Talk:DVDEmpire.com

Advertisement Claim
i am willing to discuss your claim, but since your not a registered user and only your IP shows, i can't discuss this on your talk page. secondly, i am not sure how to best proceed when we have different opinions of the article. lastly, i have read many articles on this site that are written in a very similar fashion and tone. so i see no reason to be flagged as an advertisement.

if this person - 70.149.168.6 - who made added those banners to this article will please respond so we can figure this out. i do not wish to get into a revert war. otherwise, if i do not see a response within 2 weeks, i will be removing those banners from this page. Los Diablos 21:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding References
you are correct, the article does need references added. i will work on those when i have time, just please be patient. Los Diablos 21:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Attacked when putting article up
Jasonglchu explain to me why you removed my image minutes after i made my page live


 * Actually, it was seconds afterward. I have a feeling that the image is copyrighted, and the uploaded image has no copyright information. jglc | t | c 18:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ok seconds, good for you. what copyright information do you need for the image?


 * If it's allowed for public use. jglc | t | c 18:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

how would i designate an image for public use?


 * I have marked the image as a logo, so that its copyright status is clear.
 * Nothing more for you to worry about.
 * James F. (talk) 18:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A company's logo is useable under Fair Use, at the very least. Also, advertisement isn't grounds for speedy deletion. I have removed the tag. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

James F. (talk) 18:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry. My fault; I was overzealous. After reading through the article a few times, I guess that it's notable enough (early internet retailer) for inclusion. Any article whose title is the URL of a porn retailer just hits my ad flag. jglc | t | c 18:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)3


 * No problem. Everyone gets over-zealous at times, even me. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 18:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm slightly concerned that the user refers to the company as "we" and "our". Do you think that this article is subject to a VfD for advertisement? jglc | t | c 18:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * User just changed all instances of "my" and "our" to "the". jglc | t | c 18:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

overzealous isn't the word i would use. so are you going to put my image back up? or should i? and our URL is to a mainstream DVD retailer. it just so happens that an integral part of our business is our adult site. but i took great care in writing it as an overview of the whole company.


 * I already did. And I noticed the page from wiki/AdultDVDEmpirel.com, which is the URL of your pornographic branch. jglc | t | c 18:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
Most of this article was written by a DVDEmpire.com employee and contains a lot of self promotion. The article contains nothing negative about the company. Surely they must have some faults? How are their prices? Their service? Their selection as compared to other dvd sites? The availably of new releases? --Kn0wItAll 11:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Knowitall, i am willing to discuss your opinion of the article, but do not have time to make any edits. and i'm also not sure how we proceed if we have differing opinions about the npov of the article. Los Diablos 21:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Knowitall, it has been over a month since you first put that npov banner on top of the page and over 2 weeks since i said i would be willing to discuss your views on the article, but i have heard no response. so i am removing the npov banner since i have read many articles on this wikipedia site about other companies and organizations that do not relate the type of content you said this article was lacking. Los Diablos 16:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)