Page 2 of 10

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 09 Nov 2009, 08:27
by hwolge
jbom1 wrote:
Starkey7 wrote:By the way, one of Bob Robinson's team mates was called Alex Chin-a-Fat. Brilliant! (Unless that was your creation, Jbom. :wink: )
http://www.*****.co.uk/tubechallenge/others.shtml
Well, obviously this is a proper name, just google it. This is one example:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/alex/chin-a-fat

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 01 Dec 2009, 18:16
by palkanetoijala31
***** wrote:seems obvious to me...

the main table of times on the wikipedia page should lists world-record times that have been confirmed by guinness.

below it, you then have a seperate table that lists unofficial times - those pending guinness approval, or those that were done as a charity event and people weren't bothered about getting a record time even though that may be what they had done!

e.g. when Neil & I (and the four others in my team on that day) did the Tube Relief in August of 2005, we beat out 18:35.43 record time, but i never mentioned it or listed it, because it wasn't an official attempt.

anyway - can someone clarify for me:

is the 17:12.43 the currently approved Guinness World Record time?

are there people that have claimed to have done it faster that are still just waiting for approval from Guinness?
Yes 17h 12m 43s is the current record to beat

2 times are probably awaiting Guinness approval Bouncingtigger attempt 17h 12m 18s
and somebody called Tim roberts and Martha Jackson 17h 11m 05s but no one knows whom they are and havent made themselves known.

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 14 Mar 2010, 20:05
by palkanetoijala31
I got to admit i have done my mistakes on wikipedia especially wiv the tables but i have been amending wrong information.I amended the main records page of the time by Tim Roberts and Martha Jackson because whomever adriensq is put the wrong time of 17h 12m 18s and a link which stated link to certificate be added shortly now if this were true surely the right time would have gone on.? which is Jay,s time whether he gets it confirmed or not he is happy to have it rest as a provisional until a certificate comes through.Personally i think he made the mistake of not submitting it straight away enough evidence or not! which might give him some problems keep us updated Jay (bouncingtigger)

Also if this 17h11m05s time is genuine and im not saying its not!Then why was the evidence not submitted to Guinness well in advance of dec 4th and dec 14th successful attempts if such Guinness Ratification exists and only a certficate picture would prove that now as anybody,s claim number would prove the following Morning March 10th record Steve Karahan and Andi James 17h 12m 43s late evening the claim changed to the current 16h 44m 16s that either proves the following claim was submitted well later than ours was put in just before new years day or it wasnt particalary good evidence hence Jay post as well he was worried about the evidence he gathered.

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 14 Mar 2010, 21:29
by Sam
You're obsessed! Just chill man :)

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 14 Mar 2010, 22:24
by palkanetoijala31
Ok im chilled :wink: i will rest on the subject Sara has already told me off so im in the doghouse :oops: Actually for a while im going to take a break from the forum and will only answer posts for the non london tcdl round.The way i have been going on i think i need a rest or a fnc challenge :wink:

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 14 Mar 2010, 23:24
by Soup Dragon
palkanetoijala31 wrote:for a while im going to take a break from the forum. The way i have been going on i think i need a rest or a fnc challenge :wink:
:shock:

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 14 Mar 2010, 23:24
by Sam
He says that now, it won't last ;)

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 15 Mar 2010, 12:46
by Wanstead
Sam wrote:He says that now, it won't last ;)
I give it 24 hours before he posts again.

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 15 Mar 2010, 16:28
by tubeguru
Don't encourage him.

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 15 Mar 2010, 17:06
by Garion
12 hours ;)

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 16 Mar 2010, 21:44
by palkanetoijala31
Ok im back and posting again I have changed my view on wikipedia it,s useless too many people can put false information and change anything u have written if they dont like it.

Ps user andraiensq (or should i call u by another name) if u read this seeing as u quoted the following proof of post on forum is not evidence and link to certificate will be posted shortly if u take the time to actually visit my Piczo site u see such evidence u require havent seen any evidence of other 2 times certificate or evidence of any video type which we have plenty on youtube.Also if u read following post of sams u can see her certificate

You change any documentation regarding to the validated of Mine or Sam,s attempt again i undo every revision of yours until u get the idea got that!And if u still dont believe me then i invite u my home town show up if u want to.!

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 16 Mar 2010, 22:45
by Garion
Wooah this sounds like war :wink:

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 16 Mar 2010, 22:46
by Sam
War ended for my time as it's now got a citing :)

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 16 Mar 2010, 22:52
by palkanetoijala31
Sam wrote:War ended for my time as it's now got a citing :)
Yes i dont understand how to do citing so i got good dr to do it for me he cited for me for not reading wikipedia citations.?Can i cite andraiensq for being a twat for not knowing whom he is dealing wiv the mouth of the tube!.!

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

Posted: 16 Mar 2010, 22:55
by Sam
Not sure about the mouth of the tube, you're the person who waffles on and on and on about nonsense ;)