Page 10 of 10

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 11 Oct 2010, 12:12
by palkanetoijala31
We have a history back i bet on it being there 2 Days before it goes again.

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 22 Oct 2010, 09:25
by palkanetoijala31
I bet wrong it lasted about 20 days and the Cavalry marches back in and changes it again.Why dont you just delete the page Mr if it dont meet your exact specifications.

If you dont like the page as it was and u r a Crap Wikipedia Editor by the way dont understand the meaning of slander then Delete the page simple as that everybody happy!!

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 22 Oct 2010, 10:12
by moley
I'm really quite tempted to make a formal complaint against this chap or at least get a different Administrator assigned.

His attitude is not helpful.

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 24 Oct 2010, 18:54
by palkanetoijala31
THIS HAS GONE TOO FAR!

1. ******** Daniel McGee if u hate me just come on the forum register if Neil will let u and say it stop pretending that u have a World Record in the sport.As a matter of fact i dare you to turn up next time i attempt prove u worth u coward,liar and dam right excuse for a human being!

2. Chase me ladies Im the Cavalry stop doing what ur doing nobody loves u nobody gives a damn what u think or believe delete the page entirely do it start from scratch i dont want the current record to be associated with a page that the history is not given in its entirety i owe that to every former and future record holder including 1 whom luckly has survived cancer i hope.Thridly blocking the page from editing does nothing just let someone else do it not U.Also i give you the same oppurtunity as Mr ******** turn up expeirance it live it then edit it as u see fit time has come for you to put your mark on this forum seeing as you have admitted you are a forum member
explain what u r doing why u think as a CRAP WIKIPEDIA EDITOR you deserve the right to edit as you see fit.

3. I now am so annoying by both these people i think they deserve the Andi treatment turn up at a full network i even give u my next dates in advance if u pm.And i take you on the long runs and make you sweat.

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 24 Oct 2010, 20:55
by jamesthegill
While it's fun to vent, would it not be more productive doing this on the Talk page for the wiki entry?

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 25 Oct 2010, 14:01
by palkanetoijala31
jamesthegill wrote:While it's fun to vent, would it not be more productive doing this on the Talk page for the wiki entry?
he dont listen either way its almost like he is a vulcan NO EMOTIONS i have already said seeing as he has blocked the page No History no Current Record if he doesnt read the talk page whats the ******* use!DELETE the page entirely u TWAT of a wikipedia editor.

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 25 Oct 2010, 20:07
by tubeguru
I know I rarely interject in arguments and heated debates on the forum, but I feel I should make some comment here.

I haven't been following the changes to the Wikipedia entry, having no real interest in it if I'm honest. However, when the insults start flying on the forum I feel I have to step in. I'd prefer it if we didn't drag ourselves down to playground level over what is essentially an irrelevant bunch of cobbled-together facts that anyone in the world can abuse if they wish.

I gather that CMLITC has caused a bit of stress to some people over his views on how the Wiki entry should be presented and what it should contain, but we don't need to resort to insults on this forum. It doesn't reflect very well on us and is completely anti-productive. As James has already said, the comments about the Wiki content should be made on the talk page. Insults directed at CMLITC should go directly to him so he can respond in kind.

Andi's post implies that CMLITC might be a member of this forum. If he is then I'd be interested to receive a PM from him so I can get some background info on this.

Meanwhile, can we please all calm down over Wikipedia? There really are more important things to be worrying about in this life. Honestly ...

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 25 Oct 2010, 22:47
by palkanetoijala31
1. I apologise for my outburst and insults to u Neil and anyone else whom reads this forum.But i Still think he should keep out of it but if he doesnt then let him have a page a with nothing on it thats my opinion.

2. After a text from a member of forum i will not resort to the playground level that u speak of.

3. My point is still clear no history of former holders no current record for wikipedia published.

4. he even mentions he has met some former record holders and is a member of forum in his page i just hope he doesnt meet me in future :evil: .

I have allready said delete the page and its contents end of story!

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 26 Oct 2010, 08:32
by Sam
I hope the page does get does get deleted then we can all get on with out lives without stressing over something do pathetic ;)

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 26 Oct 2010, 09:19
by tubeguru
Sam wrote:I hope the page does get does get deleted then we can all get on with out lives without stressing over something do pathetic ;)
God forbid we'd ever do that.

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 26 Oct 2010, 22:57
by mullardo
If anyone wants the article complaints email is:

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 27 Oct 2010, 21:53
by moley
And with that this topic is locked before it desends into a free for all.

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 28 Oct 2010, 09:53
by tubeguru
Ta.