Talk:Nigel McGuinness/Archive 1

Archive 1

So

So.....what is his real name? Must be something really awful, since he apparently likes the name Nigel McGuinness better.

Sorry, I don't want to get banned for stating something that is a matter of public record, provided by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I will say however how fucking ridiculous I think Wikipedia is for arbitrarily preventing such information from being posted.

TELL THE WIKITRUTH

....time to get the real men in to figure out this whole mess

Even if it's public record, what would it add to the article? My understanding is most wrestlers don't think fans knowing their real names is all that important because when they're greeted they will only get the persona they portray, not the real person playing the gimmick. It's annoying to them because unlike actors, they rarely leave their "gimmicks" at the shows. Even if you know Nigels real name, he's more Nigel NcGuiness then whatever his birth name is.

Then why don't we remove the birth names from Shane Douglas, Jimmy Jacobs, Alex Shelley, Chris Sabin, Roderick Strong, Rocky Romero, Christopher Daniels, Shawn Michaels...I could go on but I think you get the point.

If it was there choice to remove them, we should. My understanding, from reading one of the earlier discussions, is Nigel doesn't want his real name public. So no, I don't get the point. Nigel doesn't want it out, so why should people who have nothing to gain from knowing his real name be making a fuss about "the truth?" Those wretslers you have mentioned obviously haven't asked for it to be pulled down. So why fight Nigel on this? It's his name after all.

Don't be thick, I meant the point that there are an overabundance of wrestlers' real names on Wiki, especially with ring names that sound like real names. And since Wiki has capitulated to Nigel, what's to stop them from capitulating to anyone else who threatens to sue (and let's not kid ourselves, that's what happened here) based on what Wiki's posted about them?

As the person who handled the OTRS request, there was never a threat to sue. Simply a request that this matter be investigated. Had I found that Mr. McGuinness' real name was widely known and not generally private, I would have allowed it to remain. FCYTravis 16:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason that we can't just put his real name in and use the USPTO website as the referance since anybody can search the website and find his real name, it's the way we found out Samoa Joe's real name. This is something his fans would like to know and there is no reason not to include it just because the webmaster of his site complained. If he didn't want his real name to be available, then he shouldn't have trademarked his ring name (thus making his real name public record). TJ Spyke 05:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with TJ Spyke. This is censorship, pure and simple. McGuiness may not want his real name posted. I can understand that. I'm sure Richard Nixon would not want Watergate mentioned (were he alive), etc. An extreme example, but the point is the same. He is a public figure (by his own choice), his real name is a matter of public record, and it should be posted. This is an encyclopedia. Admin FCYTravis dropped the ball big time on this.Thedukeofno 11:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not censorship, it's policy. All ocntent should b everifiable by reference to independent reliable secondary sources. Looking up a patent and concluding that this is his real name is not acceptable, so if you want the name in you will need to find a reliable independent source for it. Not exactly a novel ide on Wikipedia, after all. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear user 24.193.0.95: You are removing my comments from an article's talk page. That's considered unacceptable behavior per the talk page guidelines (see WP:TPG), and I ask that you refrain from doing so. If you continue to do so, I will continue to revert, and I will block you. Also, you should get a user name and sign in when making edits; it will help with your credibility. Thedukeofno 07:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I added {{reqphoto}}

I tagged the image for speedy deletion as a replaceable fair use iamge and added {{reqphoto}} to this talk page. --Iamunknown 22:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You can use a pic from his website, I give permission. Webmutt.

Why does it not mention the biceps injury that will likely force him to relinquish the belt? It's pretty major news on every reliable 'insider' website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.17.141 (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Real name

If there is a compelling reason not to have this guy's real name in the article, then it ought to be documented for the benefit of the community. It is not the job of a single administrator to unilaterally decide to censor something and then to provide no rationale for doing so. Claiming "OTRS" is a load of garbage. WP:CENSOR is a non-negotiable policy. This unilateral censorship action coming from an administrator who already has a documented history of making unilateral actions ignoring consensus is totally inappropriate - Wikipedia belongs to the community and not its administrators. If a compelling rationale isn't provided promptly, this matter will go to RfC and beyond. Reswobslc 15:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Editorial judgment, good taste and respect for privacy is not censorship. The article subject is not a major public figure and is known to the public exclusively by his stage name in connection with his performances. Given that there exists no compelling public interest in his real name, we have acceded to his request to exclude it from our biography of him. FCYTravis 22:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Who, exactly, is "we", and who is the judge of "compelling public interest"? It sounds like in this case, you really mean "I", not "we". As for "public interest", people are interested in details like this otherwise what's the point of having a biography in the first place? Despite that, I would probably give merit to sympathizing with the virtues you cite if you had sought the community's consensus first instead of acting unilaterally. Have you done so and I just failed to notice? Reswobslc 15:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Requesting comment regarding whether or not a wrestler's real name and birthdate (or at least year of birth) should be in an article. In favor of having the name are the number of unique people who keep adding it, expecting that it's relevant biographical information. The single administrator who keeps removing it cites WP:OTRS which is understandably an important part of handling confidential communications with Wikipedia, but a public figure's real name and birth year is hardly confidential. The single administrator seems pretty defensive about this - the last person who added this real name got not a warning, but a week-long block (block log) with no apparent previous antagonism to merit it. I insist that the community either deserves a meaningful rationale for censoring this information, or the censorship should be stopped. This entire talk page deals with nothing but this single issue. Reswobslc 07:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a stimulating discussion (this entire page) and heaven knows, I don't want to create a NEW rabbit trail here, but: I've found there to be an excessive increase in Wikipedia Admin's high-handedness of-late. Anyone agree? Buddpaul (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Where is the reliable source that states the real name? As far as I can tell that is the major problem here. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• • That is available at USPTO.gov. I would provide a direct link, but it just says "session expired". Search for Nigel McGuinness, and it will come up as being a service mark belonging to an individual. User:FCYTravis insists something along the lines that just because the person owns the mark, there is a theoretical possibility that it's not really him, and draws the line of WP:OR to include the notion that the owner of the mark is the subject of the mark. From what I can tell, nobody buys that - everyone whining here knows Nigel is the person. If the concern were accuracy, I would totally agree with that call, but in this case, the accuracy isn't contentious or questionable. The person, through OTRS is indicating that he wants his name removed from Wikipedia, not that it is inaccurate. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not censored. The issue at hand really isn't the person's name, but rather, the precedent that it creates contrary to a well-established policy. I firmly believe admin User:FCYTravis is acting in good faith and being bold for the right reasons, but suspect that his choice to repeatedly ignore community consensus, block people who disagree with him, and evade addressing the real issue is ultimately detrimental to the project. If consensus is sought and goes Travis's way, then I would not object further - so far I just don't see that happening. Reswobslc (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The source you cite plainly does not establish that the owner of the mark is the subject of the mark. Whether you or anybody else "buys" that is not relevant. No "consensus" can determine that a source says something which it clearly does not say. FCYTravis (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
      • If the owner was NOT the subject, then it would say "Attorney of Record" rather than "Individual Registrant". Do a USPTO search on Shane Douglas for an example. Besides, are you really trying to say that the person is probably not Nigel McGuinness? I don't think that was ever a point of contention. If the material in question was something genuinely contentious, then I understand the standard of proof is very high. But this is someone's factual biographical information, versus one complaint from his webmaster using OTRS to essentially say WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Reswobslc (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
        • What I'm saying is that you do not have a reliable source which clearly establishes 1. that the registrant is the subject and 2. his real name is widely known and used by other reliable sources. You can argue all day and night that a source says something which it doesn't, but that doesn't make it so.
        • In the cases of entertainers and performers using stage names who can demonstrate that their real names are not widely known or used by reliable sources, and who wish to keep their real name private, we generally consider such requests to be valid. FCYTravis (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
          • And the policy you cite is.......? (There is no "I" in "We") Reswobslc (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
            • WP:BLP - Privacy of names Nenog (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• And WP:SYN; as has been pointed out above, the owner of the trademark need not be the individual himself (could be his lawyer for all we know). Unless we have independent reliable secondary sources, we don't say it. I'm also rather tired of WP:NOT#CENSORED being abused to justify inclusion of problematic material. The intent of that policy is to prevent bowdlerisation, not inclusion of disputed information. It's a good reaosn to have a picture of a penis in penis and an absurdly bad reason to include private information which the subject clearly does not want to publicise and for which we have no reliable independent secondary sources. I'm sure OWW will let you include the name, but Wikipedia is not OWW, we have much stricter content and sourcing rules than they do. All you've ever had to do is provide independent reliable secondary sources, not inferences drawn from your own research. Just that, nothing more. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• The USPTO website makes it pretty clear it's him and not his attorney. They have a separate field, "Attorney of Record", to denote whether the person is him or his attorney. (Look up Shane Douglas for an example of where that is exactly the case.) This is not my own inference, this is simply following the guidelines provided by the source. Reswobslc (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• And there you have the crux of the issue - "pretty clear" is not an acceptable sourcing standard for the biography of a living person. It's "pretty clear" it's not an attorney. That still doesn't establish that it's the subject of the trademark - there is nothing which says the owner of a trademarked name must be the subject of that name. There is a field which establishes consent of the subject to have his name trademarked, but that also does nothing to establish who it is.
• Moreover, the fact that you have to resort to conjecturing what public records filings might or might not mean, and that you have found not a single other potential reliable source for this information, clearly establishes that this person's real name is not widely used or publicized by other reliable sources. Thus it is perfectly acceptable and logical for us in this case to respect the article subject's wishes and refrain from publicizing something which is not already common knowledge. FCYTravis (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Temporary protection

This article has been temporarily protected due to edit-warring unsourced, contentious personal information, per VRTS ticket # 2006092210008209. FCYTravis (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the information is sourced and reliable. Just because S"Nigel"'s webmistress doesn't want his PUBLICALLY available name here (when it's already public info) doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed. The fact that his real name is public record and the consensus is to include it, there is NO reason to keep it out and fully protect the page like you did. This article will eventually have his real name included, it's just a matter of when. TJ Spyke 14:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Category needs to be removed

{{editprotected}} The category "Category:World Champion professional wrestlers" needs to be removed. That category is for wrestlers who have won titles granted world title status by Pro Wrestling Illustrated, and Nigel has never done that. The full list of titles and wrestlers that qualify can be found here: PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns. TJ Spyke 14:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I suggest the category ought to be renamed Category:Wrestlers who have held what Pro Wrestling Illustrated deems to be world titles, or something sufficiently less wordy. PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns used to be List of Number of World Title Reigns, so that understandably became considerably more precise. If we are to be explicit about it on one page, let's be explicit about it elsewhere.

Also, what then of Category:World heavyweight wrestling championships? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

 Not done; I'm not convinced this is a reasonable criterion for inclusion in a category by this name. This should be discussed in a centralized location to evaluate this question. See Category talk:World Champion professional wrestlers. In any case, it can wait until after the issue it was protected for is over. —Random832 17:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

London Dungeon / Thames Barrier (Modified wrist lock submission)

The Thames Barrier and the London Dungeon aren't the same move. The former sees Nigel wrap an opponent’s arm around his leg, fall backwards and pull on the wrist, leaving the other guy standing, bent at the waist, while Nigel is on his back. The latter, I believe, is like a camel clutch, only with an arm cradled behind the opponent's head instead of a chin cupped in both hands.

80.167.179.198 (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

One year ROH champion

Should it be said that McGuinness has held the ROH title over a year Supermike/Supermike([[Use talk:Supermike}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 20:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent injury

According to recent reports, Nigel McGuinness suffered an arm injury at a March 20th show and worked through it at the 7th Anniversary Show the next night. Word is it will require surgery and he could miss up to six months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.12.14 (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Former ROH Champion

At Supercard Of Honor IV, Jerry Lynn defeated Nigel for the ROH title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alleywaykrew (talk • contribs) 12:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Added with sources. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Real Name

According to the Wrestling observer/F4W's piece on Nigel signing with the WWE, his real name is Steve Haworthy. Should this be added? Byuusetsu (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Yes it SHOULD. His real name used to be in the article until the webmaster of his official website bitched to Wikipedia about not wanting his real name mentioned. The admins removed it, deleted the edits from the edit log, and locked the page. They cited the fact that his name supposedly wasn't public knowledge (despite the fact that he had to use his real name when he trademarked his ringname with the US Patent and Trademark Office). Here is is a third party source (Wrestling Observer/Figure Four Online) that also confirms his real name is Steve Haworth. [1]. TJ Spyke 22:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As this is quite obviously going to be a significant issue in the near future I suggest it get brought up again at WP:BLPN. The original argument for privacy was that wikipedia was being used to "first" announce the real name and that the individual wasn't a public person. Appearing on numerous ROH PPVs as the head of the company notwithstanding his role now with the top professional wrestling federation in America, and his name can now be sourced to neutral third parties, makes such arguments no longer valid. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Title of Page

Should be Desmond Wolfe as that is the name he is currently working under. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappHazzard (talk • contribs) 22:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not. at least not yet. He is better known as Nigel McGuinness so we should keep it at that until he gains more "Fame" or at least to know hes going to be with TNA for a while.. after all hes only had 2 appearances and he may randomly be repackaged in a couple months.96.251.83.205 (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The ip is correct. We title most articles by the subjects most common name, which in this case would be Nigel McGuinness. Appearing twice on Impact! under the name Desmond Wolfe does not make that his most well-known name. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Far more people know him as Desmond Wolfe than ever knew him as Nigel McGuiness. How many poeple do you think ever watched ROH? He doesn't wrestle as Nigel McGuiness anymore, and it's not his real name, therefore the name of the article should be EITHER Desmond Wolfe or Steven Haworth. I'm changing it to Wolfe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappHazzard (talk • contribs) 23:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be Haworth since many other wrestler's wikis are titled after their real name. Only really popular wrestlers like Hulk Hogan, The Undertaker, Triple H, and Shawn Michaels have wikis titled after their ring name.Blueflashlight07 (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I really do also think it's time the page's title was changed to 'Desmond Wolfe', in line with the most common name he's known by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.188.255 (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

University

"Les University" seems to be a typo, presumably for Leeds University or Leicester University, but can't trace any details of McGuinness's UK education. Perhaps best to delete reference?

Tcbently (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is badly in need of an update

It states he's most commonly known as Nigel McGuinness - which obviously isn't the case anymore. Desmond Wolfe is shown to an international audience of millions every week, I think it's safe to say he's more known for his time in TNA now. And that picture is very out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.53.203 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Although the picture is now up to date, WP:COMMONNAME surely qualifies a move to "Desmond Wolfe" with a redirect at "Nigel McGuinness". He is far better known under his TNA name rather his indy one. The Madras (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Nigel McGuinness → Desmond Wolfe — He is far better now as Desmond Wolfe on TNA every week, rather than indy wrestler Nigel McGuinness. The Madras (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:Commonname, the article should stay at its current location.--WillC 21:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

How so? He is far better known as Desmond Wolfe, being on TNA programming, rather than by his indy name. Google has 55,200 searches for Nigel McGuinness and 925,000 searches for Desmond Wolfe. The Madras (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well first since he has appeared in several countries as Nigel and already worked a few matches in TNA as Nigel years ago. His work in ROH was broadcasted on national television where he won two major titles and headlined for the company. At this time he is about equal.--WillC 05:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

With respect I disagree. TNA is far bigger than ROH, even when Nigel headlined for ROH. The Google hits also show far more recognition for Desmond Wolfe rather than Nigel McGuinness.The Madras (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems we are at a stalemate. Bring this up at WT:PW to get a wider view so a consensus can be determined.--WillC 05:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, already more Google hits for Wolfe, and since that's his current name, the gap is only going to get wider.--Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• See WT:PW, it appears project decision is clearly against a move.--WillC 20:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. All I can find on that page are a few comments saying they disagree, but no reasons or arguments, so that doesn't mean anything.--Kotniski (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Place of Birth

I just noticed that the article says that he was born in Kent. All well and good except they've then gone on to say England, UK. To me at first glance that would suggest he's from a town called Kent which would confuse those who don't know that Kent is a county. I have found a copy of an interview with him that says he's from Staplehurst however it's pretty much a cut-and-paste onto a forum which we can't use it as a source however it does mention that it's from Power Slam magazine and what looks like the May or June 2007 issue which we could use to source it. I don't have a copy and therefore I don't know the ISSN number, does someone know it then I might be able to knock up a reasonable source template to use to allow us to show where he is from (although if someone has a copy with the exact details, that's even better). The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added some sources that indicate that while he grew up in Staplehurst, he was actually born in London.TheFBH (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to nit-pick but is that a kafaybe magazine? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Slam Sports? No. Professional wrestling portal's style guide names it one of the most reliable sources.TheFBH (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Just double checking. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Martindouglashendry, 24 April 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} As of today (24/04/11) http://desmondwolfe.co.uk/ as a website is closed. This would go some way in detailing the prospective retirement of this wrestler. I hope to be attributed somehow with this possible edit. Martindouglashendry (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Martindouglashendry (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I'm sorry, but this is speculation and thus cannot be added. If you can find a reliable source that states he is retiring, then that can be added. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Opening heading

Nigel's official site is http://nigelwrestling.com/index.htm He has twitter and his account page is http://twitter.com/#!/McGuinnessNigel He has facebook and his account page is http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001210900091 Thats really him as I can confirm it as I known him personally and I have his personal email address to which I can't give out because Nigel told me not to at all. 15:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandy19834life (talk • contribs)

Proposed Move 2012

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Desmond Wolfe → Nigel McGuinness – Let's make the above discussion official. I imagine that the above views remain the same. Desmond Wolfe was a name he used when he was with TNA but since he has left I propose that per WP:COMMONNAME we move the page back to Nigel McGuinness, the name that he used for most of his career and the one by which most wrestling fans recognise him by. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Supported - I have no idea why the frogsplash an administrator decided to move to Desmond Wolfe in the first place - a couple of novice editors gave bad arguments for the move whilst three experienced editors were opposed. Nigel McGuinness is indubitably the COMMONNAME - hell, the wrestling media regularly referred to him as "the former Nigel McGuinness" (or variants) for most of his TNA tenure. Which was relatively brief and is now history. Also, TNA is not like WWE - a larger audience saw "Nigel McGuinness" wrestle (in the States, Europe and Japan) than ever saw "Desmond Wolfe". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, TNA is currently on British TV and ROH hasn't been since The Wrestling Channel went off the air in 2008 but that's still a very good point. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support move - Agree with above, back to Nigel McGuinness. Duffs101 (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kayfabe age

Apparently he just revealed to the Wrestling Observer or some other newsletter that he was actually born in ~1975. I cannot immediately find a citation, but I am sure it is out there. 74.109.12.215 (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

He was on Wrestling Observer Radio yesterday and actually said he's 36 and will be 37 next year, so he's born 1976. Online World of Wrestling seems to be the only site that claims he was born 1978, so I'm changing that.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"After attending Les University"

Is this a typo for Leeds University? There is no such university in the UK as "Les University" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Could be LSE - London School of Economics. Walloper1980 (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)