![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
biographco |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 104 Joined: From: Los Angeles, CA. Member No.: 1,201 ![]() |
As you all have been following the Wikipedia slam of our company "American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company". Since that time, more activity is going on which I will share with you. The activity however, has coincided with attempted malicious changes to our listings, including IMDB.com. These other websites have been informed and are very supportive.
The most recent activity in the article is the malicious Wikipedian editors attempting to "Split" the article to "New Company" vs "Old Company" but there is no way they can try and prove we are NOT the same company, intimating unless we "Show" these "Editors" our confidential paperwork that shows we are the same company. Pretty slick? Show us what you have or we will defame you. I will give you this Wikipedia example from the article "Discussion".... "I agree. This situation seems similar to the history of PanAm airlines. It went out of business then was revived a couple of times. We have separate articles for each incarnation: Pan American World Airways, Pan American Airways (1996-1998), Pan American Airways (1998-2004). In this instance the original company is more notable so we could leave it at the present name and the new company could be at "American Mutoscope and Biograph Company (1991)". -Will Beback · †· 01:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Seconded, though I haven't seen any evidence that the new company is notable enough for an article. —tregoweth (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Splitting it into two articles won't end the squabbling by the new company that it is really the same as the old company, will it? I don't know if the new company really has enough substance for its own article. In 16 years it has released one commercial product: a DVD containing an interview with Tommy Bond and a silent Our Gang comedy in the public domain. — Walloon 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC) The point isn't to end squabbling, which would probably continue no matter what. The immediate problem we're facing is the use of categories. These two sets are in conflict. Category:Companies established in 1895 Category:Defunct media companies of the United States Category:Companies established in 1991 Category:Re-established companies Splitting the article would allow more logical categorizattion. I think we can make a case for the notability of the new company based on several profiles they've received. -Will Beback · †· 19:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company" First, the Little Rascals my Dad "Hosted" and there is only one 12 minute silent Rascals film included in the whole hour long DVD. The majority of it is my Dad's stories, viniettes, and talking to his older star friends. Second - They got caught on calling our company "Defunct". Too late! Already downloaded and reported! Again, all this is funny. They can block, change and scramble all they want on Wikipedia, this does them no good now. Truth and honesty does win out, and always will. And to the others, when this hammer falls, it will change, and hopefully clean up Wikipedia, forever. |
![]() ![]() |
dtobias |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG] ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,213 Joined: From: Boca Raton, FL, USA Member No.: 962 ![]() |
Those various proclamations prove nothing, given that governments at all levels are issuing tons of this sort of ceremonial stuff, often with little or no scrutiny; I've heard of complete hoaxes being "honored" in this manner, if the hoaxer manages to pull enough political strings. I'm a bit more surprised that Britannica bought your assertion that your company is a continuation of the older one; I'd think that being out of business since the 1920s is enough reason to consider any new company of the same name a totally separate thing.
|
biographco |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 104 Joined: From: Los Angeles, CA. Member No.: 1,201 ![]() |
The last posting was in reference to verifiable information on our company. The information that is there was and is verified and published. this should have been accepted by certain "Editors" and was not. This happened before you even entered the discussion. The only other "Proof" (Please read ENTIRE article discussion) was for the editors to gain private information about the company. If we did not supply this, then the article would remain incorrect. The information in the article on Wikipedia intended to harm the company's image and reputation (Admitted by an "Editor" in writing). We have verified published information and we have offered it time and again. If this was not the case, the information that is readily available and verifiable should have been enough to verify our valididty, as in all the other Wikipedia articles.
Those various proclamations prove nothing, given that governments at all levels are issuing tons of this sort of ceremonial stuff, often with little or no scrutiny; I've heard of complete hoaxes being "honored" in this manner, if the hoaxer manages to pull enough political strings. I'm a bit more surprised that Britannica bought your assertion that your company is a continuation of the older one; I'd think that being out of business since the 1920s is enough reason to consider any new company of the same name a totally separate thing. Mr. Tobias, apparently maybe you do have an agenda. I do not have to defend or be defensive about our verifiable information, nor us being Biograph Company. Because of your demeanor and attitude, and if you are accusing us of being a "Hoaxer", and saying that Encyclopedia Britannica "Bought" our assertion proves that as well, then it is obvious you do have an agenda, which is to discredit me, and our company. Because of this I will not be able to reply to your posts. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |