Biograph, Wikipedia and the FBI, New Wikipedia harassment incriminates more Options

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.

Well, one would think the burden of proof would be on you to prove you are the same company. If I open a store, and call it "Gimbel's", then you don't automatically assume that it is the same as the old one. ~~~~

Well, one would think the burden of proof would be on you to prove you are the same company. If I open a store, and call it "Gimbel's", then you don't automatically assume that it is the same as the old one. ~~~~

All the proof is there. You can see in the article "American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company" that is exactly what is going on (Intended force disclosure of private/proprietary primary source documentations), and what the other editors are attempting to do. We have verifiable published sources and government references certified that we are who we are that has been ignored by Wikipedia. That pretty much says it all.

I hadn't read the details before Mr. Biograph - but to be honest, I think that you can forget about due process, facts and what-not. Honestly, you are wasting wind talking about it, even here. You aren't going to be listened to over there (and the more you argue, the worse they will treat you). No one here can do anything about what's going on over there. We can sympathize, but this is standard operating procedure (typical) stuff.

Identifying problem editors would be an issue if WP were a company and they were engaged in quality control. It is not. Even if you manage to get WP to alter text (difficult to do) they would not admit any error or fault, nor would they chastise the editor(s). Ever.

Your article is reasonably benign, which is a fortunate thing, all things considered. (You've actually provoked them by talking about it over here - lots of them read this secretly).

My advice: I'd focus on other venues for raising the profile of your company or project.

And watch your page daily for vandalism.

This post has been edited by wikilove:

I hadn't read the details before Mr. Biograph - but to be honest, I think that you can forget about due process, facts and what-not. Honestly, you are wasting wind talking about it, even here. You aren't going to be listened to over there (and the more you argue, the worse they will treat you). No one here can do anything about what's going on over there. We can sympathize, but this is standard operating procedure (typical) stuff.

Identifying problem editors would be an issue if WP were a company and they were engaged in quality control. It is not. Even if you manage to get WP to alter text (difficult to do) they would not admit any error or fault, nor would they chastise the editor(s). Ever.

Your article is reasonably benign, which is a fortunate thing, all things considered. (You've actually provoked them by talking about it over here - lots of them read this secretly).

My advice: I'd focus on other venues for raising the profile of your company or project.

And watch your page daily for vandalism.

Wikilove, thank you for your input. Actually, I'm not posting any new things, just replying to any inquiries freinds at WR have. I do want to thank everyone here for their input and concerns, and yes it has done alot of good:) Thomas@Biograph Company