Page 4 of 10
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 17 Mar 2010, 15:01
by jonny
palkanetoijala31 wrote: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
And where does this presumption of 17h 11m 05s come from? I'm asking out of interest, not disbelieving you or anything!
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 17 Mar 2010, 18:18
by palkanetoijala31
jonny wrote:palkanetoijala31 wrote: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
And where does this presumption of 17h 11m 05s come from? I'm asking out of interest, not disbelieving you or anything!
he quoted the wrong time for the wrong person/s thats all if wikipedia is a factual website and least it should be correct facts.Presumed might have been a wrong word if it exists then he can had it to the site but until evidence as been put in as this wikipedia user claims he has then why ask me for my evidence.?
To end my views on this matter i dont care anymore i have 16h 44m 16s shared and on guinness its still the world record time to beat!Thats it my final view!
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 17 Mar 2010, 18:20
by Sam
***** wrote:andi, the more you go on about it ... the more it wants to make me go in and edit Wikipedia just to wind you up! or register under a fake name here, and start making claims!! you're opening yourself up to being wound up!!
You mean that you haven't already?
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 17 Mar 2010, 18:24
by Starkey7
I think that this Tim Roberts or whoever it is also deleted Sam's time a number of times, having looked at the page's history.
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 17 Mar 2010, 18:25
by Sam
Yeah, seems they don't just have a personal vendetta against Andi, they dislike me as well
Matt did a citation for me to his blog which had the picture of the certificate so hopefully they'll leave me alone now. I'm not stressing over it though as I have the evidence and they are welcome to come round and see it any time
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 18 Mar 2010, 20:52
by jbom
Does anyone else wish to enter into constructive dialogue, or whatever, with AndraiensQ over the wikipedia page?
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 18 Mar 2010, 20:59
by tubeguru
Has he entered into constructive dialogue with anyone yet?
I'm not fully up to speed with what exactly has been changed and in what order over on Wikipedia and the whole thing confuses me.
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 18 Mar 2010, 22:28
by Starkey7
The way I see it is that he's suddenly come on to the scene and started moving things around and deleting things. Who is he?! And why is he so enthusiastic about having the Tube Challenge page the way he wants it?
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 18 Mar 2010, 23:21
by jbom
If you look carefully, you'll find that when he didn't get his way, he put a tag on the page suggesting it for deletion.
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 18 Mar 2010, 23:53
by palkanetoijala31
I must say thanx good Dr jbom for adding my citations a free beer is urs when u want it
if u can add the link to the famous five attempt in the media would be good as well for people to watch.I would say i would discuss this with andraiensq but people have told me to chill and that is what i will do im actually quite pissed (5 pints of carling 2 spitfires) while typing this and dont care anymore but at least people can probably understand why now!
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 19 Mar 2010, 00:31
by palkanetoijala31
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.
Come off it Neil if that was the real person then such person might have actually made a pretend post or real post Im sorry to have say this but the forum and wikipedia has got quite childish behaviour recently.Im not at complete fault in this but at least im not like former forum member ******** or wikipedia user andrainesq i can back up any claims or views i have made my views are mine whether people disagree or agree with them who cares.
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 19 Mar 2010, 07:13
by tubeguru
palkanetoijala31 wrote:I must say thanx good Dr jbom for adding my citations a free beer is urs when u want it
if u can add the link to the famous five attempt in the media would be good as well for people to watch.I would say i would discuss this with andraiensq but people have told me to chill and that is what i will do im actually quite pissed (5 pints of carling 2 spitfires) while typing this and dont care anymore but at least people can probably understand why now!
Funnily enough, you make more sense when you're drunk.
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 22 Mar 2010, 09:13
by palkanetoijala31
I had a good laugh this morning when i found out somebody had changed the page and we were all retards for doing what we do.
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 22 Mar 2010, 22:21
by jbom
palkanetoijala31 wrote:I must say thanx good Dr jbom for adding my citations a free beer is urs when u want it
if u can add the link to the famous five attempt in the media would be good as well for people to watch.I would say i would discuss this with andraiensq but people have told me to chill and that is what i will do im actually quite pissed (5 pints of carling 2 spitfires) while typing this and dont care anymore but at least people can probably understand why now!
Which attempt is the famous five? Send me the link and I'll sort it out.
Re: wikipedia provisional or not only records.?
Posted: 22 Mar 2010, 23:23
by palkanetoijala31
jbom wrote:palkanetoijala31 wrote:I must say thanx good Dr jbom for adding my citations a free beer is urs when u want it
if u can add the link to the famous five attempt in the media would be good as well for people to watch.I would say i would discuss this with andraiensq but people have told me to chill and that is what i will do im actually quite pissed (5 pints of carling 2 spitfires) while typing this and dont care anymore but at least people can probably understand why now!
Which attempt is the famous five? Send me the link and I'll sort it out.
it was 17 here u go dr Video of the Fantastic Five's day is here - be warned it's a little bit sweary and very very wobbly!
http://www.vimeo.com/6717302