Jump to content

Talk:Myspace/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Dispute the Neutrality of this Article

1) "...and knowledge about who is visiting or 'stalking' the profiles of women and children." Sexist - implies that it is ok or at least a lesser crime to stalk men, than it is to stalk women.

2) There are dozens of similar profile/social networking websites that all have the same issues regarding youngsters and paedophilia. If Myspace did not exist, then all the 'bad apples' would simply be using similar sites, sites that would other wise share the load that Myspace takes.

Anon - 12/09/2006 23:12GMT

Good point... I think. I can sort of see where you're coming from, sort of. IE im lazya nd will look it up later. -- Chris chat edits essays 04:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


anons!

Some anon reverted my changes gradually to the old version which gave "groups" and "bulletin surveys" huge sections. I reverted back, cause mine was better. Maybe this should be semi protected because thye didnt discuss the changes at all.

oh sorry, this is me. -- Chris chat edits essays 00:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys, before reverting my work, lets discuss this stuff, OK? Now it's stuck at the crappy version cause I cant break 3rr...-- Chris chat edits essays 00:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
What makes you think that it's crappy? 203.49.223.254 00:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry (thats a little uncivil of me) but I don't think "bulletin surveys", an entirely user-made feature, deserves a Level 2 section. Groups and bulletins are standard features that should go in one community section, like I put them. Censorship is also a bit of a weasel word. If you have any specific objections to my revision (other than some valdalism I missed reverting), please cite it now. -- Chris chat edits essays 00:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Bulletins are not a user made feature. It deserves its own section. 203.49.223.254 00:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
bulletins maybe ( a lvevl 3 one under an "other features" roof). Surveys, hell no. -- Chris chat edits essays 00:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Why do the anons think they can make hundereds of edits but I, an experienced editor, can't touch their work without discussion? If you don't want your work to be edited mercilessly, don't submit it!-- Chris chat edits essays 13:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed Media outlets on MySpace section

I removed this section because...
1. It doesn't seem encyclopedic
2. It mainly mentions low-key radio and tv stations
3. I'm sure that a lot of other radio and tv stations have MySpace profiles
4. It's mainly US-centric
Comments?
58.163.144.86 13:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Top Friends?

Why is the top friends thing in here? really it seems to me that people should grow up. not being on someone top friends is something you got upset over in grade school. so i dont see how that should effect someones life. i think it should be removed. any takers? Thenewjackblackk 20:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


Something about top friends should be in this article, it's sort of what gave myspace it's own niche, and is a constant source of teen angst lol. However, it's a lot less relevant these days than it was when there was only a top 8 friends.

BIG QUESTION

Is it possible to see who exactly visited your profile? THis is clearly a privacy issue...For example, if i visit a person's space through MSN Messenger (because they are one of my contacts) will they know that I visited their space? Thanks.

  1. Wikipedia Discussion pages are for discussing the article, not MySpace itself.
  2. No. If you care about privacy, make your profile private.-- Chris chat edits essays 01:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. It is possible. There is at least one site which allows this functionality. It's not a privacy issue because you are not on public property while surfing MySpace.

No.. Myspace trackers are illegal.--168.254.226.35 14:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, that last Annon.. IP comment was from me.--XMBRIAN 19:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected page

Due to an editorial dispute, I have protected this page. Please reach consensus on these editorial issues here. B/c I have no vested interest in this article, I am willing to try to mediate any disputes--if the editors wish me to do so.--Alabamaboy 20:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What?

There's nothing wrong with the edits made by the anonymous IPs. They were in fact constantly reverted by User:Ccool2ax. Ccool2ax made the article worse by forcing his opinion "that's not a feature", etc. and reverted changes and in doing so actually made the article worse. Myspaceaddictaust 20:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The protection is neither an endorsement of or disapproval of User:Ccool2ax's edits. The fact that a building edit war appears to be taking place here is why the protection was placed. As I said, I'm happy to help mediate this disagreement. In addition, anonymous and registered editors can take part. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, aren't you one of the anons, Myspaceaddict? -- Chris chat edits essays 03:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
To be completely open about the latest editing on this page, a large number of the Australian IP edits were by the same user (often going back over sections that were reverted or changed and reverting them again to their exact version using the same editorial style). Until the page was sprotected, this common editor (using multiple IP addresses) was pushing a particular direction on the article (and also made similar style contributions to the DOPA Act of 2006 article, Windows Live Messenger, and a few others from each of the IPs). Once sprotected, a new user, Myspaceaddictaust, appears and continues the same editorial style and has all of these same articles on their watchlist. To speak about "the anonymous IPs" in the third person is a bit disingenuous.
Specifically to article content now, I had removed and fixed up a number of sections for PoV, lack of verifiability, extremely original research-based additions...just to return the next day and find the anonymous IP editor from Australia had undone everything I had accomplished in complete ignorance of my edit summaries asking for discussion and spelling out how my changes fixed OR/V/RS problems with the article. I figured someone else could take up the cause since I was getting nowhere and my appeals to the AI boards were ignored. It looks like Ccool2ax tried to take up the gauntlet, but is finding the exact same issues of reversion and article ownership from other editors. ju66l3r 21:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any problems with the current version of the article? Myspaceaddictaust 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes. that's why were, i don't know.. editing it. Now let use edit our page without reversion s we don't have to keep it protected. I'll make a /Temp:Ccool2ax revisons page so I can work on a propsed revision to discuss. -- Chris chat edits essays 03:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Subpage done. My main objection to the anon/Myspaceaddict was that he told me to discuss changes, yet made major changes without any discussion. Huge violation of WP:OWN. He claims that my opinion shouldnt influence the article, like I'm less worthy or something. -- Chris chat edits essays 04:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Top Friends Criticism NOT NEEDED

I think someone took criticism a bit too far. I deleted it once, and when it becomes unprotected I'll do it again. There is no need for a top 8 criticism becuase friends don't put you on there. Crticism is when a company (MySpace) does something that is sneaky or untruthful. This is friends doing untruthful things. If there was a Wikipedia page of Christina's friends and someone added that to her article that criticism is upon her that she didn't add Olivia as a friend, then fine. But it is NOT MySpace's fault that Christina did not add Olivia into her top friends. Anom8trw8 00:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Anom8trw8 Septmember 6, 2006 4:51 PM PST

It's deleted in my temp revision page, which hopefully will gather consensus to edit. -- Chris chat edits essays 04:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

proposed revision

So, guys, let's have a straw poll about this revision to the article: /Temp:Ccool2ax revisions. What do you think? Comment here. After I think we've got consensus, ill use {{editprotected}}. -- Chris chat edits essays 04:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with your version. Myspaceaddictaust 04:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you bother to look at my version? Myspaceaddictaust
what's wrong ith it? Point out examples so we can work together to make the MySpace article suck less. (Also, I haven't checked yet, but don't edit the subpage I made.. make your won so that they can more easily be compared). -- Chris chat edits essays 04:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
nm what you did is fine. -- Chris chat edits essays 04:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a comparison of our versions. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMySpace%2FTemp%3ACcool2ax_revisions&diff=74271303&oldid=74253753

Myspaceaddictaust 04:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok let's go through it one difference at a time. Myspaceaddictaust 04:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

what I don't like about your proposal!

here's the diff

  1. MySpace is commercial. Just because it's free does not make it non commercial.
  2. The "Top Friends" feature causing despair doesn't need to be in the article. It's like saying "basketball makes people angry" in the Basketball article.
  3. Get rid of the Virus Bulletin, Survey, and Chain Bulletin sections. Please. It is original research and is not too important to the context of the article.
  4. I don't see what wrong with my International or Mobile sections at all.
  5. Some of the stuff in your Censorship category has little to do with censorship at all.
  6. Use my shortened version with the word "blocking" because it's not censorship... censorship would be burning down MySpace's servers.
  7. I'm logging off at 12:00 CDT, so if this gets unprotected, stop reverting it when someone other than you cahnges it please. -- Chris chat edits essays 04:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

my response

1. MySpace is commercial. Just because it's free does not make it non commercial.

DISAGREE: It said that it was mixed before but I changed it to yes without being sure.

2. The "Top Friends" feature causing despair doesn't need to be in the article. It's like saying "basketball makes people angry" in the Basketball article.

DISAGREE: I believe that I made a reasonable compromise by removing it from the Criticism of MySpace section and it should remain in the article under Friends Space.

3. Get rid of the Virus Bulletin, Survey, and Chain Bulletin sections. Please. It is original research and is not too important to the context of the article.

DISAGREE: It is important enough to be left in the article. I'm sure we can find a source.

4. I don't see what wrong with my International or Mobile sections at all.

DISAGREE: It's clearly erroneous, the spelling and the terms you use. There's no need to call it access when my version specifies the proper term used on MySpace.

5. Some of the stuff in your Censorship category has little to do with censorship at all.

DISAGREE: How so?
second and third paragraph. -- Chris chat edits essays 12:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll remove it from my version. Myspaceaddictaust 12:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

6. Use my shortened version with the word "blocking" because it's not censorship... censorship would be burning down MySpace's servers.

DISAGREE: Maybe we should just incoporate into the Criticism of MySpace section.
This one kind of makes sense, although the people blocking MySpace aren't doing it to criticize it. -- Chris chat edits essays 12:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

7. I'm logging off at 12:00 CDT, so if this gets unprotected, stop reverting it when someone other than you cahnges it please.

DISAGREE: I've already compromised on this enough. If it was such a big a deal other editors would be involved in this petty argument.
So you disagree that when this becomes unprotected, you'll stop reverting it? Basically, you've just stated that once an admin unblocks this article, youw ilol keep it your way, allowing no one else to edit but you. Way to compromise. I suggest you talke a long hard look at WP:OWN. -- Chris chat edits essays 12:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Myspaceaddictaust 05:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Does CDT = Central Daylight Savings Time? Myspaceaddictaust 05:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

yes. Of curse you disagree.. but luckily, you don't own this article, so I can gather consensus without your personal opinion. -- Chris chat edits essays 11:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

editprotected

Chris chat edits essays 18:37, 7 September 2006

make it match /Temp:Myspaceaddictaust_revisions. We agree on the edit. -- Chris chat edits essays 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made the change. Please check the page and make sure it is correct. Once the involved parties verify here that consensus is achieved (just say aye or yep or something) I'll remove the protection from the article. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Just recently, I've noticed a few minor changes I might make, but otherwise this page should be semi-stable. This should be unprotected if we promise notto simply revert, but work with each other. -- Chris chat edits essays 18:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In future I'll use edit summaries more and discuss dramatic changes. Besides there's not many articles on my watchlist anyway so it should be easy! Myspaceaddictaust 18:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll unprotect the page in a moment. If either of you ever need any assistance, just drop me a line. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Date format

About this. When showing the difference between the American and other date systems, it is traditional to use day numbers which are greater than 12 to show which are days, and which are months. e.g. 30/09/2006 vs. 09/30/2006. If this example is going to be tediously incremented each day, on the 9th of September it will say that the difference between the US and other date system is that one says 09/09/2006 and the other says 09/09/2006, which doesn't make sense. Those are two reasons for the change. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If nobody objects I will change it back. Because you don't understand something doesn't mean you have to revert it. See WP:OWN. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is bullshit. You're arguing about stupid topics. Just leave it the way it is, gees. Myspaceaddictaust 21:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've raised two reasons to explain why this minor edit would be an improvement. Could you address those instead of profaning? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. Myspaceaddictaust 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

have you read WP:OWN yet? if an edit isn't what you'd do, theres not reason to revert it. only change it bcak if it makes the article dramatically worse (e.g. vandalism). -- Chris chat edits essays 22:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
On a similar note, I re-wrote the copy for the entire International sub-section, clarifying it (and improving the English and the accuracy) only to have it reverted back in a series of bite-size edits - twice now - for no other reason (as far as I can see) other than it wasn't what they'd written before. This is tedious and pointless.
  1. MySpace doesn't "have" the option, it "offers" it - that's just plain good English.
  2. It doesn't actually work - you get what you're given not what you choose.
  3. The addition of the fact that it was introduced earlier this year. (Historical perspective.)
  4. Clearer explanation of what the regionalisation is attempting to achieve. (Localised content and advertising, and networking.)
  5. Proper English as regards the dates and languages, not the pidgin it was written in before.
Add to that a couple of other tweaks (visual edits to the source ot make comparisons and editing on the citations easier in future (as I've explained before), for instance.
All improvements in one form or another. All reverted out of hand. That's not just reversion, it's vandalism itself. Cain Mosni 16:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Luckily Myspaceaddict is premablocked. He wouldn't let anyone change it.. y'know, thats what wikis are for. -- Chris chat edits essays 21:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Software

I looked up this article to see what OS and webserver software MySpace uses. But there was no information on that. That would be a good thing to add, if someone knows the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.21.109 (talk • contribs)

Added. Thanks for the suggestion. If someone has a better location/sub-topic to put that information in, feel free to move it. As an aside, if you need OS/webhost software info in the future, you can try http://www.netcraft.com for most websites. ju66l3r 06:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not think it should be as the first entry of "Myspace features", it is only relevant for geeks. Maybe it should be under the topic "Other".
Yeah, only "geeks" care about it. Of course, since MySpace is so hip, its article must be hip too and place important details in designated non-hip sections, of course. 66.82.9.52 15:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

better version?

I've created a better version of the article with some minor tweaks here... [1] MySpacefreak 10:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd like to tell us exactly what you've changed, so that we don't have to sit comparing the two articles line by line? Cain Mosni 16:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is it... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMySpace%2FTemp%3AMySpacefreak_revisions&diff=75511436&oldid=75508761 MySpacefreak 17:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't get very far through. How do you consider the phrase "myspace has 300 employees" is better English than "MySpace employs 300 people"? One should be avoiding the generic use of "has" and "have" wherever possible. Ditto the repetition of "MySpace" where edits have deliberately been introduced in the past to reduce such repetition. Oh, I see why - hello Myspaceaddict... Your sock's showing. Cain Mosni 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with my version?? MySpacefreak 17:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Give it up, Pnatt. -- Chris chat edits essays 18:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
How can I tell it's you? I used a nonstandard revision form in the talk subpage with my username. NO one else uses that form but me, and Pnatt. Plus, you have the same editing style. -- Chris chat edits essays 18:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought my explanation of just the first couple of reason's why it was bad were perfectly lucid and concise. Cain Mosni 18:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I wanna quit. MySpacefreak 18:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Good... because you're not supposed to come back after a permablock. -- Chris chat edits essays 19:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about the gay ass rules and policies. I stopped caring ages ago. Wikipedia is full of unnecessary bureaucracy. 203.49.189.225 19:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary? It IS necessary because of people like you. The rules are not "gay," they are in place so that we can make this a legitimate encyclopedia, not some free forum of content. We're not UrbanDictionary over here, ya know. --CanesOL79 22:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yay, now we have one more IP adress we know Pnatt uses!

What should we do about this serial sockpuppet user now? User:Pnatt has been at it for months now. Enough is enough. Aflfinals 15:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

We'll simply remove each one as it shows up and pretty soon it will become so mundane that people won't even feel compelled to comment on it at the article talk pages, leaving you the tedium of trying to interject your edits around the ban while not gaining any recognition for having done so. ju66l3r 17:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Heather Michelle Kane

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_fe_st/myspace_murder_plot

This should be added somewhere, but Im not sure exactly where. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azslande (talk • contribs)

I read that article earlier today and also thought the same thing. The reason I didn't do so is because MySpace does not appear to be involved itself (other than being the source of her evidence for wanting to kill someone). Other than that, it's just any other "murder for hire" scheme and so I don't really see it as notable (to MySpace) that she saw this guy with another woman on MySpace rather than a friend calling her after seeing him around town with the other woman or herself spying them together from across a bar. ju66l3r 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

MySpace has been under increasing criticizm because of the links between it and crime. In the last several years there have been several kidnappings, murders, and sexual assaults attached to it. I think that this should be added to the article. There have even been some links found that suggest that Duane Morrison found some of his intended targets on MySpace. 72.161.217.83 21:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

additional criticism

I've noticed that Myspace seems to lose a good portion of message traffic. Quite frequently I've sent messages but haven't had them show up in my sent mail, nor did the recipients acknowledge receiving them. Also, three times now I've been notified I had a new message, but looked to find nothing in my inbox, other than the page stating it was displaying 1-3 of 3 messages. Is this phenomenon common enough to list as a criticism of Myspace's reliability? I made a YTMND noting the fact some time ago, and several people (4/9 reviewers, out of ~250 viewers) mentioned that it has happened to them too. ~ Eidako 03:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is what is considered original research and is not useable directly. You need to find an independent reliable source (like a well-read newspaper or magazine) that presents this problem and criticizes MySpace in order for us to be able to point to that source as the verification of the criticism. ju66l3r 04:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Myspace has many errors, but messages disappearing are not one of them. But it is annoying. For the record, I can’t see why talking about this as a criticism wouldn’t be okay on the main page here. It is a very major issue on myspace. But they know about it. http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=86892 See, messages mostly disappear when someone deletes their myspace account or is removed my myspace. Even the messages were sent to “you” it is stored on their account. When their account is deleted so is the message you were sent. If you receive an email that you have new messages or “friends” request but when you click to see it and it isn’t there that is because the person who sent a messages or added you was removed from myspace or removed his or her own account for whatever reason. I hope my info helped you.--John4grey 04:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it does. I searched half of Google, but it didn't return that page for some reason. It still doesn't explain why half of my outgoing messages don't show up in my sent mail, but I can't find any other such mentions elsewhere. I guess I'm the only one :p. ~ Eidako 05:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you guy(s). WP:OR is a fundamental, vital policy that should never be broken (except for simple things... a MySpace bug is not one.) -- Chris chat edits essays 12:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Another sock to add to the giant list: User:Hockeypuck. -- Chris chat edits essays 13:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


consideration

It should also be noted in the article that most kids set their profile to private. Also most kids only add and request their real freinds that they really know.

No. You can't make an assumption about a general group of people. Besides, you need a source.

Claiming just over 107 million accounts. There are currently more than 111 million accounts on MySpace. 149.135.39.169 03:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we understand, however, unless you have a source, we cannot add it. Wikipedia's policy is verifiability, not truth. -- Chris chat edits essays 03:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe common sense should prevail regardless of the policy. MySpace currently has just over 111 million accounts. It is erroneous to say that it has just over 107 million accounts. Wikipedia should be a resource that's kept up to date. If the policies intervene with these simple truths, then maybe the policy should be changed. 149.135.39.169 04:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If policy needs changing, this is not the place it's going to happen. In the meantime, if we can't quote a reliable source as we have for the "over 107" statement, then it doesn't get listed. WP can only move as fast as the sources which it quotes for truth. ju66l3r 04:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well where is the current sources claiming that there is just over 107 million accounts? 149.135.39.169 05:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. Problem solved. ju66l3r 05:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I think maybe the number of friends that Tom has is close to the number of accounts, right? I know there has to be at least that many accounts. --Max 02:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't make any claim to the "current" user count and the exact number of accounts is really unimportant so long as we're discussing the right ballpark and giving a suggestion of how fast it's growing. Otherwise we'd need some sort of debt clock/calculator that just kept tallying 100,000 higher every hour or so. That level of precision is just not necessary. The three articles giving 2 different counts for certain dates and a rate of growth will suffice and if new articles are found giving new tallies, this article can be amended higher then. Directly using Tom's friend count is part original research and part biased by how many people keep him in their friend list (IIRC, I removed him the day I started my account just to avoid any spam he might mass mail out). ju66l3r 04:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is getting very frustrating. It seems like that every sentence on Wikipedia now has to have a source even if it's trivia. 149.135.39.169 05:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, unless it is what is considered "common knowledge" (e.g. "The Sky is Blue" or "George bush is American"), citations are needed. How else can we be reliable? -- Chris chat edits essays 04:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Would the counter in the top right of every homepage count as a reliable source? I think that is the official number. Mchmike 02:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, a corporation's own counter is the first thing that could easily be biased and lacks verifiability. You can determine what is a reliable source at this page. ju66l3r 03:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

International Access

Just wanted to add a note that I corrected a factual error under "International Access" in the article. It previously stated that "e.g. North America: "favorites", mm/dd/yyyy; the rest of the world: "favourites", dd/mm/yyyy" I changed "North America" to "United States" as Canada favours the dd/mm/yyyy format, but both are common. 'Favourite' is the accepted spelling as well. Plutoxin 05:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It also should be called "MySpace International". 149.135.39.169 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think either title serves the purpose, so I'm not going go about changing that. Plutoxin 05:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be called MySpace International... It doesn't matter whether or not we use the semi-official name used in one preference pane. -- Chris chat edits essays 13:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The link to the page is labelled 'MySpace International', so it would be accurate, but it doesn't sound like an accurate topic heading for an encyclopedia. 'International access' sounds better, but still doesn't really cover the fact that even just the .com address offers international access. Something which captures the dynamic nature of the site's address would be ideal. Perhaps something like 'international sites'. Martin Jensen 15:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
How about language editions so it's not us-centric? -- Chris chat edits essays 15:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

John4grey (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly adding a passage about how male profiles supposedly show up in a new member search. It has no sources at all and is original research. It should not be re-added unless there's a verifiable source for the claims. szyslak (t, c, e) 07:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


I've added a fact tag to the paragraph. If it really isn't original research, it shouldn't be difficult to provide a source.--IanUK 08:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I think, since it makes an accusation like sexism, we should remove it entirely until we find a source. Therefore, it's gone. -- Chris chat edits essays 14:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not sexism. But it is a current bug. Although where you find a reference for that is a good question (other than trying it yourself).Citizensmith 15:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The fact tag is not a chaperone for original research. Within the No Original Research policy is a great explanation for why this segment from John4grey is unacceptable here. While I trust that everything he wrote is probably a true bug in their site currently, this article is just not the venue for it as it is a personal analysis requiring each reader to "try it themselves" to get the analysis necessary to verify it as true. If or when it gets picked up by a reliable source, then it will be an interesting section of the article. ju66l3r 16:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that. Just pointing out that it was more likely a bug and not intentional sexism.Citizensmith 16:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, my response was to IanUK's use of the fact tag. ju66l3r 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, maybe fact tags are the wrong way to go about it. But John4grey (talk · contribs) needs to be told to stop persistently reverting it to his version. In fact, I tried the "try it yourself" link he added to the paragraph and frankly, I couldn't tell if the profiles there were up to date or not. Even so I still think that even if it's not an original research issue, the information should be verifiable. IanUK 08:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
He's broken 3rr. someone block him!-- Chris chat edits essays 13:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Please? -- Chris chat edits essays 13:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay, now he's personally attacked me on my talk page. I hope an admin will come and block him. -- Chris chat edits essays 20:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

now he's claiming that he has 5 different degrees in college, thereby giving him absolute authority on MySpace articles worldwide. He hasn't even read WP:V or WP:OR yet. -- Chris chat edits essays 01:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
here's his vandalism to my talk page:
Chris, I didn't change my user name. What are your talking about? You abuse the system here. I've seen your history. If someone makes you mad you try to get them banned. You are the worse kind of person here by doing that. It hurts the whole place. And oh I have an AA. B.A.. M.S. M.A. in passing Ph.D. and a J.D. for your record. Stop deleting my adds!
Will he stop? Can someone help mediate? -- Chris chat edits essays 01:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
If he has five degrees, he should be well accustomed to referencing his articles for pitty's sake! There are now several people deliberately vandalising this article. How can we stop that, other than reverting it several times a day? There must be an official procedure to stop this.--IanUK 09:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Full protection. -- Chris chat edits essays 13:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Impersonation

Why is there nothing in this article mentioning impersonation? There are hundreds of people posing as celebrities (and often when there is already a page for the actual celebrity) and fictional characters yet nothing is mentioned. It is a very important bit of information to go in this artcile. Mr.bonus 15:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reference for that? -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Search for some celebrities or fictional characters (eg, Batman, Alan Partridge, Ross Geller) and you will see for yourself. I would have wrote it myself in the article but I don't know how to word it and where to put it. There is a see also link to impersonation, but nothing about it is mentioned in the main article. Mr.bonus 15:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
It is probably more important to get reliable sources so it fits with the policy of no original research. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
You don't need an actual reference for something that is blindingly obvious to anybody willing to look at it. This is the same as published materials/media (films, books, video games) not needing references cited on Wikipedia as per their contents; anybody could find it to be true by viewing the work itself. "The sky is blue.", "Have you got a reference for that?"....Unless you think that George W. Bush actually has a myspace page, the existence of the page is your reference. Mr.bonus 15:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it is a hell of a lot more obvious that the sky is blue then if some celebrity has a fake MySpace. They don't really fit in the same category of common knowledge. References are incredily important for Wikipedia's reputation. -- Chris chat edits essays 15:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

REMOVED CONTENTS

Who deleted my disscussion on MySpace and Miley Cyrus?--Cutie 4 life 21:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Check the archives. -- Chris chat edits essays 13:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

proof-reading grammar

The following text from the article (after "However"), is not grammatical English:

Profiles also contain an "Interests" section and a "Details" section. However, fields in the "Interests" and "Details" sections have the ability of not being displayed on the page by simply not filling them in.

This would better read as:

However, fields in these sections will not be displayed if members do not fill them in.

I don't have to *argue* for this, do I? I'm a little surprised that no one has picked it up before. OTOH, it might be even better to simply leave the "However, ..." line out altogether. I mean this with all due respect, but surely this is a detail of very little consequence. abzorba 12:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, but the second one does sound a lot better. I'll add it in. -- Chris chat edits essays 16:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Celebrities

I realise this might prove to be a can of worms but what the hell ... How about a seperate article listing all celebrities with a page on MySpace? We can easily define "celebrity" for this project as "someone with a wikipedia article about them". The problem will be sorting the impersonations from the genuine articles ... Too complicated? --Stenun 23:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's just occured to me the criteria we can use for including a myspace page on the list. It must be sourced from a non-myspace official page of the celebrity in question. For example Warren Ellis links to his myspace pageon warrenellis.com. --Stenun 23:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The word listcruft springs to mind. MySpaceFan 23:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree. The second paragraph of the article you linked to makes a strong case in FAVOUR of such a list. There already is a section about celebrities on myspace, so why not a list of them? --Stenun 23:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
That may be so - you appeared to be asking for an opinion. You should probably see the experience with the categories Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_19#Category:Celebrities_with_MySpace_accounts and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_celebrities_and_musicians_with_a_MySpace_profile. MySpaceFan 23:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I *was* asking for an opinion but that doesn't mean I can't disagree with it *g*. However, these two links now provided do seem to put a stop to my idea. Thanks, I think *g*. --Stenun 00:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

myspace worth $15 billion

should this news be on myspace page?http://www.enn.ie/news.html?code=9820797 Felisberto

Please don't add signatures that are not your own. If you are a user, please login and add your signature and do not manually write it in; it can easily be confused as a dishonest attempt to use someone else's name. As for the article, I believe that it would be pertinent information to add, yes. ju66l3r 22:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Biggest?

Is it the biggest social networking site in the world? 84.69.185.140 15:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to define big? According to a report in July it received 80% of visits to social networking sites [2] -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It's also tough to define social networking. A great many websties are adding "social networking" components. Mathiastck 17:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Alexa Criticism

1. Alexa is dependent on a toolbar plugin that has low penetration among web users and excludes all but Internet Explorer users. For this reason, Alexa is highly skewed and subject to wildly inaccurate results. I have removed mentions of Alexa from the article in order to present a more accurate depiction of its popularity. 66.32.151.246 01:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Alexa's popularity is not the subject of the article. Despite its flaws, it's the de facto standard for Web popularity. Therefore, I've reverted. -- Chris chat edits essays 03:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, isn't google ranking the de facto standard? Google will give you all sorts of metrics. Mathiastck 14:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Alexa ranking is (unfortunately) used for WP:N tests. Google can be distorted by the number of links to a page (that's how Wikipedia's always on top). -- Chris chat edits essays 15:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Like it or not, Alexa samples user browsing very well. Alexa is not IE-exclusive and is available on Firefox/Mozilla as well. Highly visited sites will have very accurate data. You can read more about Alexa's rankings here. ju66l3r 18:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought you could only get some Alexa tools in FF, and that the tracker is only included with the IE version of the tools. -- Chris chat edits essays 11:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As we know, popular sites like Wikipedia are often parodied in popular culture. Are there any similar cases for MySpace?

I'm looking for examples such as:

  • songs or music videos mentioning MySpace
  • comic strip characters viewing other characters' MySpace profiles, etc.
  • talk shows discussing MySpace (a la The Colbert Report)

If there are any such notable examples, should we add them to the article? --Ixfd64 05:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a lot of references, but most could not be cited in a third party source. Besides, it's not very encyclopedic to say "MySpace was mentioned in 3 episodes of TV Show". -- Chris chat edits essays 11:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

ITS not Right Delete this article!!

I couldnt report this article for some reason but i think it should be deleted. I have seen articles like ps3forums.com and others that had people work hard to make a page here that was very descriptive and hardly advertised the site, and yet wikipedia deleted the page. Now i dont see that its fair if a article on myspace whish is knows as a site is being aloud to have a article, its no differnt than the ps3forums article. Just because its a big site now doesnt mean it should be a exception, it isnt fair at all! People worked hard on the other article and it was deleted in a day, now myspace is a exception?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldier one (talk • contribs)

  • I don't know about ps3forums.com, but MySpace is one of the world's most popular websites, is used by millions, and has achieved way more than enough notability for an article. —tregoweth (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

SO WHAT!!! Just because its big and you happen to know about it, it becomes a exception? The forums and a few others are just as big and some are three times bigger but just because you cant see pics of some underaged chick they are not aloud? I dont see it as fair at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldier one (talk • contribs)

I vividly agree, Both should be aloud or both should be deleted period! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaman223 (talk • contribs)

ZOMG a sock/meatpuppet agrees with you! MySpace has gathered enough attention from the media for the article to have full independedt sources, while PS3Forums has not. How does one "vividly agree", anyway? If you are to continue on wikipedia, please read WP:POINT and WP:N (I personally disagree with WP:N, but WP:V works in this case against you as well).-- Chris chat edits essays 04:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So what just because someone agrees you decide to call him names?? It doesnt make sense, so your saying if that forum got media behind it than it would be ok? Well look around gaming sites and see for yourself. What about playstation.com? It has more members than myspace will ever have and yet you guys would probably delete that as well. Next time support your self without insulting others and use something other than "O myspace was on the news" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldier one (talk • contribs)

Playstation.com is the official site of the PlayStation series of video game consoles, and is linked to in the external links section of the articles on the various PlayStations (1, 2, and 3). *Dan T.* 12:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, Soldierone, you don't understand. MySpace has over 100 million members. It has received widespread coverage in the media, and is the subject of heated debate and criticisms. A "meatpuppet" as you said I called you, is a neutral term for a friend you invited here to agree with you. How does one "Vividly agree" anyway? I don't mean to add fuel to the fire, but this consone is better ( i didn't use this as rationale for deleting ps3forums.com, i just felt like being a fanboy) -- Chris chat edits essays 12:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Myspace has 100 million people using it, it has become a pop-culture icon, it is discussed in the media frequently, it a bigger business than playstation, it appeals to a wider range of people than playstation and people would expect wikipedia to have an article on myspace because of these reasons. Wikipedia should (and does) have an article on PS3 but it doesn't need one for the forums. It doesn't have an article about the xbox.com forums, but that would be relevant to a product currently for sale, still it doesn't need one about xbox forums or playstation forums. James086 Talk | Contribs 17:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Safety?"

Myspace is safe, but not all that safe as people make it seem. The person who wrote the summary on myspace misinformed you about how profiles set to 14 and 15 are automatically set to private. This is completely untrue. Users on myspace have a choice on whether or no they want their profile open to the community or not. But on the other hand when a user request to be your friend you have the option of accepting it or not. Privacy settings can be changed at all times. And parents if you want to find out if your child has a profile on myspace Go To Myspace.com and click on search. Then type in the name of the person that you seek. but ultimately myspace is safe so just try trusting your kids. There's mainly only kids on there anyway. And kids today are smarter than they seem. They would only add people they know.

Profiles set to 14 and 15 are automatically and permanently private to anyone over 18. Almost all the cases involving MySpace included people who were substantially older than 18. Also, a large minority of people on MySpace, at the very least, are adults. Where are you getting your information? I suspect you are a concerned mother who has taken five minutes to look at the website and now claim to be an expert. Larsvolta (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You also are able at times to view private profiles there are people coming out with codes on a regular basis to try to view profiles and myspace sometimes then is able to block those codes...although myspace is becoming smarter about it now but it still has its tweeks. So as much as youd like to think your profile is private there are ways around it and parents should always be monitoring their kids...the internet is not a safe place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.170.229 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

13-year-olds can even set their age to 13 now. One of my neighbors is 13 & that is his age setting. Now, they should say users with their age set to 13-15 have their profile set to private by default. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.209.16 (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I recently saw somewhere on the Internet that they are making 16 & 17-year-olds' profiles private by default. I think that's for new users who are 16 & 17 years old.


thats so scary. did you guys see the SNL skit where the guy was holding an actual class on how to set up a myspace account? and there was a mother there who was just truly interested in being on myspace with her daughter. but then the rest of the "class" there were 40+ year olds too! they were asking if they could set their age to 16 and such. and what kind of music teens like etc etc. it was a funny reality skit, but at the same time, it's something that we need to be cautious about. ^_^ Wiki234234 (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)RNR

Florida teen beating video

For some reason this article doesn't include that infamous Florida teen beating video; the site did play a role in it. Does that have any place here, or should it be covered somewhere else? I am quite surprised that Wikipedia has no article covering that subject yet. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


wikipedia is hosted by internet users so you can post it if you want. i see you already have. create a page why don't you? :) Wiki234234 (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)RNR

Myspace Music & Myspace Video

Should they have their own pages since they are different services from the main site? Mteague93 (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

New External Link?

I'd like to add this link to the External Links or to the Reference section.

http://makeitinmusic.com/is-myspace-still-important-for-musicians

Yes, it's on my blog, but it is relevant to all musicians reading about MySpace.

~~Ian~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiiMusic (talk • contribs) 10:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used for advertising or promotion. ArcAngel (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

=Imeem

Why is there no mention of myspace buying imeem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.115.165 (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing Myspace with HTML/CSS

The article reads, "A special type of modification is a div overlay, where the default layout is dramatically changed by hiding default text with <div> tags and large images.." I suggest it be changed to, "A special type of modification is what has become known as a DIV Overlay. This is where the default layout is carefully hidden using CSS and replaced with a new layout composed of DIV elements and new content." Or something to that effect... —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarbonBasedXP (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Address

This is the physical address for MySpace:

MySpace, Inc. 8391 Beverly Blvd. #349 Los Angeles, CA 90048 USA

That is not Beverly Hills, nor is 90048 a Beverly Hills ZIP code. Laval (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

See Commercial mail receiving agency (they're also known as mail drops). And take a look at the Web page for the UPS Store at that address (and click on the Mailbox Services tab). Their address is actually a mailbox in the UPS Store in the strip mall at the northeast corner of the intersection of N. Orlando Ave. and Beverly Blvd. I'm not sure how they do it in Canada, but in the U.S. it's common for businesses of all sizes to use mail drops. This is not difficult; it only took me five minutes to figure this out with a few well-crafted searches on Google! --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.14.152.73, 3 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} fs is STOYA still with D.P or is she gone? no dvd since jan/10 made in 08 and not on any list now till june what is happening????? 

 saver her..... for us the fand
we will follow her no matter..

albert <email address removed  Chzz  ►  04:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)> 98.14.152.73 (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Myspace Music

The Article states that from March 2010 myspace will become a music store with 30 second clips of songs.

This obviously isn't true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.149.235 (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Why youth heart myspace

I read Danah Boyd's article titled "Why Youth Heart Social Networks" in which she speaks about how students use myspace as a way for teenagers to escape a rule and authority based society in order to express themselves and even to mature. I think this is a very important aspect about Myspace that should be mentioned on the wikipedia page, what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracothejuggler (talk • contribs) 04:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Loss of popularity

Myspace, over the last few months, has noticeable lost popularity. I am wondering if a section of this wikipedia article could have information concerning this. Or is this quote from the article good enough?


Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 05:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There was an interview in the German Newsmagazine "Der Spiegel" with someone from the Washington Post or so, concerning the future of Print Media, who was also saying that the developments in the virtual community were very fast, as for example Myspace was once a Big Player in the virtual great game, and was a nobody by now. However, some more data, facts and reliable and valuable quotes would be necessary to write something like this down here in Wikipedia.--JakobvS (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

hey nanny slue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.134.135 (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 137.240.136.69, 11 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} My Space is the new GEOCITIES of Social Networking.

137.240.136.69 (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: According to whom? That statement needs a reliable source, and anyway we don't need to be making such comparisons anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Forced...New 3.0 profile...NO CSS

Any one care to revamp this article? It will need it. I just received an email from myspace telling me that any one with 1.0 or 2.0 will be forced to have the new 3.0 profiles...and these new profiles will no longer have css. Here is the contents of that letter. "Based on user feedback we’ve received, we’ve removed CSS from the new profiles, and instead offer you better customization tools to personalize your profile.

Important stuff to know:

- Your CSS has been preserved, and will be available should you decide to revert from the beta profile

- CSS will be preserved for the duration of the beta

- Any HTML widgets or other code you used has been migrated to an HTML box on your profile, allowing you to keep it or reuse it differently

- Many profile modules can now be dragged and dropped for easy customization of your pages

- Sometime in the next few months, all profiles will have to migrate to the new profile design, and at that point you will no longer be able to use CSS on your profile

Sincerely, Philip The Myspace Support team"

63.3.3.2 (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove the 100th million profile reference

There are no longer 100 million myspace users so why reference it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbzguy4u69 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

co-founder??

I find it quite hard to believe that Austin "Chumlee" Russell from the TV show Pawn Stars is the co-founder of MySpace. His name only appears one place on this page and his bio on the Pawn Stars page does not mention Myspace. I think someone is messing with you. Thank you, 75.18.138.56 (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Bill Haigh hemibill@gmail.com

MySpace reveals new logo.

MySpace recently updated their logo yesterday, consisting of the word "my" followed by a fill-in-the-blank space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightRider592 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Should probably use the old (or current) logo used by the site until the change, maybe put new one in relevant section? Seems odd as it is. (Or other way round?) 89.101.110.13 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

a) I agree with the above; we should at least include the old logo until the new one is up on the site; would a picture showing both logos be appropriate? b) That is an awful picture of the new logo. It looks like it is the leaked image from a few weeks ago, and it most likely retrieved from a badly angled photo. Official media assets can be found on this page: http://myspace.presslift.com/meet-the-new-myspace-. I'm afraid I don't know how to change pictures (I'll work it out in the sandbox), so if anyone stumbles across this before then...Sam250 (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Key people

Quote the infobox: Austin "Chumlee" Russell (Co-Founder) That is all 86.42.183.127 (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

New Version Of Registration

The New Version of the Registration won't let people register! Please message me about this problem. Thank you,

First off, this isn't a help forum. Second, you didn't sign your post by typing four tildes. Lucasoutloud (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Awful, awful article

"It also enables user to view popular music in other countries of the world, mostly in Europe and major Asian countries such as China and Russia. That helped promote international music throughout the globe, globalizing the music scene easier than before". lolwut? I'm going to go ahead and credit the Beatles with promoting 'international' music. Y'know, being Brits in the USA.

I was going to say "it sounds like it was written by Myspace marketing" but I would hope one of the 1000 employees could form a more coherent advertisement. GavinZac (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Grammar Check

I believe that in the "Youtube" section of the article, "Alexa Internet" should be simplified as "Alexa". Thoughts? Lucasoutloud (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


Also there is a typo in section music: "In March 2010, listening to the full song in the search results has been disable and had been replaced by 30 second samples." "disable" should be changed to "disabled"

i want myspace november 6 2010

im not happy about this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.137.227.5 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

What? That makes no sense. Lucasoutloud (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

incorrect quote

RE: [3]

Which has this article as its source: http://techcrunch.com/2006/09/12/myspace-we-dont-need-web-20/

The actual quote does not mention google and blogger, I replaced this incorrect statement with the actual quote.

The information was correctly added by User:The Inedible Bulk on 22:30, 10 October 2006.[4]

The google and blogger information was erroneously added by User:Thepulse2007 on 00:08, 29 January 2008.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myspace&diff=next&oldid


Adamtheclown (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

'became the top social networking site in 2006...'

Wanted to do something to fix this myself but can't as the article's locked... But this assertion gives the impression that myspace only really topped the social networks in 2006, I'm pretty confident even without looking that it was already the big concern a year or two before that - NewsCorp's buyout was in 2005. If this is the only source that can be cited, perhaps 'became' should be removed as a qualifier, therefore just illustrating that it was the top social networking site in that year, but removing the suggestion that 2006 was the year myspace really caught on? My humble suggestion! 91.110.23.212 (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Co-founders

The fact that notable MySpace co-founder and former CEO Chris DeWolfe was replaced with Austin "Chumlee" Russell of the television show Pawn Stars for so long is ridiculous. Nice job. --RaygunShaun (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfounded Conclusion

"On October 26, BTIG analyst Richard Greenfield said, 'Most investors have written off MySpace now,' and he was unsure whether the changes would help the company recover. However, these new changes are highly disliked by the myspace community."

The article this excerpt references (reference 35) states nothing of user reaction to the changes. At all. In fact, all it does is mention the plan to release the beta version for demographic testing. How can anyone just go ahead and make a statement like "the myspace community doesn't like it" without a reference? It's hearsay at that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.212.9 (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Layoffs

Need to update number of employees along left pane to about 500, as well as number of employees in top paragraph due to layoffs announced 1/11/11. Some info could also be added under "New Image", as these layoffs are mainly due to the fact that Myspace is moving away from their legacy layout (i.e. not competing with Facebook as a social networking site). http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70A4Q720110111 Delasean85 (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

I actually added two sentences with references under new design. Do you think that new image is better?

Thanks A. Ward (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Religious discrimination

Under "Religious Discrimination" is an entry detailing an atheist group being deleted from myspace. Atheism is not by any definition a religion therefore I'll be deleting the word 'religious' from the header. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taraalcar (talk • contribs) 10:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Myspace is dead, its fire has gone out of the universe.

Someone reading this with no knowledge of the history of the internet might well assume that this was just another successful internet enterprise, much like any other. This article does not make it clear that, in the popular imagination, and for all intents and purposes, that Myspace is dead. Dead dead dead dead dead. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Some truth here, but don't read the last rites just yet. Since 2008 Myspace has been slipping steadily in the Alexa rankings. Like GeoCities, Myspace has become a good example of the fickle nature of the Internet. The article could look at the decline in more detail, and the proposed sale by News Corporation.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}}

Hey I thought the "Myspace Feaures" section was lacking in omitting anything about Myspace's privacy settings. So I thought this paragraph might work:

Myspaces default profile does not come with any privacy settings, allowing all of your personal information and profile to be viewed by anyone that is on or has access to the internet. In order to change this, one must go into their privacy settings and set your profile to private. This sets the profile so that non-myspace users are not allowed to view the profile at all. In order to fully view the full Myspace profile, someone must be a registered myspace user and be added to the friends list.To do this you must log onto your myspace account and click 'Account settings". Then next to Privacy Settings, click 'change settings'. where it says 'Who can view my full profile' click "Friends only" and then click change. This is the safest privacy setting to have so that you can control the people who have access to your profile and information. By default, anyone who is younger than 18 and older than 14 gets set to the automatic protection for young users on Myspace. This allows youth to have a more private profile so that people they do not know or who are much older than them cannot view their information. [1] [2]

WSJ citation

Some concerns about this edit, which is cited to a Wall Street Journal article with a WP:PAYWALL. This makes it hard to see whether the edit is a fair transcription of what the WSJ article says. Some concerns about NPOV here. It would be better to cite this material without a paywall.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The New MySpace layout

We should have some information about the new layout on the home page and the navigation bar. It is a major step of myspace and that should be included. The Web 2.0 gradient like design and the home page, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilduff2008 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

They should also say how the new homepage design of Nov 2009 is just a carbon copy of facebook. From reading posting on the myspace forums a vast majority of user comment are negative on the forced new look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.31.121 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

add new info

add new info about new myspace, new layout, update on november 29th, general reaction ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.152.132.126 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Stalking

I find it a bit...well, biased, to have the stalking section only mention the stalking of college girls. Myspace and Facebook make it easier for teens and young adults of any gender to be stalked. I'm not necessarily suggesting that it should be deleted, only that the wording comes off as sexist, almost implying that women are fragile or that Myspace somehow encourages the stalking of college girls over college guys. 71.227.7.35 (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring and Sale

This whole section seems to be poorly written at the moment, with odd words mid-sentence, and sentences that are in poor English. However, as I don't know anything about the subject in hand (came here to read after something someone said on another forum about Murdoch/MySpace) I'm refraining from editing it. 86.177.170.54 (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Indented line For example: "Myspace President Tom Anderson stepped down while Chris DeWolfe was replaced as Myspace CEO by former Facebook COO Owen Van Natta.[55][56] News Corp. A meeting in March 2009 over the direction of Myspace was reportedly the catalyst for that management shakeup, with the Google search deal about to expire, the departure of key personnel (Myspace's COO, SVP of engineering, and SVP of strategy) to form a startup. Myspace's chief operating officer, senior vice-president for engineering."
Indented line and:
Indented line "Many Myspace games operated by popular devolopers such as Zynga, RockYou, and Playdom, have recently been shut down almost all of their games on Myspace."

86.177.170.54 (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Another Edit Request

The "Decline" section has tons of grammatical and typographical errors. There are complete sentences that have apparently been misedited or lost, partial sentences, improper sentence structure, etc. Someone please take a look and fix it up a bit. It's 5am and I'm too tired. =/Brakoholic (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, these sections are sloppy at the moment, and need a top to bottom rewrite.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
x3. This article is in terrible shape. I'm going to take a stab at improving a couple sections over the next few hours. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 19:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

New source

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Key People" in Infobox

I'd argue that ex-presidents/CEOs don't belong here any more. I think it should be the co-founders and current owners only. Thoughts? SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 23:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

History before it was a social networking site?

Before Myspace.com was a social networking site, it was a website that allowed you to upload personal files and store them online for free (hence the name "my space"). I had a Myspace account back in the 90s but rarely used it. It was a very forward thinking concept at the time. Would this "former" Myspace be worth mentioning in the article?Davez621 (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This would need a reliable source. The domain name myspace.com was registered on 22 February 1996 [5], but the social networking site did not come into existence until 2003.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 23:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The article needs more on 2011 developments/directions

Myspace has potential to rebound with new focus on developing young musical artists. Wikipedia readers will be interested in progress. On the other hand, we may not know results until 1Q2012. . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In this important WP article (more important when it bounces back in 2012) there is only one picture, dating back to 2006: ("Wendi Deng, and Rupert Murdoch with MySpace co-founders Anderson and DeWolfe"). In 2012, as Justin Timberlake leads developments, it will be important to put in a picture of the new Myspace leaders, or something. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Move to MySpace

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Myspace → MySpace – MySpace is the far more common spelling. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is incorrect, the site dropped the CamelCase spelling some time ago. Parts of the media still use the CamelCase spelling, but it is not used on the current version of the site. See also the official Twitter profile of Myspace.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"From 2005 until early 2008" cannot be substantiated by articles from 2006.

Sentence not substantiated by citations:

From 2005 until early 2008, Myspace was the most visited social networking site in the world, and in June 2006 surpassed Google as the most visited website in the United States.[11][12]

Was this *entire* sentence meant to be covered by citations 11 and 12? It could not be because they point to articles in 2006, which would have no knowledge of what happens in 2008. I'll be glad to drop in a citation request after the 2008, but I would need to know the intent here first. Tgm1024 (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Facebook overtook Myspace in the Alexa rankings in April 2008.[7] This is cited later on in the "Decline" section. It is not always necessary to cite statements in the WP:LEAD if they are cited later on.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 March 2012

Alexa rank has changed to 158. Currently says 159.

109.155.232.99 (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done These are normally updated once a month by User:OKBot.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My_______ is mentioned as Facebook goes public ($11.8billion public offering).

To quote: "Passing MySpace
"Zuckerberg, who has developed a reputation for introducing new products quickly, helped the company supplant MySpace as the most popular social service while also navigating competitive threats from Google Inc., Twitter Inc. and other social-media sites. The company has expanded its appeal by enabling developers to build applications on top of the platform, offering users music, movies, e-commerce options and other extras."
FYI [8] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC) PS: What is Myspace worth?

Bogus number of users

The number of visitors a 3rd party estimates visit the web site (30M) is not a good number to use for the supposed number of users of the system (who had 130M in 2011)! 120.151.160.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC).

The vast majority of profiles on myspace are inactive accounts that if you look through thier history have not been used in years. people just tend to keep it around for nostalgia purposes. It didn't sell for like 5% of what newscorp paid for it for no reason. -Tracer9999 (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

History Mixup

Hey, I noticed that near the bottom of the -present timeline section some dates aren't in chronological order. I just thought that was kinda odd. Haimehen (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Music section is basically promo material

Most of the text in the Music section (under "Website Features") is unsourced and reads like an ad. Later in the paragraph, a source is cited, but it only leads to some guy's WordPress.com blog. 184.38.30.49 (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Add SSL Support

Websites on this page, such as the homepage, support SSL. Please upgrade these URLs with SSL (http to https). 64.128.27.82 (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

New redesign

Somebody please add more information about the latest redesign with reference to this and this. Shikhin (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually came to the page to check if it's been mentioned with any significance, especially considering the quite radical changes being made to such a familiar website. I'm somewhat busy at the moment, but I will add more content in a bit.
⚓ nbmatt 05:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The logo that is currently on the article page seems to be irrelevant and/or outdated. MySpace has changed a lot. Simply go to MySpace's main page and you may not fully recognize it at this point in time. --Carrot Lord (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

ITEC 444 Project: Purposed Changes for the "New" Myspace

We as a group have viewed the article for Myspace and throughout out project for this class wish to purpose a few changes:

Under Website Features
Type to Search
In the new redesign of Myspace (2013), this feature has been added to replace the search bar. Although the search bar is still there at the bottom and is usable, you can now just ---start typing---!!! Your search word(s) will come up really big on the top of the screen and the results sorted by things like music, artists, people, places, etc. will be on the bottom.
Streaming Music Player
At the bottom right of the screen is a music player that plays songs that it thinks you would like based on what you have played or people you have connected with and what they have played. The quality is good and the ease of use is a plus. You also have a button to find and select radio stations based on what is currently playing. You can add your own mixes or start a queue for your music to play from.
Sideways Scroll Style
One of the most unique things that Myspace has added in its new redesign is its sideways scroll. Surprising as it is at first it is unique and gets your attention. At first it may impede the flow for some people because we are not used to it, however some may find it easier to read because we read left to right. As you scroll the information just goes right by your eyes without much strain.
Mojoandzevasmommy (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC) JeffpFontaine (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Inmanw25 (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You 'as a group' are so POV that you seem like Myspace employees. If so, it's not really appropriate to be contributing, but you might want to spend a bit more time learning wp culture so that you can effectively protect this site from what seems like random vandalism. And perhaps learn the difference between 'purpose' and 'propose'?? BenevolentUncle (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Customer Support in referece to blog recovery from Classic Profiles.

I as a user have noticed that it is impossible at this point to get into contact with customer service about any kind of technical support issue. A big problem the site seems to be experiencing is the recovery of blogs from classic myspace profiles. The company will give you the option to download your old blogs in .zip format after forcing you to update to the new profile. However, upon downloading the file, it does not give you your blogs at all, it gives you a section of 1 of your blogs' body entries.... Tons of people seem to be upset about this and after much research it seems that Myspace intents to do nothing at all about fixing the problem. In fact, once you download the blogs, Myspace states that it will only be available for 30 days before it is erased... does this mean that all of the actual blog data will be erased??? And if so, how can a user contact support to get all of the blogs recovered. This is obviously a huge issue because tons of users' important info seems to be in jeopardy of being completely erased without the opportunity for recovery. Poems, journal entries, photos, written songs, tons of creative writing from 25 million different people completely trashed???? Does Timberlake know about this!!????? As of Dec. 19th 2013, their help forum is a complete joke. If Timberlake is planning on "Bringing Myspace back" they are going to have to come up with some kind of support system and start listening AND RESPONDING to the feedback from their customer base.MrCryptonite (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The logo listed as the original is incorrect. While it is a very early logo, seen here at archive.og on June 10, 2004, https://web.archive.org/web/20040610090214/http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=splash, the next earliest capture on archive.org is from May 19, 2004 https://web.archive.org/web/20040519192432/http://www.myspace.com/ and this one clearly shows a different logo.

Cloksin (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Retitled caption to include dates of use. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Myspace had a subscription fee of 5 dollars?

CITATION NEEDED?

I cant find any record of myspace charging its users a subscription fee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.218.76 (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. This was unsourced and is too important to be uncited. Nor does there seem to be much evidence from a web search to back this up.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
This may be similar to one of the Snopes urban legends about Facebook.[9]. From time to time, people receive e-mails claiming that social networking sites are planning to charge for their services, but this is invariably a hoax. No major social networking site has ever charged a monthly subscription and would soon go down the drain if it did. The usual model is for the site to be ad-supported.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.myspace.com/my/settings/account/privacy
  2. ^ http://www.myspace.com/Help/Privacy
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myspace/Archive_3&oldid=1127487383"