User talk:Porsche911guy

TKR

Not sure where this has come from, but, OK, is it then your contention that Vodafone run Lewis Hamilton, Jenson Button, Jamie Whincup and Craig Lowndes? --Falcadore (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Accusing established editors of "spreading misinformation" or "continuing bashing of X team" will not be tolerated on Wikipedia, especially as none of the edits made thus far have been demeaning to the subject matter in any form. Please see the Wikipedia policy of Assume Good Faith. If you have a problem with the content of an article, then please find references and sourcing to back your claim and then discuss the content, not the editor who is posting the content. The³5₉ (Talk) 10:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The TKR page does lack many references, but referencing is generally required for facts which are debatable or questionable. As you and Falcadore disagree with one another on some facts on the TKR page, then a reference is required. And in fact a reference was there, but you removed it and added no new reference to back your edit. Hence the article was reverted back to the last legitimately referenced version.

However, do not assume that the removal of uncited information is in any way a statement, nor is it supporting some facts. The information was removed because of Wikipedia policy, not assumption or personal opinion. And no, telling people to "look it up" is not a valid reference. You must be able to point directly to a valid reference to back your claim, and surely if it is true you should be able to find an alternative source that allows direct linking. The burden of proof is on the person adding the information, not on everyone else.

As for your position, it does not change anything. No person's edits are better than someone else's based solely on their "position". Everyone, regardless of their knowledge of the subject, is required to provide valid referencing in debates over content. Nor does there appear to be any record of you stating you had any position anywhere on Wikipedia, so you appear to be mistaken about their apparent deletion.

I do not disagree that Falcadore needs to add more references for his edits, but at the moment he's not claiming he's right because he knows so, nor is he accusing you of attempting to undermine and discredit the subject of the article. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, who you claim you are and what position you claim to hold has no bearing on this discussion. Although it does raise another Wikipedia policy, Conflict of Interest, which you should probably familiarize yourself with. Now, whether or not this person has been annulled really doesn't matter so much to the article. Surely there must be a source somewhere which can confirm his reappointment to the position. Wikipedia is very particular about information regarding living people, therefore we cannot simply take your statement that he is no longer bankrupt as proof.

I'd also point out that you seem to be very much against "internet forums and rumor", but you seemed to have no problem adding rumors of your own.

Now, as for what Wikipedia requires, we require referencing. Your definition of what is or is not media may very, so for the moment I'll say no, we do not depend solely on the media for referencing. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What the? Anything I add is not a rumour, it is only a rumour in your opinion. If you want the "living person" to contact you to confirm he is no longer bankrupt he would be more than happy to and so would his solicitors. Also, you said I removed a referenced item, did you click on the link? It does not link to the article that it states, so, the statement that Paul Morris Motorsport ran a car on Team Kiwi's franchise does not have a valid reference either (It is also incorrect as I signed the contract with them!). Are you now saying that entities and living people do not have a right to correct and update information about themselves on wikipedia? It would seem the only people who are able to do anything are those that have been bestowed special rights on wikipedia. How do we know falcadore does not have a conflict of interest? or you? I have forwarded all your correspondance along with falcadores to Team Kiwi Racing's solicitors who are currently preparing a case against an internet forum poster who was dumb enough to reveal who he was. I have tried to demonsrate to you that what I have put in there is correct, for whatever reason you have chosen not to accept it even though you can confirm it. (Did you bother doing the search?)

For the record I wrote rumoured because when I didn't I got told I couldn't state it as a fact, It was sold for $1,000,000 australian dollars, how do I know? because again I was the director of the company at the time and was privy to the transactions and documents of the sale. I will now remove all unreferenced statements from the page.

Again, your claimed position within the team is not something that carries any weight here. You stating that something is a rumor makes it a rumor, hence it does not belong on Wikipedia and will be removed. And having the person say that they are no longer bankrupt is not a reliable reference either, again falling under Conflict of Interest. People are not supposed to edit articles about themselves or companies they represent due to a conflict of interest. However, factual items can be added if properly referenced with third party sources (IE: Not themselves). See Biographies of Living Persons. And no, no one on Wikipedia has been bestowed special rights, anyone can edit the article, but we still have guidelines over how the article can be edited.

We do not know if Falcadore has a conflict of interest, but as I stated before, we Assume Good Faith. However, since you have stated your personal relationship with the subject of the article, then the possibility of conflict of Interest is a given and your edits regarding the subject are of course going to be more closely scrutinized. You have tried, but failed to legitimately confirm what you have added to Wikipedia, but you have also been given alternative methods to confirm your claims through other sources, but have failed to attempt to do so.

Now, links on the article which are currently broken should not be removed solely because they are broken. References are legitimate even if the exact URL no longer works, especially since many can be found through the Internet Archive. Therefore these links have been reinstated. If you continue to remove valid references from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. And since we're on the subject of warnings, legal threats are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and will almost certainly ensure you a blocking if you continue to imply legal actions based on this correspondence. The³5₉ (Talk) 02:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A question: if you have documentation, why don't you use that as a reference? There is nothing to say print references cannot be used, some have already been used. Surely that would solve everything?

Is it just you don't want to do it and you want it to be done for you? Would you like some assistance? You need some help with the coding for citing reference material? --Falcadore (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So basically wikipedia cannot be relied upon as a reliable source unless you are prepared to upload potentially commercially sensitive or overly personally sensitive documents, yet a link that doesn't work is ok if you search for it? Please explain how this any diffenet than posting a link and sating enter "David John" and it confirms it?. Please show me how to upload documents and I will arrange for the documents to be sent from Mr John's solicitors, once I have done so I expect a written apology form falcadore, he knows he is wrong. falcadore must also immediately provide a valid reference that Team Kiwi Racing is merely a sponsor of it's development series car, if he can't then he must immediately refrain from stating that are.

I don't see why you have to upload anything. You can just refer to it within limits. I don't see why you have to upload anything commerically sensitive. Trying to sort through what you're trying to say through the layers of antagonism is rather difficult.

And what exactly have I said that is "wrong", this is continuing to be puzzling. Is it actually possible to have this conversation without a level of confrontationalism and accusation?

I do not believe that the article states that TKR is a sponsor of their now former development series car. It is former is it not, or is Marcus Marshall the current team driver? --Falcadore (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ummm the second line states that TKR sponsor the car! I have to upload a document to confirm David John has had his bankruptcy annulled because no media organisation has run a story stating that it has been annulled, the359 says that I cannot add to the article without a reference. And as for the antagonism, you just don't get it do you....you change what I post in the article and come up with lame reasoning. Please support your statement that TKR sponsors/sponsored Matthew Hamilton in the fujitsu series as it still states that and you wrote it.

Hrmm, you're right, I added that line on June 27, but have not altered the article since.

You've said previously that TKR contracted MW Motorsport to run Hamilton. Would it be incorrect to suggest that TKR provided funding towards MW Motorsport in that MW Motorsport would prepare and operate a racing car for TKR's driver? --Falcadore (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have changed it twice I believe and it keeps getting changed back. How about actually saying how it was, TKR paid MW motorsport, they also paid all other costs directly themselves including accomodation, rental cars, flights, fuel, brakes consumables, signwriting of the car, painting of the car, race suits etc etc etc. It was TKR, except they contracted the work of running the car out. So why not say what I have said further down which is TKR ran Hamilton and contracted MW to run the car. If you look at MW's website they do not mention Matthew Hamilton anywhere, if they were running him as they have Ant Pederson Etc then you would say that they ran him and they would have TKR listed as a sponsor. As a side, my business name appears on the car, but I have no sponsorship agreement with MW Motorsport only TKR, If TKR were merely a sponsor why would MW Motorsport put my company name on the car??? I have a court document that shows David's annullment of his bankruptcy (Which has the legal effect of reversing it as if it never happened) to prove that he is no longer bankrupt, I have had this repeatdly deleted and told I need to reference it. as previously repeadtly stated there are no web links that directly show this. How can I get this up there so that it will be accepted?

First, uploading your own documents are proof is not what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. We cannot use documents submitted by the subject as referencing for the subject, because there is absolutely no proof of reliability. No, we are not saying that anything you upload will be false, but we would be in a bad position to let people simply submit items claiming they are from the subject and use them as proof. And no, Wikipedia does not require people to upload anything as proof. You clearly need to read through Reliable Sourcing, because you just don't seem to grasp what is required on this website.

Whether or not someone is bankrupt has no relevancy to the Team Kiwi Racing article. Wikipedia stating that someone declared bankruptcy as of X year in order to explain the downfall of the team is relevant, but the personal financials of this person does not need to be documented on an article in which that person is not the subject. Second, the lack of any statement regarding the person's current financial situation is not Wikipedia stating that this person is still bankrupt. Wikipedia would have to actually state it in order for that conclusion to be made. And surely, if this person had taken over the team once more, the likelihood of their still being bankrupt would have to be nil. Now, you claim that the "media" has not made any stories about the anullment of this bankruptcy, but as I have told you before, you surely must be able to find a simple reliable outside, non-first person source that states that this person has retaken control of this team.

And yes, broken links are still reliable sources because they existed at the time of their posting. It is silly to assume that every website ever is going to stay in the same location or use the same URL directories so that sources will always point to the same thing forever. And also as stated, it is possible to read archives of websites that no longer exist through the Internet Archive, meaning broken URLs may not work, but the source material still exists. Links simply need updating, not removal.

And no, we cannot simply go on "what you say" regarding TKR and MW Motorsport. I should not even have to repeat this after how long... The³5₉ (Talk) 05:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Now you are just pissing me off, you said you do not rely on "media" now you refer me to a policy that says that is exactly what you will only accept, you said that I must have some documents, I have a document that is from the courts, not produced by me in anyway, it has the courts seal on it. Surely the judicial system in NZ is credible enough for you. I have told you, and I should not even have to repeat this after how long... The only source that I can link you to you won't accept because you have to search for it, yet at the same time you will accept a link that is broken because you can search for it! Despite the fact that it could have in fact been taken down because it wasn't correct! You say it is not releveant to the article, yet his initial bankruptcy was, you point to this as being relevant because it led to the downfall of the team, yet the team, company, busines is still functioning so...I don't get what your point is, part of the history is that he has been reinstated taking over from me! So why is that not relevant? For the record, an annullment in NZ reverses the bankruptcy. i.e it is now not something that acctually happened in a legal sense, so, unless it has been more than 3 years the statement does mean he is. I can only take from this you want me to go away as each time I get advice from you on what can be done you shift the goal posts and don't accept anything...clearly this needs to be handled by someone independant.

Its ok, I managed to do this myself. The document is now there as a reference.

The document is not a reliable reference, should never have been uploaded to Wikipedia, and should be immediately deleted as something that should not be publically available. I said Wikipedia does not rely solely on your definition of media. The policy does not state that we only rely on media, you need to reread it.

Again, the article is Team Kiwi Racing. David John's financial history is not fundamental to the article, and you are clearly missing what can easily be cited and what is most important to the article: When John took back control of the team and the fact that he took back control.

No changes have been made to what has been required of you, you simply have not taken the time to search for any references, instead concentrating on a reference that you have been told repeatedly is not valid.

Yes, this is something that needs to be viewed by an independent. That's why I'm here. Falcadore asked for a second opinion from others in the WikiProject Motorsport, I offered. It's certainly not an article or subject or series that I'm involved in, either here on Wikipedia or in real life. So your theories about my intent are very much misplaced. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I will take the matter further using wikipedia's procedures..I have given you the ONLY reference on the internet being the Insolvency service. When that failed I gave you the legal document that confirms it. You refused to accept both of them and then accuse me of not taking the time to find another reference, it does not exist. It is YOUR opinion only that it is not relevant. You have offered me NO help and have just deleted everything I do. You could have taken 10 seconds and VERIFIED for yourself that the bankruptcy was annulled. Interestingly after I do provide the link, you change your tune and say it is irrelevant.

Oh look, you managed to use a search engine. Reliable, third party sources not coming directly from the subject which are specific about who they discuss and match what is stated in the Wikipedia article. Now was that so hard and did that need all of this nonsense? The³5₉ (Talk) 19:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This all started because someone else posted unreferenced incorrect material. which i was trying to correct and looky look I was RIGHT nothing sinister in what i was doing...at no point have I been granted the assumption of good faith...from my first edit it was removed...before anyone knew that I had a link...stick your sarcasm...this is not just about people sitting about in the dark editing wikipedia because they have nothing better to do..in the real world when things are incorrect there can be consequences, Team Kiwi Racing is a business, you will not I DID not delete statements that were negative (only incorrect ones), all I am guilty of is being balanced. and for the record so you FINALLY get it through your thick head the document I provided came from the district court that granted the annulment, not directly from the subject, but hey, third party annoynmous posters carry more weight round here than the legal system,

When you accuse other editors of being underhanded, then yes, that would fall under sinister. Your attitude and paranoia was most certainly uncalled for, nor are your attempts at insulting now. Whether or not you were correct with your facts in the end does not matter, your behaviour in dealing with this situation does. Yes, Wikipedia should be correct, which is exactly why we have the very guidelines for references that you have been referred to and which have prevented your earlier additions from being used. These guidelines are not here to hamper but to balance. And yes, we are a business as well, we obviously strive to be correct. However what you believe we should do and what the community as a whole believes we should do to ensure that quality obviously does not match. If you wish to continue to edit on Wikipedia, hopefully on articles which you do not have a vested interest in, then you will struggle if you continue to demand your way over our way.

Your most recent additions were not accepted because of your claims, but on the validity and reliability of the references themselves. Of course both documents came from a court, but when they are provided solely by the subject without any contect or proof, then they are not as valid as something coming direct from the second party government source. And I have no clue where you get the idea that third party means either anonymous or that they are simply a Wikipedia poster. Neither of these are remotely true. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Court Document.pdf

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Court Document.pdf. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 02:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I need help with this, I have been trying to get a page updated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Kiwi_Racing and my updates keep being deleted because of lack of references, there are no references because no media covered the story when the person concerned had their annullment granted. I tried liking to an govt website but because you actually have to enter the persons name I was again denied (The person who did this could have verified it) So I was given a copy of the court document by the person concerned in a last ditch effort to reference it and again been denied. I have asked for help and all I am getting is "no you can't do this...find a online source" and also been sold it "is not relevant to teh article"