Talk:Benjamin Cohen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 5 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Contents |
[edit] Ben Way
"Benjamin Cohen was the UK's first teenage dot-com millionaire." There is no proof of this? See this article - http://www.news.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2005/11/15/ftbaby15.xml or http://www.friendsabroad.com/team.aspx - Ben Way in generally considered the first dot-come millionaire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.224.192 (talk • contribs) 09:23, December 9, 2005 (UTC)
Ben Way never launched Waysearch and never made a million. Cohen's company was a floated business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.13.21 (talk • contribs) 15:05, December 13, 2005 (UTC)
"Ben Way never launched Waysearch" he never launched Waysearch but he had a signed contract wich for a period of time technically made him a paper millionaire. The authority and legitimacy of the claim "Benjamin Cohen was the UK's first teenage dot-com millionaire." remains unfounded. Such sweeping, unsubstantiated claims are what gives Wikipedia a bad name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SparksUK (talk • contribs) 16:21, December 19, 2005 (UTC)
I am Ben Way the truth is that Waysearch was turned into a company caled Pulsar and I ended up being diluted down to nothing, however at one point the company valued at £50m(the good old days!) and I owned 49% so by media standards I was the first dot-com millionair and was for example in the rich list at £18.3m. So it really depends how you measure it, however the reality is that most people are valued on there assets including shares based upon company valuation, very few millioniairs have a million in the bank as it provides a very bad ruturn on investment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benpbway (talk • contribs) 20:16, November 24, 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PLEASE SIGN YOUR ENTRIES
I can barely keep up with all of the comments on this page. Please sign your entries with ~~~~. KC9CQJ 16:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, this article has various not true information, so change it, why delete whole article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.249.115 (talk • contribs) 23:11, June 10, 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Disambiguation dispute
The wikipedia community voted to keep the article. The disambiguation is a completely different issue, and despite any one person's view of who is "obscure" the point here is clarity for users of the wikipedia project - not the personal profile of one individual's entry. Many people have no interest in UK TV journalists but much interest in a former Princeton professors views on the internation monetary system and global finance. If a subject is notable for inclusion and there can be confusion for wikipedia users disambiguation rules apply. See WP:D JudyRobinson 10:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia community has already voted to keep this page as is. Please leave with a link to disambiguation. There are 2 Benjamin Cohen's listed, one is a well known British tv journalist, the other is an obscure academic. It is therefore appropriate to leave as it is.Philsome 19:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
This should remain a disambiguation page, not a landing page for a UK journalist, who is one of those five people whose articles all have an equal right to be noticed under this entry. JudyRobinson 19:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Third opinion
I came here from a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Addressing some comments above:
- The Wikipedia community never "voted to keep the page as is." They voted to allow the page to remain on Wikipedia rather than deleting it. Pages on Wikipedia are never static, so keeping it "as is" is meaningless.
- The proper way to organize biography articles with the same name is to use a disambiguation page. It is also proper to reference that disambiguation page at the beginning of each article that the disambig page points to. It is not correct to use one article as a disambiguation resource for another. This violates WP:NPOV by implying that Wikipedia places greater importance on one biography over another.
- My recommendation is to move this article to "Benjamin Cohen (journalist)" and convert this Benjamin Cohen article into a redirect page, redirecting "Benjamin Cohen" to Benjamin Cohen (disambiguation) -Amatulic 19:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- - In process following third and fourth opinions. JudyRobinson 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I also came from the third opinion page; and I agree with Amatulic; this should be a disambiguation page. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 19:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding User_talk:Philsome comment on User_talk:JudyRobinson
Why is it that your sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be attempting to edit articles relating to Benjamin Cohen. For a so called new user, whose first and only topics you seem to Cohen, you appear to know a lot about Wikipedia.Philsome 23:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I actually came here researching the other Benjamin Cohen (the monetary systems expert) for an assignment and found what I discovered about Benjamin Cohen (the journalist) entries to seem out of proportion to my perception of his importance compared to the Professor's. There are a lot of other topics that interest me of course - but I'm actually quite busy at present too - so dealing with this has been the first thing I have done on Wikipedia. (I also love Lost In Space so had a v v small thing there too.) It seems odd that Philsome cares so much about one particular entry for the UK journalist. You might look back over many months of entries by Philsome - quite clearly not a new user, but the entries almost always seem quite focused on Benjamin Cohen, or related topics like Channel 4 news or Pink News. JudyRobinson 00:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding User_talk:Philsome further comment on User_talk:JudyRobinson
Re: your message, if you look clearly, I'm interested in a variety of LGBT topics so these figure. As does Chris Smith, Boyz, G-A-Y, Steven Twigg and the other pieces I have written on. Benjamin Cohen is an increasingly well known LGBT journalist in Britain and someone I am interested in. http://www.channel4.com/news/about_us/meet-the-team/benjamin-cohen.html Philsome 00:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
That may well be Philsome but by what I see on your contributions page most, I think much more than half, of all Philsome entries all relate to this one person Benjamin Cohen (British journalist) which seems odd from a WP:NPOV and WP:COI point of view. I am just new, and actually quite pleased i have learned enough to make you question my newness, but I unfortunately got caught up unwittingly in what was a quite aggressive attempt by you to keep all people like me typing "Benjamin Cohen" always landing on your page - which is really annoying to people who are using wikipedia to research information. Your aggression on that issue, and now this afternoon on attacking me, makes me feel very wary of you as a fellow user, and I now wish my studies had not brought me into contact with you. I can happily go and edit other topics as my experience of wikipedia increases but the way you conduct yourself about this single person topic I personally find quite aggressive and somewhat disturbing. I had no idea wikipedia worked like that. If this one single guy is so important to the world, why are you almost always the one that seems to edit his entry? Really odd to me, but maybe I just don't know how this place functions yet JudyRobinson 01:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I made today at User_talk:Philsome --
Please stop trying to always push Benjamin Cohen (British journalist) above other entries
I see from earlier remarks made here and elsewhere about you that you seem to have made something of a career out of pushing this one article forward in differing ways. Your amendments today based on middle names is trite - the policy so far as I can make out from Wikipedia guidelines is that the correct alphabetizing is via article name, not by the middle name of a person who may be the subject of that article. In any case, the US professor has a middle name of "Jerry" - so even your erroneous attempt to put Benjamin Cohen (British journalist) above the others would still not succeed. What is it about your relationship with this one person that makes you try to always push this one individual's cause? I have my own suspicions based on your consistent actions but I can only ask you to stop doing this. You are wasting yours, and much more importantly, my time with these actions. I suspect your actions may be related to trying to achieve search engine prioritisation for the UK TV person and that is not a purpose of Wikipedia - i would think it is likely an abuse. So please stop doing this time and again. AgnethaFaltskog 22:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disambiguate the disambiguation?
There is also a Benjamin Cohen (disambiguation) page. Is there someone out there who is handier at redirection and who can easily combine one with the other and then redirect to the combined page? Butwhatdoiknow 02:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
