Page 3 of 10
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 16 Mar 2010, 23:22
by palkanetoijala31
Sam wrote:Not sure about the mouth of the tube, you're the person who waffles on and on and on about nonsense

You were not with us at Oxford Circus last time just ask Kevin i lost my rag a bit like Soupie famous rant!
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 16 Mar 2010, 23:24
by Sam
Not sure that warrants you as mouth of the tube either really

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 16 Mar 2010, 23:29
by palkanetoijala31
Sam wrote:Not sure that warrants you as mouth of the tube either really

All my swearing must count just ask Tangy whom i have done 8 attempts wiv its a shame i didnt get video evidence of this incident Sara was appalled at me

.
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 16 Mar 2010, 23:32
by Sam
Swearing just makes you the scum of the tube, not the mouth of the tube

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 17 Mar 2010, 00:41
by Starkey7
I don't understand - despite all the Bob Robinson stuff being there, why is there this sudden need for Officially Citing one's record?
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 17 Mar 2010, 06:54
by tubeguru
Because the whole thing has gone all competitive. It wasn't like this back in my day.
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 17 Mar 2010, 08:26
by tubeguru
Even now I'm not sure I follow what's going on. All I know is that Andi is obsessed with someone who claims a time that hasn't been verified, and that someone is editing the list of times on the Wikipedia page. Is that all it is?
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 17 Mar 2010, 08:44
by tubeguru
Ah, so just your standard childish internet behaviour then?
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 17 Mar 2010, 11:24
by jonny
I don't get it - surely anyone is entitled to claim a GWR without the involvement of this forum?
Just let him keep his time up. It's not a current record anyway.
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 17 Mar 2010, 12:22
by palkanetoijala31
jonny wrote:I don't get it - surely anyone is entitled to claim a GWR without the involvement of this forum?
Just let him keep his time up. It's not a current record anyway.
he posted the wrong time nobody knows whom he/she is if he/she has a certificate i agree he can put whatever time he wants i dont care!
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 17 Mar 2010, 12:31
by jonny
How do you know what the 'right' time is? Or has he been on here at some point and said?
I've found this all quite hard to follow...
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 17 Mar 2010, 12:43
by palkanetoijala31
jonny wrote:How do you know what the 'right' time is? Or has he been on here at some point and said?
I've found this all quite hard to follow...
The 2 times in question are 17h 12m 18s by Jay Flynn (bouncingtigger) and some put Tim Roberts and Martha Jackson claim under this time of 17h 12m 18s instead of presumed 17h 11m 05s so i took it off main page wikipedia for being wrong.!Now we have all sorts of changes going on wikipedia Jay time was well documented on here finishing at Brixton his time has never been put to the main page as of yet.The other time or any other mystery time that no 1 knows of how can we know about it unless they have proof (picture of certificate) then produce if not then let them claim a time of whatever hours min or secs rightly.
My Rant is over im chilled and calm

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 17 Mar 2010, 14:22
by tubeguru
Well, as someone with the username "Tim_Roberts" has recently joined the forum, I would invite him to put his side of the story across.
This assumes that it is the "real" Tim Roberts and not someone trying to wind you up further.

Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 17 Mar 2010, 14:30
by jamesthegill
tubeguru wrote:Well, as someone with the username "Tim_Roberts" has recently joined the forum, I would invite him to put his side of the story across.
This assumes that it is the "real" Tim Roberts and not someone trying to wind you up further.

I would also add the addendum that Andi's (palkanetoijala31) views on this aren't indicative of us all - most of us aren't nearly this "dedicated".
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 17 Mar 2010, 14:37
by tubeguru
Your use of quotes is quite pertinent.