tubechallenge.com

Last of the 'collectors' mentioned here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34196204

Interesting again that no mention of the people again who are better and faster but then again BBC and Guinness don't like Steve and myself

Yes - they have skipped two sets of records!

Now that wikipedia has also declared war on mr james plus bbc and Guinness world records mark my words I will cause hell

palkanetoijala31 wrote:Now that wikipedia has also declared war on mr james plus bbc and Guinness world records mark my words I will cause hell

Bear in mind that Wikipedia will only show factually-proven information. If your record attempt is not recognised by Guinness then it won't, and can't, appear on Wikipedia.

tubeguru wrote:

palkanetoijala31 wrote:Now that wikipedia has also declared war on mr james plus bbc and Guinness world records mark my words I will cause hell

Bear in mind that Wikipedia will only show factually-proven information. If your record attempt is not recognised by Guinness then it won't, and can't, appear on Wikipedia.

True but they also won't get access to print my previous records if don't allow they made the war I will not allow my name to be printed if the fastest time is not ratified Guinness made war BBC made war I will fight I will win

and so Wikipedia don't change make legal threats against them for illegal edits and hey ho ur banned freedom of speech is dead u not allowed to know the truth bbc ur not allowed to know the name of andy james.

every comment of any tube challenge page will now be be vandalised by myself until the truth is spoken!

tubeguru wrote:

palkanetoijala31 wrote:Now that wikipedia has also declared war on mr james plus bbc and Guinness world records mark my words I will cause hell

Bear in mind that Wikipedia will only show factually-proven information. If your record attempt is not recognised by Guinness then it won't, and can't, appear on Wikipedia.

Surely that depends on how the entry is worded. For example "On ??/??/2015 Andy James and ???? claimed a new record of 15:45, however this was rejected by Guinness" would be factual information.

Only if you have a reliable source to back it up. Otherwise you could equally add W*veform claiming to have broken the record in 13:26 or something.

greatkingrat wrote:Only if you have a reliable source to back it up. Otherwise you could equally add W*veform claiming to have broken the record in 13:26 or something.

But if they do not allow the truth I will delete my history from it its what about is right not from their guidelines which quite frankly are over zealous trumped up little ******* u can't contact people either the minute u make threats they shut down no freedom of speech. No chance of people making any alterations now hope the page burns in hell I will now discredit any comments on any other pages tube wise about any former record holder until the truth is made known