Talk:Ben Way/Archive 1

Copy edit & thumbnail

I've tried to knock the page into shape but can someone sort out why that thumbnail isn't scaling down correctly? Davidbod 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Last paragraph

I've tidied up some of the minor errors, but I'm not sure if I approve of the last paragraph, as it is clearly more opinion than fact.

Agreed, removed. Davidbod 00:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable Wikipedian

Think User:benpbway was my PR company - any questions just shout! --Benway1980 18:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like your sock, just stick to the one account in future. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Dear Ben, It's great you want to contribute to wikipedia but please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography, the latter of which states: "It is difficult to write neutrally about yourself. Therefore, it is considered proper on Wikipedia to let others do the writing."

Therefore, please stop adding content to this article but instead follow wikipedia's policy of: "Instead, contribute material or make suggestions on the article's talk page and let independent editors write it into the article itself."

Thanks.--J2thawiki 18:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes

Thanks J2thawiki will delete entry - just was updating on latest project - thanks for the heads up.

--Benway1980 19:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Black Eye

How did Ben get the black eye during the filming of Secret Millionaire? I heard that he was mugged on his way home the first day of filming but there is no mention of it in the article?

Pablo180 01:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Black Eye Truth

Actually the black eye came from a massive part of my experience which was never shown(due to time constraints I believe) which was not only was I volunteering and living in Hackney but I also had a Job in a breakers yard called FirstFruit to earn my money to live on minimum wage. One hot day me and the guys at the yard went swimming in the Thames and my manager Chris who is a big burley but very nice guy, he is also a prankster so I heard him come swimming behind me to dunk me as I turned round his watch smashed into my eye cutting it and making it black. So I was never attacked, though there were many other quite scary moments.

--Benway1980 10:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

miomi

Hi

I don't want to create an account, so can't create new articles. Irrespsective of whether this Ben Way chap is notable, one of the projects he has apparently been working on, miomi (previously "designthetime"), certainly appears to meet notability guidelines - run a quick google search and you can find out about the heavy funding from Microsoft and quite a few other bits and pieces in various reliable sources. If someone could create the article, I'm happy to do most of the work. 82.211.95.178 11:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Have now left a request on Articles for Creation. 82.211.95.178 13:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Edited last sentence to sound less like an advert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.108.46 (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Brown

We do not need a pic of Gordon Brown as this article has nothing to do with Gordon Brown. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Brown

Image that was cropped messed the page format returned to orig. but blurred brown —Preceding unsigned comment added by Up2datenow (talk • contribs) 12:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Net Worth

Posting in right place:

Net Worth : Ben Way

Please do not change information arbitrarily without citing sources as this is a breach of the editorial guidelines of Wikipedia. After some research I have found that the last published net worth was Ambition Magazine in October:

   * "Way out front". Ambition magazine, 16 October 2008, p56-57, [1]

Which put his shareholdings at £10 Million if you can provide a cited source for your change then please publish it.

[edit] =

This is absolute trollop, Ben (you?) would have supplied that figure and it is worthless. In addition the global economy has changed significantly since then.

--Up2datenow (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wes66776 (talk • contribs)

I agree the global market would have had an effect but is is a pretty recent article, you cant just pick a figure for net worth out of the air you least need to cite evidence for such reasoning, on your basis I should go and reduce Richard Bransons net worth by 10 fold also? But in the wiki spirit I am willing to concede that the market would have had an effect and that the figure probably was over exaggerated for the article; so let's cut it in half that should reflect your concerns but also take into account a cited article. At the end of the day I bias I have been reading about Ben since I was a kid and am trying to follow in his foot steps, I have even met him; thats why I have spent the last few years looking after this page.

--Up2datenow (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Alleging the world market has changed in the last month is meaningless, this is a recent ref and as such is appropriate while claiming the world market has changed is an insufficient argument. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Biased removal of edits

I edited the page and made it concise and with all relevant references. Every individual edit was explained, so there was no sweeping change.

I checked the old references....they provided no evidence.... so they were removed.

I think that the page should be reverted to my edit, which incidentally has allowed dubious statements to remain despite their questionable credibility and generally gives an unbiased view.

As the page has clearly been edited by Mr Way himself, with at least two users names, then it is fair to check each statement and reference and correct it. Otherwise the page should really be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.92.80 (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because you have made individual edi?ts does not mean that the community will agree with your edits, you removed what in my opinion were good references and added in information that was not referenced(such as he is a consultant) you also include an opinion, the war defense thing was ridiculed by the register, which is clearly an opinion and does not belong in Wikipedia.

I have reviewed your edits and I agree some are relevant, but the article you created was significantly different from the original which many individuals have contributed to over the years. I cannot tell you how to use Wikipedia but it is likely that if you try those sweeping changes again they will be reverted, I suggest you make a few changes at a time and then they can be discussed, this is how Wikipedia should work and we get an article from consensus.--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The old article was too fictitious, the references supplied had no link with the points made. I have removed unverifiable parts and left in verifiable parts. Any extra parts have been referenced.....(including now the consultancy part). Statements such as 'world's first' should be verified, thats why is was removed about viapost... it had precedence as can be seen in the notes.

The article you keep reverting back to is UNVERIFIABLE, if you wish to add something..... do it part by part and check its verifiable.

Please give a reference of something that is unverifiable and we can discuss it?--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop reverting and use the discussion page or I will start to consider this vandalism and get the page protected —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You still need to provide the original reference which you have not done--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is getting tedious

Ok, for starters -

The statements about being in the Rich List under Robbie Williams is untrue and there is evidence to prove this. Mr Way claims to have been in the 2001 ST Rich list under Robbie Williams.

Unfortunately Robbie Williams was a NEW ENTRY in the 2002 Rich List, and was not in the 2001 list. Therefore that claim is false.

Here the evidence - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/richlist/person/0,,6550,00.html

So that section can be removed as it is clearly fictional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.92.80 (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don’t see that at all the link you have provided shows he was a new entry in 2001 rich list it says "2001 Ranking" = "New Entry" it does not say how much he was worth or how much Ben Way was worth, in fact I presume they were both "New Entries" in 2001, you would need to provide evidence of the actual published list to disprove this as it has been cited in a reliable source, this is how Wikipedia works, we can only use citable sources....please provide another?--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If you know how the online list worked...... it shows Robbie Williams as worth £0 in the 2001 list and that he had no previous position on the 2001 list. Therefore My Way's assertion that he was only the list under RW is false. The link I provided is for a 2002 list, the 2001 parts at the bottom are to show a comparison between 2001-02. This cannot be done.... so you are told that the person is "New Entry" on the 2002 list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.92.80 (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

with reference to sources...... my reference is a primary source.... yours is actually unreferenced or a tertiary source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.92.80 (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is another link to show R Williams had his 1st entry in 2002 on the Rich List http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/showbiz/1911431.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.92.80 (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No it does not it says he was a new entry in 2001, and actually I have just found this http://www.u2france.com/actu/article35978.html you are wrong, but thanks for using the discussion board, please continue with your issues with this page and also please stop reverting while we are discussing.--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If you read your own reference...... that refers to the Sunday Mirror. I am right. I have provided the Sunday Times link and a BBC link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.92.80 (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You still need to provide the original reference which you have not done--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Look if you want to put something in the article, you have to provide the reference. Everything you have provided so far is false. Everything I have provided is true. I have removed the false statements - they are FALSE.... they are not just unverified but have actually been proven to be wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.92.80 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

okay so the page is protected now lets have a constructive discussion about changes? For example I agree with you something needs to be in there about Dyslexia?--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

One by One - things that are wrong....and the facts

May as well lay out the facts......a lot of things have been repeated in the article as well to pad it out..... this is unnecessary.

1. Full name - Benjamin Peter Bernard Way - shown on lib dem ref DOB is fine

Occupation -

Entrepreneur (evidence of starting companies) and Consultant (has worked with other companies in consultancy roles - w Chris Moss (ref)

Ok so far? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.92.80 (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

1. He is clearly known(the vast majority of sources) and the article name as Ben Way, you could put his full name in the info box and would be more appropriate.

He is not known for being a consultant, he may have been a consultant but from the references he is clearly described as an Entrepreneur and not a consultant, and even if he was it would not be appropriate in the context of this article because he is not known for being a consultant so I would consider it completely unnecessary. --Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Consultancy should stay in... working for other companies/people that you don't have an interest in is consultancy.

Ben Way is still in the title.... full name should be in main article. Compare to say Kylie Minogue or richard Branson... full name is first line.

Okay agree with name - still dont agree with consultancy(all entrepreneurs are consultants to some degree are they not?). but lets move on --Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

-Consultancy out --Ɔıƃol uʍop ǝpısdn (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Small dyslexia ref I put at the top..... only 4 words....fairly relevant and was given a reference so that stays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.92.80 (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree but should be rephrased, in fact one of things that most frustrated me about your edits was this - I work with Dyslexia organizations(hence my interest in Ben) saying that he suffers with it is a big no no, turn it into something positive like "Despite the fact he was told he would never read or write because of his Dyslexia he started his first business at 15 ect ect --Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

-Dyslexia in --Ɔıƃol uʍop ǝpısdn (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

3.Life & Career

Should be done chronologically - so started first business at 15 etc.....can stay in cos its not that controversial. Youngest company director at the time? This suggests that this was a limited company.... if so there will be companies houses records to verify this. Stays out til its verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.92.80 (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with chronologically but not about youngest company director there are cited reliable sources for this, it would be for you to provide a source that refuted a cited source for it not to be relevant, Wikipedia is not about what can or cannot be proved it is all about the sources. If it has been published it stays. --Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide me with a good source then or maybe the company name? The statement is just stuck in some quoting loop where wikipedia quotes a source - and that source itself has quoted wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.92.80 (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed it is in a quoting loop, but so is most of this article! Does not mean it's original source is not valid, remember a lot of this is before the internet was prolific not all original sources are published online(like the 2001 Sunday times rich list) therefore reliable second sources should be used.--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

-Stays in --Ɔıƃol uʍop ǝpısdn (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way do you know if Ben Way was in the 2002 Rich List maybe its just a year confusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk • contribs) 23:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No point in writing some Oprah spiel about overcoming dyslexia....... just put 'is a known dyslexic'.

Yeah the article is completely fucked thats why it was edited. The Rich List 2002 shows who was present in 2001. It shows that R Williams wasn't in the 2001 List - so the statement that Ben was in the 2001 List under Robbie Williams is bull. He's not in the 2002 list....... 90.192.92.80 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I will do a bit more research first, these things are not just made up and published. The part "mocked by tech website The Register -"WAR Defense thus far appears to have little substance beyond the Rainmakers phone number and a flash-heavy, info-lite website.." should be taken out because it has no relevance to the article on Ben Way, if this was an article on WAR Defense this would be relevant.

-Rich list out --Ɔıƃol uʍop ǝpısdn (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole of the WarDefence thing should be taken out. Its not a registered company, its just a flash website. When it becomes a registered company with some substance it can be added. 90.192.92.80 (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe but it is relevant to some degree, we don’t know how established it is, but if it is running then it is a significant change in direction and does have cited sources. Lets move on for now. --Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's just a website...and it has not changed since it was talked abt in the Register. So leave out until becomes noteworthy.

4. Working with US?UK governments? Surely you agree this is either unlikely or has to be verified with a primary source because that is a very big statement to make.

That comes from this source and is quite specific http://web.archive.org/web/20070503063133/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2001/01/10/tldis10.xml it even names the US government guy he was working for in the US. Good source, I cant see why you would exclude it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk • contribs) 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Link doesn't work...90.192.92.80 (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Strange works fine for me, anyway it is a Telegraph article and says:

"As for names - they are a nightmare. "When I had to go to see Martin Baily, the American equivalent of Gordon Brown, I had to keep looking at his name in my diary so that I remembered it."

Way is dyslexic, severely so. He has the spelling ability of an eight year old and his school career was a series of humiliations and disasters. Yet, at an age when others are worrying about writing essays, the 20 year old is a multimillionaire and an adviser to the American and British governments."--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok I found another way to link it...yeah it can be put in...'he was a 3G technology advisor to members of the US government' ? 90.192.92.80 (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The article does not specifically state that, I think the original stands it mirrors exactly what the source says. Anything else? --Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

-Agree --Ɔıƃol uʍop ǝpısdn (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought you would want this in it's the only notable piece of consultancy I can see he has done.--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

7. After a business dispute with investors in 2001 his interest in "Pulsar", an Internet search venture, was diluted and he lost everything. After this setback Way was offered work in a consultancy firm by a charitable friend. ??90.192.92.80(talk) 00:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is this? Stick to the current current article and state the changes you think we should make?--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

8. In 2003, he started rainmakers etcetc.....venturing company. Cannot put he has involvement with other companies unless you have references.90.192.92.80 (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

After that sentence...... there is no need for anything abt viapost, wardefence, horsemouth or antyhing. It should be left blank...... people will click on the rainmakers link if they want to know what they do.90.192.92.80 (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The references are within the companies websites and on cited sources, your surely not saying that The Rainmakers is not relevant on this page?!!?!? As for the other companies they are very relevant just look at the Richard Branson page it must talk about 30+ companies!--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

-Agree --Ɔıƃol uʍop ǝpısdn (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol this isnt Richard Branson now is it!? I'm saying the only thing abt the rainmakers to be mentioned is its purpose and a link to its website.

To see what an equivalent page looks like.... look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_mcvey - they are same age, profession etc.... this article should be concise like that.90.192.92.80 (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just using that as a reference for you, age has nothing to do with it, it is not for you to say what a page should look like, it is for the community to say; a cited source for all three companies is here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/2815577/Web-post-can-save-the-planet-and-cut-costs.html--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Its nothing about age really..... more notability. If you want to write about all the little companies... just start a rainmakers page. Putting in unnecessary items clogs the page.

For example... it says he was born in September. It doesn't say he was born in September, a month with 30 days found between August and October in the Calendar.90.192.92.80 (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand this at all?--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Im off90.192.92.80 (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

But Brightstation and Viapost are not little companies, they are established with well known entrepreneurs behind them, they are more notable than Rainmakers, but Rainmakers is more relevant because it is his main company, your argument does not make sense; if you want to see somebody younger and richer with a longer page then look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg --Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

your making stupid comparisons now. Haven't got to Brightstation yet.... that was in my edit if you had bothered to read it. That should stay as it is a thing with Way individually.

The Rainmakers is a holding company in effect, so things like go green, viapost etc come under that umbrella. thinks like horsesmouth etc don't belong on a biographical page.90.192.92.80 (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

-Disagree --Ɔıƃol uʍop ǝpısdn (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well two things here first 'Virgin' in effect is a holding company therefore are you saying that all Bransons companies should have one line on that page? Second Brightstation does not have anything to do with the Rainmakers it says he was the CTO, I think the fact that he was a CTO of a 100m fund is notable, as do I think all the other companies are notable with the exception maybe of the green plumbing company. It is also interesting that you happened to leave in a very specific negative opinion about one of his companies in your original edit, but now you think that it should all be taken out, it feels to be like you could be the biased one.--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Relax! Brightstation was always gonna stay in. It says he was CIO not CTO.

As for the notability of the companies under Rainmakers.....I'm not trying to belittle anything just simply stating that putting out a press release doesn't make something noteworthy. I don't think I put in the war defence thing... but as we have already said...... its not a registered company anyway.

You seems to be taking things very personally... do u know ben?90.192.92.90 (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Viapost statement is wrong as well..... is not the worlds first as it was launched in 2007. pdqit.com http://www.pdqit.com/about.php was founded in 2005 and provides that service.90.192.92.5 (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I went to see him talk once, but after watching the secret millionaire I think he is one of the nicest humans beings in the world and he is dyslexic , which is why I care so much, and will work hard to make sure he is always well represented. --Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything else?--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I will revert back to the last version of the site before your changes then we can all make changes slowly(a few a day) and see what everybody says please do not revert changes until they are discussed here, if we end up in an edit loop again I will just revert back to the original and have the page protected again.--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

-Agree--Ɔıƃol uʍop ǝpısdn (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

VANDAL

THE GUY CLEARLY HAS ISSUES WITH BEN WAY THIS IS NOT THE PLACE DUDE CHILL OUT OR I WILL REVERT CHANGES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.143.214.55 (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Times rich list

You are not wrong about the rich list stuff but it is accurate to a point I still have the 2001 rich list(i know its sad I am a bw junkie ;-) and on page 97 ben way(18.3m) is indeed below Robbie(21m) on the rich list but this is the UNDER 30’s rich list, and not the main list which is why Robbie does not appear to have been in it so the detail got lost but it is near enough

As for the new and old article i think the old one is better as it includes more details and sources and as long as it relevant it is better to have more information than less in a page but i also agree we should have something about dyslexia and get rid of that WAR defence stuff and maybe even the semantic web stuff?--Up2datenow (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Rich list will stay out. If you are desperate for it to be included.... scan it in and upload it. Either way though..... its a misleading statement.

Most of the old article repeats itself as well.... its not as if the new one was too short. Everything that was on there was referenced. The only things that were removed were things that were not referenced and unverifiable.90.192.92.109 (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would you not include it is obviously a significant biography piece as it has been referenced by reliable media sources many many times over the years and now you have the original source reference i am happy to email you a scan of the page if you give me your email address i cant upload it to wiki because it is copyright. Where does the original article repeat itself please give me an example obviously the into piece gives an overview but this is consistent with the wiki biographies policy --Up2datenow (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeats -

won entrepreneur of the year - in main article and then its own section. secret millionaire - paragraph..... then in some tv section as well. telegraph blogger....in publications and television/print section. how to be a teenage millionaire - in two different sections. (the reference for this is dead?)

no need to have such a big intro....... just like in my edit...... short sentence then put that stuff in main body.

city am - theres no reference there

net worth is not independently valued either....... its apparently an interview where they are asked how much they are worth... that cannot be verified.... so remove.90.192.92.109 (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at and yes I agree things like the double teenage millionaire stuff should be taken out but it is not unusual for biography information on Wikipedia to be in more than one section for example it is biographically relevant in the main section that he did secret millionaire but at the same time it should be referenced under the media section(as long as it is not duplicated) the best way to get to a perfect biography page is look at A–class rated articles on Wikipedia you will see they reflect the original page more than yours with much longer intos than Ben Way has. Net worths are never independently verified and if you review above the community has already talked a lot about this we can only go with the last cited reliable source whether you think it came from Ben Way or not is irrelevant that’s just not how Wikipedia works. --Up2datenow (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

lol just checked ur history and ip.... you are Ben! whats the weather like Florida?90.192.92.109 (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Love it guess again i have been in the states for years but just stick your email address on my talk page and i will easily show you who i am like i have said before above i know Ben and i am biased!--Up2datenow (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol so you are telling me you live in FT. LAUDERDALE coincidentally at the same time as Ben.... and that coincidentally you happen to have a copy of British newspaper from 2001? your whole wiki history is Ben Way, Hermione Way and Robots!90.192.92.109 (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Its no coincidence I helped him get set up down here and if you look at my ip edits you will see they were way before he was around?!?! Like I said I know him and I take an active interest in him and his sister--Up2datenow (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah right.... and the iteddy article you tried to create..... just a coincidence that the inventor works for the rainmakers?90.192.92.109 (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I know Imran through Ben and to be honest I could not care less whether you think I am Ben or not it makes no difference to me! --Up2datenow (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

......and your coincidental interest in combating robots? its pretty obvious its you Ben..... stop editing your own page! the rich list bull stays out90.192.92.109 (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said I know him! Anyway I will let you have your fun if you believe I am Ben Way I will take it as a compliment! As for the rich list I have provided ref and we have a large number of sources and I even offered to send it to you, lets see what people say before we pass judgement?!!?--Up2datenow (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

well the only accessible source suggests its a lie.....if your source suggests otherwise you'll have to upload it.... and link it into the page article if you want to include any rich list refs..... its already been decided it shall say out.......as for whether you are him (obvious)or are a friend...... its a conflict of interest...... so your thoughts will be discarded. Thanks anyway 90.192.92.109 (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONFLICT just because I have a conflict of interest does not mean I cannot have input as long as we try and reach consensus I have always disclosed my conflict of interest that does not mean my input is irrelevant I will scan the rich list and upload it it to another site and link to it here I don't know what your issues are but you are clearly biased but as I always say what goes around comes around. Thanks anyway --Up2datenow (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

btw may as well use your close ties..... can you get the name of the computer consultancy company that he started at 15?90.192.92.53 (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually that I don’t know I really only started following him after Waysearch but I will try and find out.--Up2datenow (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So here is the link to 2001 Rich List that clearly shows that 2001 Rich List Ben Way(£18m) was below Robbie Williams(£21m) additionally these links further establish that fact:

is it just me that can't see the image....... or has it been edited? can you upload to photobucket or something? 90.192.92.53 (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

-Source OK it can stay in--Ɔıƃol uʍop ǝpısdn (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Growing Business, also AGAIN another source for Net Worth

British Library

Management Today

Bank Of Scotland

This link gives secondary confirmation in the first person:

Exec Digital

--Up2datenow (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Updated Page

The intro you have done is not consistent with what was agreed(consultant was out by consenus) also the intro does not refelect a biography intoduction which should describe why a person is notable I have therefore re-written. Please discuss here before making any changes. --Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

your intro is biased and misleading..... maybe this page should be recommended for deletion?90.197.137.46 (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please say what is miss-leading about this? If you continue to revert I will get the page protected, use discussion to discuss changes as agreed above.--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

for starters..... you seems happy to remove any possible negative publicity/unfavorable sources...... such as the war defence stuff. you then want to add more bull......most of which has been in a feedback loop....

An article should be nutral please read WP:NPOV

thats my point.... its NOT neutral...... its all glossed up

Please give an example? Everything discussed is citable it does not say Ben Way was the best worst at anything, if you want a second opinion just ask the community, that’s what it is there for?

the started a company at 15 stuff can be verified at companies house...... nobody seems to want to give any info.....but you keep putting it in.

It has sources things do not need to be proven down to the n level, for example it could have been a sole trader, which would not be recorded but it still does not mean he did not start a company at 15, as again I have tried to explain wiki does not work like that it works off cited sources.

that is not notable then....... the notability part was that he was a COMPANY DIRECTOR - this would be registered!

How can you say starting a business at 15 is not notable??? It has been cited in many cited sources therefore it is notable?? It is not for you to say what is notable it is for the sources is sources continually mention a fact about somebody’s life then it is notable….

as said here on the discussion page...... loads of the article is repetitive.

Yes an into paragraph can be repetitive it is in line with WP:BLP just read one of hundreds of other similar B class biographies.

it is also misleading...... 'involved in other companies'......then saying involved with rainmakers..... then giving info on a load of other companies...... that aren't separate from the rainmakers....... but you try to give the impression that the are. this is misleading as it gives the impression that he involved in two separate lots of investments.

Yes that can be removed.

out of interest...... what makes this info even notable for wikipedia???? as can be seen in the history..... ben way started the page himself...... that is controversial in itself..... calling yourself notable........ if you were notable...... someone else would've created the page90.197.137.46 (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally it is to do with length of time a page has existed and the number of edits and number of citable sources, whereas initially you would be right, but this page that has been edited so many times by so many people with so many cited sources it is unlikely that the community would not think it was notable but you are welcome to get a second opinion that is the point of Wikipedia.--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

yes it has been edited..... and questioned about deletion before...... but all the editors that have edited the page are Ben himself/ supposedly his PR team/ people that claim to be friends and family.

So get a second opinion, stop complaining to me, I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time, your still using an IP address; these are my opinions they are not right or wrong but nothing you have said actually gives a solid argument, I suggest you spend some more time on Wikipedia reading the various policies that’s how Wikipedia works and what I am adhering to here.

By the way that was the last revert before I consider it vandalism.--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I consider your bull and glossing to be vandalism90.197.137.46 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

So get a second opinion, stop complaining to me, I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time, your still using an IP address; these are my opinions they are not right or wrong but nothing you have said actually gives a solid argument, I suggest you spend some more time on Wikipedia reading the various policies that’s how Wikipedia works and what I am adhering to here.--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think my IP is aesthetically pleasing90.197.137.46 (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

few changes

moved viapost/horsesmouth next to rainmakers section as they are rainmakers companies.

Dont you think this looks strange I thought we agreed for it to be chronological? no its fine... gives a better representation i.e that they are rainmakers investments.

if they are split up in the article....... it gives the illusion that they are separate investments.

I personally think this looks out of place but lets leave it for now.

secret millionaire stuff....... that should be in the tv section...... rather than having an additional bullet point.

As one of the most notable parts of this article I think it should stay, the further sections are lists not explanations, lets keep it tidy.

Its notable yes..... but would you say its part of life/career or television section? makes sense to move the paragraph into the tv section

Same reason as SM it keeps the article tidy and easy to navigate--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

city am columnist......... cant find any evidence......... ref is just a link to cityam.... so remove. 90.197.137.210 (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

also....... why is the entrepreneur of the year thing mentioned twice? either once in the article or once in the awards section

Same reason as SM it keeps the article tidy and easy to navigate--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

90.197.137.210 (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

not really..... if someone uses the contents box....... clicks on tv.......it doesn't give any info. Thats why television things should.......shock horror....... be in the television section. so serparating it up actually makes the page harder to navigate.

Otherwise...... whats the point in having a tv section? its as if these sections have been added to artificially double the size of the page for no reason 90.197.137.210 (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

For the very logical reason that there are multiple grouped entries, and it makes an article better to have entries grouped surely you understand that, go have a look at other biographies and you will find exactly the same, just because it is included in one section does not automatically mean that it cant be included anywhere else if it is relevant to that section???--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

what im asking is....... what is the point in repeating it?

for instance..... entrepreneur of the year....... why is it in the main article..... and then in an awards section? take it out of the main article........and put it into that section.....otherwise that section is redundant 90.197.137.210 (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Make your changes in draft mode and you will see it creates a mess of the page, that’s because more information is contained in the other sections, i.e. he was on SM and SM changed my life but only one of those has more details so it would look messy in the TV section, unless you want to provide more details on each, but I thought you wanted to keep the article as short as possible?--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Or another way to put it, I am happy to write a paragraph on each bulleted section, but you cant mix bullets and non bullets together. --Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

no.... remove the bullet point....... and move the paragraph on SM from the main article.......to where the bullet point was.90.197.137.210 (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So you want me to remove all the bullet points and replace them with paragraphs? Okay but it will make the article longer...--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

iv done it90.197.137.210 (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You don’t get it, you cant use a bullet point for a paragraph in Wikipedia! You have two choices change the section into all paragraphs or keep the bullet points. --Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

course you can........ i just did. as long as the paragraphs dont go in the main article... thats fine. if you wish to write a paragraph for britains richest kids....go ahead. can delte SM changed my life.... this isn't an imdb page90.197.137.210 (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No you cant it is against the style policy, do not revert until you comply.--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys just so you know the city am stuff is on the media page of the rainmakers site.--Up2datenow (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hold on you cant just get rid of cited references SM changed my life is cited--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

ok done that.......all paragraphs....... now next thing.......

maybe change the section title to 'Television & Media' and add the telegraph blogger and millionaire chapter of a book into it? 90.197.137.210 (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Because this is wasting a lot of my time and your goal is to make the article as short as possible, every time you make a change I am going to add a piece of cited information to the article just like I have done about sky news. This hopefully will put things back in balance as I do not think you are working in the best interests of Wikipedia.--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

lol and why do you feel the need to do that...? do you have an interest to declare? 90.197.137.210 (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Look the community has spent the last two weeks trying to get consensus with you, you are clearly not doing this in Wikipedia’s interest but have some other issue with this person as your IP edits show; I have an interest in Ben Way we have already talked about it but so do many many editors who edit Wikipedia because they take passion in their subject. Seriously I don’t have much of a life but I would also suggest you spend yours doing something more creative and positive.--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

nice little grilling there....... i almost feel as if im being toasted by you Julia M. Guess Ben gets his money worth90.197.137.210 (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is Julia M?--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

toastpr?90.197.137.210 (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

But who is Julia M?--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

well lets see.... julia the little lady.....the overlord who presides over ben and hermione's wikipedia pages...and effectively controls their publicity on here.

coincidentally..... julia runs a pr firm by the name of toastpr... who has them as clients —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.137.210 (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if this is the case she can't be doing very well if she spends so much time editing random pages on Wikipedia, have you seen my edit history! You can believe what you want, as I have said before the whole point of wiki is community involvement go ask for a second opinion; I have stated mine its a simple as that; I am adhering to wiki policies its that simple. I keep an active interest in both of them because they are interesting just like I do a lot of other people(according to your theory I also do the PR for Michael Jackson, Greg Thompson, and the Roman Catholic Church!) it maybe a coincidence but having the same first name really is not a big one!--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

lol and the fact you own the copyright on their press photos? 90.197.137.210 (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just check the history, I don’t, I submitted pictures that had already been submitted, not to put a to finer point on it if your not happy speak to somebody who cares about it; get a second opinion!!! --Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please treat Julia nicely; she is a beautiful person worthy of respect. Keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.141.87 (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

horsesmouth removal

I will remove the statement about horsesmouth - MT Rainey is the founder and CEO, not Ben Way. He may have been a technology consultant for it..... but that isn't really notable as there was a large team working on it.

see ref - http://www.nmk.co.uk/articles/1050 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mryarp (talk • contribs) 12:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am researching and putting together a ‘business ventures’ section that will expand out the details of his involvement in various business; this should improve the detail and content levels of the article and should improve it significantly.--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)