User talk:173.75.81.106

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

173.75.81.106 Please stop with the BLP Violation[edit]

This article is about a company, not any one person. You seem to have a vendetta against several people and are using WP as a means of telling your story. We've been down this road before with regard to AAI and there seems to be multiple people with similar names (father and son?) and you have to be very careful when you make accusations of criminal activity and have sources that discuss a name that differs from the ones associated with the company. Some of the information you added was previously in the article and determined to be a BLP violation, and was removed as such. Let's keep the article factual and focused on AAI. - Unisigned[1] latest revision as of 17:02, 8 April 2011 (edit) (undo)User:Warriorboy85 (User talk:Warriorboy85| contribs)]

Please AGF. There is no BLP violation, as the sources are very reliable, and are specifically about Allied Artists Records and the owner/CEO and president, etc. One of the sources, about both persons in the banner at right, was already in the article as I found it, and the content was expanded. Which of the two names in the Hollywood Reporter RS is the "father and son" you refer to? What is your source for your claim of "father and son"? Thanks in advance for your source on "father and son". 173.75.81.106 (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello 173. I spoke with someone at AAI earlier today, and if you would like to interview them or ask them specific questions, they are willing to speak with you. Please let me know if you're interested in doing so. That might clear up the father/son issue. By the way, I think our efforts are somewhat in line and I would like to work with you to improve the United Assurance article and get to the heart of that. I don't think we're actually all that far apart, and I think Lou Lesser is a good man who got taken advantage of by Rooks. Nice article on him by the way. :) Thanks much.--Warriorboy85 (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm all for improving the UAC article, but it has to be based on reliable secondary sources, not on phone calls. Do you know if Robert Rooks is the same person as Kenta Rooks? 173.75.81.106 (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The "father son issue" is cleared up in the various Hollywood Reporter and LA Times sources. The father was a senator by a different name, who was mentioned in various Allied Artists Records news stories from the early to late 80's. 173.75.81.106 (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the father was ever an issue. The question is whether the current guy is the son, the brother or a nephew. There are two different people with similar names, of which both have been associated with companies with "Allied" in the name. The issue is demonstrating that the current CEO is the same guy referenced in the old stories from the 80's. It is my understanding that the guy from the 80's whose father was a senator is not in office or associated with the company. If it's not the same guy, it would be very unfair to write an article that claims he is, even if the accurate information is actually about his cousin by a similar name. I understand they were both named after a grandfather, although their names are not exactly the same. That's the issue. Thanks. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The son, the brother, or a nephew of who? What is the name of the person with the son, brother, or nephew? How can there be two different people (with the same name or not), who own corportions with the same corporate name, and the same corporate trademark, and the same government filings? When you spoke to them today, did they say it was the son, the brother, or the nephew? The article should clarify all this. 173.75.81.106 (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Corporations aren't necessarily owned by any one person. They have stockholders who collectively own them. So you can't say anyone "owns" AAI without a reliable source that establishes who owns it or how much stock that person owns. If you're planning to say that a particular person is associated with the corporation and that person did something in their life (such as criminal activity) you need to demonstrate the exact link between the reliable source, that person's association with the corporation and of course that it is the same person. That's what I've been trying to explain. There are two people with a similar name but it's not exactly the same. One uses a middle name and the other does not. I am told that the current person who you are associating with those old articles is not the same person. I'm merely suggesting that it would be terrible to put that information in the article if he's not the same guy. I don't think you want to make that mistake anyway. Thanks for hearing me out. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The various filings in the federal court action referenced at the AAI webiste will clarify all this.


When you spoke to them today, did they say "brother", "son", or "cousin"? 173.75.81.106 (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't speak with the CEO's office, but spoke with their press relations office. They told me that the two are cousins in that their fathers are brothers and each were named after a common grandfather, although they don't share the exact same name. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
OK. There are good online genrolicical sources on relatives of senators to check everying, like dates of birth, names, ages, etc. There are also multiple RS newspaper sources where the age of the AA CEO was provided. Do the cousins have the same age, or do they just have the same name and position as president of the company? Where did you get "son" from before? 173.75.81.106 (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I was going by what you said and didn't know personally, which is why I called the press office. I knew the issue came up once before though. I didn't ask their ages or anything like that. Also, I think one was president of Consolidated Allied in the 80's and the other was with AAI at the time, but I don't think he was president. I think he's a board member and CEO now. My understanding is that Consolidated Allied was granted a license to use the Allied Artists name for a specific purpose (like a rock band licensing its name or likeness for merchandise sales) and was a distinctly separate corporation from AAI when the "scandal" occurred. Hope this information helps.--Warriorboy85 (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Allied_Artists_International[edit]

Hi, your large expansion of this article is disputed and has been removed, please do not replace it without discussion and consensus/talkpage agreement, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There were only two sentences recently added, with two LA Times articles as the source. So I am not understanding what edits you are referring to by "large expansion". Can you provide the diffs so I can know what to discuss and get consensus on? Thanks. 173.75.81.106 (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Look, a history in the insurance world, a hatred of bad faith, knowledge of California... I think this is personal for you in some way. And that can lead to hasty editing. Keep it on the talk page and let less involved editors make the changes. No apology necessary, just better to edit in a different way. Ocaasi c 03:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I had not even (consciously) thought about these articles as being related to insurance bad faith in any way. I had more looked at them as being related to activities of Mother Teresa and historically by the Catholic Church. The 15 recent Christmas time edits[2] on Mother Teresa, about her pain-medication-free, maggots-for-healing "hospitals" were reverted, leading then to alt med editing. Thanks for an external objective evaluation. Its sometimes hard to evaluate one's own edits from one's own perspective. I will stay at talk for a while per your suggestion. Incidentally, others are gradually starting to improve the bad faith article, including yesterday on the Freudian part, which can only be edited by an expert, or an editor who wants to try to try to penetrate the works of Freud and commentary on these works. 173.75.81.106 (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)