Talk:Richard Farleigh

Untitled

I read an article in the Daily Mail about how he was axed because they needed a more racially varied panel. Is this worthy of inclusion? I don't personally believe he didn't "want to get involved in television" he after all moved to London just for the series. 82.34.216.33 08:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If it was in The Daily Mail it's fairly safe to assume it's utter nonsense. I am sure they have worked out a way that asylum-seeking single mothers are to blame for it by now, or the French. MrMarmite 09:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 08:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

South African?

Is there any particular reason why someone has been changing RF's place of birth to South Africa? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Richard Farleigh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070310023044/http://archives.tcm.ie:80/businesspost/2006/07/30/story15975.asp to http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/07/30/story15975.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Updates Oct 2023

Added - more detail on RF's early life from press reports Dragons' Den - number of series, investments, Bafta nominations Companies - added two more H20 Markets - this paragraph incorrectly implies a link between RF and H20 years after he had any connection to that company. There's been an application to get it removed – in the meantime a clarification sentence has been added with a link to a government website. Charity - added a link to an award winning bio video and a link to a philanthropy award ABC Documentary - a link to an ABC documentary Gemmanm (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Gemmanm you might want to read WP:CITEFOOT so that you can correctly format references, because at the moment edits like this are just adding external links to the body of the article. Greyjoy ^talk 13:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks Greyjoy - will fix them Gemmanm (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Greyjoy - all fixed now Gemmanm (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Misleading information

we believe this is misleading, hence the clarification in the last sentence - it should be removed?

In 2010 Farleigh promoted H2O Markets, an advisory firm, which allowed customers to trade in Forex and CFDs. In 2017 H2O Markets was accused of mis-selling resulting in large losses for its clients. In 2017 the Financial Ombudsman found the company at fault, and following that finding the Financial Services Compensation Scheme allowed claims against the company.Farleigh was never a director or shareholder of the company and ceased involvement with them in 2011 Gemmanm (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Who is using the Gemmanm account? Polygnotus (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, royal "we". I'm an individual. Any comments on the thread? Gemmanm (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gemmanm: I really doubt that, people usually know how many of them there are. Anyway, I am going to revert you, and you then have to get WP:CONSENSUS on the talkpage for your changes. If you simply revert me (again) without getting WP:CONSENSUS you'll break WP:3RR which often results in a block. Polygnotus (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. Polygnotus (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I simply used we as it can sound more professional. Gemmanm (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Here (in the editsummary) you said something was defamatory. Which exact claim do you feel is defamatory? Have you read WP:LEGAL? I would recommend avoiding words like defamatory. Polygnotus (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What is your relation with Farleigh? I'll post a template on your user talkpage about that. Polygnotus (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I saw him on dragons den and noticed the page was out of date.

Without taking a legal opinion/ the wording is potentially defamatory because it suggests a connection between two events which happened years apart without establishing any relationship between the two events.

Wiki guidelines-

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—*must be removed immediately *and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Gemmanm (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Here you again call something a defamatory assertion and then you introduce WP:OR in an attempt to disprove it. Has this claim been proven defamatory in a court of law? Polygnotus (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

In this editsummary you use the word libellous. Which of the statements in the previous version of the article do you consider to be libellous? Why? Polygnotus (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

please see above Gemmanm (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are but you have removed a number of edits I made yesterday without explanation. They were fully and reliably sourced. According to wikipedia, explanations are required and are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work.

Please explain if this is troll action or in each case why you have reverted another editor's good-faith work. Gemmanm (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, people who use words like libellous and defamatory usually get blocked to protect the encyclopedia. Please do not use any legal terms, see WP:LEGAL for more information. Polygnotus (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I have explained why you got reverted. If you restore your edits again you break WP:3RR which can lead to a block.

Your edits are made in good faith, but not all of them are improvements. So you need to get WP:CONSENSUS on the talkpage (this page).

Falsely accusing others is frowned upon and might lead to a block. Polygnotus (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I repeat

According to wikipedia, explanations are required and are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work.

You have for example removed a link to an ABC documentary, an award winning charity video, and companies house, among others.

You are obliged to explain. Gemmanm (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Repeating yourself won't help you. I have already explained. You introduced WP:POV and WP:OR and WP:PROMO and you didn't follow the directions at WP:CITE. Also, external links in the body of the article are not allowed.

You have to get WP:CONSENSUS, if you WP:REVERT again you can get blocked.

If you don't know him and don't work for him (even indirectly), and you only saw him on TV, why do you offer to provide more information about one of his business deals? If you are not a lawyer or a judge, why do you call things defamatory and libelous? Polygnotus (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not here to argue with an unknown person. I will invite others to judge the merits of the material. Gemmanm (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that is what I said, you need WP:CONSENSUS. If you keep WP:EDITWARring you will get blocked. Polygnotus (talk) 10:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gemmanm: And now you are introducing a cite error. See WP:REFNAMES. Polygnotus (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I also asked you to explain why are you consider these and others not suitable - the link to a charity video and link to a major network biography, a government website clarifying an issue?

According to wikipedia, explanations are required and are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work - which if you stop attacking, you could please answer. Gemmanm (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Have you read WP:OR? And what is your relation with Farleigh? People who see him on seasons of an unrelated TV program broadcast in 2006 and 2007 don't show up here in 2024 claiming text is libelous and defamatory and they don't know the ins and outs of his business dealings with a company in 2010. Polygnotus (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Polygnotus,

I had asked a friend to update my wikipedia page for me because there are some elements on here that I thought were innapropriate or misleading and the whole wikipedia world is quite confusing to me! I've read through all the above messages and I'm trying to follow what you are suggesting. From what I understand I need to get a consensus on whether the paragraph in question can be removed? Is that done just by discussing the issue here, or is there some other specific action I have to take?

I also read on the WP:LEGAL page which you linked that the policy is to delete libel as soon as it is identified?

From my point of view the paragraph makes it look like I had something to do with the trouble that the company got into in 2017, even though I wasn't involved with them past 2011.

Please let me know if I am going about this the right way!

Kind regards,

Richard Richardfarleigh (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! True, Wikipedia is incredibly confusing. I didn't actually disagree with your friend, but of course I get a bit suspicious when people say they see someone on TV in 2006-2007 and then know details about one of their business deals in 2010.

I've been WP:BOLD and I've removed the section. Based on the sources it looks like you weren't a founder and left before things went sour. They can't all be winners.

moneyweek says One idea he liked is H2O, a new advisory broker. Farleigh only agreed to come on board knowing he could implement his own strategies. I can't find sources that indicate a split, but I also can't find sources that say you were still involved post-2011.

WP:LEGAL mostly means that we should not use words like libel or defamatory because it can have a chilling effect.

Is there anything else that really should be removed or improved? Please note that I have to find WP:RELIABLE sources to support each claim, so a lot of times we want to include information that is true, but can't because it is not WP:VERIFIABLE.

Have a nice day, Polygnotus (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah amazing, thank you! As you can probably gather from my friend's edits, I also wanted her to add some things about charities that I am now working with, and an ABC documentary that I featured in. I also don't know what that section about me hosting bermuda chess parties is about! :) The source provided for that claim doesn't mention me at all so I'm a bit confused by that.

I'm happy to try and just edit the page myself - I can make sure to put sources for all the claims I add - but not sure if I am meant to discuss that here first or if I am not supposed to make changes myself?

Thanks for your help!

Kind regards,

Richard Richardfarleigh (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hiya! The relevant guideline is WP:COI. It is probably best to post suggestions and improvements here. As you can imagine there are a lot of people who find it hard to be WP:NEUTRAL when writing about themselves. I have posted a WP:USERBOX that discloses your WP:COI on your WP:USERPAGE, see User:Richardfarleigh. This is a formality to show that you WP:DISCLOSE your COI. I'll have to go out for a bit but I'll try to improve the article a bit later today. Polygnotus (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• I added the documentary. I saw you uploaded it to your YouTube channel but since you probably don't own the copyright I used ABC's website as a source (people can watch it there). We have to be very strict with copyright related stuff unfortunately.
• I have removed the sentence about Bermuda Parties. I can't find any reliable source to confirm or deny this, but in any case its probably not very important in the grand scheme of things. Polygnotus (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)