User talk:Palkanetoijala

September 2010

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Tube Challenge. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles nor are such pages a forum. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello My point is the article has changed considerably and i dont think fairly but thats my point if a citation for my current record is needed then put it back in you took it off so you put it back in.If somebody would like to talk in plain english and describe exactly the page is at its current state and unfair to all former record holders whom have claimed record since the late 59 onwards.Ps for the comment Most profilic runner of the underground has a problem is slander and i want that removed from the site.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Palkanetoijala (talk • contribs)

The edits are being discussed at Talk:Tube Challenge - feel free to join in the discussion there. Looking at the talk page, the issue seems to be a matter of reliable published sources. I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean by the "slander" comment, but if you leave a message at Talk:Tube Challenge, other editors will listen. --McGeddon (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tube Challenge

Hi there. Could you explain exactly what the problem is with the Tube Challenge article? You seem very keen on deleting the history of the challenge. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is You plain and simple you are not a good editor you deleted 41 years of veriable history with no concern to the article where do you think all the history was resourced from the internet perhaps Tube Forum whilst both have been mentioned they were gained by reading each Guinness Book of Record from 1959 up to the year 2000.the current records apart from Geoff and Jack Welsby have not been mentioned in Newspaper articles but will be in Guinness world records database if an email from Guinness of all the world record holders since 1959 is acceptable will you allow that as a source.?I have put in many complaints Tube Challenge article does not want you as an editor go away do other things have some one else edit it not YOU!Palkanetoijala (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Tube Challenge, you may be blocked from editing. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then allow the Variable sourced history of the challenge or Delete said record from site I hold it i have the right to have it published or not You do not have the right to publish it without my consent.Get this in to your thick head either go and research and add the citings to the Guinness Book of Records page and i will allow it to be published or delete my record from your site forcewith.

Firstly, please allow me to direct you to our policy of assuming good faith, please take the time to read it and acknowledge, as I hope I have, that although we disagree regarding the content of the article, we are both looking out for its best interests. However, there is no way that we can remove your record from the article, as it's a matter of public record, freely accessible by anyone.

To that end, please also allow me to direct you to our reliable source guidelines. As I have stated repeatedly, a Guinness World Records certificate does not qualify as a reliable source, nor does the tubeforum site. However, should you be able to find a record of the event in a reliable third party source - such as a freely accessible GWR source, or a news site or newspaper, not only I but the community as a whole would be more than happy to leave it in the article. Remember that Wikipedia operates on a policy of verifiability rather than truth and this is the standard to which we must all hold ourselves whilst working on this project.

Please note that incivility is also a problem as you can see here. Try and refrain from incivility in your future dealings with the community. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not read the posts i have already said go and cite the variable sources or which you speak of then are in each Guinness Book of Records from 1959 up to 2000 usually on page 142 Guinness Book of records are a variable source by ur own guidelines the actual Book not a certificate read!. I do not have a problem you decided to delete 41 years of record history when you shouldnt have as they are variable sourced!as your guidelines state or get a wikipedia editor or contributer to add citations.Furthermore you yourself have still not apologise to me (after so many promptings) so i see no reason why i have to be civil to yourself YOU DONT READ POSTS OR SUGGESTIONS you like everything as you see fit.You do have power to delete parts of texts as you already have done so i want the current record deleted until you have added the citations needed for the former history up until 2000.Alastair route on line for example is an online source so to quote that as being ok but not Tubeforum site is ludicrous a statement.I welcome your response on this statement and apology hint hint again.! ps. i will ALLOW THE CURRENT RECORD to be held on this page which quite frankly is now a joke due to your constant editing.Palkanetoijala (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations On blocking the site again well done for the imcompetence for another week its plain and simple i dont want my name to be associated with this site anymore so take off from nov 16th warned i will change every time you put back on Bar Me if you wish but that only adds to your incompetence of a website!Plus if the record gets broken by me 100% it will not be published by any site Wikipedia or otherwise!That is what this editor has done to this site made it a joke!

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Tube Challenge. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tube challenge

It is illegal for Wikipedia to use an archived version of reference 2 you can't use if it has been changed to reflect that. And for example if I were too be picky reference 1 is also you cannot quote my name against. For reasons I can go into I want apology from Wikipedia foundation for blatant misuse of my name in reference sources I have said for years until I get what I want in law and which Wikipedia seem to blatantly ignore and break their own guidelines and the law. I will give Wikipedia 30 days to respond otherwise legal action will be taken oh know Wikipedia doesn't like legal action they feel threatened then abide by the Law ...

Palkanetoijala (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]