Talk:AlterAg

Vandalism

Vandalism is the proper name for any malicious edit which attempts to reverse the main goal of the project of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compendium of diverse knowledge in many languages.

The wanton removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Shortcut: WP:VD

This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. Shortcut: WP:DE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.12.47 (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Further research needed

Will Halydean be the oldest publicly traded company in the world? Further research is needed. I have been unable to find anything close to it. Please share your findings.Insightfullysaid (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability

Halydean is unique in that it was founded by the Crown owned by the Church (rivaled in Scotland only by St. Andrews), then owned by the State, then owned privately, and is now soon to be listed as a publicly traded company. Halydean is also unique in that its owner, during feudal times, had the legal authority to carry out the death sentence, and did so. Despite its "license to kill," the original charter specified that the organization was tax exempt. Insightfullysaid (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC) | The company is #27 on Wikipedia's List of oldest companies, which lists hundreds of old companies. If this list is complete, Halydean is the oldest agriculture company in the world. Should this be added to the article? Please provide comments. | The company is the oldest publicly traded company in the world, upon the completion of its form S-1. References are needed for this before it should be added into the body of the article, and will be available from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's website, called EDGAR upon completion and acceptance of the company's registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.Insightfullysaid (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

References

A hoax entry?

Is this entry a hoax?

The “Holydean” entry in Wikipeda says: “In late 2014 the current Lord of Halydean registered Halydean Corporation in the United States…”

The “Halydean Corporation” in Wikipedia gives a list of a list of “past owners of Halydean corporation” beginning in 1128.

These two statements are not easy to reconcile. 2014 or 1128?

Even if the statement that the “Halydean Corporation” was founded in 2014 is incorrect, and it is older than that, what evidence is there that any corporation of that name was founded in 1128?

If a barony was founded in 1128 that means ony that a barony was founded in 1128. Obviously a barony is not a corporation.

And, apart from the date problem, how could a corporation that is Scottish be a US corporation?

What does this statement mean: “…the Catholic Church (rivaled in Scotland only by St Andrews) ,..” St Andrews was the seat of a diocese, later archdiocese, of the Catholic Church, so how could it “rival” the Catholic Church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasBabbington1950 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Confusing yes, but not a hoax. It has some very confusing discussion. I have tried to delete / edit to streamline things.

Good questions, I added clarification regarding the corporation's legal status in the UK-- it is a "subsidiary undertaking" of the UK entity. Thus it is my opinion that it may or may not be an old company... it is a subsidiary undertaking of an old entity-- but this depends on the incorporation documents. If the entity was re-incorporated or re-domiciled, then it was established in 1128 and is the same entity. An example of this is Google, which started life as an American company and is now headquartered in Ireland, due to corporate filings and such. So was Halydean Corporation created as a new subsidiary or re-incorporating an older entity without dissolving the former? This is a legal question and I could not find the answer. Perhaps someone else can find this. The company website offers no clarification.

“…the Catholic Church (rivaled in Scotland only by St Andrews) ,..” Another confusing entry. I read some links, and am inclined to think this was just poor writing. The Barony of Halydean was rivaled by The Barony of St. Andrews. Both were owned by the Catholic Church, both were "Regalities" (the same specie of Barony) , and both were very powerful. I will reword that entry. 208.90.12.47 (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

More history needed

Nowhere in this article does it explain what this company did for the first multiple hundreds of years of its existance, nor how it came to be based in America rather than Scotland where it was founded. M.T.S.W.A. (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the article combined two distinct things, the barony of Halydean and the Corporation bearing the same name. Much of the history given refers to the barony, which the company itself makes no claim to represent. To be appropriate, we need sources that make the direct link, that state that this history is the history of the corporation. As it stands it is just WP:OR. "Based on that information, it can be argued that Halydean is a very old company" is an editor reaching their own conclusion, while "The company is on Wikipedia's List of oldest companies" is circular since the information was originally added based on the same dubious claims made here. ". . . [I]n 2014 Halydean Corporation was organized as a Delaware corporation, as a wholly owned subsidiary of The Barony and Lordship of Halydean (Scotland) by the current Lord of Halydean" would seem to provide some basis, but it fails verification - the cited source only demonstrates that it was registered as a Delaware corporation in 2014. Again, "Halydean Corporation is classified in the UK as a "subsidiary undertaking" of the Barony and Lordship of Halydean, as defined in section 1162 of the Companies Act 2006" would seem to provide the connection, but it again fails verification - the cited reference simply gives the legal definition of 'subsidiary undertaking'. The important statement, also unreferenced, is "The company has not made any such claim." If the company itself disavows this claimed history, and none of the cited sources appear to make the connection, Wikipedia has no business doing so. I am removing all of this dubious history. Agricolae (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Moved from top of page. Agricolae (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This Talk page is not unambiguously promotional, because... your problem appears to be with the article, not with the Talk page. --Agricolae (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This Talk article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... your problem appears to be with the article, not with the Talk page. --Agricolae (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Grammardoc890, you are not going about this in the right way. All you have proposed to do is to delete the Talk page but leave the article intact, and one of the reasons you gave is that the article has already been deleted, but it hasn't. For procedural reasons I have contested/deleted the multiple 'CSD claims' littered throughout the page. What you need to do is go to the article space Halydean Corporation (not this Talk page for that article), click on the xfd tab at the top, and make your case. Agricolae (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted under the claimed criteria because it has survived a deletion discussion, and neither CSD A7 nor G11 are available in such cases. This will have to go to a second AfD. Agricolae (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

That being said, I did find in the page an unambiguous copyright violation, the sentence in the second paragraph beginning "Halydean Corporation is an agricultural . . . ". I don't know how far back it goes in the page history, but unless it goes all the way back to the first draft, that too is not something available for CSD. Given this was done once, it would not surprise me if there is other copyvio text, but with a number of the citations being to dead links, it would take more time to figure out than I am willing to put into it if the page is headed for deletion anyhow. It will need to be cleaned up if the page ends up being retained. Agricolae (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Agricolae, Sorry I did that wrong-- I removed my previous talk comments and am working to clean up the article instead of deleting it. —Grammardoc— ^talk 14:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)