User talk:Roger the red: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:22, 31 December 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Roger the red, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 17:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Mutoscope and Biograph Company

I am copying information from the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company "Talk" page, so you can get a full understanding of the editing situation with this troublesome article.

Tagged for cleanup and as unreferenced This article needs external references and at a minimum, split down into an introduction and sections. --GraemeL (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Many "citation needed" notes were added where citations already existed in the article. I prefer to place citations at the end of sentences, not in the middle of sentences unless necessary. For instance, the fact that Classmates was the first feature released by Biograph, and that it was released in February 1914, can be found in The American Film Institute Catalog of Motion Pictures, volume F1, which is already cited at the end of the sentence. — Walloon 00:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

With your citations and general cleanup, the article now looks to be in much better shape. I've removed the cleanup tag. --GraemeL (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC) I know the article is not under "Cleanup" now, but I found a couple of minor misquotes and inaccuracies.

1. On ref#3, I inserted the exact quote from the webpage that it quotes from.

2. Where it talks about Selig Polyscope, I came across the book

Biograph Bulletins, 1895-1908 pp 262 Published by film historian Kemp Niver 1971, Locare Research Group

I couldn't add the link to the "References" section, maybe one of you can.

Thanks DanP

The new company is not a revival of the old company, despite what the new company would like to claim. It has the same name, but no transfer of title, trademarks, stock, physical assets, real estate, or intellectual property was involved. The new company took a trademark (the "AB" in a circle) that had fallen into the public domain from disuse, and registered it as their own. The old Biograph was made a division of Consolidated Film Industries in 1928, and CFI is still in business. As for Selig Polyscope, it's not clear what you are disputing. Are you saying that Selig did not make movies in the Los Angeles area in 1908-1909, or that they did not open a studio in Los Angeles in 1909? — Walloon 21:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC) I added some more headings to break up the text, please feel free to move or change them. -Will Beback 21:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC) On the first line, where in a reference does it state the new company was formed in 1987? Just confused here, because the website doesn't state that. In the second, I'm not disputing anything about Selig making films on those dates. I found reference that said Biograph had been in Los angeles in 1906 prior to any known motion picture company, and this appeared in the Biograph Bulletins book, published in 1971. Third, just for my own knowledge, is there any other reference that CFI owns the old Biograph company? Just for my own edification. On the trademarks and all that, I am not an attorney and can't give any opinions, I am involved mainly in history. Also, do you know who originally posted the article the first time, and how long it has been up? Thanks, DanP:) The original version of the article was posted on 29 November 2004 by AndyL, using information from the new company's website. As for the 1987 date, follow the link to the company's website, and you'll find, "In 1987 the company and its trademark(s) were revived . . . " On CFI's ownership of Biograph, I will contact CFI's legal department for more information. — Walloon 22:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC) I have a question on adding information on the old company. I supplied a reference stated above about the company being in LA in 1906 with verified reference and it has still not been posted. I confirmed this again in the book mentioned. I am really getting a spooky feeling about this. When I have time I am going to re-edit and include the verified information. I am currently investigating other film related articles as well, but this is getting weird. Any wiki-editors please let me know which way to go here. I was under the impression anyone can add verifiable information. Thanks, DanP:) Your information has been included in footnote #10. — Walloon 18:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Corporate status

If it is relevant that the new AM&B was incorporated in California in 1991, it is equally relevant that California has now suspended its corporate status. There can be few more relevant facts about a corporation than whether it still legally exists as a corporation. — Walloon 02:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly if anyone has different, reliable information about the current status of the organization they should include it here. But it is inappropriate to simply delete information without comment. Until there is an explanation, or new information, the material will keep being re-added. -Will Beback 06:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

American Mutoscope and Biograph Company (Little Rascals)

Can you supply verification that the Our Gang short The Champeen was included in the home video release The Rascals, hosted by Tommy Bond? Or that The Champeen was the first released Our Gang short? All information I can find says that it was released in January 1923, and was the sixth released in the series. Our Gang Filmography. Thanks. — Walloon 07:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is what Hal Roach stated to me in an interview at one of the "Son's of the Desert" (Laurel and Hardy History Club) conventions. I will check for verification on that ASAP.

Roger the red 10:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Information

I was in a hurry and forgot to post this. I made minor corrections on information in this article so that the Biograph Studios correct information matched the information on this article. From time to time I will be adding links and doing articles on the founders, actors, etc. Thanks to all the editors.

--Roger the red 22:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

All printed evidence (and I've supplied it) says that CFI acquired the Biograph Company itself, not just its labs and studio (which were owned by Empire Trust Company). You still haven't provided evidence of your claim that CFI acquired only the Biograph studio and labs. As it is now, the article has footnotes with sources that contradict statements made in the body of the article. Unless you provide the evidence to back up your claim, the article will be reverted to state that CFI acquired the entire Biograph Company. — Walloon 23:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Walloon; I don't want to waste anyones time, nor stay on a subject that is nothing more than merely a paragraph in history. However, we do need to make sure things are correct. In response to your statement(s) the evidence of CFI acquiring only the Biograph studio and labs is in all the references. All information supplied shows the studio/laboratory facilites were acquired by CFI after the acquisition from Empire Trust cCmpany (Except for the footnote in Tuska's book) and no mention of transference of intellectual/real properties from the actual company, only the studio/laboratory facilities itself that were purchased. I supplied the information and utilized your references as well, including the New York Times and Jon Tuska's book.

I will insert all the items of reference again:

(a) The last trade of Biograph stock was reported by The New York Times on December 27, 1928, p. 39. (No transference of Biograph Company properties, intellectual or otherwise, or any mention of intellectual or real property transference to CFI.)

(b) "Screen News Here and in Hollywood", The New York Times, September 27, 1939, p. 29. Empire Trust Company, one of Biograph's creditors, had acquired the Bronx Studio, but retained Biograph to manage it. (Again, in italics, mentions "Bronx Studio" nothing of any acquisition or transference of properties from company).

(c) Jon Tuska's book; The Vanishing Legion: A History of Mascot Pictures, 1927-1935, 42, Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company. ISBN 0786407492. (This mention of "Biograph" in the book was explained to me by the Author).

Again, no records indicating any kind of transference of intellectual and or real properties. The only items mentioned were the actual studio and laboratory facilities. On the clariification of Tuska's book, would I need to call him again and get a letter from him stating what he told me. Also, on your end, a verification of transfer of ownership or merging of intellectual properties , real properties etc. from the old company itself to CFI is needed (This is of course excluding the actual studio/laboratories which were purchased by CFI). If we can find that the actual company was transferred, or transference of intellectual/real properties to CFI, then there is no problem (And, I have no problem) in changing it back to your original version. On another note, unfortunately, I do not have alot of time, the lecture circuit has been busy, so I cannot give full attention to Wikipedia on a daily basis. But, I will be checking in as frequently as possible, so we can take time on this small subject. Again, I am interested more in old studio facilities than this article. Thanks,

--Roger the red 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to make small mention of an edit I did to this article, as well as editing other film companies articles. Not just their history, I am now interested in content as well. I was informed by editor Dpbsmith of certain Wikipedia policies that I was actually unaware of. He stated "According to longstanding policy, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is not for promoting forthcoming media releases. The material should not be reinserted until sources meeting WP:RS can be cited that show that the product a) exists, b) has received enough mainstream press coverage to establish notability, and c) can be clearly connected to the 'Subject' itself". On a side note, strangely, I found this "Promotion" all over Wikipedia, unchallenged (Which I will be working on). Continuing, this is why the editor Dpbsmith removed the reference to Wireless Mutoscopes since the editor claimed it was a "Future" reference, and only one press release for reference. Because of this, I researched the Biograph article to see anything else, and found an inclusion on "Biograph on the Moon", which 1) No link to the "Biograph Moon" inclusion, 2)It was used as a "Crystal Ball" to portray and promote something forthcoming, and 3) has received not enough mainstream press coverage to establish notability. Therefore I deleted it. However, the inclusion was republished with an archived link. I just need assistance, because this confuses me, is contradicting to what Dpbsmith stated, and the longhstanding WP:RS Wikipedia policies. I will investigate and contact Wikipedia, but any other help by any of the editors is greatly appreciated. Thanks, --Roger the red 18:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The sentence "In 2003, Biograph announced that it had acquired title to 1,777 acres on the Moon for use as a filming location, and Thomas R. Bond II stated that he planned to start filming there by 2008" probably can be deleted. Assuming you take it at face value, the acquisition of lunar real estate took place in 2003 and is thus not "crystal ball" territory. Strictly speaking the plans to start production there in 2008 are a statement made by Bond in 2003. But the point is that none of these plans are important enough to have been described in 2003 in any reliable source. The source given is just Biograph's own press release, which doesn't meet the reliable source guidelines.

I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Small office" is relevant

Los Angeles Downtown News quotes "CEO Thomas Bond" as saying "the small office would serve as the headquarters for the company." Not only does the LA Downtown News characterize this as a "small office," but they quote the CEO as characterizing it as a "small office." This is important in presenting a neutral view of the revived company, which has grandiose plans for studios on the Moon, etc. but as of 2006 appears to be a very small operation. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Disruption

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -Will Beback 20:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False accusation -Roger the red 21:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep editing and discussing

Roger, I'm not sure what you want me to do, and I'm not sure what I can do. I don't have any knowledge about the subject and it doesn't look like anyone is acting against policy that I could see in my quick read of the discussion. If someone has posted something that is blatantly untrue, you can change it, and add a citation that backs up your statement. Often, I find, there is a bit of "truth" in everyone's edit, so try and leave what you can and add what you need to. I like articles that are multi-dimensional, that give multiple points of view and lead the readers to the sources of different opionions. Sometimes you can word a paragraph to reflect the different way people interperet the available primary resources. For example, you can say: "X bought the Y studio but according to Z it is not clear if there was a complete sale of all the assets of the company", or "the company has made the unlikely claim that they will be opening an office on the moon in 2008." Sometimes, if you word things well controversy will evaporate. Keep making edits, and keep discussing what you are doing. I appreciate that you are trying to remove promotional material from articles. There is far too much of it. The more it proliferates, the more people will think that Wikipedia is a free advertising service. Good luck.

BTW, How did you find my page? Administrators don't have any special ability to solve editing disagreements. What we can do is step in when people don't follow the rules like WP:3RR. -- Samuel Wantman 07:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of assets

I have deleted the following:

The company was revived in 1991 but it is not clear if there was a complete sale of all the assets of the company. Actually, it is very clear. Not only was there not a "complete sale" of "all the assets", there was no sale of assets — because there were no assets to transfer, as the article says. All of Biograph's film copyrights expired by the 1940s, were not renewed, and entered the public domain (yes, I have researched this, check the footnotes to the article). Biograph Studios donated its film collection to the Museum of Modern Art circa 1939.[1] (See: Iris Barry, "Why Wait for Posterity?" Hollywood Quarterly, 1945/46, pp. 131-137.) All of Biograph's registered trademarks expired by the 1940s out of abandonment (nonuse). The Los Angeles studio was sold circa 1917, and the Bronx studio was sold and resold several times since it was shuttered in 1939, and burned down in 1980. — Walloon 01:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrator

I had asked for assistance from Wikipedia administrator Samuel Wantman to help go by Wikipedia guidelines and edit the article. You have again changed and reverted the article back. Reverting this many times can intitiate a 3RR action. Because of the difficulty I may not be editing on this article for awhile, but working on ohters since there is an obvious bias. This has been forwarded to the administrator.

--Roger the red 21:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger, Walloon has not done anything unusual that I notice. He removed something with citations that back up his statements. If you think it is unclear that there was a complete sale of assets of the company, you should find a citation that backs up that statement. You should be talking with Walloon on this page to sort this out. It is not the role of administrators to be the arbiters of truth. I have no knowledge about this subject. My view is that I see editors working in good faith to improve this article. What I don't see is your effort to discuss this with Walloon. It is very normal for things to be removed from articles because they are uncited and contradict other information. When this happens, and you think the removal is in error, consider it a challenge to find a source that corroborates the information that was removed. If you find the source return the material with a citation. -- Samuel Wantman 01:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, thank you for your time and input. I am concentrating on another article at the moment, but I will do just that. I also will put the article up for peer review. By this, others as well can join in with thier input, which will free me to do other things. Also, what citations and references will be valid, and acceptable to Wikipedia policies? If I find a legitimate, verifiable citation and that is removed as well, let me know the next step is on what to do. I understand you must be neutral, and I appreciate the guidance you have given me. --Roger the red 02:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Peer Review

After consultations with other editors, we have decided to put the article up for peer review. I also need to devote more time to other older silent film companies.

The editor "Walloon" posed a couple of informative references that need to be clarified. the below is part of that posting, along with the questions at hand.

1. "Actually, it is very clear. Not only was there not a "complete sale" of "all the assets", there was no sale of assets — because there were no assets to transfer, as the article says." *1.

1. Please quote the article which states (i.e. "because there were no assets to transfer".

2. "Biograph Studios donated its film collection to the Museum of Modern Art circa 1939.[1] (See: Iris Barry, "Why Wait for Posterity?" Hollywood Quarterly, 1945/46, pp. 131-137.)" **2.

2. Please clarify how Biograph Studios donated the film collection to the Museum of Modern Art in 1939 when the company went out of business in 1928?

2. "The last trade of Biograph stock was reported by The New York Times on December 27, 1928, p. 39."

I invite All editors for thier input and information.

Thanks,

--Roger the red 03:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company"

Nowehere in the current article does it say that the Biograph Company went out of business in 1928. If you'll look back on the history of the article, and the discussion page for the Biograph Studios article, you'll see that I am the person who kept insisting that the Biography Company did NOT go out of business in 1928, and you, Roger the Red, were the one who kept insisting that it DID go out of business in 1928. I quoted a New York Times article (September 27, 1939, p. 29) that said,

The Biograph Studio in the Bronx will suspend operations on Saturday, it was learned yesterday. . . . The studio, which is owned by the Empire Trust Company, has been operated for seven years by Biograph, a subsidiary of Consolidated Film Industries, Inc.

You objected to that. I quoted from the book The Vanishing Legion: A History of Mascot Pictures, 1927-1935 (p. 42) that Herbert Yates' Consolidated Film Industries gained a majority interest in the Biograph Company in 1928, and you objected to that too. The Wikipedia article as it is currently worded reflects your changes,

When the Biograph Company fell on financial hard times, the studio facilites were acquired by one of Biograph Company's creditors, the Empire Trust Company, although Biograph Company continued to manage the studio Herbert Yates acquired the Biograph Company Studios and Film laboratory facilities in 1928. Biograph Studios in the Bronx was made a subsidiary of his Consolidated Film Industries in 1928.

The films remained at Biograph Studio in the Bronx from 1913 to 1939. When the Bronx studio was closed in 1939, the films were donated to the MOMA. The article and its footnotes DO explain what became of the company's principal assets: (1) films, (2) copyrights, (3) Bronx studio (4) film lab. I admit that the article does not currently explain what became of the company's registered trademarks (expired in the '40s) or the Los Angeles studio (sold circa 1917). I can easily add that additional info to the article. — Walloon 06:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mutoscope Article

Trademark

If anyone wishes to claim that the term "Mutoscope" is still a registered trademark in the United States, he or she should be able to cite the registration number and date from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. If not, he or she should stop removing this provable fact from the article. — Walloon 16:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, that was apparently a mistake on my part.Oh, it wasn't me that removed it, it was User:AM&BCInc. I removed the link to the website of the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, because that site has nothing much of interest to anyone seeking information on Mutoscopes. It is, of course, a highly relevant link in the article on American Mutoscope and Biograph Company. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Dpbsmith (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

New Mutoscopes

From reading the article, I learn that a mutoscope is a device which creates the illusion of movement by flipping cards rapidly. If that is the case, how is it possible that mutoscopes are available for cell phones? These are not, it seems, video versions of mutoscopes. Instead, from the added text, they appear to be short humorous films, not mutoscopes. Unless someone can explain this paradox the material should be removed. -Will Beback 05:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A "Mutoscope" is a term for the "Arcade" machine, AND the "Films" that go in them. The original films have been digitized and re-issued. The term "Mutoscope was also used for "Trading Cards" that have nothing to do with the machine, and the new films produced are also called "Mutoscopes". --Roger the red 01:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The old mutoscopes have been digitized? That isn't clear from the press release. New films are just short films and have nothing to do with the topic of this article, except that the producers are calling them "mutoscopes". -Will Beback 05:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC) I agree with what Will Beback says. — Walloon 06:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC) First, gentlemen... I checked the press release, "American Mutoscope and Biograph Company along with Strom Magallon Entertainment and they will not only be releasing early 'Mutoscope' films" that is a partial quote from the press release. This means they are releasing them along with new "Mutoscopes", which the company has called the new short films. As it having nothing to do with the topic of this article, then you need to delete the "Mutoscope Cards" as well, because it is completely unrelated and has nothing to do with "Mutoscope" arcade machines. Yet, there has been no objections to that being in the article, which is odd. Again, I am not going to quibble over every little detail as long as it is verifiable, which it is. Again, this seems to be being blown out of proportion. I am here to add, inform, and actually to try to enjoy contributing. --Roger the red 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I notice that almost all of your contributions to Wikipedia have been related to American Mutoscope & Biograph, and to the personnel of the current company with that name. Are you associated with that company in any way? — Walloon 18:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) First of all, if I were I would mention it. I am interested in film and working from oldest to newest, and work one subject at a time. With that answer, I feel as now I am under scrutiny, since your statement does not reflect on contributing knowledge to the article about the term "Mutoscope" at all. I recognize your knowledge in film and history. However, after reading your statement I also checked and found that a considerable amount of your corrections and attention has been towards American Mutoscope & Biograph and to the personnel of the current company with that name as well. With the archives I have read, I noticed that mainly you and Mr. Will beback vehemently pursued rather heated arguments about the old company and new company that is not found on any other subject you have contributed to. I do not "demand" an answer to this, just a curious thought since this format promotes the freedom to edit and contribute. One other item, is that I refuse to turn any of this into a "Personal" battle. I am too busy with life but to only contribute periodically. As I stated before, this format promotes the freedom to edit and contribute, and this should be an enjoyable experience as long as the facts are verifiable and the knowledge is helpful. If it ceases to be this way, I will not participate nor will any of my colleagues. --Roger the red 20:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My AM&B contributions represent only a small portion of the hundreds of articles that I have contributed to on Wikipedia. On the other hand, your contributions on AM&B and its personnel represent almost your entire involvement with Wikipedia. That's why I asked if you had any association with the current company or its personnel. Seems like a very logical question, doesn't it? You seem awfully defensive about a simply yes or no question. — Walloon 20:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC) There is nothing defensive, just an equal question as you inquired to me. Again from your recent posting above, it has nothing to do with the subject of the article "Mutoscope". I refuse to turn anyone's contributions into a personal battle, including my own. We are free to edit and contribute as long as it goes with the policies of Wikipedia. --Roger the red 02:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing Mutoscope cell-phone section

On reading the citations, which are entirely in the future tense, it appears these products does not yet exist and no evidence is presented that they are of any importance. I am removing it because, according to longstanding policy, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is not for promoting forthcoming media releases.

The material should not be reinserted until sources meeting WP:RS can be cited that show that the product a) exists, b) has received enough mainstream press coverage to establish notability, and c) can be clearly connected to the Mutoscope itself, not to the complex corporate history of the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

New Mutoscopes

American Mutoscope and Biograph Company has re-issued original Mutoscope "Short Films" made during the early 1900s, through its wireless entertainment division, and has produced new Mutoscope Short Films for cellphone and wireless downloads worldwide, distributed by Strom-Magallon Entertainment.

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2006/6/emw393395.htm

http://thevoipdigest.com/category/american-mutoscope-and-biograph-company/

Mutoscope Article Corrections/Deletions

In reference to your "Edit" on the "Mutoscope" article, the "Mutoscopes" (Old and new) do exist, and are out on two webpages that I have seen so far.

On "Importance", it was no more important than the inclusion of the "Mutoscope Cards" section, hence the inclusion.

The third reason and connection for the inclusion is that the "Mutoscope" is that the Old films from the "Mutoscope" machines were being released (i.e. Connection with old Mutoscopes).

The "New" films inclusion was because they were coined (Named) "Mutoscopes" and short films. Again, this related to the article no more than the "Mutoscope cards" which is in no way connected with the "Mutoscope" machine, except in name only (This is why I went on that line of contributing).

On your last comment, my inclusion did not reflect on the "Complex corporate history of the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company", nor was intended to. I included it since that company was the one producing and releasing them. As I had posted on the other discussion page, I feel there is a certain bias in regards to anything mentioned or included about the other "Biograph" company. It is a "Hot potato" that even had me being accused by certain other "Editors" of being affiliated with the company. that is unusual and almost to the point of paranoia, which is ridiculous and also completely against Wikipedia policy.

Everyone is suppose to be able to equally, and freely add and contribute without any harassment. But this has been taken up with the Wiki-Board already. Also, as long as the sources are "Verifiable" (And this can be one or more acredited sources), there should be no radical deletions of contributions or inclusions.

However, because of this, I have deleted any and all information that does not directly pertain too the "Mutoscope" machine in the Mutoscope article, and will continue to do so.

I do agree with the "Crystal Ball" and until there is more information on the Mutoscope releases, then that is acceptable, but I am now getting out of my realm which is film history. --Roger the red 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mutoscope"

Wireless content: does it exist yet? I am thinking that the material about the release of new and historical mutoscope films for viewing on cell phones ought to be deleted on the principle that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The Biograph company's own site, http://www.biographcompany.com/wireless/wireless.html , says "Biograph will soon offer the newest cutting edge content" (emphasis supplied).

Admittedly the next sentence seems to contradict this by saying "you now can download short films called "Mutoscopes" from your local wireless carrier," but unless someone cares to give a verifiable source citation for the cell carriers offering them and a list of the titles offered, I am skeptical.

I think this is another effort at promotion (much like the claim that Biograph has leased land on the Moon and will be producing a film there in 2007).

I am going to delete this material in a week or so unless someone provides good evidence (meeting the verifiability policy) that the new content has actually been produced and that Mutoscope titles for use on cell phones actually available for purchase now. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Actually, I had deleted any reference to that already in the "Mutoscope" article. I also contacted Strom-Magallon Entertainment, and they do have a legal distribution contract with American Mutoscope and Biograph Company for new "Mutoscopes". From my research, four have been produced and viewed, so there is actual verification that it is actually a done deal, unlike speculation on the "Moon" lot, which is definately presumption. On this note, any editors with any questions can leave messages. If this is the case, then it needs to be included on this page as well as the "Mutoscope" article. Also a change of subject, on my own "Talk" page, none of the other so-called "Old" film companies have been refrenced, cited, or questioned on validity, only the word of the film companies. This needs to stop. ALL film company articles need to be edited with the same scrutiny as this one. So, I impore the help of all editors to help me with this. Thanks, --Roger the red 20:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What are the titles of the four films? From which wireless companies can they be downloaded? "Verifiable" doesn't mean that an editor asserts that he's checked it. It means you can produce a source citation.

If you've noticed film company articles that lack references you should tag them with the

tag. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

--Roger the red 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Miscelaneous

This is a very low budget play which hoped to leverage a very old name into some mega funding. There is zero relationship between the original Biograph and this business. Although the website claims to have "licensed" the old Biograph library to the Library of Congress for "non-profit" use, it all fell into the public domain decades ago. The bit about a motion picture lot on the moon is transparent, meaningless hype: International law doesn't support the private control of property on the moon. Moreover, the dates the company claimed for putting a camera on the moon have come and gone (no surprise). Gwen Gale 09:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I have been busy on othe projects but did happen to peruse this information, but happen to come across this again, and could not help but input. Although all valid contributions are welcome, the above statement is mainly an opinion rather than a verifiable fact. This is fine for the discussion page, but not for inclusion in the actual article. I am refering to the statement "This is a very low budget play which hoped to leverage a very old name into some mega funding." and..."The bit about a motion picture lot on the moon is transparent, meaningless hype" Again, an opinion, no matter if the claim is valid or invaild. I strive to keep neutrality as much as possible. As far as the "Old Downtowner" news article, it was changed and paraphrased in which I reverted it back to what the article actually said. If a quote is made, it has to be acurate and word for word. Also, this was posted in the "Wirelss Entertainment" discussion, rather then the GENERAL article discussion. On a funny note, yes the moon item is "Out there" but what is humorous as well is the artcile states that a camera will be on the moon in 2008, which your response was "the dates the company claimed for putting a camera on the moon have come and gone (no surprise).". I didn't know it was 2009 yet? Just adding to an already ridiculous heated argument. --Roger the red 03:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In 'New Company' section "...started a new business using the old company's name. The company was incorporated in California in 1991.[19]" is a repeat of what is stated in the first main part of the article "...A new company with the same name was incorporated in California in 1991.[3]" therefore the former deleted. Things like that is what makes a 'Bad' quality story, rated "B".

--Roger the red 09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Repetative correction; statement in the "'New Company'" section "...but does not hold title to Biograph's historic film library or its trademarks, which either fell into the public domain or lapsed decades ago. is stated already in footnotes "16. ...The last of the Biograph film copyrights expired in 1945, without any of them having been renewed for a second term. Hurst, Walter E. (1992-1994). Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the U.S. Public Domain. Hollywood, Cal.: Hollywood Film Archive." henceforth deleted. Also, from time to time "Unfreferenced tags will be used to help upgrade article.

--Roger the red 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am now editing myself for repetition. So I will not be repetative, I have changed in "New Company" section "a new corporation" to "started the California corporation[19]" so it is not repetative with the inclusion at the top of the article which states "A new company with the same name started in 1991". Another "Oops!" I forgot to log in at the library when minor change was made. Hopefully now, there may be a glimmer of hope for this already moshed article.

--Roger the red 19:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Notice to Editors

Prior to any changes in any articles, it is to be posted first in the "Discussion" page for discussion and review. Not doing so conflicts with "Wikipedia" policies and will be duly noted. --Roger the red 20:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Protocol

Please adhere to Wikipedia policies and post your change "In" the discussion section of an article before making your change. --Roger the red 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

On Article

On the "Biograph" article, which I am thouroghly sick of, there has to be a deletion of repetative material. This article is up for peer review as well as with Wiki-Film. It is acceptable to be clear but have everything in this article stated ONCE, not two, or three times. This is idiotic and makes the article look like a 3rd grade essay. Notice the "B" grading. There are also more references and citations in this one article than any other film article on Wikipedia. This is why I have a morbid curiosity on this. I have little time and on here very little, but when I am, I will make contributions. --Roger the red 20:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Additonal

I will also be going over "Citations" needed for verifiability. If there are one of each conflicting verifiable sources on inclusions, two corresponding citations must be verified that coincide with each other, or the inclusion will be deleted by me, all according to Wikipedia policies. Please feel free to add any comments to this discussion board or my own discussion board prior to any changes. --Roger the red 20:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company"

Wikipedia Protocol

Please adhere to Wikipedia policies and post your change "In" the discussion section of an article before making your change. --Roger the red 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

On Article

On the "Biograph" article, which I am thouroghly sick of, there has to be a deletion of repetative material. This article is up for peer review as well as with Wiki-Film. It is acceptable to be clear but have everything in this article stated ONCE, not two, or three times. This is idiotic and makes the article look like a 3rd grade essay. Notice the "B" grading. There are also more references and citations in this one article than any other film article on Wikipedia. This is why I have a morbid curiosity on this. I have little time and on here very little, but when I am, I will make contributions. --Roger the red 20:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Notice of Double Entries

I am not only briefly working on amiguous inclusions, but "Double Entires". First on the "Biograph article which states at top of article "...A new company with the same name was incorporated in California in 1991.[3]". It also states in the "New Company" section "...started a new California corporation[19]" Both these go to the same reference point and are in all ways identical. In my next edit, I will be including only ONE entry, "...started a new California corporation in 1991" as all references should be. The "new" is included in the inclusion, as well as a correct reference to the corporation reference listing. --Roger the red 00:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company"

It is necessary to have some mention of the new company in the intro, whose purpose is to give an overview of the article. It needn't be identicalto what is below, but it would be unhelpful to omit it entirely. -Will Beback · † · 01:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then if it is to be there, it needs to refer to it as a corporation, since the reference link goes to the California corporations website. Also, at least it looks better in the article. I will go ahead and make this change and see if that is acceptable.

--Roger the red 03:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RKO Pictures

"Roger"'s reviews

"I don't believe you. You're a liar," said Bob Dylan. But he wasn't talking about Red Rog. We know you're acting in good faith, just inappropriately and incompetently. So, before we go to a peer review, why don't you address the people who've actually worked exhaustingly on the "RKO Pictures" article for the past three months...me, GPM from Italy, even Rollosmokes. Do tell us, please, Red Rog, just what exactly are these "ambiguous statements without references on the continuation of the company." As the article now stands, it is the most tightly referenced examination of the new RKO Pictures on or off the web, by far. So we find your perspective a bit...B.S....I mean, Surprising! (You do know, the Wikipedia code encourages YOU to find those shamefully absent references. Doncha, Big Red?) You also observe, in your so-very-helpful way, "There are also many citations and references needed." Oh, pray, do tell us where Red Rog. And we shall stuff all the citations and references you need right where you're asking for them. Just point us to the hole you feel should be filled, RR. —DCGeist 03:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Roger's reviews

I am not accusing anyone at all of any misinformation, nor any "Attack" on RKO Pictures. Only to verify the information that is already there from outside sources using and citing references. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I will refer you to the article American Mutoscope and Biograph Company that has truly been torn apart from end to end. the only items I am requesting from all editors (Including yourself) is references that you can cite outside just company information. Articles, books, etc.

Thanks,

--Roger the red 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, you sound sincere. So I'll just have to admit that I find you make no sense. The article has 31 footnotes, which cite a total of 47 different sources (48 including IMDb.com for release dates)--not a single one of them "company information" in the sense of a press release or promotional material or any manner of corporate boilerplate; the majority of them either physically issued by responsible, independent presses or electronically filed and sworn to either by or with the U.S. government. The latter group includes a set of extensive legal documents that GPM from Italy and I have pored over in minute detail. You say you're missing "articles, books, etc." But seven books are cited, Roger. Seven. Plus, by even the most rigorous definition of "article," thirteen articles. Thirteen. That's NOT counting BusinessWeek Online, NOT counting the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Plus six sworn legal documents and/or financial statements--if there's a false word in any of those, it's potentially felonious. And all of the online sources are not only reputable, but described in such a way that it's easy for the reader to ascertain their reputability. Which begs the sincere question Roger, What the hell are you talking about? We would LOVE you to honestly "tear apart" the article...because that's what we've been doing since the spring. So tell us: What precisely do you have a question about? Is there a single attestation in the article you find internally contradictory? Self-evidently dubious? That you know or believe to be false? Just spell it out. But be specific, be clear, be accurate, and think before you write--that's how we get somewhere. Best, truly, Dan. —DCGeist 04:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DCGeist, thank you for your note. When I reveiwed the article NONE of the refrences appeared AT ALL. I believe someone possibly had been tampering with your article, which I would look into, because I reviewed the article again, and the refrences are there, and before they were not.

Also, seeing the WHOLE article, I want to compliment you on the way you have done this, and do this with other similar articles. I have been having problems with tampering myself.

Thanks, --Roger the red 22:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger's Battles

Hello Roger, Thanks for contacting me. I have to admit that don't know a lot about the subject matter concerned, so I probably can't be of much help to you. Asking the community in general is a good thing to do, however. What I do whenever I think that I'm about to get into a dispute with something is go off and work on something else totally unrelated to where the dispute is. Try wikifying something, for instance. That'll give you a chance to clear your head and let things settle down some. Hope this helps! —Scott5114 ↗ 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you should do first is try to work everything out between you and the other editors through talk pages. Should that not work, what you should probably contact the Mediation Cabal; they would be willing to help sort everything out. Check out Wikipedia:Resolving disputes - that's the process to follow when you're locked into a never-ending conflict. —Scott5114 ↗ 21:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaumont Pictures

There needs to be discussion in the article of how this company was tied into Gaumont British Pictures Corporation/British International Pictures, and also how the present-day company was not legally considered to be sufficently derived from the earlier one to be allowed to retain the copyrights to the old BIP films, which has resulted in many significant films (most of Hitchcock's early orks, for example), to fall into the public domain. Rlquall 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. There has been no questions to the links, or validity of the company past connected with present, which I find very strange. If you will notice on a similar article American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, the article has been torn apart word for word with much heated debate. Yet, this one and others like it are untouched. Why is this? Read the archives "Talk" section in the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company article, and see. We should do every article with such scrutiny, but without the bias. Even I was harassed at changes I made, which will soon be corrected. Let me know of any ideas on citing of facts on Gaumont Picture, and will be happy to take your lead. --Roger the red 02:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaumont_Film_Company"

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 353: / Line 353: @@
 ==WP:FILMS Newsletter==
 The '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Outreach/December 2006 Newsletter|December 2006 issue]]''' of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published.  You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.  Thank you.  Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Participants/Member List|Member List]]. [[User:Cbrown1023|Cbrown1023]] 00:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
+== Tags ==
+I see you added some editing tags to [[American Mutoscope and Biograph Company]]. Can you specify on the talk what issues need addressing? Thanks, -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)