Talk:Spite Your Face Productions

Re: The validity of this posting.

This posting contains factual information about a real world company. I am the director of said company, and I added the article - but this alone should not mean it be construed as advertising. It is preferable that an informed authority add an article than an uninformed one.

There are several other reasons for the validity of this article, which are detailed below:

The company in question is a small one, but one which has a strong online fan following, which links it to various other subculture articles, which would benefit from an article on this subject.

Because of said companies fan following, there is every likelihood that other members of the community would see fit to edit the page as they might feel appropriate, in the spirit of wiki. It is also a likelihood that another member would try to re-open an article on the same subject, and that said article would be less accurate.

Our IMDB reference, for instance, was added by a fan community member other than ourselves and is full of factual inaccuracies. It is also very difficult to edit. To avoid similar redundancies manifesting on wikipedia, I though it a valid move to add our own entry.

Furthermore, existing articles and wiki's, such as the Lego article and Brickfilms wiki, already contain information about said company that is inaccurate or vague - and the existance of this article would clear up ambiguities thereon.

Finally, the intention of this article, far from being 'blatant advertising' is to clarify various commonly stated internet myths. Whether or not our films have been officially licensed by Lego, how this relationship works, and also whether or not we were involved in the White Stripes 'Fell in Love with a Girl' video - are all commonly misunderstood, and misinformation on these subjects abounds. It should be the place of wikipedia to host clear unambiguous information about such matters.

If any of you monitoring types would like to suggest specifically, which sections or lines of information may offend, I will be happy to comply in editing or removing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiteyourface (talk • contribs)

• The best way to have an article about your company is to allow this version to be deleted and then wait until someone with no conflict of interest, typically an established Wikipedia editor, writes the company up. -- RHaworth 13:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Surely now the site is here, the best thing is to allow it to be edited/changed by the community as will naturaly happen. If an established editor wants to confirm the validity of the information in their own time, or you want to alert one, then by all means. But a reactionary deleting won't help anyone. Even if a third party did repost a page for this site, then who but I and my conflict of interests, is going to ensure the information is correct? As I say, I put up the post because of the large amount of uncolicited misinformation which exists about my company elsewhere, as a by product of fan culture, and saw fit that wikipedia should be a reliable source for the correct information. This is genuinely the best way to start the best wiki on this subject.

Further to the initial complaint, I have also edited the site to include salient information about projects we did not do, but which people often mistake that we did. Were my interests exclusively self promotional - I would allow these myths to continue. Because who doesn't want people thinking they did a White Stripes video?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiteyourface (talk • contribs)

• Don't give yourself airs: you have not created a "site" nor a "wiki"!! You have created one small "article" on an enormous wiki website.

I stick by view. We need a person with no COI to create the article to establish that the company is notable - then by all means, you can come along and correct any errors of fact. You have not provided any "references" - where are the links to third-party articles, news media, etc. about your company. You claim to have an IMDb page - so where is the link to it? -- RHaworth 15:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not giving myself airs, I just used the wrong terminology. And I'm not going to link to the IMDB page (though someone else can if they want) because it is innacurate as I already stated.--Spiteyourface 22:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Seems somebody else already did add those IMDB links, which I will leave if they help validate the site, despite being inaccurate in themselves. I have also added an external link to a relevant article on the official Monty Python site, I hope this helps.--Spiteyourface 22:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have been looking for information re this company and I found the article to be just what I was looking for. I see no reason to delete this entry, and if the Wiki editors did delete it then I am sure someone like me, (or me for that matter) would just cut and paste a copy of this entry in again with slight editing. It seems a little redundant to delete it now that it has been created. I am independent to this company, I don't know the members of staff, I found this page after viewing one of their videos online and wanted to learn more about them. I wish to validate this entry. Wiki User S.Lunn 6pm 3rd April 2007

• I don't agree that this needs a "massive rewrite" to be valid article. The information posted can only be obtained from the very person that started the article. DEH 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: attributable sources on this page

The tag concerning attributable sources has been removed, since every effort to attribute sources where possible, has been made since the initial complaint. I could not find any reference that the removal of this tag was unlawful or against policy. If it was, I apologise. Hopefully the article is sufficiently verivied now to proceed without a large tag - and that others can continue to add or edit citation on a case by case basis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.217.231.252 (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Okay, I was called here from a message on my talk page. The problem with this article remains - the majority of sources here simply do not meet reliable sources standards. Some things are sourced - this is true. However, a great many things are not sourced, or are sourced inappropriately:

• Archive.org is not an appropriate source, since it has little to no editorial oversight, and videos can uploaded by anyone with an account.
• IMDB is not a reliable source, for the same reason as above.
• Zeoh.com is not a reliable source, for the same reason as above.
• Chillibean.net links to just a video, which is DEFINITELY not a reliable source.
• Wikipedia is so far from a reliable source it's not even funny.
• MVDbase.com is also not reliable, and the reference doesn't even talk about what it's supposed to be a reference for.
• The same is true for the Lego.com reference.

In fact, the only actual acceptable reference here are the "daily lama" ones - and even they are borderline, since they're promotional in nature. Most critically, though, is that none of these references assert or support any notability for this company! The tags should stand, and the COI tag hasn't been properly addressed either. --Haemo 22:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the above argument. If none of the above sources can be considered reliable, then frankly the entire internet has to be considered unreliable (which it essentially is, but thats another debate). To say that the various video sites mentioned are unreliable sources is to either miss an essential point or be intentionally obtuse. The links are to specific videos, not the video sites themselves. The videos are the subject of the article. The existance of said videos, and the accreditations embedded therein, are the sources - in the most literal sense.

The official sites of the production company, and the associated license holders have been linked or referenced where appropriate, and the articles/objects in question have been linked. Frankly, given the subject matter, I'm not sure what better reference anyone can expect to provide. One can't be expected to find a BBC article about everything.

You don't need the BBC for everything -- see our guidelines under reliable sources for what is, and is not, a reliable source. --Haemo 08:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to make a point with the BBC comment, not being entirely literal. Taking the criticisms more literaly: The links to Zeoh, archive.org and any other video hosting sites are provided because they are links to the actual literal subjects in question, so the 'reliability' of the host itself is irrelevant. I would liken this to having a wiki about Polar Bears, a link to which makes an actual real life Polar Bear appear next to you for verification.

Any reference to lego.com or any other corporate site, is provided as verification of claims to official connection with said corporate body. The site of said corporate body is therefor the best (only?) reliable online source for verification.

And as for IMDB, you've obviously never tried adding an entry to IMDB. That sh*t takes weeks!

I'm sure anyone interested would gladly add better citation than that present if you would suggest something.