Talk:Girlfriends Films

The company is located in Reseda, CA. The location given at the beginning of an article is not where the article is written. It's where the particular article's setting is. Additionally, it's easy enough to look up the company's business address to confirm its location. While Super Pages is not a suitable reference to cite within the article, it does confirm the company's address as Reseda here. NJZombie (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Um...both of those sentences mean the same thing. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

No they don't. The article may be written in New York City while the setting of the article is in California. They hardly mean the same thing. NJZombie (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Where's proof of where the actual setting of the company is though? You said yourself Super Pages is not a reliable source. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

What I said was that it was not a suitable source within the article, and that's an assumption based only on the fact that I haven't seen phone book listings used within other articles. The source for the location is provided within the link given that says Reseda, CA as we just discussed. If they're talking about the company releasing product and the location provided at the beginning is Reseda, that means that they're talking about a Reseda based company. It's not like they're saying the DVDs are being released ONLY in Reseda. So why else would Reseda logically be listed? Additionally, their location is hardly a contestable item needing a source. You're the only person questioning the fact. Do you honestly question the fact that it's located there or do just think that every fact provided is going to have a citation? I ask because it actually does make a difference. Citations are generally given for items that can likely be challenged and not for every line of information provided. I see that you HAVE provided sources for every fact given in this particular article and that's fine. I have no quarrel with that. The point is though that even if I didn't have ANY kind of source for the Reseda information, is it really contestable that that's where they're located? If not, there's no dire need for it to even be sourced at all. It has been sourced though and if you challenge the fact, then find some kind of definitive source yourself that states where the company actually IS located and change the information. Don't just delete the information and/or the source provided, as you had done previously. NJZombie (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Which is why it's being challenged, because that source doesn't exactly back it up. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

So an article that clearly states the setting of the company doesn't back up the location that is easily found in a phone listing? Once again, if you had serious doubt of its location and were doing the right thing, you would do actual research and find an alternate location instead of deleting or unnecessarily tagging it as dubious. What exactly about a porno company being based in Los Angeles is contestable? New citation added from the record keeping information of their own website. Hardly contestable anymore. NJZombie (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

There's no reason to be rude. Tagging something that isn't sourced isn't unnecessary just because you don't think it needs a source. But you fianlly found a reliable source, so we can move on. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

There was no rudeness, just stated facts. Instead of actually contributing information, you did everything you could to argue a fact that was unnecessary to challenge. Once again, not every item needs a source but it WAS sourced anyway. Don't make out like it wasn't. The article clearly stated that it was set within Reseda and then spoke of the company. They don't state a location at the begging of an article because that's where the writer is based. If by doing a Google search, you could find even a reasonable doubt that the company was based elsewhere, I'd see your point. Whether useable references or not within an article, the only location that shows is Reseda. Once again, if you did the same and found information stating otherwise, you could have actually contributed instead of making an argument out of it. NJZombie (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is no longer being challenged; why are you still arguing about this? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 21:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, NOW I'm responding to your inaccurate statements about me not having had a source as well as critiquing how you handled, and continue to address, the situation. NJZombie (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dang, will you drop it already? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 14:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It was never about winning. It was about you handling the situation properly so as to not continue using the same approach. NJZombie (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Girlfriends Films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316034106/http://www.girlfriendsfilms.com/index/images/stories/newsletters/2012/Feb2012.pdf to http://www.girlfriendsfilms.com/index/images/stories/newsletters/2012/Feb2012.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306075558/http://www.girlfriendsfilms.com/index/about-us.html to http://www.girlfriendsfilms.com/index/about-us.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply