Talk:Allied Artists International

AfD
AAI is entirely non-notable. It appears to be a shell created to appear to be a classic movie company. As far as the sources provided say, the company is an empty shell that filed for a trademark which used to belong to a classic movie company that went out of business many years earlier. Checking Google news pulls up reliable news articles like the LA Times asserting criminal associations and fraudulent attempts to pass off as being a classic movie company, and a federal criminal conviction for it with a 20 year sentence. Unless the article is properly sourced immediately, an AfD will be filed. 173.75.81.106 (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This article properly sources the entire history of the trademark assignments and identifies the history of AAI to the original Allied Artists Pictures Corporation. The allegations being asserted by the unidentified editor are the work of Robert Rooks, who was sued by AAI for trademark infringement and presently has a permanent injunction against him and his fraudulent Allied Artists Pictures Corporation.  See Allied Artists International, Inc. v. Robert Rooks, et al, Central District of California, Case No. CV08-08116GAF.  Before removing the properly sourced information, please participate in a discussion here. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first time this has come up in the topic area. Find some secondary (not the company's website) coverage that is not from the US Trademark Office and there actually might be notability. As is: WP:GNG is not shown and WP:NOTADVERTISING (yes, that is a reason for deletion per the policy) is a concern. I would support deletion at an AfD at this time since GNG is not shown and a fundamental rewrite may be necessary to bring this to standard.Cptnono (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm adding additional sources and will work on a rewrite to address your concerns. Anyone else who wants to contribute constructively would be greatly appreciated. They have a number of motion pictures in production right now, and I plan to provide sources, such as trade, etc for those references as well.  If the trademark office is not a reliable source, how would you reference the trademarks? Thanks for your help Cptnono!--Warriorboy85 (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned up the promotional issues and organizational issues. I don't think notability is going to be a problem, but the original synthesis and primary source issues are huge.  Let's see these trademark disputes described in newspapers not patent office searches.  And remember we're here to document all notable aspects of a company, not just the positive ones, or just the legal ones, or just the critical ones.  PPdd, if you have sources 'proving' this is a 'shell company' you'll need to be packing multiple sources to get in the door.  Please provide. Ocaasi c 22:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is in desperate need of some third-party sources. I cleaned up some egregious minutiae (such as specifics of trademark transfers) and uncited claims, but maybe this article should be quite a bit shorter, as much of the material is of questionable notability (barring new sources).  There may be a lot of interesting Hollywood history to this company, if only someone could verify the information.  According to IMDB this company doesn't have any recent productions or credits and their own website doesn't list any recent/upcoming projects.  Hunting on Google really yields nothing beyond the company websites themselves.  I am wondering if it is defunct?  According to Bloomberg Allied Artists Pictures has been owned since 2008 by an offshore reinsurance company: .  Henry chianski (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

TO USER 173.75.81.106
Please be advised that AAI is NOT connected in any way, shape or form to Robert Rooks. In fact, AAI sued Robert Rooks for trademark infringement associated with his using the name Allied Artists and incorporating the false Allied Artists Pictures Corporations. I know you're working on the United Assurance Limited article, but you're confusing Mr. Rooks' fraudulent companies with AAI, which has nothing to do with Rooks. Please discuss this matter peacefully and constructively before continuing to make allegations against AAI that are actually attributable only to Rooks. Thank you. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This dispute is going nowhere without sources. Neither the allegations nor the defense of the allegations is meaningful without them.  That said, we can't level accusations on organizations without sources, so PPdd, you have to go first.  WP:BURDEN is on you here. Ocaasi c 22:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That said, Warriorboy, most of this entire article is based off of primary sources. Per WP:Primary and WP:BLPPRIMARY, that's not going to cut it.  The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide WP:RS that are not mere searches of the patent office combined with your personal understanding of the subject.  That may be great historical digging, but it's prohibited for actual articles. Ocaasi c 22:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Ocassi and thank you for all your help. I hadn't seen this before I left a similar response on PPdd's talk page, so please forgive any redundancy.  The main purpose for referencing the trademark office was to establish the fact that the original Allied Artists Pictures Corporation assigned its interest in the Allied Artists trademarks to AAI.  I'm not sure whether or not there are any articles on the internet that recount that history, but it's a matter of fact as demonstrated by the existence of the assignment records themselves.  Can you advise me as to how I might find a more reliable source to establish two things.  First that AAI is the owner of the Allied Artists trademarks and second, that Allied Artists was assigned those rights in the 1980's by the original Allied Artists Pictures Corporation?  Both are facts established by the records on file with the trademark office.  I've cited the Hollywood Reporter on several issues, and I'm sure there are more articles available that publication, from Variety and other trade publications.  But those sources deal mostly with announcements, rather than the factual question of who owns the trademarks and how they obtained them.  I realize the article is not about the history of the trademarks, but the assignment of those trademarks outlines the lineage of the company.  Any clarification you can provide would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks again. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The USPO can only be used to confirm the most basic of details and dates. Since it's primary, it's not considered a reliable source for any of the backstory or narrative claims.  Just the raw facts.  It would be much better if those facts or at least the changes of rights in general were mentioned somewhere by a secondary source.  Quick rundown on sources:  USPO is reliable, as a Federal Agency, but only for the limited information contained therein.  So we can use it to confirm what it has in its database.  Self-referentially.  But sourcing policy requires that we only include information that has been shown to be significant in independent secondary sources, such as a newspaper article.  Otherwise, we run the risk of doing our own original research using primary documents to piece together a narrative that is not supported by secondary sources as either true or significant enough to be included.


 * By standard, if something is important enough to be in Wikipedia, a reliable source will have mentioned it somewhere (outside of a Federal database). Now we have some latitude with using primary sources if they are merely augmenting claims that are established by other secondary sources, or are uncontroversial.  But if there is a significant dispute about the narrative here - what happened, when, who, and why - then the use of primary sources becomes even more problematic.  Best advice is to do some research in the legal journals and newspapers around the time of the patent filings.  Otherwise, we're on thin ice using primary sources to establish main facts of a controversial narrative. Ocaasi c 01:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent explanation. Thank you very much and I will start my search for secondary sources. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For example: "Embroiled in a contentious bankruptcy, Allied Artists Pictures Corporation transferred its interest in the Allied Artists trademarks to Allied Artists Records on June 17, 1983 to enable production and distribution to continue." This is from the lead. The cite is to the USPO. But the only thing that cite is good for is the date of transfer, and possibly the two parties. Even the details about a contentious bankruptcy and continued production should have separate, secondary sources. An easy way to fix that is to move the references directly after the facts they verify rather than at the end of the sentence. Is there an article which tells the whole story of these events, published somewhere reputable? Ocaasi c 01:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are a few articles, but they predate the internet, so I'm going to have to do some digging. But I understand what you're referring to now.  Thank you very much for your explanation and help. I may call upon you again, should I lose my way down this winding road! --Warriorboy85 (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Psht, nothing predates the internet my boy! Have you tried the google? Ocaasi c 02:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Research (add to this list, anything about the company, not just trademarks too)
 * 1980 archive sale
 * Sean Connery sues!


 * Hi Ocaasi. I added two original sources in the first paragraph, but left your tags because I didn't know whether it was appropriate to remove them on my own. However, notes 6 & 7 are using the USPTO and the Nevada Secretary of State as primary sources just to establish specific filing dates:
 * On October 6, 2000, Allied Artists Records filed for a newly designed mark, which became registered on December 25, 2001.[6][original research?] On April 1, 2001, Allied Artists Records changed its name to Allied Artists International, Inc. and assigned its trademarks to reflect the corporate name change.[7][original research?]
 * There are no articles that reference the specific date the company filed its name change with the Nevada Secretary of State, but it's clearly on file on the SOS's website that I originally referenced. By the same token, there are no articles that say that the company assigned its trademarks to the new corporate name, but the assignments are clearly on file with the USPTO.  Since the statement that is referenced by a primary source is limited to just the fact of the filing, would those primary sources be sufficient?  If not, I guess it may have to be removed, but it's completely factual.  Thanks for your patience. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is Allied Artists Pictures Corporation and Monogram mentioned in this article?
Why is Allied Artists Pictures Corporation and Monogram mentioned in this article? There is no RS listed establishing any connection. 173.75.81.106 (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the original editor though it was uncontroversial information. You've now challenged it, and so it's on him to provide verification, which he said he would attempt to do through research of secondary sources.  Rather than just tear down the article, I'd rather leave the tags up and see if within a few weeks we can't source the connections.  Can you explain why you are so sure that what Warrior Boy describes is incorrect (it sounds like he admits Ross was involved in a fraud, but that it had nothing to do with AAI; I don't follow the details but it seems plausible that either of you are mostly right but just missing a few nuances). Ocaasi c 05:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Or are you suggesting that AAI just purchased AAPC's property rights and can't claim any of their history? ("After the assignment of intellectual property between the original Allied Artists Pictures Corporation and Allied Artists International...") Ocaasi c 05:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * But your suggestion to give other editors with possible COI some time to come up with RS seems good. It was suggested that Ludwigs2 be given a couple of weeks at TCM, whereby most of the medical RS content disappeared, but lets wait and see what others from possibly COI perspectives come up with as sources over time; same here. A few weeks ago, WLU suggested I read WP:WNF, and it stuck. Who knows, COI may produce RS to expand the United Assurance article others might not have found, especially given all the aliases and moving shells that those not "on the ground" would not find just by doing google news archive searches, or lead to aliases only known to those up close, which can then be fed to google to find good secondary RS. By the way, I removed "empty shell" from disambiguation page, I think it was your(?) hint that made me notice its OR nature. 173.75.81.106 (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am pretty much onboard with do it now or see it put up for deletion.Cptnono (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * WarriorBoy is trying in good faith to do it, and I don't think that we shouldn't let him. Deletion will take a week anyway and go over all of this debate anew, so hopefully let's skip the procedure and just see what we can make with the content.  If nothing comes up, we'll know what to do.  Tags are a fair warning to the reader, and I'm not sure that the article would be deletable on notability grounds anyway, even if it was just stubbed otherwise.  Let's keep the delete-hammer out of this and we'll sort the content thereafter. Ocaasi c 06:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cptnono - user warriorboy looks to have a COI with the article subject. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Distinguishing between [AAPC and AAI] and [AAI and AAPC]
This is confusing but important. Correct me if I'm off:


 * Monogram->AAPC->AAR->Bankruptcy->AAI->AAPC *infringement*->More AAIToday

In this timeline, a storied Film and Media group turns into a record company and sadly goes bankrupt in 1980 and basically has all of their rights scooped up by AAI some time in the last decade. After AAPC became AAI, Robert Rooks committed trademark infringement by creating a shell company also called AAPC, which AAI sued him for and won.

So: there were two AAPC's.  The first one, which made motion pictures and went bankrupt and later transferred all trademark rights over to AAI. And the second one, which was a Robert Rooks shell company.

ip173, I think this clarifies your initial confusion, since it was adding insult to injury that not only were we writing an article about Rooks' AAPC, we were linking it to this wonderful legacy of Magnolia Pictures as well. When in fact, we were only writing about a company with the same name as Rooks' shell company.

But that still leaves a fair question: Is it right to include so much detail about Magnolia and AAPC in 'this' article, where it gives the impression that AAI is the direct inheritor of a great film legacy, rather than a savvy corporate rights buyout? If not, we can drastically shorten the sections on Magnolia and AAPC per WP:SUMMARY and focus this article on the recent history of AAI (including, of course, the Rooks infringement case).

Hope this helps. Ocaasi c 10:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have not even read all the sources listed yet, but what is your source for saying "has all of their rights scooped up by AAI some time in the last decade"? What is the source that the trademark infringement relates to the classic movie company, and if it does, to a significant part of the classic movie company, and not just to the record company? (Especially since the trademark displayed on the WP article is unrelated to the movie company) What is the source for jumping from a trademark clerk granting a trademark (which can be stated as a fact for whatever trademark was granted, still to be shown) to "successor in interest" and other legal conclusions beyond the scope of a clerk, especially having the classic movie company as a "division of AAI". Why do real and well known movie companies still market and profit from the most significant AAPC films at Netflicks (Papillon, Cabaret, etc.), and AAI is not shown in any way at the video store or internet movie rental places, if AAI has all the rights, and not just one of many trademarks that went into the public domain? What RS shows AAI is notable in any way? What is the difference between having one of many tradmarks used by the movie company (even that is still in question), and owning the distribution rights, or rights of association? (By "Robert Ross" did you mean "RObert 'Mickey' Rooks"? and what is the "N" middle name in the federal pleadings, vs. the "M" in others, for the same companies.) 173.75.81.106 (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant Rooks, that was just a typo. 173, there's a real dispute about the facts here, so let's 'read all the sources' first.  My timeline is what I got from the article as currently written, and from the UAC article, although it has been changing as well.  You need to break out individual claims that need sourcing.   Again, we can't do original research or original defense for these claims, we just need sources which tell this whole story, if we can find them.  The section below has a question about the connection between Magnolia, AAPC, and AAI (and AAPC which was an infringement).  I don't have the full timeline yet, but rather than putting one version on the page, source them on the talk page and analyze them first. Ocaasi c 19:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi c 19:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Point (find sources...)
 * What is the source that the trademark infringement relates to the classic movie company, and if it does, to a significant part of the classic movie company, and not just to the record company?
 * Is the trademark displayed on the WP article unrelated to the movie company?
 * What is the source for jumping from a trademark clerk granting a trademark to "successor in interest" and other legal conclusions beyond the scope of a clerk?
 * Is the classic movie company a "division of AAI".
 * Why do real and well known movie companies still market and profit from the most significant AAPC films at Netflicks (Papillon, Cabaret, etc.), and AAI is not shown in any way at the video store or internet movie rental places, if AAI has all the rights, and not just one of many trademarks that went into the public domain?
 * What is the difference between having one of many tradmarks used by the movie company (even that is still in question), and owning the distribution rights, or rights of association?
 * What RS shows AAI is notable in any way?

A recent source on who owns which rights - Church of Scientology
A recent source on who owns the rights to use the actual classic movie studio - "KCET May Sell Studio to Church of Scientology‎ - The lot has served as studios since 1912 and was formerly the home of Monogram Pictures and Allied Artists... " 173.75.81.106 (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that because AAI does not own rights to every piece of film or property ever held by Monogram/AAPC that they hold none of them, or none but the record rights? That's not proper logic.  The previous sentence before the one you quoted is: "The 4.5 acre property at 4401 W. Sunset Boulevard is reportedly worth $14.1 million and has been home to KCET for the past 45 years."  Which means that you're using an example from 1965.  It's probably not reflective of the more recent rights transfers. Ocaasi c 19:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

173.75.81.106 Please stop with the BLP Violation
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.--Warriorboy85 (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read and follow WP:AGF. No one made any accusations. No name in the dspources differs (see the reverted quotes from The Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, and LA Daily News articles). The news articles were accurately followed. The father of the president since the 80's is a state senator, per the LA TImes source that was reverted. How is this a WP:BLP violation? What is "a name that differs from the ones associated with the company"? 'What is your source for "there seems to be multiple people with similar names"? What is your source for "father and son"''? Thanks. :) 173.75.81.106 (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Warrior, you are going to need more than a vague statement that the names are similar or father and son. Do you have better sources on this?  Are you saying that none of the people involved in those LA times stores are the ones from AAI?  If there was a major scandal involved in AAI's past, then this article should report on it.  If the scandal was before AAI, but part of AAPC, then the scandal should receive as much coverage as other aspects of the history.  Again, this is not just a positive article, not just a legal article, and not just a negative article--but all of those. Ocaasi c 19:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Why was reliably sourced content and added sources and cit needed tags reverted?
Why was the reliably sourced content and sources from the LA Times, LA Daily News, and the Hollywood Reporter all reverted? The newspaper quotes, directly relevant to this article, are in the reference listhere. 173.75.81.106 (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Because this same information was placed in the article by someone using the name ChinaUpdater (or something similar) in 2009. The article was ultimately deleted in its entirety and later permitted to be rewritten by an admin by the name of Rlevse. However, during that whole exchange, the information was disallowed because multiple people with similar names were involved with the company throughout the years and the names in the sources differed from the names on the official records. We therefore agreed to leave that information out and write the article only about the company, leaving out allegations against any particular officer or principal of the company. We were specifically told by the admins that unless the allegations spoke to something notable about the company, they should not be included in the article. ChinaUpdater was banned over the entire incident and I think is still banned. Let's just keep this article about the company and avoid making it about any one person, who may not even be the person identified in the articles you sourced. Thanks for your understanding. I may have misunderstood your intentions. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * - I s there a connection to any accounts related to the Sockpuppet_investigations/Icouce/Archive if there are any concerns please report them to the SPI or provide details connecting the accounts here, the contributions do appear connected - regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking into it. From what I can tell there are not, but it's possible.  There's more history here than I realized, going well back to 2009.  Still, it's possible the recent uptick in interest is coincidental.  But then again, your 'spidey sense' is pretty on. Ocaasi c 20:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that information, but I think you're losing sight of two significant factors. The goal is not to find a way to get controversial information into the article about any particular person who might be associated with a company. The goal is to write an article about the noteworthy aspects of the company. More importantly, the name used in the 2010 Hollywood Reporter article differs from the name used in the prior articles that contain the controversial information.  Because there are two individuals with similar names (from the same family more than likely) it's hard to know who to attribute the older articles to.  Given the fact the article is about a corporation, the controversial allegations being levied against a person who may not be the individual in question weighs heavily against including it.  Plus, I think the corporate name in the controversial articles is actually different than AAI or AAR, so we may again be talking about a completely different entity that has nothing to do with this article.  Why do you feel this information is relevant to the current article about this corporation? Maybe I'm missing something here.  Thanks for working with me on this. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice cheer. 173, could you neatly post the sources Talk:Allied_Artists_International/sources <--here? Ocaasi c 23:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * David Hasselhoff came up in the new results in the above mentioned Google News archive, as the second result, and its LA Times, so its as reliable as any announcements in Hollywood about who might act in this, or who might record that. Its at least reliable to state that someone announced it, so I added the content to the article, worded appropriately. This opens a whole new search area. Could someone more familiar with the subject provide a list of names not appearing in the article, for doing more comprehensive searches? The father-son issue WB85 referred to above seems to be resolved in the newly reverted LA times sources; the CEO's father was a senator. Also in one of those sources is a specific age for the CEO, and a reference to the 70's. 173.75.81.106 (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 173, There are three people involved in this issue. A father, son (or grandson, nephew, brother, etc) and a grandfather. I am not challenging your use of the 2010 articles that reference current events. However, keep in mind that two of the people you're referring to have similar names, but the sources you've identified so far only serve to confuse the issue more. The current articles identify one person, whose name is different from those identified in the older articles that contain the controversial material. Additionally, the older material does not seem to reference AAI, but another corporation with the word "Allied" in its name. This article is about AAI and why AAI is notable.  You seem to want to include controversial information about one person who may not even be the same person you're referring to in the older articles. I don't understand why you're pushing to make this article about one specific person. I want to work with you to make this a good and accurate article about AAI, but I see no reason to include material about someone who might not even be associated with the company. I noticed you created an article about Louis Lesser, who was heavily associated with Robert Rooks for decades, but you properly did not include that information in the article on Lesser. It's inappropriate to taint one person or a company with the actions of unconnected parties, and I'm sure you don't want to do that. Thanks again for working together on this. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll get all the sources and go from there. The sources will determine whether there is a relevance to AAI.  Whether 173 is adding appropriate or inappropriate information really depends on the sources.  It might be as inappropriate to keep the information out if it is a notable part of the history.  Ocaasi c 01:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WB85, I am in complete agreement with you that if there are two people with the same name, this article should not have content that confuses the reader about that name. Maybe you can help add to the other articles. You said that Louis Lesser and Robert Rooks were heavily associated for decades. If this is the case, it should be in both articles. What are the associations? 173.75.81.106 (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Allied Artist Records
It seems WB85 is arguing that some aspects of AAR's history are not relevant to AAI. 173 is trying to include this information about AAR, sourced to a published news article:


 * The filings in the case prominently displayed on the AAI website should have filings that clear any of this up, as to whether or not the corporte title was transfered to a relative with the same legal name as the previous owner. It looks from the AAI website that it is a farily recent case, and modern federal court filings are all done electronically, so editors should be able to access the info remotely. Does anyone know how to do this? The court pleadings don't show on a google searches. And the AAI website is not RS for this, nor does it have the complete filings. If not, maybe we should notice WikiProject Law so others with legal expertise can help source and write this article. Many will surely want to participate, especiallyince the LA Times reported that United States Attorneys said that at the time, Allied Artists Records was the biggest such case in US history. 173.75.81.106 (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If we need lawyers to dig through court filings, we're probably headed in the wrong direction. Please read WP:BLPPRIMARY.   Even those documents cannot be used to establish the narrative or the correct identities, without breaching Original Research.


 * Also, all editors involved here would benefit from reading our guidelines on criminal activity: Notability_(events) and CRIME. Ocaasi c 03:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ocaasi, In my opinion, the only relevance between this article and Monogram is that Monogram is a division of AAI now and the original Allied Artists Pictures Corporation began life as Monogram. There is a separate article on Monogram, so I don't see that an entire section for Monogram is necessary for this article. 173, I think you'll find that the "scandal" occurred under a separate corporation named Consolidated Allied that merely had a license to use the Allied Artists name and was not a part of the corporate entities that became AAI. There's also the issue of identifying the wrong person in connection with that scandal, which no one wants to do, I hope. That said, I think the article is looking pretty good right now, with one exception. The part that discusses what Richards said when Fitzpatrick died, he didn't say he helped Fitzpatrick earn his first gold record, but rather than Fitzpatrick helped him earn his first gold record. The quote in the reference is correct, but the main article misstates it. Thanks to everyone for the help! --Warriorboy85 (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WB85, what is the name of the person who won multiple gold records? 173.75.81.106 (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If we're not going to discuss the history of AAI in full, we should probably limit the history of Monogram and AAPC as well, since it leads the reader into thinking there is a direct connection between them rather than merely a transfer of rights. We can briefly summarize Monogram and AAPC with a link to the main article, and then move on.  I'm not comfortable, however, leaving the full history but picking and choosing which parts to include.


 * Consolidated Allied had a license to use AA's name, but was not part of AAI. Okay, perhaps, but that is a part of AAR's history, and if we're going to include it in part, it seems relevant.  As for identifying the wrong person, we'd use the name in the sources.


 * I'll fix the Fitzpatrick quote if you haven't already. Cheers, Ocaasi c 03:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think Monogram or Consolidated play much of a role in the history of AAI. I don't think either is particularly relevant to the article on AAI, and neither should be included, as you discussed above. Thanks. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of trademark assignment information on Allied Artists International
Hello PPdd,

I see that after all this time you decided to make a change to the Allied Artists International article. I'm not sure why you say it's an advert, but as far as sourcing, there is a clear assignment of the original trademark from the historic company to Allied Artists International on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office at:http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=73030933. There were multiple trademarks assigned to Allied Artists Records, which later changed its name several times ultimately becoming Allied Artists International. The same entity that bought the "historic" company (which was the record division of the original company to start with) was granted the original trademark rights in 1983 and the company continued on as a division of that company, which is now Allied Artists International, Inc., a Nevada corporation. Can you please tell me why it is improper to discuss the fact that the original record division of Allied Artists Pictures purchased the company out of bankruptcy and continued it as a division of its corporation? Maybe you can help to correct the article to properly reflect what happened, rather than just omitting important information that speaks to the history of the company. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That is a primary source, not allowed in Wikipedia. The lines removed are Original Research, also not allowed at Wikipedia. You are also misreading and misinterpreting the cited source, which do not say what was place in the article, even if primary sources and orignial reasearch was allowed. The removal was correct on all three gounds. PPdd (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hollywood Reporter
Hollywood Reporter is not a reliable source, since there is no editorial policy as with other media sources. The material from it should be removed, espcially as the cited "article" does not have a cited author or cited editor of it. PPdd (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

173.116.161.246, please do not delete edits of others and replace reliable sources with unreliable sources
173.116.161.246, your edit here needs to be supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

You said there was vandalism, but I have been watching recent edits and they are in compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I suggest you begin by reading WP:AGF, which might be helpful.

You cannot replace reilable sources with unreliable ones. Please read WP:RS and familiarize yourself with it before deleting the work of other editors. Thanks. PPdd (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User KatieBoundary Discussion
You appear to be the same person who added the same WP:BLP violation content on this article under the username and was indefinitely banned for that behavior. There are a number of other users who believe you are editing in bad faith and continuing more of the same behavior that caused that indefinite ban in the first place. There is a discussion about your behavior here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious_editing_by_KatieBoundary that I know you're aware of, because you're participating. I also believe there is or soon will be a WP:SP report filed based on your prior username PPdd having been indefinitely banned. Please have a meaningful discussion about your desire to use this article as a hit piece against a living person. Your patience and professionalism will be appreciated. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Starting to read the above talk page comments by you, you appear to be accusing everyone who puts in edits here that they are someone named Robert Rooks. Upon what WP policies are you basing your removal of well sourced content that I added? KatieBoundary (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)