Biograph Studios - Update, Wikipedia article up for Peer Review Options

[biographco]

First, I want to again thank everyone here at the Review. This is an update on the misinformation and harassment by certain editors at Wikipedia. It was finally recognized by Wikipedia Inc itself that there was bias in our article, but it was also mentioned that the bias is for as well as against our validity as a company. It also invites ANY Wikipedia members to edit, and that hopefully they will not to be blocked, harassed or threatened. You can find any of our information on the internet, "Real" encyclopedias, etc.

I invite all Wikipedia members that are here to check it out at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pee...iograph_Company

We do not want to be involved in ANY of the editing as usual because of conflict of interest, unlike the other editors. However, we do encourage any members from the Review "THE REAL FAIR PLACE" to check it out, and put thier 2 cents worth in.

Thanks again, and thanks for your support!

Thomas@Biograph Company

This post has been edited by biographco: Sun 8th July 2007, 6:27pm

[Uly]

That page hasn't been touched in 10 months.

And the only editor on it who claimed bias was banned some time ago.

[biographco]

That page hasn't been touched in 10 months.

And the only editor on it who claimed bias was banned some time ago.

Hi, this is because anyone who tries to update or change the article outside of the ring of cwertain editors:

Walloon, Willbeback, and DTobias, among several others are blocked and banned.

With our company, Wikipedia is already under federal government surveilance, but you know how long government things take.

thanks for your concern,

Thomas R. Bond II
Biograph Company

[Amarkov]

Do you have any evidence for this statement? Or is it just that you aren't allowed to change it, so that must mean nobody can?

[dtobias]

From looking at the history of that article, it doesn't appear that I've ever edited it, so how come I'm allegedly one of the special-privileged editors able to edit it where nobody else can?

[biographco]

Do you have any evidence for this statement? Or is it just that you aren't allowed to change it, so that must mean nobody can?

It is that anyone who tries to correct the article or question it or the coalition of editors is either ignored or blocked. Please see the article history for verification. We have not conrtibuted the article since early 2005.

Thomas Bond II
Biograph Company

From looking at the history of that article, it doesn't appear that I've ever edited it, so how come I'm allegedly one of the special-privileged editors able to edit it where nobody else can?

(cur) (last) 20:29, 20 October 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) (157 bytes) (The Biography kook is banned, I think. Archive this.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:59, 20 October 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) (40,658 bytes) (This is of noa ctual rleevance. We already have OTRS ticlets on the Mutoscope kook, and he's banned, soe we just don't need his input here.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 03:50, 20 October 2007 Dtobias (Talk | contribs) (41,045 bytes) (Censorship is unjustified.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 00:42, 20 October 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) (40,658 bytes) (Thanks, Dan, but that has no more authority than the Biograph kook, and we have better sources for criticism than that link which currently goes to active harassment.) (undo)

[biographco]

Do you have any evidence for this statement? Or is it just that you aren't allowed to change it, so that must mean nobody can?

It is that anyone who tries to correct the article or question it or the coalition of editors is either ignored or blocked. Please see the article history for verification. We have not conrtibuted the article since early 2005.

Thomas Bond II
Biograph Company

From looking at the history of that article, it doesn't appear that I've ever edited it, so how come I'm allegedly one of the special-privileged editors able to edit it where nobody else can?

(cur) (last) 20:29, 20 October 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) (157 bytes) (The Biography kook is banned, I think. Archive this.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:59, 20 October 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) (40,658 bytes) (This is of noa ctual rleevance. We already have OTRS ticlets on the Mutoscope kook, and he's banned, soe we just don't need his input here.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 03:50, 20 October 2007 Dtobias (Talk | contribs) (41,045 bytes) (Censorship is unjustified.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 00:42, 20 October 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) (40,658 bytes) (Thanks, Dan, but that has no more authority than the Biograph kook, and we have better sources for criticism than that link which currently goes to active harassment.) (undo)

One note I will leave, since I will not be replying to any other unusual postings. We are happy to be Biograph Company. We are happy and honored to be the oldest movie company in America. We are happy that we are recognized by legitimate organizations, publications, government credentials, and awards. It is very sad that the only "Small" world that enjoys falsehoods, vengence and yellow journalism is "Wikipedia" and that most of the unqualified editors without merit or background enjoy boasting of themselves while hurting others. It takes really "Big" people to do this. In essence, it is not "Defending" or "Rebuttal" but a battle that I do not want a part of. It is also very pathetic that individuals have nothing better to do with thier time than to build a false credentials of being "Editors" out of thier basements or bedrooms, when they cannot accomplish anything in the "Real" world. "Wikipedia" will continue on its course, and many will follow with the attitude of descent. But it is not just irony that these poor individuals are harming themselves by harming others, but that they are not even aware of the harm they commit to themselves.

[dtobias]

From looking at the history of that article, it doesn't appear that I've ever edited it, so how come I'm allegedly one of the special-privileged editors able to edit it where nobody else can?

(cur) (last) 20:29, 20 October 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) (157 bytes) (The Biography kook is banned, I think. Archive this.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:59, 20 October 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) (40,658 bytes) (This is of noa ctual rleevance. We already have OTRS ticlets on the Mutoscope kook, and he's banned, soe we just don't need his input here.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 03:50, 20 October 2007 Dtobias (Talk | contribs) (41,045 bytes) (Censorship is unjustified.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 00:42, 20 October 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) (40,658 bytes) (Thanks, Dan, but that has no more authority than the Biograph kook, and we have better sources for criticism than that link which currently goes to active harassment.) (undo)

What, exactly, are you intending that to prove? That bit of history is from the talk page, not the article itself, and it shows my comments there getting removed by JzG for violating the alleged BADSITES policy, my attempt to revert this removal, and JzG removing it again. If anything it shows how I'm outside the favored clique who can make their changes stand. Anyway, it's all from several months ago (and concerns talk-page comments from a long time before that).

[Poetlister]

By the way, has anyone pointed out this error to the British Film Institute?

http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/organisation/7244

Started trading
17/05/1909 (USA)

Ended trading
1918

[biographco]

By the way, has anyone pointed out this error to the British Film Institute?

http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/organisation/7244

Started trading
17/05/1909 (USA)

Ended trading
1918

We did a long time ago, but I think they were referring to BM&BC not AM&BC. The American company went into dormancy after 1928. I wish I could say more, but our confidentially with a private corp. would be breached. Thanks.

[Yehudi]

"Originally known as the American Mutoscope Co., in 1899 became the American Mutoscope and Biograph Co. And in 1909 adopted the name Biograph Co. Owing to its trademark AB it was also called American Biograph."

So the American Mutoscope and Biograph Co. is abbreviated to BMBC rather than AMBC?

[biographco]

"Originally known as the American Mutoscope Co., in 1899 became the American Mutoscope and Biograph Co. And in 1909 adopted the name Biograph Co. Owing to its trademark AB it was also called American Biograph."

So the American Mutoscope and Biograph Co. is abbreviated to BMBC rather than AMBC? :huh:

Thanks for the question. No, the English branch is "British Mutoscope & Biograph Co." The British branch went out of business prior to AM&BC falling into dormancy. A good article to read is this one, which gives a reputable timeline:

http://www.moviemaker.com/directing/articl...biography_2962/

Thanks for the question!

[Moulton]

What is your relation to American Zoetrope, Pathe, and Persistence of Vision?

[Nya]

With our company, Wikipedia is already under federal government surveilance, but you know how long government things take.

This is a pretty extraordinary claim to make so casually. What in the world could Wikipedia or the WMF have done to another company that would trigger federal government surveillance? Defamation is a civil offense and would not be investigated by law enforcement authorities, and while questions have been raised about the tax-exempt status of WMF I can't suss out how that would involve your company. Would you care to elaborate a little?

[dtobias]

Since when does anybody on Wikipedia Review have to actually justify their fantasies about the massive legislation / litigation / prosecution that's about to bring all of Wikipedia crashing down?

[Nya]

Since when does anybody on Wikipedia Review have to actually justify their fantasies about the massive legislation / litigation / prosecution that's about to bring all of Wikipedia crashing down?

You're right. I've apparently confused this with the Snopes message board. My mistake. [/sarcasm]

[biographco]

Since when does anybody on Wikipedia Review have to actually justify their fantasies about the massive legislation / litigation / prosecution that's about to bring all of Wikipedia crashing down?

You're right. I've apparently confused this with the Snopes message board. My mistake. [/sarcasm]

Nya, I wish I could go into detail but cannot because of legalities. I can say that they have used extortive measures to pressure private corporate information that is held confidential under law. But I do thank you for your question.

What is your relation to American Zoetrope, Pathe, and Persistence of Vision?

We are not related to those companies, but thank you for your inquuiry.

"Originally known as the American Mutoscope Co., in 1899 became the American Mutoscope and Biograph Co. And in 1909 adopted the name Biograph Co. Owing to its trademark AB it was also called American Biograph."

So the American Mutoscope and Biograph Co. is abbreviated to BMBC rather than AMBC? :huh:

No, we are AM&BC.

[Nya]

Since when does anybody on Wikipedia Review have to actually justify their fantasies about the massive legislation / litigation / prosecution that's about to bring all of Wikipedia crashing down?

You're right. I've apparently confused this with the Snopes message board. My mistake. [/sarcasm]

Nya, I wish I could go into detail but cannot because of legalities. I can say that they have used extortive measures to pressure private corporate information that is held confidential under law. But I do thank you for your question.

I wasn't asking for details, I was simply asking what crime the organization was being investigated by the federal government for. I don't quite understand part of your sentence: "they have used extortive measures to pressure private corporate information". How can they pressure information?

[Moulton]

What is your relation to EdisonOla, VictorOla, and ERPI Classroom Films?

[biographco]

Since when does anybody on Wikipedia Review have to actually justify their fantasies about the massive legislation / litigation / prosecution that's about to bring all of Wikipedia crashing down?

You're right. I've apparently confused this with the Snopes message board. My mistake. [/sarcasm]

Nya, I wish I could go into detail but cannot because of legalities. I can say that they have used extortive measures to pressure private corporate information that is held confidential under law. But I do thank you for your question.

I wasn't asking for details, I was simply asking what crime the organization was being investigated by the federal government for. I don't quite understand part of your sentence: "they have used extortive measures to pressure private corporate information". How can they pressure information?

Nya, this is only one of the things they have done. They pressure a company or private corporation to reveal priviledged information. If you do not, they discredit you on Wikipedia as being fake, or not real. That can be a criminal offense. But this is only one small thing they have done. there are other things that I cannot go into that are being investigated. I do thank you for your inquiry:)