Talk:Gravity Entertainment

Untitled
I have editied to remove advertising like language 8 march 07 Cinnamon colbert 14:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why hasn't anyone questioned the fact that the two sockpuppets last week who kept trying to delete this entry who most likely are tied in with this company has not contributed to this discussion? They got the link to the blog removed and all the legal documents with exhibits removed with a few clicks of a mouse. If the Feds can take the blog seriously and the exhibits then why not wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.140.93.107 (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have re-installed the LEGAL Matters information, because the documents on the external page seem to be legitimate and U.S. online court files show same. While there is no counter-claim by GRAVITY anywhere to be found and it is likely that GRAVITY mis-uses this article on WIKIPEDIA to show off "legitimate business" and hence fool potential investors, it is reasonable to inform investors about Gravity and its business procedures (precaution act). According to the external website, victims are owed more than 100 million US dollars. Paralegalpro 15:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

People are trying to sabotage this page and block the truthful information that is out there. As referenced by the person above. Perhaps this page needs to be locked as per Wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktrubolt (talk • contribs) 17:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

For consumer protection reasons, I suggest locking this article so the people profiting from the vandalizing acts, who are part of Gravity's inferior business behavior are blocked from deleting truthful events. The described links only show court relevant information and evidence. The entire WIKI-article has described a company, which is using its internet publicity to allegedly scam investors (All parties are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - however there are already verdicts against Gravity and Stephan Gagnon). Wikipedia should not be misused to support these kinds of bad business procedures. That is why I suggest this article being published and locked with a relevant investor relations warning (according to consumer protection acts). Legalaidaut 17:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC
 * But if we protect it, you'll have no way to keep revealing your sockpuppets. --Smashvilletalk 18:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have checked all links and potential court documents and databases. The claims against Gravity seem to be legitimate. --Wivictim talk 20:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of the other victims of the Gravity scammers would like to inform you that they are still at it. See this blog:http://lambertwatch.blogspot.com/2008/10/flower-in-brazil-or-fraud-in-brazil-you.html http://lambertwatch.blogspot.com/2009/02/another-judgment-against-steve-gagnon.html

http://lambertwatch.blogspot.com/2009/02/roger-burki-and-his-new-business.html


 * Blogs are not reliable sources. The blog referenced in the article includes copies of what purport to be court documents, which may or may not be genuine but would need to be referenced from their original source or via reliable third party outlets. Contrary to what is suggested above, Wikipedia is not the place for "investor warnings" or community service notices - its an encyclopedia in which content is based solely on reliable sources. Euryalus (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, if you check the links properly, you will see that they also contain links to official court documents from government websites AND the COURT documents copied and shown on the blog in addition shows original court documents as well which are good for evidence in courts of justice, so what's the problem then with WIKI??? Do you also suggest the information on Sarah Fisher's website and WIKI entry are false and the SEC website and the court websites are not reliable enough. What about an inexistend GRAVITY company website - does that round up a picture?! You seem to be either questioning a little bit too much or working for Gravity. No matter what, they have used the ficticious information on this WIKI entry to prove legitimacy they don't deserve and you are aiding their needs to scam million dollars. Congratulations! WiVictim 10:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. No need to use caps in your posts, and please avoid personal attacks in your edit summaries. Some responses:
 * Blogs are not reliable sources. Documents posted on blogs may (or may not) be accurate copies of the originals, but to put their verifiability beyond doubt they need linking or referencing from the original source or from another source that meets the RS requirements (for example, a mainstream media outlet).
 * I have no idea whether the material on Sarah Fisher's website is true or not, as I've never heard of her outside of this article and your post above. Its not a question of truth but of what can be confirmed by reliable sources (that phrase again). Blogs and personal websites are not considered reliable by Wikipedia.
 * I have never heard of Gravity Entertainment, outside of the poorly sourced article you created here.
 * Lastly, this is an encyclopedia, not an anti-scam advocacy website. I applaud people who try to warn others of scams, but they need to do so in the appropriate venues.
 * Now to the WP:BLP problem. Your article alleges potentially criminal behaviour by individuals and companies. It does so without any sources except blog entries and a single link to a government website which confirms only that a company has been sanctioned in two US states. To quote from the BLP policy: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.'


 * If you can find reliable sources to support the material you want to include, go right ahead and put it back in. But as long as you're sourcing it only from blogs, it fails the above test, and will be removed.


 * Happy to discuss further if you wish, or you can raise it at the biographies of living persons noticeboard to get other people's opinions. Euryalus (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Euryalus, thank you for your informative response. Let me state first, my usage of “caps” was not intended to shout at anybody, nor did I ever want to insult somebody (I hope I did not attack anybody!). Second, the article in question (Gravity) was not created by me and was poorly sourced from scratch.   However, exact same initial Wiki-article was (mis-)used to prove legitimacy to potential investors of Gravity Entertainment. So the entry was questionable from the beginning. Since people looking for this company would find the Wiki-article well listed with search engines, they might have gotten a false impression about an enterprise. I know of people who have lost quite a lot of money. I have done my share of alerting the public and tried to put some effort into it. All documents (also given with the mentioned blog) are court documents and subject to maintenance by the clerk of the court in the relevant districts the judgments were obtained - the regular legal procedure would be to call up the mentioned district courts to verify the documents, but I guess we will not include phone numbers as proper Wiki-references. I am done with these scam artists and have no intention to put more effort in it than I have already made. I am sorry for the inconvenience I have caused to you and would still want to honestly thank you for your administrative efforts. I know too good, how difficult of a job it is to keep order … which also applies to restricting and regulation public information according to policies as provided with Wiki’s. Good luck for you future! WiVictim 05:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Temporary page protection
I have temporarily protected this page, and would like to explain why.

Over recent weeks various editors have sought to add material to the page making allegations about the company and its founders. These allegations may or may not be true but they are unsourced other than by blogs. Blogs are not reliable sources and cannot be used to source Wikipedia material, particularly controversial material like this. The material proposed to be included is also subject to WP:BLP, which sets a high standard for material relating to living people.

I have never heard of this company or its founders outside this article and have no idea of the veracity of the material. If reliable sources were found for it, it could certainly be included. But in their absence, it cannot. This is not an endorsement of Gravity and its business practices, simply an upholding of Wikipedia's policies regarding controversial material.

To prevent the material's repeated reinsertion without better sources and to encourage community discussion on the issue, I have protected the page for a few days. Feel free to discuss this here and provide any alternative sources for the statements. Other opinions on the matter can also be sought at any time at biographies of living persons noticeboard. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Wikipedia but this entry saved me from losing my life savings. I did read the Blog and every image of court documents seems to be well cited (such as telling you where to find it online). There is a problem because you can't link directly to the judgments in broward or palm beach but the blog gives specific books and page numbers on how to find the judgments and where to find them. I checked out everything on the blog and it seemed to be 100% accurate. It seems Austin Danger Powers and Airborne 67 are people who are involved with Gravity and are doing everything they can to protect the public from knowing the truth about this company being one big ponzi scheme as there are people such as myself who almost lost a fortune to them less than a month ago but was saved by this blog and wikipedia. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.183.40 (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect, you should not be using Wikipedia to determine investment decisions involving your life savings. Euryalus (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Euryalus, Thanks for your sarcasm in this matter. But if you would have once in your life been provided with an extreme convolute of legitimate looking bank documents (such as million dollar race driver Sarah Fisher had received), which your own bank approved and which documents passed several banks’ due-diligence investigations and then turned out to be a complete fake, … I believe you would not be talking so childish again. Once your bank approved your million dollar loan based on a fictitious (non-existing) bond on behalf of you, passed all due-diligence investigations etc. and it then after some time turns out that all documents provided were fraudulently produced… guess what:  The bank does not go after the original producer of the documents sitting in Switzerland, Canada or Luxembourg but will hold YOU fully LIABLE! Isn’t that funny how banks work and how you as a once wealthy man do not only lose all your savings but also end up with 5 million dollars in debts, counseled by your own bank???

The least we can do, is to warn others because they are still travelling with 3 different passports and selling their bonds all over the world on a daily basis and prove to investors their “legitimate” business with fake Wiki-articles and other honest looking fake documents! Victim: T.Tom. 18:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wivictim (talk • contribs)


 * No need for the bold text, and sorry if what I was trying to say was unclear. The point I am making is this is an encyclopedia, not an anti-scam advocacy website. Material here must be verified via references in reliable sources. That doesn't include blogs, not because any particular blog is false but because there is no independent standard of fact-checking for them that enables them to meet Wikipedia's standards. Wikipeida cotnent is not about truth, its about verifiability. If content cannot be backed up by reliable sources, it cannot be included here.


 * Secondly, the point of the "with respect" comment is I don't believe anyone planning on making an investment decision involving their life savings would (or should) do so solely or even largely because they read a Wikipedia article. If a company is a poor investment risk, that information will be available from multiple sources and not just a poorly-sourced article in an online encyclopedia.


 * Lastly, as I said on your talk page I applaud people who try to alert others of scams, but there are appropriate places for advocacy and this is not one of them. Wikipedia is not here to "warn others", its here to be an encyclopedia of verifiable content. Euryalus (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Euryalus, I mostly agree with you. I believe WIKI should only be an encyclopedia with respect to the word itself.  And it would of course be foolish to base somebody’s investment decision solely on a wiki-entry. But major U.S. and a German bank were just as ignorant as investors and approved fake documents, so what does that tell you? Right, these people do a great job in producing paper-documents.
 * However, also wiki for years (since this article about Gravity exists) was misused since there is not much to the company and their alleged movies hardly have anything to do with them other than they used to own these movie producers money which they could not collect.


 * So, wiki from the beginning has served as a direct supporter of scam procedures by giving them the opportunity of a legitimate sounding article.


 * Since it is difficult to link court documents (onine)… how about the following: I truly believe that the Wiki-policy could not veto the opportunity of having original scanned court documents uploaded as Wiki-Files!!!   So, what if somebody uploaded a bunch of court documents to Wiki (such as every other image, logo, photo etc.)   I believe, we would not break wiki rules and be on the safe side.


 * I would not have involved myself again, after you made the changes, as long as the ALABAMA and WI info stayed up there, but Gravity agents again deleted everything making this wonderful article again look like GRAVITY Entertainment is a legitimate business - and that is absolutely inacceptable for our families. Wivictim 20:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For further information, please contact FDLE headquarters: 1-850-410-7000  / or the Attorney General`s office in Florida: 1-866-966-7226.


 * This is also a useful reference for the Alabama "cease and desist". Controversial claims need additional sourcing, so I propose to add this to the article as well as the Wisconsin Order when page protection expires. I've also removed individual names from a post above per WP:BLP - there might be an argument for including one of them in the terms outlined in the Alabama document I've linked, but there is still too little reliable sourcing to record allegations against the other. Other views welcome as always. Euryalus (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As unsourced material continues to be added in breach of WP:BLP, and sourced material continues to be deleted without talk page discussion, I have protected the page again. Please discuss inclusion or deletion of material here to obtain consensus for its inclusion or removal from the article. Euryalus (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Credits list
The credits list in this article is unsourced other than via Gravity Entertainment's IMDb profile here. Even then, the following issues arise:


 * There is no reference to "Melina"
 * The reference to The Bully lists gravity as a co-producer with four others, not the producer
 * "Primal Scream" appears to be a forthcoming movie rather than an actual one, and the reliability of IMDb in cases like this is questionable (see the proposal at Citing IMDb).

I raise these to get other's views on how to improve the sources or alternatively, remove these items, when page protection ends. I'd suggest removing Melina as unreferenced, removing "Primal Scream" as unreliably referenced and amending "the Bully" to note co-production role only.

Obviously these are only my opinions, any others are welcome. Euryalus (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Euryalus stopped taking his power as a Wikipedia operator so seriously he would have a correct entry as he has ignored every truthful allegation against this scam of an operation and yet somehow must be caving into pressure from Gravity who like to bully their victims and anyone who stands in the way of their ponzi scheming more money. You ignore everyone's comments in the discussion area as if you have some sort of higher power on them. This company has never done anything but take millions of dollars from people and when it makes the news in the next few weeks and people come to Wikipedia to see whats going on I hope they all see how "Euryalus" was there to censor people trying to warn victims by deleting valuable legal documents against Gravity from the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.183.62 (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to comment. You might like to read WP:RS and possibly WP:NPA. To put it simply, Wikpedia is an encyclopedia - it is not an anti-scam advocacy site and its not somewhere to post poorly sourced material, regardless of how strongly you feel about it. If there are reliables sources for criticism of Gravity Entertainment, they should be added to the article. Blogs are not reliable sources, so you'll need to find other sources to justify the details you want to add. There is an especially stringent requirement for sourcing where the material is negative and relates to living persons.


 * So - feel free to add any relevant matters about this company, but again, you must have a reliable source for it and a self-published blog is not sufficient. Euryalus (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

None of the links work for Gravity so why do you insist on allowing them. Eurayless or whatever, you seriously DONT GET IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.183.62 (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The links are to Wikipedia's editing policies. They work for articles in Wikipedia. Sorry that you don't agree with them, but alas, they are the rules. You cannot include material in Wikipedia that is sourced only from blogs. You cannot include negative material about living persons without a particularly high standard of verifiability. I appreciate you feel strongly about this, but we come back (again) to the fundamental point that this is an encyclopedia not your personal advocacy website. Material here must meet the requirements of an encyclopedia. Please find other sources for the material you want to add, beyond the blog page. Euryalus (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Original research re company closure
An editor recently added a sentence to the article noting that the company website was down, and therefore the company had closed. This is original research - the existence or otherwise of a website doesn't automatically indicate the existence or otherwise of the company. If the company is closed that's valuable information to include in the article, but it must be based on reliable sources rather than supposition about the reason behind a dead website.

I've reverted the change as original research but am happy to discuss if there's disagreement. Euryalus (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

For all purposes, They are out of business as they are now onto new scams but you won't allow us to post them. While you won't allow blogs as sources if you go to lambertwatch.blogspot.com you will see documents which were originally used on here showing judgments for their scams but you seem to want to protect them. The Blog is completely sourced through links showing the authenticity of the judgments and documents yet your the only wiki op who refuses to allow them on here. Were you given shares, promises of a percentage of the company, perhaps a percentage of movies they don't own to be the gate keeper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.112.231 (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A belated response. No, I've never heard of this company other than having read their article on Wikipedia. Unsourced allegations of criminal conduct by living people are routinely removed from articles as they fail the criteria of WP:BLP. The policy on reliable sources rules out blogs, because with all respect to blog operators, there is no credible way to ensure the material posted on them is accurate or based on acceptable fact-checking. The blog you refer to contains various documents which are allegedly court orders. They may or may not be genuine, but would need a more reliable soruce (for example, the court itself) to e included. The "cease and desist" reference in the article was retained bcause it met this criteria, even though in the context of a short piece it may be giving undue weight to a single legal direction. Euryalus (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)