Once again you are selective in your responses and totally ignore important issues. for example:

You also say that the Rin tin tin Museum was "short lived" and make not reference as to where this information is substantiated and yet the Museum still exists today.

You also say that Jannettia Brodsgaaard Propps amassed a collection of memorabilia which she did not. She never collected Anything. It was Edythe Shepard of Tucson, Arizona who collected a large part of the pieces in the museum and donated them to Rin tin tin.

There are other issues with other pages such as the Lassie page - you apparently did not follow the "conflict" rules with them (Carol, Joan and Chelsea - yes they are friends of ours and in fact have one of our dogs)and allowed their "version" of facts that surrounded the events associated with Weatherwax. Yet you will not make corrections to things in the Rin Tin Tin article that are incorrect and that are not as self-serving as the statements in the Lassie article. Honestly it appears that you do maintain a double standard.

I now see that you have arbitrarily added that a dog name Rin Tin Tin Smith attended the American Humane hero Dog Award Show in 2011 - there is no dog registered as Rin tin tin Smith and there has never been a dog called Rin Tin tin Smith. Not sure where you got your information but that too is incorrect. The call name of the dog is indeed "Smith" but that is not his registered name. He is Rin Tin tin XII. We would still like to know who gave you this bogus information and it should be corrected. 

And again regarding Finding Rin Tin tin - if you have Tierney on one page should he not also be on the Finding Rin tin tin page and shouldn't you put Danny Lerner on the Rin Tin tin page.? I am sure Danny Lerner would appreciate that. If you would like a copy of the contract between First Look and Tierney we can certainly provide that to you. It specifically outlines Tierney's involvement as being only limited to a "mention." He had no direct involvment in the "making" of the film.

I would hope that you would research further to substantiate the 48 puppy issue. Your argument is that because someone "mentions" it is a book that it is absolutely true. If that is the case then why do you discount other authors, books and writings?  You defend Orlean's writings as though they were your own and discount anyone else's, including English. That is surely a double standard and certainly NOT professional in any manner.

We would hope that your goal would be to provide correct information to people and to do it in a consistent manner. Apparently that is not your goal as evidenced by your self righteous indignation. In a lawsuit you could be described as having unclean hands. Shame on you.