Talk:Faceparty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Order by Government to remove over 35s

This is utter rubbish. The only source I can see is http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/social-networking-guidance?view=Binary which names faceparty along with several other sites. These are strictly GUIDELINES and no legislation has been passed and no order has been made to faceparty at all. If this was the case, then there would be no over 35's anyway: it's been reported some over 35's who paid services remain. Please do not keep changing the article to reflect some possible rumour where the source cant be cited or proved - its not true. If the government done this to faceparty, they would have to do to all other social networking sites accessed in the UK, meaning no UK users over 35 would be able to use the websites of myspace, facebook and bebo etc. - you would have heard about it on the news! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.184.47 (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The legal stuff may sound like a load of rubbish but it is the official version of events given by Faceparty, who are after all the primary source, and therefore it should be recorded here. Reasons why this is disbelieved should also be included and I have done so with my fairly thorough re-write of this article. I haven't been able to include sources to back these reasons up, it would be good if someone else could before my re-write is reverted. I've tidied up the language and made it a lot more neutral in its point of view, while doing my best to note as many criticisms as possible. Before, there was a lot of good information in this article but it was poorly worded. It is still just as unsourced as it ever was but it would be fantastic if someone could sort that out, this would stop FP stooges from being able to keep turning this article back into an advert. I don't know how to note sources for stuff on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.226.45 (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Children

On 30/04/2008 faceparty signup page allows a user to submit a date of birth of 1997 which would make someone 10 or 11? Would be good for someone to confirm this. However, someone can select 1910 still even though the site wants to ban over 35 year olds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.184.47 (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proof of editing

Does Faceparty (CIS Internet) have proof to back up the claims that they themselves have posted on Wikipedia?

I suggest that action is taken immediately to stop the biased self-promotion of Faceparty on this website. It's tantamount to censorship, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Devereux10 13:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Advertising / No encyclopedic content by Neo on 10 June 2006

[edit] Background

"Faceparty was the world’s first ever web-based community to combine profiles, photo-sharing, online messaging and chat for the very first time." "Faceparty prides itself on its innovative drive, having been the first global website to ever offer photo-uploads direct from mobile phones and having beat MSN and Yahoo! to the creation of software free-instant messaging by over three years."

Removed; unsourced.
Does anybody have a source for this? Faceparty must have been one of the first, at least in the UK; I suspect that until recently it may have possibly been more popular then MySpace with British users. Anyone?Edcoomber 14:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Faceparty was recently awarded the Number 1 website in the category of ‘Net Communities and Chat’ for the first quarter of 2006. (Source: Hitwise UK)"

Removed, no link provided. Hitwise website data is not publicaly accesible.

"However, there’s more to Faceparty than just an amazing website; it is also a leading events organiser."

Edited to "In addition to online social networking, Faceparty also organises events." for a more encyclopaedic tone.

"In fact, this is how the idea of Faceparty was born. Faceparty was created so that friends who had met at parties could stay in touch and meet up again."

Removed; unsourced.

"It has grown quickly since its inception in June 2000 from 20 members to over 6 million audited subscribers and continues to attract an additional 35,000 new members every week purely through word-of-mouth. (Source: Hitwise UK)"

Edited; no URL is provided for the reference. Hitwise website data is not publicaly accesible. Replaced with "As of June 2006 the site claims 6 million audited subscribers with an additional 35,000 new members every week."

"purely through word-of-mouth"

Removed - arguably untrue. They advertise their events, which acts as an advertisment for the site.

[edit] Grim Rita

Generally acceptable contentwise. Minor edits to tone.

how can we cite this part of the article? The fact that she's disappeared from the site makes it difficult... KZF 18:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I got the same reply from Faceparty. I miss Rita, she was a good bit of entertainment on that site. TR_Wolf
She is back as of tomorrow--86.13.184.47 (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Child Protection, False profiles, Growth and events sections

Sections removed - entirely unsourced claims. Also unencyclopaedic content.

i disagree with this section been removed. as the article currently gives a biased towards faceparty. I belive that child protection issues and face party is worth disscution —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr noire (talk • contribs)
Sorry, by 'Also unencyclopaedic content.' I meant the sections also included unencyclopaedic content, not that this was inherent to the nature of the section. --Neo 23:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

It's now accessible, so it has been readded.

[edit] Version as of 15 June 2006

I think the current version of this site is no longer an advertismnet. If there is anyone else watching this page, do they agree with this assesment? --Neo 12:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Version as of 15 June 2006

I agree. I think Faceparty themeselves have realised that trying to control publicity regarding their website by using Wikipedia as an advertising board has backfired. Interesting to see that article regarding the police. I didn't know that!

Anyway, I think the current version is more or less fine now. The creases have been ironed out, and it does portray a balanced and fair view of the site. Sennitel 20:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 18:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Non-Advert-ness

Yes - it's much better now. I've had a look at the edit history and the diference is startling. Actually Neo - you might consider having a look at the Entropia Universe article for similar happenings :-S

Surely the current version is no longer written like an advert? Can someone remove the box? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.170.24 (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed this bit

A married man, Leeds-based Martin Reynolds, 37, who escorts Griffin, 46, to his Leeds Crown Court appearances, replacing convicted football hooligan Warren Bennett, has been reported by the Sunday People newspaper, as "revelling in debauched threesomes", which have caused a rift in the nationalist organisation [1].

as it's nothing to do with Faceparty, looks like it was put here by mistake. KZF 18:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i read through the history, it turns out someone removed a potentially libellous line from the paragraph but left the rest of the paragraph intact. Best to remove the whole paragraph KZF 00:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed double reference box

For some reason it had two. x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.128.245 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did someone put it back?

[edit] Inaccuracies

"In April 2008, Faceparty were instructed to delete most profiles of the older generation (35+), citing UK Government insistance on the grounds of prevention of possible underage grooming by older members (which is rather strange taking into account that their lower age limit for membership is 16) despite both parties having not a shred of evidence to support this action."

Biggest bunch of lies going. Should be removed as no evidence to support this anyway. Sounds like an inside job (if you know what i mean). Why would the government instruct faceparty to remove older generation when it doesnt request that of much bigger websites? The government has no authority to enforce this and should it happen a court order/injunction would have been required. Sounds like their excuse to the older community for being agesist and deleting their accounts.

We live in the UK, where paedophiles are allowed to share parks with children, to remain anonymous and are allowed to be housed with police protection, therefore they will never discriminate older people in case they were - even though statistically they are older people, in the Shannon case the man arrested for indecent images was barely older then a teenager. Furthermore, the faceparty admin who was frauduently making out that he was a teenager by acting a "kid" and stereotypically swearing and saying words like "yoof" and "old biddies".... is indeed 35!

Who removed the "faceparty exposed" part? Wikipedia isn't suppose to be a promotional advertisement in favour of every article... I think, personally, this is relevant, when you read up that faceparty attempts to shut down all competitors with the word "face" in it (not facebook obviously that wouldnt work - alot of articles have conspiracy and bad business practices in their own section), the admin (and co-founder Dave Bamforth) is 35 and deliberately come across to the young audience as if he was a teenager (now thats worrying in its own right but we wont go there) and the fact that all images need to be approved by the admin and has let numerous nude ones through (site has screenshots to backup claims) and alleged under aged photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.184.47 (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order by goverment facts

I've contacted Internet Child Abuse Team and they state:

"This is the first I have heard of this and would think this is total nonsense, I cannot believe this restriction would be 1) lawful 2) Policeable 3) Tolerated by the Industry.

If you have access to the source of this I would be interested in reading it but if it arrived word of mouth I would ignore it."

Via e-mail, I've deleted this several times now and no refrences popped up except for a forum post which is obviously not a refrence.

Mbhmirc (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cool Tools

The section below doesn't make sense when you read it:

Customers were allowed to purchase cool tools within the last 2 months before being told that any accounts made within the last 2 months were being deleted. In order to get a refund on the cool tools purchase, customers also need to send in a copy of their driving license or passport.Faceparty statement

I'm not sure it is entirely relevant either.

Is it of value to see that some people had purchased Cool Tools and were then deleted shortly after? Is the prescribed manner of getting a refund informative? Is the fact a DL / PP is required necessary here? 'Customers also' - Also what?

Seems like this a copy and paste.

Any thoughts on that?

Lukeyboyuk (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)