Talk:Digital Blasphemy

message: SC147: I've put a new image and enough new text to make it "better than average" on wikipedia, we have an image from the most famous wallpaper gallery on the net posted by permission, and certainly more information than we have on most "tagged" pages -- do you have any more comments on the cleanup tag that would prevent me from removing it in a week if the article is left as-is?
Ojw 23:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: This is clearly an advertisement - not only does it go against the rules, it goes against common sense. Would you open any Encyclopedia and expect to see an entry like this???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlweb3d (talk • contribs) 21:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Encyclopaedia" is a perfectly correct and acceptable spelling. Please sign your posts. --Canley 08:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Plus this is a perfectly notable site - it is not a 'spam site' as some in that deletion review allege, nor is it even a company. Perfectly legitimate, not even advertising. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 13:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement 

message: I'm surprised this is even in here, but I guess Wikipedia really is that all-encompassing.
This is an advertisement. 64.140.73.93 17:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: I'll put the link here as well: http://web.archive.org/web/20010604040436/www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2661322,00.html This is the internet archive's archive of a story, "Yahoo! Internet Life's 100 Best Sites for 2001".  Digital Blasphemy was chosen as the best Wallpaper site of 2001.  While I put the link in the external links section of the article, it could go in the references section if the article text is based in part upon it. --Xyzzyplugh 13:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source found

message: Of the 8 sources cited in this article, 6 are to Digital Blasphemy's own website (the two exceptions being Alexa's listing on the company's website -- itself a WP:PRIMARY source, albeit a third-party one, and a bare mention for the factoid that, incongruously and without explanation, somebody considers a third-party wallpaper to be "essential"). Adequate sourcing this ain't. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, consensus in the 4th AFD was that it was.   Dream Focus 03:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:complete bollocks. The AfD said little or nothing about the sources that were currently in the article, and the closure itself explicitly stated "however, a few more references here would help." I would suggest that if you want to avoid an inevitable 5th AfD, that you put some effort into improving this article rather than making patently fallacious claims. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Primary sources are fine as long as no one sincerely doubts the information there.  Are there any unbelievable claims?  Dream Focus 03:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: More WP:complete bollocks. WP:PSTS makes it very clear that WP:SECONDARY sources should predominate. Also it is very hard to see how a NPOV article can be written, when the article is sourced almost purely to the topic's own publicity material. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you actually click on that link and read it, you'll see that's not the case.  Dream Focus 03:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that this can be twisted to saying that predominate primary sourcing is okay. And I don't see how you have any credibility left on this issue. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And why the personal attack?  The article not its content.  Read the rest of that. should not must.  "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Kindly read all of that.  Dream Focus 04:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (i) So you're interpreting a core-policy-"should" as an 'only if I feel like it'? (ii) Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf? Make enough fallacious claims and people stop listening. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most people stopped listening to you a long time ago.  You follow the ARS tagged articles around deliberately to oppose the work of the project, and constantly attack its members. .  Even when articles like this are saved, you still keep going after them.  I'd like to hear opinions from others about this.  Dream Focus 14:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think I give a rat's arse as to what you "think" about me? Yes, I frequently oppose the vacuous 'keep everything no matter how trivial' opinions of the Article-Canvassing-and-Notability-Obfuscation-Ceasepool. What of it, and what possible relevance does it have to the lack of third party sourcing on this article? A 'keep' closure on an AfD does not obviate the requirement for third-party sourcing. Get a fracking clue! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You argued that point in the AFD but most said the third party sources were fine to prove the topic was notable.   Dream Focus 15:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This sort of claim is exactly why I don't "give a rat's arse" about your opinions -- with the exception of G4TV, none of the third party sources discussed in the AfD are actually in the article. I was NOT ARGUING NOTABILITY -- I was arguing LACK OF THIRD PARTY SOURCING IN THE ARTICLE! This would be obvious to any reasonable editor by the title of this section. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You only need third party reliable sources to prove its notability, which has been done.  Primary sources are fine for the article's content if the information is not in doubt.  Many articles have most of their content from the original source. For instance articles about places, companies, and organizations.  Dream Focus 15:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, per WP:PSTS, WP:ABOUTSELF and any reasonable reading of WP:NPOV, an article requires substantial secondary/third-party coverage. That WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument -- exceptions to any rule will exist somewhere in Wikipedia. Now if you're quite finished making the unsubstantiated claim that "primary sources are fine", "primary sources are fine", over and over again -- can you please at least attempt to find a policy basis for this ludicrous claim? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Predominance of such material is also a violation of WP:ABOUTSELF. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of secondary/third-party sourcing