User talk:Blhsing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Top Gear power laps[edit]

Read this..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/powerlaps.shtml

The LFA is listed as wet NOT very wet.

Read this..... http://www.topgear.com/uk/tv-show?LapType=Power-Laps

That list has not yet been updated with the LFA time but shows conclusively that very wet, wet, damp, partly damp and mildly moist laptimes are indeed noted differently. Any close up of the power lap board shows VW, W, D, PD and MM respectively for the various conditions. THE LFA IS LISTED AS W NOT VW WHATEVER HAMMOND SAID.

Really this just seems like deja vu with the LFA time at the ring. You hear an offhand remark and take it as gospel. Frankly as almost your entire edit history seems to be trying to promote the LFA beyond the cedibility of the sources I am begining question your motives. Do you have any connection to Toyota or Lexus? I'm begining to wonder.

My suspicions aside, stop edit warring. If an edit is contentious take it to the talk page of the article to get consensus. If you fail to get consensus let it go. --LiamE (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is an innacuracy regarding the M3 CSL on the top gear website which does say it is VW when the board and presenters clearly said it was a damp track on near slick so they gave it a wet lap. That lap by the BMW has always been listed as a W on the actual top gear board. I agree that should read wet not very wet as this is what the TGPL board has always said. That does not change the fact that the LFA is also listed as a W on the board itself and thus by the same logic must be listed as wet as it is on the board. The article is nothing more than a reflection of that board and therefore it is the best and indeed only source that should be consulted to settle dispute. --LiamE (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are quite right the video is there I take that over second hand sources. As the video CLEARLY shows the LFA is listed as a W that is how it should be listed. No if, no buts. The board say wet, the aricle need to reflect that.--LiamE (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.(Hostile Rain (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have removed the LFA as it was fitted with a roll cage when it set the lap time, and the production car will not be outfitted with a rollcage. Not a legal time. Any problems with this can be discussed on my talk page or here. Thank you.(Hostile Rain (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.(Hostile Rain (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Like I said before, YOU have been reported.(Hostile Rain (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Nice try on the vandalizing. Read this Below(Hostile Rain (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.

Hostile rain[edit]

Hi there, Hostile Rain is a new editor and I would ask that you extend him the courtesies we are expected to provide to newcomers. --Surturz (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011[edit]

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blhsing&oldid=1075745637"