everything is more or less at a stand-still. Until more information and/or this starts moving somewhere, it shouldn't be placed in the article quite yet. --pIrish ^Arr! 15:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been mentioned on the Firefox news site now, if you want a source. http://firefox.org/news/articles/407/1/The-Purity-Police-and-Fanfic/Page1.html

That source seems to be a little sketchy. The article sounds more like a blog, ranting about what happened, rather than focusing on the facts. I'd like to see something from a more reputable and reliable source before anything gets added. I guess I just feel like the person who wrote the article is extremely biased and, the only difference between this and any other rant on the journals, is that this one got published on this site. I really think we should really should get a more neutral source for this before adding it. --pIrish ^Arr! 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Try this CNET article if you want a balanced source: http://news.com.com/Mass+deletion+sparks+LiveJournal+revolt/2100-1025_3-6187619.html RPM 23:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. It seems legit, adding it now unless there are any objections. Fractalchez 23:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A note-- many of these deletions seem to be happening because of interests listed in journal profiles, rather than the contents of the journals themselves. These interests lists are generally just comma-separated text (eg. "Star Trek, laser swords, octopi"), rather than anything in-depth. If somebody can find a good source to verify this, I'd suggest changing the wording of the sentence with "sexually-themed" to something that would describe this sort of thing instead.

From what I've seen, none of the fandom deletions were for content, only for listed interests such as incest. I'll try to find a real source for this other than LJ posts. 02:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

For anyone keeping track, there is a community created called [Fandom Counts] who is asking fandom-related journals to join. There are over 15,500 members right now, so those are the number of users rebelling against LJ.Kyuu 03:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We get it. I'm even a member of it. But Wikipedia is not an advertizing service, so please stop advertizing it here. Kolindigo 04:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. It'll be avaliable when it cools down, and we can use it as a community reaction perhaps? I'm just saying it exists. I understand why we wouldn't advertise right now, but it would be useful to the article in the future when people no long are protesting.

HOWEVER, I added a citation. Please don't delete my citations, at least.Kyuu 04:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Got a reply from support. "Dear LiveJournal user technobubblegum,

Material which can be interpreted as expressing interest in, soliciting, or encouraging illegal activity places LiveJournal at considerable legal risk.

When journals that express such an interest are reported to us, we must suspend them. Because LiveJournal's interests list serves as a search function, and because listing an interest enables other people also interested in a similar topic to gather and/or congregate, we have been advised that listing an interest in an illegal activity must be viewed as using LiveJournal to solicit that illegal activity.

We recognize that many people list these types of interests for many reasons including expressing opposition for these illegal activities, or to indicate fictional activity. Unfortunately, we have no discretion in these cases; if a journal profile is reported to us and contains interests that support illegal activity, we must suspend the journal.

Journal entries themselves, on the other hand, may express or imply interest in illegal activity or express or imply a desire to meet and/or interact with others with similar interests, but only if the journal clearly (1) is in opposition to or condemnation of the illegal activity, (2) does not encourage the illegal activity and (3) is not used in furtherance of any illegal activity.

Regards, Kim LiveJournal Abuse Team"

- anonymouse of doom!

Duuude, a cutesy nickname and a teamsong? Any other ways you wanna show people they are a bunch of dellusional geeks who can't be taken seriously?

I've been bold and removed this subhead. This is not encyclopedic content. Most likely this should be on wikinews. Kyaa the Catlord 09:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's not important. It sparked a lot of controversy in several places in a short amount of time, and that, I think, is quite notable. Furthermore, if the section as it stands seems unencyclopedic, then perhaps it should be edited so that the tone is more fitting. -Tacubus 09:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously it is important to you, but this does not mean it is anything but LJ-drama spilling over to the web. Did this get any airtime in reputable, mainstream press? No. Simply because it blew up in fandom does not make it notable or due the weight given in this article. It should be noted in the existing controversies article, properly sourced when it is summarized and not given its own heading in any case. Kyaa the Catlord 09:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, actually, it did get reported in the press. There is a link to the article right in the entry. Cnet is a legitimate news source, and the article interviews the company's CEO. It has also resulted in an official statement from the company. So try not to be a pompous asshole, okay? Grianne

I'd refer you to WP:CIVIL, Grianne. Thanks much. CNET is not the mainstream press. Was this reported on CNN, MSNBC, ABC? No. The notability and weight given to this instance is undue at this point. The sources, mainly being blogs, do not meet our criteria either. This needs to be cleaned up, summarized and not given so much weight. Kyaa the Catlord 14:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It was also reported on Wired.com (http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2007/05/livejournal_we_.html). Is a nationally published magazine's website mainstream enough for you? You seem to have an agenda yourself, Kyaa. 24.80.111.234 07:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Zygal

The livejournal based blog sources are not suitable for this project. Please find reliable, verifiable sources to replace these. Kyaa the Catlord 10:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You also removed the official statement from LiveJournal's CEO and a CNET News.com reference. Doesn't sound like you're being very NPOV, either, Kyaa. Diminutivething 18:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I reverted back 1 too many edits since it appeared to be the same pattern of blanket removals of fact tags that you had been engaged in. Do not remove maintainence tags until the issue is resolved and WP:AGF. Kyaa the Catlord 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well? Did you fix your screw up? Diminutivething 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you fix your lack of sources? Kyaa the Catlord 18:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't MY lack of sources. I didn't write the section. I was trying to fix it to begin with. Who's not WP:AGF now, Kyaa? Anyway, I think you were over eager... Check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves I think maybe some of the LJ stuff can go back in? Perhaps if we worked together on it instead of against each other? Diminutivething 18:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than accusing me of being overeager or trolling this talk page, why did you not check the history of the page? This is not an article about the bloggers, it is an article about LiveJournal the company, using blog posts by anyone not posting as the company does not meet the requirements of WP:V Kyaa the Catlord 18:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I legitimately offered you the olive branch so that we could improve this section together, as you seem just as invested in it as me, and instead you insulted me. WP:WTF? Anyway, per WP:CITE, I'm removing the refimprove tag. one citeneeded tags out of 10 is not enough to warrant it. It has more than the "very few" deserving the refimprove tag. I leave the citeneeded in place, though.Diminutivething 19:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Carrot and stick. You offer to "work together" on one hand, and name call on the other. How am I supposed to react? Kyaa the Catlord 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I called you "overeager." How is that name calling? You called me a freaking troll! You WERE overeager. You DID delete legitimate citations. I came to the talk page to question what was going on instead of instigating an edit war, as per wiki etiquette I believe, and I get called a troll. I think you're being too sensitive. And no, sensitive is not a "name." Troll, however, is. Diminutivething 19:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My, my, how argumentative. Whining back and forth at eachother won't improve the article, so how about you forget your petty quarrel and focus on the main issue? -Tacubus 00:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My point to begin with.diminutivething 03:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

LiveJournal's official statement to users: http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html Sylc 10:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Warriors for Innocence links

From what a couple Slashdot posts say (see [[8]] and the replies to [[9]]), the W.F.I. link is "loaded with spyware", "will infect you with malware", and other similar comments. I wasn't sure if there was a standard Wikipedia policy for what to do in these situations, so I added a note to the references warning of this. (Though not citing the specific posts.) I figured it was better to get the warning up there than mess around and try to figure out the "right" way to do it first. I will return to this page later to see if it has been changed to see how for future reference. EvanED 07:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Does Warriors for Innocence refer to themselves as "vigilantes" or is this an OR representation of the group? Kyaa the Catlord 11:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Kyaa - http://liz-marcs.livejournal.com here is the person that contacted them through the e-mail and asked this question, published the response and later discussion on their LJ. Though there were posts on http://community.livejournal.com/innocence_jihad that said they are connected to religious fundamentalists groups (I cannot get on LJ now, so I cannot find the exact post) and that there are links to some more blogs on WfI site.

And these are reliable, verifiable sources how? They certainly do not meet the criteria that we use here on Wikipedia. Kyaa the Catlord 19:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK WfI has been blamed for ^a's decision-to-suspend by a whole slew of people; 6A have not confirmed it, and WfI's web-site simply makes a claim to have been the cause -- rather like any other anonymous caller to the newspaper claiming responsibility for the latest terrorist/anti-abortion/political outrage. -- Simon Cursitor 13:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, this isn't verifiable and shouldn't be given as much weight as it had been. I editted it to reflect that WFI's only been given passing credit as the instigator of this, maybe we should note somehow that they have been demonized by the LJ fandom "community". Kyaa the Catlord 08:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Would the "LJ fandom 'community'" include C|Net's news.com? "In posts to her personal blog, Sues describes herself as an ardent conservative who views homosexuality as 'sick' and a 'twisted agenda' and lumps gays and lesbians into the same category as pedophiles and rapists." -- http://news.com.com/LiveJournal+apologizes+for+mass+deletion/2100-1025_3-6187960.html?tag=nefd.top --Chibiabos 04:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with this conversation, but it's an interesting link. -- Kesh 05:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sues is a representative for Warriors for Innocence. --Chibiabos 07:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Strikethrough

The section on the recent suspensions is titled "Strikethrough '07". Yet, there's no mention as to where this name comes from--it's not mentioned once in the section. It'd be helpful to have it explained a bit in the article, ie. who came up with the name, what it means, etc. – Zawersh 00:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Account suspension controversy -it was "Account deletion controversy" because from what I gather the accounts were only suspended. Strikethrough '07 is what a few members of the community have coined what happened because suspended accounts have a strike but probably doesn't meet WP:NPOV. Jerm (^Talk/ _Contrib) 03:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

nothing to do with NPOV, the problem is WP:V. What some random person writes in an a self-published journal isn't authoritative or reliable about anything besides themselves, which unless they're notable is not interesting to wikipedia.--Crossmr 04:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Really, then what is the WP:V name? SchmuckyTheCat

WP:V verifiability. the words of self-published random individual X are not reliable or usable as a citation on wikipedia. --Crossmr 12:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it doesn't have a name because, by Monday morning, no-one will care abot it any more, and this entire section can be deleted, as no more than a playground scuffle -- Simon Cursitor

Nonsense. This is a significant event -- the first time LiveJournal has censored its users based on their legal writings. 24.80.111.234 07:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Zygal

Yep, gotta love recentivism. :P Kyaa the Catlord 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)This isn't just recentism. It's just another in a long list of freakouts by LJ Abuse. SchmuckyTheCat

Please leave your POV at the door, Schmucky. Kyaa the Catlord 03:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Credit for "Strikethrough"

The only source given for WFI's "causing" this issue is on their own, self-serving website. Please improve this. I've added the dubious tag. Kyaa the Catlord 06:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Barak Berkowitz gave a statement about WFI and their alleged involvement here. -Tacubus 06:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In which he denies it was due to WFI's reports. Next? Kyaa the Catlord 06:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have editted the statement to better reflect the reported reasoning behind the suspension of these accounts. Although WFI is the only group listed by name in the sources, it is not the sole one and giving it such weight and credit is undue. (And I'm considering only the reliable sources, there's a ton of crap in the blogosphere calling them dominionists, fascists and every other label they find trendy. Keep in mind, labelling people like that in this article would be a BLP violation.) Kyaa the Catlord 07:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"In which he denies it was due to WFI's reports." No, no he doesn't. Next? WookMuff 08:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And I quote: "Isn't this all just a panicked reaction to WFI? Not really. WFI or anyone else may complain but we are responsible for applying our policies to those complaints." Sure reads like WFI wasn't the cause of these edits. Yes, its weak with "Not really." but it is a denial that WFI was the reason they suspended these accounts. Next? Kyaa the Catlord 08:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

...and I quote. "WFI or anyone else may complain but we are responsible for applying our policies to those complaints" What he in fact says isn't that it wasn't in response to WfI. In fact he implies it WAS in response to them. What he does in fact say is that, to paraphrase, no matter who complained about stuff that made us take notice, we made the mistake. He isn't saying it wasn't about WfI, he is saying that in response to complaints WE made a mistake. Thats not at all the same as saying he wasn't due to WfI. WookMuff 08:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

His admission of a complaint from WFI does not equate to the causation of this issue by WFI. It is blatantly incorrect to infer that WFI was the reason for suspension when he states directly that LJ did not suspend the accounts in a panicked reaction to their complaint. Kyaa the Catlord 09:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said it did, Kyaa. I am just saying that, conversely, Barak's stating that his company is responsible for its own mistakes isn't the same as saying that WfI's complaints didn't lead to the suspensions. You can read between the lines all you want, but all he is saying is that the responsibility for the suspensions lies with him. That isn't at all the same as saying "We live in a vacuum and noone else had anything to do with it". He didn't say "we didn't respond to WfI", just "at the end of the day, we are responsible for our own actions." Anyway, according to C|Net, he said just that.

It said the deletion was prompted by activist groups, including one called Warriors for Innocence that claims to track sites promoting pedophilia, the sexual abuse of minors, and other illegal activities.

"We did a review of our policies related to how we review those sites, those journals, and came up with the fact that we actually did have a number of journals up that we didn't think met our policies and didn't think they were appropriate to have up," Barak Berkowitz, chairman and chief executive of Six Apart, said in a telephone interview. The site boasts about 13 million journals.

So yeah, that there says "They said look, we looked, we went AIEEE" That is paraphrasing of course, he probably didn't actually go Aieee, not even in capsWookMuff 09:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

news.com reporting that it has been said that the deletion was prompted by several groups and only naming WFI does not make the statements that WFI was the reason these journals were suspended any stronger. They were simply the only one listed by name. The reason they state the journals were deleted was that after review, a number of them WERE against the policy and they reacted on that basis. The activist groups, including WFI, brought the problem to their attention, but it was the fact that they found a number of policy violations that caused the deletion. Did they go too far? Obviously. Kyaa the Catlord 09:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So... by your logic, to throw out a syllogism of dubious integrity, if someone informs the police of a crime, the police investigate, find the crime, and arrest the offenders, those people should in no way be given credit for that arrest? You are pretty harsh on upright citizens man. WookMuff 10:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, by my logic we should not be giving WFI as much credit for this as we have. They were one of a number of activist groups. Not the sole group which is how this article started off portraying them. Asking to have the sourcing improved for this is not the same as denying it. Not that it matters, since I requested this be better sourced, it has become so. So, in the end, my request was fulfilled. I'm not sure why we continue arguing. But its fun, ne? (Hell, I just called innocence_jihad "full of hate" on their community. I am wearing my asbestos underwear today.) Kyaa the Catlord 10:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So you deny your stance on hating good samaritans, eh? Curious. I wish I was better at finding sources than I am at arguing. Shut up, I am so too good at arguing :PWookMuff 10:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This could easily be settled by rewording to something like: "In May 2007, a number of groups, including WfI, registered complaints with SixApart regarding the content of certain communities and user journals. Upon investigating, LiveJournal suspended approximately 500 accounts and communities, causing what news.com referred to as a "revolt" from "thousands of LiveJournal customers"." Neutral, but includes the one name we've been given in verifiable sources. (Would need to be written more cleanly, but I think that would help settle this debate.) -- Kesh 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, Kyaa was the main one complaining and he is agreeable to the current references now, so is there a need for compromise? WookMuff 22:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I misread. Looked like the subject was still being debated. -- Kesh 22:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone reported WookMuff for 3rr yet? If not, I'll do so. Kyaa the Catlord 13:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it a brand new day? WookMuff 13:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not a calendar day, unfortunately, its 3rr per 24 hours. Which you've exceeded.... Kyaa the Catlord 13:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, I just read the rule. Alas... I don't regret it though. The name change is wrong and its not being disruptive, vandalism (bah) in any way shape or form pov to have the most common name as the chapter heading. 17,000 people don't just spontaneously make up the same name. It's hardly like its called 'Six Apart and their war on freedom' or "Lj only cares about advertising revenue' WookMuff 13:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I will miss the editing for the time of my block, however. WookMuff 13:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Man, watch me make the most of my time while I have it eh? Freudian errors abound. WookMuff 13:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

17,000 blog posts with Strikethrough 07 as their rally call does not make it more descriptive than an accurate, neutral description of the controversy. Kyaa the Catlord 13:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

HOW IS IT POV??? You and others keep saying its not NPOV, how is it not NPOV??? Its not calling it a rallying cry to freedom, it isn't saying lj sucks, it is the term that is in use, it is the term that lj users have used to describe the events, and I find it particularly laughable that you, who called us "fandumb" and seem to resent the lj community for their "drama" would call NPOV WookMuff 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not usable as citation. Deriving a name for something based on what is posted in some blogs is original research.--Crossmr 14:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Its the token "name" of those on one side of the issue. That makes it a partisan name. Accurately, neutrally labelling what the controversy revolved around is much more encyclopedic. And relax, its only the intertubes. Kyaa the Catlord 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh, dubious tag!

Rather than removing the last paragraph in the privacy section, I've placed a dubious tag. This seems contradicted by the preceeding paragraph which gives two examples of how not to have a community listed on your profile page. In any regards, this needs a complete rewrite as it is very hard to follow. Kyaa the Catlord 22:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)