![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
biographco |
![]()
Post
#21
|
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
#22
|
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.
|
JTM |
![]()
Post
#23
|
New Member ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 45 Joined: Member No.: 1,141 ![]() |
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. Yikes, what a cynical take. I would think that having a Britannica entry with this information would make it presumptively correct. After all, Britannica pays folks to check facts before they write articles. Fabrications would be grounds for dismissal. My sense is that you are disagreeing simply to be disagreeable. If I'm not mistaken, in internet terminology this is called trolling. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |