tubechallenge.com

moley wrote:

palkanetoijala31 wrote:Strange how geoff does a sterling job updating a Wikipedia article for the better and cmlimtic just cant leave it alone for 1 second or even a day (just out of interest does Bob Robinson hold 8 or 6 records.)As long as the current version stays and hopefully improves by including those whom have broken record Ie Joy 54 for example and those from early 60,s i think that the wikipedia debate has been resolved (now all that leaves is my apology Cmlimtic personally.)

Chase Me is only doing his 'job' in tidying it up. He hasn't changed what was included.

Careful what you wish for...

tubeguru wrote:Can your life not proceed without it?

tubeguru wrote:Poor you.

palkanetoijala31 wrote:

tubeguru wrote:Poor you.

yes poor me some sympathy at last I just had a thought perhaps once a month we could print our own tube challenge news that way any future records will always be published on wikipedia and the wikigod cant complain.

Self-published sources

Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Root wrote:That still wouldn't be considered a reliable source.

tubeguru wrote:I was going to make the point that just because it's printed it doesn't mean it's verifiable.

For example, I could open up Notepad, type "Garion is gay", print it out and then send it to every registered address in the UK. Does that make it true?

Root wrote:That still wouldn't be considered a reliable source.

Self-published sources

Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

From Wikipedia:Verifiability.

By the way, Andi, I really would stop holding out for that apology. In his eyes, he was just doing his job, and if anything he probably thinks you owe him an apology, not the other way round. Just drop it.

Sam wrote:If you don't care then STOP GOING ON ABOUT IT