Are you a Laura Branigan fan? Then Wikipedia is out to scam you about her biography.
Why?
When Branigan went into the music biz, her agents and publisher made her change her birth year from 1952 to 1957 to make her seem younger. They also mickeyed with her birthplace and other information about her early years. Her fan club began pushing the false information, not just during her life, but long after when there was no need, and corrupted the Wiki article bigtime. A cadre of editors then formed a conspiracy to revert and suspend anybody trying to correct the false information, with the result that the false birth year et al. spread throughout the Internet onto
other bio sites like a virus.
This racket reached a head in 2014 when Swedish superfan Stig-Åke Persson began doing his own research, going back to newspaper articles and official records to reconstruct her life, especially the first years. In late 2015 he finally collected all his research on a Pinterest page, as follows:
Persson Pinterest Page
Backing up, when he tried to edit the Wiki page starting in 2014, the conspirators reverted his edits and blocked him from editing in violation of all of Wiki's own policies, by accusing him of vandalism, allowing them to take summary action without vetting by a disinterested group of judges.
Read Wiki's Vandalism article for yourself and see what ASSHOLES this cadre of editors are.
Wikipedia Vandalism Article
To save you the trouble, here's the relevant portion:
"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."
Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful? When, and by whom, and what will be done about it?
So far, Wiki SUCKS. It's been spreading outright lies about Branigan knowingly for years, and is systematically blocking updates when new information is found by serious researchers.
Pee-yuuu!
This cabal of editors are the true vandals, and the rest is b.s. Who are they anyway? A bunch of unemployed losers living with their mothers? Some students working off their smart phones on the library steps? Between them there isn't enough IQ to light a tiny LED. They're total trolls, contributing nothing except crimes against truth in the name of Wiki. The ringleader seems to be "User:Thomas.W", but others are involved, see the appendix.
To be fair with these unfair assholes, in 2015 after a national magazine published an article commending Persson and backing the 1952 birth year, they finally allowed the change. In the meantime because of their editing wars the article was a total mess, so I went in and completely rewrote and revamped it, getting a bunch of flak from these trolls, although they ended up accepting most of it. At one point their snotty reversion comment was that since the true date is 1957, despite citing sources, they doubt all the other edits. Too bad for them, they ended up having to accept virtually all of them before long. But that didn't stop the jokers.
At one point Persson uploaded an image file showing Laura's wedding photo and marriage certificate, and when I tried to cite it in the article, the trolls reverted my edit, peppered me with threats, and deleted the image file too. At that time I threatened to report them, but it didn't stop them.
Then on Dec. 31, 2015 I Persson informed me of his great new Pinterest site, and instead of trying to go through the article and insert information from it for lack of time, I satisfied myself with a mere link in the External Links sections to it so that I or others can do it later. They jumped in within minutes and reverted me, with nasty warnings, then when I posted to the loser "User:Thomas.W." that he was an asshole because the link was not only legit it was essential, and undid the reversion, another cabal member reverted it again within minutes, with yet more warnings, and finally threepeated, blocking me from editing as I were a vandal and they were the sacred guardians of truth. Note: They act as a cabal, as one, so any action taken against one must be taken against all.
The shotgun men move fast to cause trouble. On the morning of Jan. 1, 2016 I finally carried out my threats to go over their heads and pushed the link to report an edit war, only to see one of the editors I complained about ban me from editing within minutes, revealing that he was put in charge of his own trial by the Wiki administration! The plot thickens. That's when I resorted to publishing the blog to the general public, who can blame me?
To summarize. It's now Jan. 1, 2016 and not only has Piersson been blocked, but moi, although I never set up an account and only log on anonymously and can switch IP addresses at will, making it a laugh. The real issue is why the higher ups at Wiki don't move in and delete editing privileges of this cabal and free the article up for editors like us who play by the rules.
The bottom line is that Persson and I have all the knowledge about the subject of Laura Branigan, all the expertise, and all the brains, while the Wiki loons have cut uus both off and enjoy all the privileges, game nights, pizza nights, and piece o'cakes.
So I'm publishing this site to go over Wiki's heads to the public and get action. This is just day one so check back from time to time. In the meantime the article, most of which I wrote before they banned me, is in limbo, with all of Persson's great new research blocked, including her real birthplace and her doings in her early years 1952-7, before her fan club claims she was born :)
How high does this go? Jimbo Wales? We shall find out. The ball is in Wiki's court. In the meantime please help spread the message that Wiki sucks and its editors are total assholes.
- T.L. Winslow (TLW), Jan. 1, 2016
PS. On Dec. 16, 2016 AP finally published a correction to their original obituary, changing the birth year to 1952 like it should have been. This really shows Wiki up as a failed organization, because this blog blowing the whistle on them had been up almost a year and they did NOTHING. How long will it take until they take away the administrator privileges of the Branigan article cabal and give them to hero Pearsson, and publish a sincere apology, signed by the top dogs? History will record. In the meantime, we have proved that WIKI SUCKS.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4ce78d41c83540e2b9b6b6b34a592158/correction-laura-branigan-obituary
Here is her bio on its own Wiki, telling the truth while the real Wiki continues to tell lies:
https://www.everipedia.com/Laura_Branigan/
ADDENDUM: THE B.S. PRODUCED BY THE CABAL EDITORS LEADING TO THEIR DELETING A MERE LINK TO PIERSSON'S ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL PAGE IN THE EXTERNAL LINKS SECTIONS, FOLLOWED BY BANNING ME FROM FURTHER EDITS. NOTICE THEIR MISUSE OF LABELS LIKE INAPPROPRIATE, HARM, DISRUPTIVE EDITING, ETC. ALL THESE LABELS APPLY TO THEIR ACTIONS ALONE.
User talk:75.171.140.151 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia December 2015[edit]
Information icon Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Laura Branigan. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Thomas.W talk 21:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other contributors, as you did on this edit to User:Thomas.W. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
January 2016[edit] Stop icon This is your last warning; the next time you harm Wikipedia, as you did at Laura Branigan with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Jim1138 (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Stop icon with clock Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
MY REPLY: I see that you're the real vandal behind the damage done to the Laura Branigan page, so what's there to appeal? I warned you that I will go public and reach a higher judge, so now I will. Your only possible justification is that my edits are vandalism, when it's clear that they can't be. I quote: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism) All along it's been totally improper to revert edits that are not vandalism but merely new content instead of submitting them to debate first so that others who are disinterested can discuss and vote. As a 1-man judge, jury, and executioner, you are the real vandal, and must be exposed. Either the higher-ups back you up and go down with you, or cut you loose and let you fall, it's their only choice in the end, but you must go for Wiki's rep to be saved.
APPENDIX: ROGUES GALLERY
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thomas.W&oldid=697648102
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oshwah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jim1138
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Acalamari
Tried to share to Pinterest, but had this message...Parameter 'image_url' (value http:null) is not a valid URL format.
ReplyDeleteHi there,
ReplyDeletewould like to get in contact with you about Laura Branigan's wikipedia. But I am only interesting in emails. I have been so badly treated by contributors, so I prefer my way.
I hope you will answer me, so we can discuss the design of Laura's references, links, sources, etc. For me it is very strange wiki are keeping sources which are outdated, the writers I have been in contact with, they all said they never met Laura. I have asked them to re-write their wrongs, but they all deny it. New York Post had a story about it in August where they wrote Laura was 52, not 47 when she died. My new Pinterest https://www.pinterest.com/born53/pins/
Looking forward for a nice and calm discussion without threats of warnings. I am already banned, blocked, etc, by wikipedia, the admins of Laura's fansites, etc. The reason why I am blocked is simple...I told the truth about Laura Branigan. She was born July 3, 1952 in Armonk, Town of North Castle.
My email...born53@gmail.com. I have no problems with my name or anything else. I am a true fan who doesn't need hiding behind avatars and nicknames.
@Born53 swe: Hi there, I'm really not good at making sense of that sort of stuff. So, I decline your request. I would recommend that you ask at the wp:teahouse. There, you should find a more open ear than on the articles or article talk.
I might suggest you put your sources on a page in your user space. User:Born53 swe That way you can refer to them. The Pinterest link I don't think is acceptable on the article, see wp:elno #11. If, on your user page, you were to break it down into a number of{{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite journal}} references. As a list of newspaper articles, magazine articles, tv shows, etc. that mentioned her birth date. Add all the information necessary to locate that article/show. The publisher, date, time, page, author, url, etc. But, ask at the Teahouse first. Hope this helps. Jim1138 (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
But you used really hard words against my friend who tries to help me in my research. He is my ghostwriter in US. Why did you banned him? And why are wikipedia still using reference that are outdated? New York Times from 2004 is so wrong it can be. And IMDb are correct, though it was from me they made their changes. Billboard, AllMusic and AllMovie denies all kind of contact. They know they are wrong, but silence is their best friend. Anyway, if you can't help me you could at least apologize to my friend. He is completely right. I have seen the emails Goliks has sent, and that is no kind words. Believe me!--Born53 swe (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@Born53 swe: I am not an administrator and can not wp:ban nor wp:block anyone. I can request that an admin block someone, but the admin usually checks that I have correctly followed procedures. See WP:BEFOREBLOCK. I do make errors, but I am quite willing to put in extra work to remedy the situation. I often use a program called wp:huggle which aids me in reverting vandalism, unsourced information, and other disruptive content. Huggle allows me to undo an edit and send the editor a warning template. The warning levels are increased until the fifth time when a message is sent to an administrator board requesting a block. Nasty vandals typically get reported and blocked more quickly. Blocks are usually 24 hours the first time but will increase until a permanent block is imposed.
ReplyDeleteWho are you referring to? If s/he was blocked, it would be for repeatedly ignoring warnings. The warnings should contain enough information for your friend to avoid repeating the action.
I want Laura Branigan's article to be correct, but it has to be sourced. Having lots of information and not knowing if it is accurate or not is a major issue. Referring to editors other than yourself, I am told often by editors that some piece of information is correct, but it seems wrong and googling the information does not support that person in any way. I.e. it would seem they are intentionally feeding me nonsense. Another common, but relevant issue is that people are constantly changing someone's birth date when that day has multiple sources stating otherwise. This kind of vandalism happens so often that it can be a full time job for multiple people. These people are referred to as wp:recent changes patrol (RCP). It seems that when many see a birthdate change without anywp:edit summary, it often assumed to be vandalism.
Regarding outdated information. The New York Times is considered very reputable. That does not mean they are infallible by any means. But, to consider them in error, contradicting sources probably need to be many and of good quality. It seems that you are having an effect. Branigan's page now shows 1952 and some attempts to change it to 1957 have been undone. IMDB and Find-a-grave list 1952. BTW: I added a link to her Find-a-grave listing.
Personally, I have other things that I consider important and don't want to spend much time on Branigan. I would like to her article correct, but I am going to leave the job for you. There are many other articles in far more need of correction. Please ask at thewp:Teahouse for advise. I do wish you success in your endeavors here. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I wrote an email to New York Post, Richard Johnson. He was the one who wrote about Laura in August. http://pagesix.com/2015/08/24/laura-branigan-was-52-not-47-when-she-died/.
ReplyDeleteMr Johnson,
thank you for all help about Laura's right birth year. Maybe I can invite you to check my new Pinterest site about my Laura Branigan collection. It's growing every day.
https://www.pinterest.com/born53/pins/ Laura Branigan born 1952
Greetings from Sweden
Stig-Åke Persson
From Richard Johnson New York Post
2015-12-31
Happy New Year! Quite compelling.
Did you know..Richard Johnson refused to believe me about Laura's age. But after he was convinced about Laura's right age, he became to be my guardian defender when The Golik's started a war against me. He told them right up...Liars!
Would love to have seen their faces!
I have an invitation from Wikipedia! But I felt I had to answer them, so they don't have any high hopes from me. I managed to mention you and also Vince G.
ReplyDeleteNo, I have no reason to make editings or whatever in Wikipedia. I have been warned, banned, blocked when I tried to edit Laura Branigan's wiki. I presented all kind of sources that Laura was born 1952, but it was deleted with hard words from wiki contributors who decided she was born 1957. They were the experts, I was just a crazy fan from Sweden hunting after some promotion. So at last I gave up and recommended sites to avoid citing wikipedia. Instead I told them to use Last.Fm's biography of Laura. I knew it was both trustful and reliable, and written by me! I came in contact with a US-writer who knew how to edit in wikipedia. He has been doing a great job with Laura's wiki, but a few days ago he was warned, banned and blocked by Thomas.W. He tried to link my Pinterest site which gives the truth about Laura. Minutes after Thomas.W jumped in and undid everything. You see, this Thomas.W has kidnapped Laura's wiki though he managed to tell wiki he is vice president of Laura's fansites. Where I am also have been blocked and banned for all time. So no, I have promised myself never touch wikipedia in any matter. Wiki destroyed everything I had about Laura. I had later an email from wikipedia's Mr Ryan, where he told me I was right about Laura. He wanted me to write in my sandbox whatever I wanted. No one should take action. Sandbox was my own notebook, I thought. Hours later my sandbox was deleted by a wiki contributor, and I decided. To hell with wikipedia. And that is still my opinion. Thomas.W or Vince Golik can do what he likes. I have no thoughts about that. But when he deletes my Pinterest link full of facts and sources, he can do like many of wiki contributors...to hell! Hard words? Yes, but wikipedia has deserved it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Born53_swe#Welcome.21
From my email with RJ, NYP.
ReplyDelete"By your story my journey is over. I hope somebody will be grateful for what I did. What Goliks think of me is nothing new. The new is a nickname of Vince G written in a comment hours ago why I was banned ..
Chaim Weitzner They wouldn't have banned you if you weren't doing something that doesn't serve only yourself. I remember your disrespectful, hateful comments against Kathy Golik and anyone on the Laura Branigan Facebook page who expressed a concern with what you were doing. Therefore, you were justifiably banned. You're a legend only in your own mind, buddy. Do you actually have a JOB? It seems to me that this is all you do. In MY job, I preserve life... all you seem to want to do is tear others down. To me, you're not a fan - you're the textbook definition of a TROLL."
"As I said, my journey is over, and life is normal. If life can be normal. I hope and pray that some brave people are able to ask the Golik's about Laura on the reunion at Long Island this weekend.
Or if everything will be..blablabla..."Fucking damn Swede, what the hell is he doing. Trying to destroy our business"
No, I will not bother them any more. But if Chaim Weitzner is making trouble, he will soon learn about Stig-Åke Persson from Sweden
Take care Richard. Don't forget to breath and enjoy life.
In some way I like the quizz I had with the experts in Simple english wiki. Probably there are still hitting their heads trying to found out the answers. But so far behind they still are. I thought they should edit and change like hell, though they also are wiki-kidnappers.
ReplyDeleteThis is written in Wikipedia's Facebook. Wonder if the will answer? "Maybe Off topic, but wiki contributors sucks. Wikipedia banned and blocked me during my research of late singer Laura Branigan. Now I would add the very last piece of my research. Laura's birthplace. In all years it has been said it was Brewster, but it wasn't. Yesterday I had it confirmed from Laura's brother Billy her right birth place. Now I must ask the owner/admin Thomas.W if he thinks this is accurate information. I think it is, but as he is administrating and also VP of Laura's fan pages and management, you can't be sure he will say yes. He managed to kidnap Laura's wiki and he is now the self acclaimed emperor of all editings. And that sucks, Wikipedia! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laura_Branigan "
ReplyDeleteFYI about Wiki...OK Thomas, will you change Laura's birthplace? If not, will you backup me up with help if I edit to Mount Kisco?--Born53 swe (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
ReplyDeleteMe again, my very last comment. Things happens and suddenly Wiki is not important any longer. It is OK if you will keep Laura's birthplace to Brewster. I have lost all interest how you will handle my last info about Mount Kisco. Perhaps you think Billy is just a damn liar, I don't know. The main thing and most important is that I and my Facebook-group knows the truth about Laura. We have updated it but I don't care about Laura's officials pages. To be honest, hiding the truth is something you did when you were a kid. Laura's management act the same. But now it's over. Things happens and correcting wiki is not my business anymore. Good look Thomas.W I hope I don't have to be involved with you any longer. I'll rather stay with real friend than a person who makes everything hiding the truth as you and your so called experts are doing.--Born53 swe (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
This was my very last attempt to change Brewster to Mount Kisco. I have really tried everything to set Laura's right info back to the right. Laura's official fansite with the Golik's are doing absolutely zero to restore her memory. Instead they will keep everything in a dark hidden place where they decide about Laura. Do you think this hurted Thomas.W aka Vince Golik when he had to admit.... 22:56, 5 January 2016 Thomas.W it should say 47 in that link, not 52, even though it wasn't her real age.)
Why is Mount Kisco so important? It is very important, though Laura's fansites has built a whole biography telling Brewster was Laura's birthplace. Now their last brick has been revealed and crushed into the ground. Will they really admit I am right? So close friends as Kathy Golik has told her fanclub they were, she and Laura. But she had no clue about her birthday or birthplace. Shouldn't friends know better?
I just love this Wikipedia expert and how he is in a logical way explains I don't know nothing. Do the math, etc. And this is one of Wikipedias elite about Laura Branigan. Read and laugh how assholes are treating the truth. It goes pretty bad...
ReplyDelete"This same fan has been trying to change her date of birth everywhere anyone will listen. The fact he has uploaded this to IMDb, then wants to use IMDb as a source underlines why it is not reliable for our purposes. I don’t know if his ban has been lifted at enwiki but he is incessant about this. These pieces of evidence he’s gathered show a person named Laura Branigan showed up in this newspaper clipping, and that school newspaper, etc. But there was more than one of this name living in that part of New York. There is no proof any of these Laura’s mentioned are the same person. Name-matching individuals with common first and last names is not credible researching and can’t be relied upon for accurate information. His gathering of this information is both OR and synthesis. The closer you look into this the harder it becomes to take seriously.
Most of the reliable sources used in this article say she was age 47 at her death. Seven of them have “age 47” in the title. Several also have her date of birth as July 3, 1957. This is not a case of just one or two having that date. Simple math confirms the year as 1957 (2004-47=1957). People magazine reported she married in 1981 when she was 24 (1981-24=1957). Several sources reported an age difference between her and her husband of 20 years. He was 44 at the time. There is no question the fan believes his date to be 1952, but it doesn’t work. To accept his COI sources would mean scrapping all 11 reliable sources used in the article. It would end up looking like this: en:Laura Branigan. Read the “sources” there and see if this is what we want here. For example, the first is IMDb followed by a classic example of synthesis of published material that advances a position. Look at what follows www.imdb.com in source #1. The second "source" states: " Please don't try to change the birth year from 1952 to 1957 without citing a more reliable source than a newspaper article not signed by a recognized authority". A newspaper article not signed by a recognized authority? The third source is a fansite, and so on. He's also not been very careful what sources that were apparently left in the article. Source #5 while identified as CNN, is actually a copy of the People article. It states "As a 24-year-old in 1981, when she met Kruteck at a Manhattan party... But Kruteck, a lawyer 20 years her senior...". This is just one of several examples of shooting his own theory in the foot. This is a controversy one person has started and is campaigning for. I don’t see why we would want to get involved in this, add confusion to the article here or make changes based on unreliable and synthesized sources. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC).
I have now changed Laura's birth place to Mount Kisco. The war had a few days off, but here we go again. I will probably from now and forever be banned, blocked, killed by wiki and Goliks. They can try to stop me, but they will fail so fucking assholes they are.
ReplyDeleteFor their own sake they shouldn't undo my edits. I have NO problems taking this publish.
Best greetings from Sweden.
Mount Kisco and Armonk still untouched by the experts. Maybe they understands who the real expert is. The old man from Sweden. :)
ReplyDeleteI can commiserate with you. The two clowns who run the "official" website (which is a joke to itself) are a married couple, Vince and Kathy Golik, who live in Pennsylvania. They are both pretty disturbed, especially the husband. Laura originally had an official website at laurabranigan.com for about 3 years before the other one started. Because Laura Branigan didn't own a computer and wasn't skilled using one, she relied on others to share information with her fans on the website and the few pieces of news she had. At the time of its founding, Laura's career was at a low point. She hadn't had a top 40 song in almost 10 years, lost her contract with Atlantic Records, and was relegated to playing small venues. At one of these venues, Kathy and Vince Golik showed up. Laura, gracious as she always was, posed for a picture and said a few words. After promises of a new album (but not providing information with the website on the status of the album), fans became impatient and started posting negative things on laurabranigan.com, that eventually got deleted but that Kathy Golik was gleeful in sharing with LB. In sharing this information, LB became angry and refused to participate in the site any longer. In step the Goliks again, and this time advising her that they could run a better website with her input. In late 2002, Laura agreed that the Goliks could create another "official" site. LB was only peripherally involved in the site, then she died in Aug 2004 at the age of 52. Her death was announced by her manager at the time, John Bowers through LB's brother Mark Branigan. Kathy and Vince managed to attend the memorial, and apparently embarrassed herself by speaking at the gathering of LB's family and friends. What was more disturbing is what happened after. Suddenly, the Goliks went from being webmasters to LB's bets friend and manager. Suddenly, LB gave them all of the "rights" to her legacy and they became her mouthpiece. Suddenly, a "Letters from Laura" and "Ask Laura" segment were posted, with supposed answers from LB (which I don't believe). LB couldn't remember most of the recordings she made and her answers were short and seemed fake, especially since fans asked pointed questions and were clamoring for info about her recordings, albums, films, acting, etc. Then, LB's personal belongings were auctioned off and there wee fights between fans and the webmasters who somehow thought that they had the right to LB's belongings. Their philosophy was that they were "protecting Laura's legacy." Since LB's family didn't seem to be that active in LB's musical rights, etc, the Goliks decided to make some money off their idol (once again by getting LB's permission from the grave). Out came the cheap shot glasses, pens, mousepads, etc., that didn't have any images of Laura since they had no rights or permission to use them. Then came the Spirit of Love gathering, that started off with about 30 people that has now trickled down to less than 10. They even snowed Laura's former drummer to appear at the gathering. They are an embarrassment. The husband is a bigot, posting a blog against gay people, Laura's biggest fan base, and the group for which she was very protective.
ReplyDeleteI know them. I asked them a couple of days ago when they will recognize Laura's 1952, the answer was I am forever and in my lifetime blocked and banned from making any comments to them. They have also said they will never answer any questions from me. I give you the site so you can watch ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfydI10EYcw
DeleteWow, read it all and it confirms my thoughts about Goliks. When I started to ask questions about Laura, they had strange answers. One day I asked Kathy about her wrongs in the press release she was sent out. Suddenly I was blocked and banned. Which I am still. I had a story published at New York Post August 2015, which caused so many problems for the Goliks. I have the emails. They should take legal action against me, etc. It would be nice having more contact with you. So many interesting things. // Greetings from Sweden!
DeleteDid you know Laura? You seems to know a much of her?
DeleteWhat happened with Atlantic Records? They have deleted Laura from their archives. Says "artist can't be found". You have to remember its founder Ahmet Ertegun loved Laura as a brightened star. She was his star! Did Laura do something that made Atlantic to take this action? Sorry for many questions, hope you don't mind.
DeleteHi Stig, no I didn't know Laura personally, but met her a couple of times (I think we've discussed things on Facebook). I'm not sure what happened with Laura vs. Atlantic. My guess is that because she hadn't had a hit in a long time and wasn't a big money maker for the label they decided not to renew her contract. I'm sure you already know this, but when Sid Bernstein sued Laura, he won and Laura and her husband had to pay a settlement. Laura's husband was very influential in some of her business decisions (usually to her detriment). Once Laura signed with Susan Joseph of Grand Trine Management, she was able to pump out several hits and even get a pretty big tour sponsored by Chrysler in 1985. However, that album, Hold Me, produced no real hits (#40 for Spanish Eddie). Laura abruptly fired Joseph, and she sued Laura was unlawful termination. Laura lost that case as well, paying Joseph over $585,000. The judge in particular put some of the blame on Laura's husband. I think at that point Laura was starting to become backlisted in the industry. Her husband took on the role of manager, and as we know, Shattered Glass wasn't the huge hit she expected and The Power of Love didn't reach the top 10 (that was because she released her version only 2 years after Jennifer Rush's massive hit version). Laura's big problem was that she didn't adept well to the changing music scene, and she changed managers often. As a result, she was never able to gain a foothold back in the music scene (although she did have some great songs). It's just a shame the frauds Vince and Kathy Golik continue to "represent" Laura when they really have no right to do so. They are frauds.
DeleteEddieBoom...You are a marvelous encyclopedia. You are learning me new things every time I read you. Thank you my friend! But in the same way it is a tragic to read it. As I read it, Laura wanted everything being as usual like 1982 when everything went her way.
DeleteHi Thomas, I saw I had wiki-messages. So I read it, made a comment and asked them to watch my pinterest site and also urged them to contact me directly, so all bullshit can be avoided. Take care Thomas, see you soon again!
ReplyDeleteThey are back again, the fucking Laura experts. They have started a new discussion 1952-1957 proofs and evidence. I have provided all my sources but it seems I am hitting my head at the wall. If you have any time over, please take a look and help me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laura_Branigan#Additional_sources.2Fevidence_to_consider
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Branigan is changed. Again it is when I started. 1957, Brewster, graduating 1975, etc. I have made a last comment and now it is over for me. I've lost this wikigate against heavy experts who has ...not a single source to show. In a way it is some kind of relief knowing I don't care any longer. Btw, I mentioned in my comment that it is not enough with changing back to 1957 and Brewster, etc, they must re-write the whole wiki so it suits a timeline of 1957. Like high school 1966-1970, must be changed to 1971-1975. The academy from 1970-72 to 1975-1977. As it was from the very beginning when I started my research. 2 years to hell!
ReplyDeleteHi! I have read part of the info here, I'm glad someone is still trying to make that truth come out, though it's not worth loosing energy with that and against those two K+VG. Obviously Laura wasn't born in july 1957, couldn't have been, unless she had been in her mothers womb for only four months, because her brother Billy (you published the record) had been born at the end of februay that same year, just 4 months before. Impossible, unless this can happen for someone living in the LBonline world, run by 2 liers. I've been a LB big fan for more than 3 decades too. Have a good day.
ReplyDeleteHi Diego! Thanks for your input. Would it be possible for you to contact me for further discussions about Laura. As I live in Sweden, it is not always easy where to look and where to find.
DeleteMy email born53@gmail.com would love to hear from you.
July 3 it is Laura's 64th birthday. New York Post will do a story of her birthday, our Facebook group and my research. "Persson has posted the relevant documents and photos on https://se.pinterest.com/born53/ Laura Branigan 1952-2004".
ReplyDeleteWiki idiots who has deleted references, sources, etc, will probably shut up now. They had me warned of 2 pictures so legal actions are waiting for me.
We did it! All about Armonk has published my story about Laura Branigan. What are Wiki experts next step? Will they blow up the paper in a suicide attack? www.allaboutarmonk.com/peopleandplaces/laurabranigan.html and their Facebook www.facebook.com/AllAboutArmonk?fref=ts
ReplyDeleteThis newspaper from Armonk, Lauras hometown, says she was born 1952 in Mount Kisco. http://www.allaboutarmonk.com/peopleandplaces/laurabranigan.html
ReplyDeleteEmails has been sent to New York Times, New York Daily News and The Guardian. It is a coordinated request of rewriting Laura's not correct obituary from August 28, 2004. Hopefully there will be an answer coming days or weeks. NYT has involved their ranking obit editor. I'll let you know.
ReplyDelete