User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing

Leon Spinks

The reference was included in the text. MLA citation would be T, Mr. Mr T: The Man With the Gold. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.230.153.255 (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Squared.Circle.Boxing. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! creffett (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Squared.Circle.Boxing, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Kickboxing related draft

Hi, Squared.Circle.Boxing as per information at WP:AFC/RBS, I would like to draw your attention to Draft:Wang Kehan and Draft:Mallaury Kalachnikoff which you might be interested to review. Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 05:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done thanks for giving me something to do Amkgp :) – ².O.^Boxing 11:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Holy cow

Check out the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bowtiebandit results... --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

What the actual deuce? Why? That’s incredibly weird lol such a pointless thing to do. – ².O.^Boxing 10:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Squared.Circle.Boxing, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Derek Angol

Hello Squared.Circle.Boxing I would like to draw your attention to the recent page for boxer derek angol after years of being active it has been deleted you may be interested in reviewing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.17.117 (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Response from Virgil Ortiz, Jr.

Apparently I made a mistake, sorry.--アントリュース (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 3nk1namshub (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Squared.Circle.Boxing, I am going to suggest you redact this: [1]. Punching down when an editor identifies as autistic is really not a good look. Guy (help!) 11:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn’t know that person is autistic, I’ve seen nothing that states such a thing and quite frankly it has fuck all to do with my comment. Secondly, my point is valid and contains no personal attack. So in response to your suggestion...thanks, but no thanks. If that person does not like my comment then that person can remove it from their talk page. – ².O.^Boxing 12:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Squared.Circle.Boxing, the correct answer was "oh, I didn't know, I'll go and remove it". You score nul points. Guy (help!) 13:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

" wonderfully balanced"? I thought we were talking about Wikipedia. 😋 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG the correct answer was given, I’m not looking for points, smiley face stickers or a pat on the head, thanks. Deepfriedokra, maybe I haven’t been on Wikipedia long enough to see the imbalance lol – ².O.^Boxing 13:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Warning

Squared.Circle.Boxing, don't gravedance on that user's talk page, or you will be blocked yourself. El_C 12:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t vandalise the talk page, issue a personal attack or go there and make a random taunting comment. A user gave their opinion on why they believed the length of block should be shortened, I gave my opinion why the current block is no loss to Wikipedia as the user has made more problems than encyclopaedic contributions. Not sure how that is doing a jig on ones grave, but sure, ok boss person. – ².O.^Boxing 13:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Well that was gravedancing, which reflects poorly on you, I challenge. Please don't do that again. El_C 14:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Still not sure how, but duly noted all the same. – ².O.^Boxing 14:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Squared.Circle.Boxing, you could have commented at the admin boards, but you went to a blocked user's talk page to exclaim their lack of usefulness to the project in sharp terms. El_C 14:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I hadn’t seen the noticeboard discussion when leaving the comment and I also thought, from seeing experienced editors voicing similar opinions on other talk pages in similar circumstances, it was the norm. Evidently not. Again, duly noted. – ².O.^Boxing 15:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, Squared.Circle.Boxing. Maybe I came a bit strong, also. I accept your explanation and wish you the best. El_C 15:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I learned a lesson, all is good. – ².O.^Boxing 15:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Katie Taylor - Delfine Persoon rematch

Hey, The Belgian media is full with articles about the rematch happening on the 22the of August... So I guess it is happening. I was however not really able to find other (in English) press releases so far (the news is really "hot"). Perhaps you can follow this up and add some English references in due time.Garnhami (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Garnhami I read an article on BoxingScene confirming it. It’s probably worth digging up some sources regarding the multiple postponed Taylor vs. Serrano fights and adding info on that too, seeing as the Persoon fight only came about due to the aforementioned fight being called off. If it hasn’t already been done then I’ll see what I can do later when I have a bit more free time. As a side note, I assume you’re aware as you added Belgian sources but just in case you’re not, English sources aren’t actually required. If the Belgian sources are reliable and verifiable then they’re just fine. As I said, I assume you already know but thought I’d mention it just in case. – ².O.^Boxing 18:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Garnhami I’ve replaced the Belgian references with one from the BBC, moved the content to the bottom of the section to maintain chronological order and also added brief details about the failed negotiations with Serrano, but only on Taylor's article. Feel free to make any additions or changes. – ².O.^Boxing 20:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Boxing Union of Ireland

If you are going to go to the trouble and delete them from from the current champions list then at least have a bit of class and add the to the former champions list below is, or are you just trying to get a bit of clout and be annoying? --HuntGroup (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@HuntGroup: Not updating the succession list is not a reason to revert a sourced edit. Do it yourself if you're so bothered, and stop edit warring to include unsourced and incorrect information. – ².O.^Boxing 21:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You are disrespectful and do not edit in a collaborative manner, hence the reason I have no respect for the way you go about editing. Actually the edits are sourced via BoxRec. If you took the boxers from the current holders list but added them to the former holders then I can respect that. But at the moment it just looks like you are trying to flex and correct other peoples edits rather than add inform and expand the encyclopedia.--HuntGroup (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@HuntGroup: You claim BUI doesn't update their lists, yet mention BoxRec? I already told you that a quick google search shows that Paddy McDonagh has been stripped of his title (IN 2018), yet BoxRec lists him as the current champion. So which one does not update their lists? Regardless, BoxRec is not a more reliable source for the current Boxing Union of Ireland champions than THE OFFICIAL BOXING UNION OF IRELAND WEBSITE...lol. Now take your borderline WP:PA away somewhere and do not post on my talk page again. K, thanks, you're not welcome, bye. – ².O.^Boxing 22:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Mike Tyson revert

Hey man, no problem with the revert. I was going off MMA/wrestling profiles, which show titles won in that section. Boxing seems to be different. No worries!

BBX118 21:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: Thomas Hearns

Hey dude! No problem at all!

Do you think we should create an article about double knockdowns?

God bless! Antonio Looney Man Martin (tell me) 14:53, 7 August, 2020 (UTC)

@AntonioMartin: I had a look at the Knockout article and it has a section for double knockouts. Theres a section below for knockdowns, so I suppose you could mention it there in a subsection or something. I think it would be worth listing examples on double knockouts – and if you add a bit for double knockdowns – of when these rare occurrences have happened in boxing, that would be useful. – ².O.^Boxing 10:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you! Thespearthrower (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

WBA Fragmented Championships

I disagree with the use of brackets on the phrase WBA Super champion. I understand that the brackets are used on other articles but on the WBA page it's not necessary. And in regards to the secondary title, the WBA does not use the word "Regular" champion on their website. It's is an unofficial title that most boxing fans and sports sites used to determine the difference and I think it should be noted Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tmacmusicmagician: I personally think they should be bracketed for consistency, but I can see the argument for not having them. I'll open a discussion at WP:BOXING to see what others think. As for "WBA regular", it's actually the standard way for the WBA to distinguish between their the two titles. Here's just a few examples from their website: 1, 2, 3, 4. I'll remove that part you added about it being unofficial but I'll leave the instances of 'regular' and 'super' without the brackets unless others agree they should be bracketed. – ².O.^Boxing 02:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair compromise. I'll do more research on why the secondary title is referred to as the regular title Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

How about adding a part that says (commonly referred to as the WBA Regular champion). From my research, the WBA rankings list a WBA Super champion, WBA World champion and WBA Gold champion. Only in the news reports do they say Regular champion. Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

AIV

Thanks for the AIV report of 68.227.33.228, I sorted it. I actually saw your earlier one this morning when I was clearing out the backlog, and ignored it given there were more clear-cut things to deal with - I just thought I'd give some feedback as to why that user wasn't getting blocked via WP:AIV. Admins checking AIV are generally there to respond quickly to obvious problems, so when you're reporting some less blatant, and more "strange and stupid" behaviour like this guy, you're a lot more likely to get action if you can really specifically say what the user is doing, and why it's a problem. Now once I actually had a chance to look into it a bit (having recognised your username from previously) it was very clear that the user was being disruptive (and you'd mentioned MOS:HEAD on his talkpage), but when I just skimmed the situation this morning, it just looked like a silly edit-war over a header title where nobody was using edit summaries. In my experience, if an admin patrolling AIV can't (a) read your summary, (b) check the contributions, and (c) agree that it needs blocking within, say, 30 seconds, they're just going to move on. If you can't summarise the problem briefly, just take it to WP:ANI and describe it more fully.

You're absolutely right that the guy needed blocking, just thought I'd give a bit of advice for quicker future responses. Feel free to contact me specifically if this one does reoccur, too! Best wishes. ~ mazca ^talk 19:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mazca: Thanks for the message. I'm so used to reporting blatant vandalism with the standard "after final warning" that I didn't give much thought to the things you pointed out lol makes sense though. I'll be sure to give more details if I encounter similar situations in the future. I imagine the IP will probably be back at it after the block (or maybe before), they seem to be holding a bit of a weird grudge. I'll drop you a message if so. Thanks again. – ².O.^Boxing 20:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Teófimo López

Hi. Thanks for your work on his article - I admit I know next to nothing about boxing! Due to the influx of bad IP edits, I requested page protection, which should help for a while. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts, I'm assuming you may be referencing my removal of "undisputed champion"? Being a fan of boxing would still make it difficult to understand lol López is a unique case that I think I'm going to have to bring up at WikiProject Boxing. Thanks for getting the page requested. It'll give us some time to figure out López' unique situation. :) – ².O.^Boxing 11:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Johnny Owen height

Johnny Owen was a tall heavyweight and stood 5'8" (Ring Magazine). Mstchstickman (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I meant tall bantamweight. Mstchstickman (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mstchstickman: I was going to raise this on the talk page, but noticed it was already raised here. Although the source you provided does list 5 ft 8, the majority of references I can find state 5 ft 6, for example BoxRec, WalesOnline and Vice. Out of curiosity, as the most experienced boxing editor here, what do we typically use for heights Squared.Circle.Boxing? BoxRec? Kosack (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I decided to take a look through some of the newspaper archives I have access too and came across a few entries that do support the 5ft 8 angle, namely The Guardian, LA Times and The Observer. So it seems the sources are pretty much evenly split in regards to 5ft 6in vs 5ft 8in, based on this I'd be more inclined to remove his height from the article. Thoughts? Kosack (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Kosack, in cases where the height is disputed, MOS:BOXING/INFOBOX recommends using BoxRec or a broadcasting network's "Tale of the Tape" from their latest fight, which usually gives height and reach. After looking at footage from his final fight against Lupe Pintor, Owen's height was billed as 5'6, so with that and BoxRec I would personally lean towards 5'6 being listed. However, there's always the compromise which was made on Dan Henderson which could be used; listing a height with an additional note. Maybe list it as 5'6 with a reference from BoxRec and list the sources you found that say 5'8 in the note. – ².O.^Boxing 19:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to go along with that if it's considered the norm. Hopefully Mstchstickman will agree to some middle ground perhaps. Kosack (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chantelle Cameron

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chantelle Cameron you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chantelle Cameron

The article Chantelle Cameron you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Chantelle Cameron for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020, revert /edit war

Check the Conor talk page , already started a discussion and made some strong points , would like to hear back from you Wikiman122112 (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

They're dropping like flies.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thankfully lol – ².O.^Boxing 18:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Ping failed

Thanks, I saw your message.[2] The ping did not work, though – see WP:PINGFIX. One way to ping would be to revert your edit, and then make it again + add the ping. I believe you can also ping by linking to a user name in the edit summary. – Fayenatic London 13:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise it can fail. Thanks for letting be know. :) – ².O.^Boxing 16:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

WBA Super/Regular

Greetings. This presents an interesting and rare scenario. I can only think of maybe two or three instances of it happening in the past few years: Klitschko–Povetkin, Pacquiao–Thurman, and possibly some other fight. Does Álvarez lose the Regular title even though Smith would keep his Super title? In a way he's defending it, but not to the extent that his opponent will win it from him. Very unusual, and definitely needs an MOS clarification at some point. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I've never looked at them as defences. In my view, simply put, Canelo's title isn't on the line so he can't defend it. I'm not sure if it's the case in this instance, but these situations are usually treated as a mandatory defence for the Super champion. I do always wonder though, what happened to the WBA's promise to gradually drop the Regular title? Didn't they say that in situations like Canelo vs. Smith, it would determine a single champion and allow them to permanently rid a division of this secondary nonsense? But, then again, money talks. – ².O.^Boxing 19:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

That's how it should be, that the Regular champion is essentially forfeiting his title in order to fight for the Super title. However, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Álvarez is allowed to keep his Regular title even if Smith beats him. Or, if Álvarez wins the Super title, they'll create another Regular title the next day. Their promise to drop the Regular titles was complete BS. At one point we had Pacquiao, Bivol and Linares as (rightfully) the sole WBA champions in their weight classes—all after the WBA promised no more Regular titles—but of course that was a lie. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chantelle Cameron

The article Chantelle Cameron you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chantelle Cameron for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Barney Ross World champion

It is perfectly fine to be taking lineal off of records where they have belts such as The Ring belt. Barney Ross was the 140lbs champion and the Ring Magazine was not awarding titles at the time to that weight class. By taking off "lineal" you have now erased a completely valid claim of a being a three weight class world champion. What's next? Deleting heavyweight reigns of champions who fought before the Ring Magazine and National Boxing Association awarded titles? We can't hide title bouts. Same Goes With Tony Canzoneri. These men were light welterweight champions....CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

In cases such as those, it should just be "Won world [weight class] title", or "universal". Probably the former though. "Lineal champion" is a post-sanctioning body concept and wasn't a thing back in those days, it was simply "world champion". In instances where it was "Won NBA, NYSAC, Ring, and lineal [weight class] title", lineal probably shouldn't be replaced and left out completely, as the sanctioning bodies replaced the early agreed upon champion status. I'll remove any "lineal title" nonsense from record tables on sight, but in the aforementioned instances I'll replace them with "world" going forward. – ².O.^Boxing 10:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

So by this logic, in the case of George Foreman and Shannon Briggs, it would make sense that we put "Won world heavyweight title" in the notes of their fight as to leave nothing there would be inaccurate to the landscape of the division and the fact that their fight was viewed as a version of the heavyweight championship.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

No. That should only apply to the era when there weren't any actual world titles and world champions were originally determined by consensus. In the modern era, there are recognised world titles, so the general consensus is irrelevant. The fact is, "lineal championship" is a fan-made concept. No single organisation awards such a title, so nobody can factually say "Tyson Fury is the lineal heavyweight champion", where as nobody can deny Tyson Fury is the WBC and Ring magazine heavyweight champion. – ².O.^Boxing 20:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I see the route Wikipedia is going down and I'm not going to fight it and get in edit wars because that will likely end up in a permanent ban considering I was temporarily banned when I first made my account. I was just hoping there would be some way to tag some sort of championship to that fight so that it would be clear at first glance that it was more than a fight between contenders. I'm only replying to you today, because I would like to correct something you said in your reply. The "lineal championship" is not a fan-made concept. It was an idea conceived by Nat Fleischer, editor of The Ring Magazine between 1922 d.1972, in an undefined year. I suspect it was in 1957 on the July August edition of the Magazine. Basically, the lineal concept was created by boxing writers as opposed to fans. I know this doesn't change how we are listing fights, I just thought you should know that. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

As someone who's been involved extensively with the lineal title debates over the past few years, this is a subject that absolutely needs further discussion at WikiProject Boxing, if you're willing. Please don't shy away from discussion out of fear of getting blocked—nobody needs to be blocked around here if we all collaborate and come up with new ideas. There are several ways we can address the lineal/Ring/world title formats for fighters such as Briggs, etc. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

NBA and NYSAC TITLE BOUTS

Why are you reverting these changes to Floyd Patterson and other NYSAC heavyweight champions? These Boxrec articles clearly show they held these titles. https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/NBA_World_Heavyweight_Title_Fights. https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/NYSAC_World_Heavyweight_Title_Fights CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Update, I was up very late last night and had started adding NYSAC title bouts to Floyd Patterson's record, but never published them. I saw the reverted changes and didn't realize they were for the fight of the year mistakes. Sorry for assuming that you reverted changes I didn't make CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries lol – ².O.^Boxing 18:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Apology

This happened some time ago, but I did not realize it was you. I appreciate the work you do for boxing and I apologize for being rude, I understand that I acted arrogantly and foolishly. Thank you for helping me on both Alexander Povetkin and Kazuto Ioka. Thespearthrower (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thespearthrower, I'm not quite sure what you're apologising for. Are you sure you have the right person? If so, then no need for an apology, all is good :) – ².O.^Boxing 21:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Aurelio Herrera

I created a Wikipedia page for Aurelio Herrera a few months ago and got it reviewed and accepted. However, when I went back to take a look at it I keep seeing a template message saying that the article may not meet the notability guidelines for biographies. I have since added several more links to the external links in hopes that showing enough evidence of this boxer's notability will keep the article from future deletion. Any help or guidance would be much appreciated as I noticed you were one of the few people helping me along when I first created it. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

CaPslOcksBroKEn, I've been bold and removed the tag. For me, the sources provided in the "External links" section satisfies GNG. Failing that, he challenged for a world title, so that satisfies NBOX. But just by looking at some of the notes for his fights on BoxRec tells me he's notable. Quite a few have quotes from newspapers that covered the fights. – ².O.^Boxing 12:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Fishing around recent changes for some people to hand out barnstars to, I found Guadalupe Bautista. In quite a coincidence, XTools tells me it's your 200th created article. Amazing stuff, cheers for each and every one of the 200! — Bilorv (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv oh cool, didn't realise I've made that many. Thanks for the barnstar :) – ².O.^Boxing 17:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

SPI

Hi. Could I ask you to help get our banned friends looked at at SPI?NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN:, I've opened an SPI. – ².O.^Boxing 12:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll disappear until he's banned.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Lordpermaximum has come to the party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.190.164.254NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN: He's become a lifetime fan lol – ².O.^Boxing 13:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN: I've opened an SPI for a few of the multiple IPs that our buddy likes to skip through. – ².O.^Boxing 14:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'm useless at ANI etc. The pain is having to go through the whole process and give them oxygen. Also frustrating having editors whose favoured topics tend not to be continually vandalised attempt to assess the situation. Blocks are actually quite ineffective, as even a blocked editor can still make themselves a nuisance, which is of course what they were trying to do when they weren't blocked. Anyhoo.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's another one. This one was used to vote in his own RfC. He also talks to himself on his talk pages. It's actually rather tragic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Magnus_DominusNEDOCHAN (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I also have my suspicions of this one, but unfortunately I couldn't find any convincing evidence. Legendstreak0 and the other two have been CU confirmed to Wikiman and blocked, but as you said, blocks are somewhat ineffective when the individual is determined to be an annoyance, so be prepared for a new account to pop up in the not too distant future. – ².O.^Boxing 18:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy Wilde

The boxing record on Jimmy Wilde's article has been vandalized. He is one of those fighters that has a lot of mystique around him and apparently newer fans that want to make him out to have never lost a fight. It wasn't difficult at all to fix, but I had to do it manually because there had been other edits since and I wasn't able to just undo it. The boxing record still needs revisions to it as I did not input it properly at first, but that is a story for another time. Basically, I feel that this article should be semi protected as it is not one that will often be checked up on and there are clearly people that just want to make him look better than he actually was. As I'm posting this, I am also publishing the changes to his record. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Vandals, SPI, break

Hi Squared. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Dominus, Magnus Dominus, who is clearly Lordpermaximum, has started their fight against Sherdog again, and I have had enough of it. Please open an SPI. There is a much more important thing to state, however. In the RFC that Lordpermaximum started and was banned during, Magnus Dominus voted. So the manipulation of the process was far greater than we realised. They used at least one other account in their own RfC! The whole thing should be torn up and started again. We need to get this user banned and start a new RSN case to put a stop to it. I haven't the energy. It's getting me down. I have tried very hard to improve the MMA articles on Wikipedia but these trolls have got me down. It's annoying me and making me irritable. As a consequence, I am having an extended break. Please keep an eye on the place for me.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN: I'm personally not %100 sure with this one. It could just be a genuine editor acting in good faith who has unfortunately jumped into something and raised some suspicions, it happens. I'm on and off at the moment but will have a look at Ladyperminimum's stinky socks at some point to see if there's anything tangible to start a SPI. Hopefully your break will settle your mind a little. Hope to see you back soon. Stay safe, buddy. – ².O.^Boxing 22:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN: @CASSIOPEIA: Magnus behavior did not meet the Wikipedia standards. User suddenly stone walling and roadblocking some of these mma pages which led to me starting ANI against the user and also requested to speed up the SPI case after finding out. Common things was the way the user respond with walls of text (when it can be easily answer in few words or 1 or 2 sentences) , going after anyone who question user behavior and user was going after the same 3 users in all accounts. Hopefully it allow other editors to resume their regulars editing and future mma guideline adjusts on wikiprotect. Kent Bargo (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kent Bargo: Magnus Dominus has been CU confirmed as a smelly sock and will soon be thrown back in the drawer. – ².O.^Boxing 11:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN: @CASSIOPEIA: go ahead and repair the damage (revert) done by SOCK: Lordpermaximum on all affected UFC articles. I am out Kent Bargo (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Magnus Dominus (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#ANI_against_Magnus_Dominus Kent Bargo (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Professional boxing record

The WikiProject Boxing Guidelines show that when vacant titles are fought for as well as titles that are not vacated, they are listed with breaks. It shows this in a "title defense" where the "vacant WBA (Super) light heavyweight title" is also fought for. By using this logic, shouldn't records such as Shane Mosley be showing that he won the IBO welterweight title with a (< break >) and that he won the vacant WBC welterweight title?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Boxing/MOSGuidelines

CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@CaPslOcksBroKEn: the breaks are only used when both fighters hold titles:

If multiple titles are on the line, but with each boxer defending different ones, use line breaks with semicolons to list a boxer's own title first, followed by the opponent's title

For vacant titles:

If any titles were vacant, list the non-vacant ones first; anything after "vacant" will be all-encompassing

So in Mosley's case, because none of the titles were held by him there's no need for a line break to separate the titles. But for his opponent, De La Hoya, he held the IBA and challenged for a title he didn't hold, so a line break with a semicolon is used to separate the title he held and the one he didn't. I hope that makes sense, I'm not the best at explaining things. – ².O.^Boxing 10:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Just for fun

I couldn't face the incessant arguing so ran away. There is some comedy to be derived from the silliness, though. As far as crap, fictitious arguments go, this surely must be an all-time great. 'It's been close to 3.5 months since I made my account. It looks this banned account was banned almost 4 months ago.' NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN: I couldn't wrap my head around that defence. I thought it was some kind of poor attempt at reverse psychology *shrug* I always remember this peach they left on my talk page a few months back, For what its worth I have never really cared about anyone's height or sherdog. I'm far above such little things...after bludgeoning an RfC with the same arguments, hopping to IPs to cast votes and talk to themself, creating multiple socks to continue with the little irrelevant thing that they're so far above caring about lol bless their wiccle cotton socksies! – ².O.^Boxing 20:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If I see any more trolling from you, it will result in a much longer block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: talk about a punitive block, 15 hours after the offending comment. What impending disruption has this prevented? Tut. – ².O.^Boxing 11:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Still blocked

My block should have expired three hours ago, but when I try to edit I get a message saying there's six hours left, even though there's no current block notice on my contributions page. – ².O.^Boxing 11:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Purging your cache and/or logging out & in might help. What time does it give the expiry as? Autoblock. Try it now. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: sorted. Thank you very muchly. – ².O.^Boxing 13:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

BoxRec removal

• An average sports fan havent heard of many things including The Ring and International Research Boxing Organisation. That is not a valid reason to remove BoxRec content. BoxRec is well-known within boxing community. - Виктор Не Вацко (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RepublicanMMA (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive user

Greetings pal. Just a heads up to keep an eye on User:Taeyeonsfan and his nonsense edits. He's become fixated on changing Álvarez's WBA Regular title to the Super title when he faced Jacobs, which is a load of rubbish – [3]. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Ouch, my huge botch there... The Jacobs fight was for the MIDDLEWEIGHT title. Scratch that. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mac Dreamstate: lol and this is a prime example of the confusion multiple world titles from a single organisation causes! I have actually reverted the user in question on a few occasions for making this mistake (when they have actually made a genuine mistake ;-P). I'm currently willing to AGF, because, ya know, the WBA are money grabbing bellends. – ².O.^Boxing 19:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Boxing record template

Hey man, do you know if there has been any discussions on creating a possible template for someone's individual boxing record. Something like how MMA has it would be much simpler. Obviously you'd make a few changes but at least it is a lot more tidier whereas a lot of boxing articles seem to have different versions. I think having the flags are bit much in regards to fighters nationality which causes controversy between editors. Also having them beside the venue and location seems pointless when the country is stated. There's more reasons but let me know your thoughts. Kidsoljah (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kidsoljah: I assume you're referring to {{MMA record start}}? I wasn't aware it existed, I always thought they did it the same as boxing tables. I agree though, it would make things that bit easier. Mention it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing, I'd certainly be in favour. As for the flags, as far as I'm aware there was an RfC a while back that resulted in a bit of a stalemate; there wasn't a consensus to exclude them, and record tables without them shouldn't have them added in. I only began editing about 2 years ago, so flags in boxing record tables have always been a thing for me. However, as of late, I am starting to wonder what the point of them is, for the same reasons you mentioned above. Maybe it's time for another RfC. – ².O.^Boxing 13:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Kidsoljah brought this up five years ago, but I'm not clear on what exactly what he's after today. Overwhelmingly the main version of the record table used throughout WP is the one at MOS:BOXING/RECORD (flags or no flags), give or take a few leftover tables with {{s-start}} back when it was still widely used. Is it the flagicon usage confusing you or something else? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Mac Dreamstate, Just thought the table could be tidied up that is all. Flagicon usage just seems a little much when the location of the country is already stated. As for the opponents nationality, there is conflict time to time between editors. For example, Andy Ruiz, Jr. flag was changed between United States and Mexico. Boxrec has him fighting out of the United States but in fights ring announcers have announced Mexico, also on sanctioning bodies ranking systems in the past has done the same also. Whereas MMA avoid that altogether, and my personal opinion looks better. Also something we could take away is having separate columns for method of victory, round it finished and time. With many tables having incomplete rounds and time recorded this could tidy that area up a little as well. Thought it could be worth a discussion, but if not in favour that is all good. Kidsoljah (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kidsoljah: ah, I thought you meant creating a template similar to the MMA one I mentioned above, just to make it a tad bit easier. I prefer the boxing table over the MMA one, and think the round and stoppage time being in the same column makes more sense. It also keeps the table a bit more compact, making for an easier viewing on mobile devices. I have to scroll to the right twice as far on an MMA table than I do on a boxing one. The flags though, I'm not much of a fan of anymore. – ².O.^Boxing 01:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This is what I have been using. I went by what the format for Floyd Mayweather's record was. I have been adding fighter after fighter for the last two months in this format and I also use it when I occasionally go into an already written out record and reformat it. I don't include round time of the stoppage simply because most of the fights I input don't include that information and considering the thousands of fights I have put in, I try to minimize the amount of mistakes that I make by not adding something that would be so inconsistent. Side note, the dash for the number of rounds is the dash we all need to use when tallying up a record.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Professional boxing record

0 fights	0 wins	0 losses

No.	Result	Record	Opponent	Type	Round	Date	Location	Notes
1	—	—	TBA	—	– (?)	TBA	TBA

Professional boxing record

0 fights	0 wins	0 losses

All Newspaper decisions are regarded as “no decision” bouts as they have “resulted in neither boxer winning or losing, and would therefore not count as part of their official fight record."

No.	Result	Record	Opponent	Type	Round	Date	Location	Notes
1	—	—	TBD	—	– (?)	TBA	TBA

April 1st. User Warning for false information.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dillian Whyte vs. Alexander Povetkin. MrRapide (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

lol how cute. – ².O.^Boxing 17:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a page dedicated to boxing yet does not understand the rules. MrRapide (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

*yawn* – ².O.^Boxing 17:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on Fram's proposal

Hello, I am reaching out to you in particular since you assisted me in the creation of the article for the former WBA bantamweight champion Park Chan-yong and I fear that this proposal of changing the requirements of notability will make the deletion of this article inevitable. I don't know if there's anything that can be done to change this since many people seem to support it. This is oddly reminiscent of the deletion of the lineal boxing champions list. Despite me agreeing with the arguments from those in opposition, I can't help but see that those in support have the upper hand in technicality and considering what Wikipedia proclaims itself to be, with the amount of attention and support this has gotten, I can't see it ending well for those of us who see the value in having as many legitimate major former world champions with Wikipedia articles as possible. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@CaPslOcksBroKEn: I've added my two cents. While the proposal would be beneficial in regards to stopping shitty one-line stubs and SNGs being used as the sole defence in AFDs, it would certainly be detrimental to the creation of articles for athletes like Chan-Yong, who almost certainly would have had multiple articles published in Korea around the time of his title win. – ².O.^Boxing 20:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: Thank you for joining in the discussion. The whole ordeal has greatly demotivated me to do anything on Wikipedia at all for the last week. I know I can't wait another week to do anything or they might act, so instead of wasting my energy going back and forth I went on to Park Chan-yong (boxer) today and linked an American congressional record of the fight that is being used as a source for the page in other languages. I only didn't add it when I created the article because I was struggling to find the information within the article, but considering that the people in support of Fram's proposal seem to agree that Wikipedia articles about someone who got 12th place at light heavyweight in the 1928 Olympics with only one source, which leads to a data base of his amateur stats (what I'm being told I can't do using three separate sources of the record of a former world champ) on a website that says it is closing down in March of last year is an article that does not need to be deleted. I am hopeful that this congressional record in addition to the ringtv article which mentions him in passing in reference to Wilfredo Vasquez will be sufficient for these anti information warriors. Now that I have two separate sources for Park's Wiki article, could we possibly remove the template message at the top of the page?CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@CaPslOcksBroKEn: I've added a few more references. Seeing as the tag was specifically for verification, I've removed it as I think with the current sourcing everything can be verified. – ².O.^Boxing 11:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: Thank you. This whole situation killed my motivation to edit for the last month and once we guaranteed the article would be safe I needed to take time away from all of it.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@CaPslOcksBroKEn: glad to see you back. You're one of the few editors that I see improving and maintaining articles of pre 1990s boxers, so you're a valuable asset to the community. – ².O.^Boxing 18:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for catching my mistake on Francesco Pianeta! I was using DoubleCheck to review edits for vandalism, and I misread the alert it gave for your edit. I thought you had added that text, which is why I reverted it, but I clearly got it wrong. I'm still learning DoubleCheck and do mess up more than I'd like. Sorry for my mistake and the confusion! Dndlp (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dndlp: No harm done, mistakes happen. – ².O.^Boxing 16:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Your priorities

So you see somebody annoyed to have been pestered off Wikipedia within a day of starting to edit, and your reaction is to pester them some more. Thanks for making it clear that bullying is the rule here. Sergow (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sergow: I have no dog in that race. But what I did see was a personal attack on your userpage and removed it per WP:RPA, because WP:No personal attacks is a rule here. If you feel an editor is bullying or harassing you then WP:ANI would be the place to air your grievances (in a constructive manner and with evidence), not on your userpage. – ².O.^Boxing 22:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

azeez article

Hi there

Thanks for the message, I appreciate your concern with the changing of the name but if you go on his facebook that is how he spells it and I also meesaged to ask what was up with that and he expressed it is how it is spelt on his birth certificate too — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardBrack (talk • contribs) 16:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@RichardBrack: The Facebook account that I can find says Dan Azeez, and it's not a verified account either. Does he have another, which is verified (blue tick)? If so, then that can be used as a reference. If not, then per WP:BLP, we'll need to leave his name as just Dan Azeez, as that would be the only name that is WP:Verifiable. – ².O.^Boxing 18:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Flagicons in Professional boxing record

Hello,

Why don't we add flagicons to tables that didn't already have them? It should be standardised and since just about every other boxer has flagicons it looks like Joe Calzaghe's is missing something (and any other boxing record without the flagicons). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.84.142 (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. I can offer an explanation for this, as I was involved in the original discussions/debates which saw this guideline put in place. There was an RfC in 2015 which was split on whether to keep flagicons or ditch them altogether. The result was a no consensus, which stipulates that any article which has had flagicons for a long time should retain them, whereas any article which did not have flagicons to begin with should not have them added. In my view, it was only an interim solution that one day would be resolved in another round of discussion. That time might be now.. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have come back from reading that article -- sorry for wasting your time with a question about it. I see the pros and cons. My take it it's so much easier at a glance to see where someone is from and where they are fighting, and as above, it should be consistent one way or the other and I'm sure there are a lot more with the flagicon than without. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.84.142 (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Terri Harper

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Terri Harper you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Terri Harper

The article Terri Harper you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Terri Harper for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Squared.Circle.Boxing:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2700 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Shannon Briggs

So, I am having a hard time understanding why it is that I can't put Shannon Brigg's world heavyweight title claim in his professional boxing record. At the end of the day, he claimed the heavyweight title as did Peter Maher, albeit in a different century. We say no lineal titles, but why does that mean no mention of the fact that fighters were claiming championships/fights were billed as title fights? If a fighter has a recognized claim to a championship by the media of the time, there needs to be a mention of it as that is what it means to preserve boxing history.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll chime in. I meant to respond at this topic you started in December, but I've continuously been sidetracked in major ways that prevent me from maintaining extensive discussions. What I can do is promise that I will address it when I have time—it's obviously an exceptional scenario that needs addressing, in the wake of lineals being removed from record tables. We'll get there. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, it has become more frustrating as the more and more champions I check off from 1920 and earlier, I’ve had space to work on different ideas that seem very sufficient without being reverted. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Joe Jeanette

Help me. I added his official and unofficial records but a user named Nightscream is fighting me and discrediting/deleting 166 fights asking if boxrec is a wiki. I have nearly given up all of my fight and passion for adding fights. He doesn’t know anything about boxing records apart from destroying them. I have no computer, am in a different state from a family crisis and my phone is dying alongside my ability to keep working on Wikipedia articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nightscream

His user talk page. Last section. Too tired to link that section. Joe Jeanette. Please help me. I can’t do this on my own especially when I started Wikipedia in edit wars 3 years ago so i can always have that held against me by anyone who wants to dig dirt on meCaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Tag anyone that cares about boxing records and or already knows that boxrec.com is not some “wiki”CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your edits on Conor McGregor ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 06:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Tommy Gibbons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#Tommy_Gibbons

Issue with more people trying to delete records… CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m getting so sick and tired of this. All these “contributors” who are insistent on making Wikipedia as useless as humanly possible because of some unimportant disagreement on the topic of flags is making me lose sight if why I do anything here. Boxingc Career of Muhammad Ali and Roberto Duran have records, but these people are as clueless as possible about what boxrec is or how records are honestly kept on Wikipedia. A bunch of “know it alls” that don’t know anything CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Squared.Circle.Boxing,

Please note in the edit summary when you have tagged a page for deletion, especially for PRODs. If an article gets De-PROD, other editors need to know it's been PROD'd before and that is seen by looking at the edit summaries in the page history. It really helps other editors what you are doing. Please try to always leave an informative edit summary for each of your edits. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, every time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/TFD/MFD/etc.), you MUST post a notice on the talk page of the page creator. If you use Twinkle and set up your Preferences to "Notify page creator", Twinkle will leave these notices for you. It's part of the deletion process. Page creators need to be informed when pages they created have been deleted and right now, that is the responsibility of the editor who tags them for deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: I wasn't even aware there was a notification for edit summaries, and I can't deny that I'm terrible with remembering so that will come in handy. I don't really do too many PRODs and simply didn't know or think about notifying the creator. I'll make sure to do so in the future. Thanks for the advice. – ².O.^Boxing 09:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Protect Sugar Ray Robinson article

While adding the age of Robinson, I feel somebody may have vandalized his record and deleted one of the 6 Jake LaMotta fights from his record. I have just finished fixing it, but considering that this is a 200+ fight career on a "good article" it should have some sort of protection from any random person editing it and possibly causing unnecessary work for the editors of his article.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@CaPslOcksBroKEn: per the WP:Protection policy, there has to be a high-level of disruption for page protection to be applied. I have Sugar on my watchlist so I'll make sure to check future edits for anything dodgy. If you ever encounter any high-level disruption on other articles, you can always follow the instructions at WP:RFPP and request protection there. Or if you simply can't be arsed (I know how tedious it can be to file a report), then let me know and I'll take a look and see if there's anything I can help with. – ².O.^Boxing 22:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it. Trying to learn all of the behind the scenes stuff with Wikipedia just feels like time wasted that I could be using to contribute to the website.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated related in a way, Jack Britton is showing "This article uses bare URLs, which may be threatened by link rot". I am not good with references at all so if you know better, I would appreciate the help.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Just undid an edit on Sugar Ray Robinson with someone who is edit warring with you over sources citing SSR as the GOAT. I think that protection might be a good idea now, wink wink.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@CaPslOcksBroKEn: You beat me to the revert! If it carries on I'll make a request at WP:RFPP. I think it's close to warranting protection, but have a feeling it might get turned down at present. – ².O.^Boxing 20:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Yea, I have email notifications for that article lol. Also happened to be finishing up a revamp of Marlon Starling's record so I made a quick check to see what it was. At the very least I'm sure we will be able to get that IP address blocked as you left specific reasons for why your edit should not be changed.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

It happened again…CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The last 50 edits of Sugar Ray Robinson have been 99% edit warring with the note of him being regarded as the greatest of all time. This has been ongoing for 2 months. This page must be protected.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It happened again after you just reverted it again. We need to ban this IP address 168.8.244.132 or permanently protect SRR. Also they are vandalizing Boxing Career of Muhammad AliCaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Jake Paul

Good evening my friend. Care to disclose why you reverted my Jake Paul edit when I provided citations as evidence? I fully support your decision to revert the Tommy Fury article but the Jake Paul article was factual. Thebighomie123 (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Just...lol – ².O.^Boxing 20:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Respect for being able to take a joke. I will cut it out now. I would appreciate it if I didn't get banned. Cheers and have a good night. --Thebighomie123 (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Signature

	Best signature ever
	You really have the coolest signature I've seen. Clog Wolf Howl 10:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Clog Wolf: Baha thank ya kindly mush. I consider it my most valuable contribution to Wikipedia, so I'm glad somebody has acknowledged it! – ².O.^Boxing 10:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Lineal championship

Hello Squared.Circle.Boxing​, the reason i removed the media opinion thing is because there is an entire Wikipedia article regarding what a Lineal championship is and Tyson Fury is the only boxing article where it was written that it depends on media opinion. Every single boxers article who was or is a lineal champion is just written as "he was the lineal champion" or "he is the lineal champion". Examples: Floyd Mayweather Jr., Manny Pacquiao. There is even a list of everyone who is currently a lineal champion: Lineal championship#Current lineal boxing champions (men). It's a title and definitely not a view point especially that of media outlets. There is not a single mention of that anywhere in the article: Lineal championship. Even if we were to say "he is considered to be the lineal champion", the media outlets part is completely wrong as they have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Let me know what you think. Jaconsurto (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jaconsurto: as the second paragraph of the lead section in the Lineal championship article says, it is indeed based on opinion; A break in the direct continuity of a lineal championship can occur when a reigning champion retires or moves to another weight class. Opinions conflict as to what to do when such a breach of continuity occurs. Some require that top "contenders for the title" must fight to become the next lineal champion, while others require a new undisputed champion before the lineage can continue. However, there is no single canonical list of lineal champions at any weight class, because there is no agreed-upon method of determining the starting point for each lineage.

Saying that though, I have changed my mind on the need to include "media outlets". I'll self revert now. – ².O.^Boxing 21:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing:, That paragraph is about the difference in opinion in choosing of the next lineal champion once the current champion moves away from the weight class or retires and the breakage of lineage this causes. But once the decision of the type of championship fight is made, the winner of the bout IS the next lineal champion and the "title" of lineal champion is awarded to the fighter who won. There is no opinion difference on who the lineal champion is at that point whatsoever. Regardless of this that was not even Fury's situation because he won the lineal championship the normal way, by defeating the unified champ in Klitschko in 2015. The only real difference between winning a lineal championship and a regular boxing championship is that there is no belt involved in the former. Other than that it's the exact same. Whenever a lineal champion fights their lineal championship is also on the line. This line from Manny Pacquiao artcile, He was the first boxer to win the lineal championship in five different weight classes. Lineal champions are also listed by the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board. Also whenever you watch a fight involving any lineal champion including Fury they are introduced during the weigh ins and before the fight as lineal champions. As far as I'm aware Tyson Fury is currently the only boxer's article which uses the opinion based "considered to be " terminology. But of cource I'm gonna leave the final decision upto you because you are clearly the more experienced editor here, especially when it comes to boxing articles. Sorry for the long reply lol. Jaconsurto (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Just chiming in to respond to User:Jaconsurto, because I've been involved in myriad debates about lineal titles on WP. The reason Fury carries the "considered to be" disclaimer (which is probably not necessary now, as there is no longer any dispute whatsoever) is because there was a stark difference in opinion across the boxing world as to whether he was still lineal champion upon his return in 2018, considering he publically announced he was retired several times in the previous two years.

The point of contention being, did he reclaim the lineal title by defeating consensus #2 Wilder in 2020, or did he never step off the throne after defeating Klitschko? That lack of consensus therefore warranted the "considered to be" line at the time when things were still a bit murky. Hope that makes it clearer. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mac Dreamstate:, Thank you so much for taking the time to explain this. Looking back i do remember those debates in the boxing world now. So shall i now just change it to just "is the lineal heavyweight champion" now or should i wait for Squared.Circle.Boxing​'s reply as well? Jaconsurto (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Tyson Fury

Hello, Squared.Circle.Boxing​, I'm guessing you probably don't have notifications on and that's why you didn't see the continued discussions at User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing#Lineal championship. Anyway editor Mac Dreamstate​ informed me that the reason why the sentence was the opinion based "considered to be" is because at that time Tyson Fury had retired and there was confusion as to whether he's still the lineal champion. Which doesn't exist anymore so that sentence is outdated. Also as i have explained at User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing#Lineal championship how its definitely not "a point of view" like you say it is and how it's an actual title, so i have went ahead and changed it to the definite "he is the lineal champion" terminology like all the other boxing articles. Jaconsurto (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Created Article of Nico Ali Walsh

I just created a wikipedia page for Nico Ali Walsh. Please go check it out and let me know if I forgot anything or missed something as I am not the most privy to creating articles and usually need assistance and help.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I moved the detail about his trainer and promoter from the lead to the career section per MOS:BOXING/LEAD. No big drama, but it can come across as slightly PROMO. Other than that, there was just the categories missing. All looks good now. – ².O.^Boxing 10:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I removed the age from the record table too. We usually only add that when there's some kind of age related feat, like Pacquiao being the welterweight champion of pensioners. – ².O.^Boxing 10:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Review for Damon Feldman

Hello, will you review an article for me? It's an article for Damon Feldman. It's in the 8 week pending AFC submission bucket. The person that wrote it cited COI. I have been editing it and cleaning it up. Please let me know if it needs any further changes. Cteddie1 (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)cteddie1

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Dan Azeez article removed

Hi there

The article you deleted was from a sky sports new article and the correct refernce was left there please check again — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardBrack (talk • contribs) 10:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@RichardBrack: please give WP:Copyright violation a thorough read. Copy and pasting content as you did on Dan Azeez is not permitted. You can use the information found in the source and put it into your own words, avoiding WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis, but a copy and paste (in most circumstances) is a big no no. – ².O.^Boxing 11:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Just to let you know about the discretionary sanctions in this topic area. I didn't see any notices, recent or otherwise on your talk page.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Three different editors huh?

;) Suuure. I will catch you slipping, and when I do, there's a nice report button with your name on it. OceanTakeaway (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

1, 2 and 3. Yep, that's three alright. Your above comment is kind of weird though, so don't post messages on this talk page again. – ².O.^Boxing 16:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Your Profile page

I really like your profile page. Like me I can see you are really proud of your article creations. I do like boxing although my only contribution on here was tidying up Alan Minter, he was from my home town. Have a great new year. James Kevin McMahon (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@James Kevin McMahon: Thank you kindly. Although a lot of the BLPs I've created are somewhat basic, I am indeed proud of the work. Thanks for creating Torvi, by the way. I've found my way to that article on a few occasions :) – ².O.^Boxing 10:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Dispute resolution notification

I have been told to advise you of the dispute resolution request regarding Kambosos' ethnicity. link is as follows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by OceanTakeaway (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

My user page

Can you remove the phrases which you think violates [[4]], I don't want to blank my userpage, I still want to have some text and show what I stand for, but I don't want it to be excessive either, so can you suggest or remove the phrases which are excessive ranting in nature? As a black man I feel black men are treated very badly in the US, especially by police and white supremacists, so I want to have that in my page. Thank you! ^_^ Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 13:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk page refactoring

Hi Squared.Circle.Boxing. Can you explain to me why you made this edit, with WP:TPO in mind? — Bilorv (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I probably shouldn't laugh, but, lol! Judging by the edit summary, time of edit and my lack of recollection of such skulduggery, I think it's safe to say I was drunk (Kraken rum would be the offending beverage). Bad form. Bad form indeed. – ².O.^Boxing 21:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It's been left standing for about a week, and I think it caused Daniel Case to revoke TPA, thinking the comment came from the blocked user. Quite a serious problem. I'll leave you to reflect on whether this is a one-off or a problem you need to work hard on preventing from happening again. You will not earn yourself much leeway with consistently unproductive gravedancing, such as here. — Bilorv (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I have restored TVSGuy's talk page access now. This is as close to a case for blocking a user for editing while intoxicated as I have ever seen. Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the deception, Daniel Case. I do try to refrain from editing while drunk. As far as I'm aware (lol), this specific instance is a first.

Bilorv: as for mocking that uber famous celebrity guy who was trying to initiate a campaign of harassment against an editor; I was completely sober and of sound mind. No fucks given for that one. – ².O.^Boxing 22:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

If you continue to make edits that are not constructive then whatever the context (and to be clear, the campaign of harassment you refer to was despicable), you will still find yourself with less leeway than you would have otherwise. — Bilorv (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair point, and duly noted. Cheers mush. – ².O.^Boxing 23:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"Hew, tha fook, is tha?!"

Happy new year to you! Please don't go getting yourself banned over such trivialities as gravedancing, of all things. ;-)  You're a marvellous editor and you're needed around these parts. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Baha best behaviour over here. Happy new year to you too mush. – ².O.^Boxing 09:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Bob Dylan

WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Unhat if you prefer, of course, SCB. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 14:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Being a distant relative of somebody from Kagizman doesn't make somebody a notable person from Kagizman" - that is your opinion. Bob Dylan is notable enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.69.198.198 (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC) It's not an opinion, it's a fact. He's not a notable person from Kagizman. – 2.O.Boxing 10:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC) He is not, but his ancestry is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.69.198.198 (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Exactly. – 2.O.Boxing 13:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Yes so, his family is notable! Bob Dylans family is from Kagizman. Thank you134.69.198.198 (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC) No. You're welcome. – 2.O.Boxing 17:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Yes. You're welcome.134.69.198.198 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Neither Bob Dylan nor his non-notable family will be listed in that section. Do not post on this talk page again. K, bye. – 2.O.Boxing 01:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC) What will you going to do? You have no arguments.134.69.198.198 (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

King Rib

Hi, I've added a bit on the king rib talk page as to why I want to add changes with lack of citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddmfhsuk (talk • contribs) 14:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A friendly Note

Hi Squared.Circle.Boxing, We both are experienced contributors on Wikipedia and we should not fight like this. I appreciate your contribution on Wikipedia. And i also apologies for my behavior. I request you to kindly re-check your opinion on Rolly Lambert Fogoum. Thank You. DMySon (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@DMySon: If your request is referring to my nomination of the article then you'll have to follow AFD process and demonstrate that the subject satisfies GNG. If GNG is satisfied I'll withdraw the nomination. – ².O.^Boxing 15:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of AnEsonGib for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AnEsonGib, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AnEsonGib until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Re your message

You haven't replied to my reply to you, but I'm putting it here in case you haven't noticed it. I think your message to me was unfair and quite hostile. I really stopped by to help - there's no need to be cynical about it. My work on WP focuses on articles related to film and actors, and I've been asked to take part in it. I was surprised that Krish invited me because greater chances I wouldn't agree with him based on past experience. I've expressed on the talk page my full support of an editor who turns out to be in disagreement with Krish. That's why I think your comment on me trying to act as a fake moderator was made in bad faith, if I may say that. Hope it's okay that I'm leaving this message here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

As soon as I saw the word "hostile" in your response (in a thread where every accusation of hostility was unfounded), I decided not to reply. – ².O.^Boxing 12:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I get it, I apologise for that. But I hope you do understand my side too and why I didn't appreciate your comment towards me. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

My opinion was based on your calls for administrators to refocus on the reported user for behavioural issues that, from examining the diffs presented, were none existent. My logical conclusion was that you were not a neutral observer. If you say that wasn't the case, then I can more than understand why you wouldn't appreciate such a comment and apologise if it caused offence. – ².O.^Boxing 12:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Britain

Pipe down. You should read Wikipedia as to whether cornwall is in england. 147.147.131.135 (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Lol. – ².O.^Boxing 23:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

1) the first line of the magna carta says it applies to anglia et cornubia (england and cornwall) for a reason
2) read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_the_Constitution_(United_Kingdom)
The ultimate authority on the constition.
3) the cornish foreshore case https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_Foreshore_Case
Outcome of which - cornwall does not even have the same monarch as england. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.147.131.135 (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If you want to use Wikipedia articles as your argument, let's go straight to Cornwall:

Cornwall (/ˈkɔːnwɔːl, -wəl/;[3] Cornish: Kernow [ˈkɛrnɔʊ]) is a historic county and ceremonial county in South West England. (emphasis mine)

Carry on and you'll be blocked. – ².O.^Boxing 23:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The wiki articles i gave you are about external referencable ultimate authorities on the constitution. The one you shared was by an editor and is wrong as per your view.
Here is another on the constitutional status of cornwall https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_status_of_Cornwall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.147.131.135 (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Lovely. If you continue to push your agenda in Wikipedia articles, I can almost guarantee that you will be blocked from editing. – ².O.^Boxing 00:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

If you continue to push your agenda in wikipedia articles i can guarantee that you will be blocked from editing. You’ve already been Sanctioned about your opinions I see above. The ultimate authority on the constitutional status of cornwall is the royal commission into the constitution i linked above. Read it them understand why cornwall has it’s own currency and parliament on statute, as well as a different monarch to the rest of the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.147.131.135 (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

lol yea, we'll see. Anyway, you've outlived your welcome around here. Do not post on my talk page again. K, bye. – ².O.^Boxing 10:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (User talk:Nutez) for a period of 1 week for personal attacks in the edit summaries of your edits on someone else's talk page. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Attempting to nip this resumption of feuding in the bud. If this recurs when the block expires, I'll get out much larger clippers. This is not penalizing the removal of personal attacks; while unwisely done, that's understandable. It's for the personal attacks you made in the edit summaries while doing so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I'm fine with the block, I have no interest in returning. Just to clarify though, I'm not involved in any feud or whatever is going on between those three. I simply saw a personal attack and thought it had no business being on any talk page. A sentiment I still hold, by the way. Such redactions defeat the purpose of a redaction due to the available history. T'would be better to remove the comment and subsequent reply. As I said though, I have no horse in this race so 'tis all gravy. – ².O.^Boxing 20:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, full removal would be more complete, but also more likely to invite further dispute. There are pros and cons to redaction vs removal, I won't claim my way is 100% obviously better. A judgment call. There is something of a feud going on there. If you are not actually part of it, but stepped in the middle of it without realizing, then my apologies for the mischaracterization. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I suppose a redaction is better than nothing. My involvement in their feud is limited to a comment at a random ANI thread and the removal of the PA. I don't recall having any other interactions with anybody involved. I probably should have mentioned this at ANI so no apologies necessary. – ².O.^Boxing 21:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Peaky Blinders

The point I made is valid (but very obscure/difficult to place).

If you wish to develop boxing-related topics here you are welcome: there is also [5]. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Arooj Aftab‎

You were right the first time (er, second time) -- the cited source actually changed in the meantime, and the verbiage is still on the Internet Archive. But this is just so you know you (and I) weren't imagining things; I won't further belabor the point nor push for the previous version of the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your significant contributions... Keep it rolling! Volten001 ☎ 13:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yoruba people

My source is on the bottom. It is buzznigeria. You will see it there. That’s first. Then second, it is my people, I keep track on the population of my people on the regular. Abal126 (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I added the same source for the Yoruba people on this webpage as well. So please do not remove my information that I put down. When I said it is verified, I really meant that it is verified. Abal126 (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Abal126: The link doesn't work and isn't nearly as reliable as the ones cited. Stop reverting and take it to the talk page per WP:BRD. Also, read WP:Referencing for beginners to learn how to properly add citations. – ².O.^Boxing 21:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

NYC

Why throw a borough in the works?[6] Because the five boroughs are all huge, even Staten Island, and NYC provides no specificity. Why was it better as it was? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Mostly just consistency really. City/State/Country is a standard format, borough/state/country isn't. I don't see a compelling reason to deviate. It's no big deal though, I won't revert again if you feel it's necessary. – ².O.^Boxing 18:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I can appreciate that. But, I've had a look around, and from what I've seen, it looks 50/50 in practice in terms of "New York City, U.S." or "New York City, New York, U.S." versus "Borough, New York, U.S.". Also, each of the five boroughs individually is huge and uniquely different from the others. That, plus NYC being so general that MOS:OVERLINK says not to link it are my reasons, hopefully they're compelling enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I've seen very few that deviate from the city/state format, but if you've happened across regular instances then my consistency point takes a little tumble. Taking that into account, I have no objections to your edit. If I see any more NY locations that deviate I'll probably leave them be in the future. – ².O.^Boxing 18:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi bro

This is the format for kickboxing, take a look. They chose a format, no one has ever taken out the flags, only some administrators change the boxes sometimes. It also identifies nationality. In kickboxing on Wikipedia we have some stupid rules and not equal to MMA/boxing, the record is not even built like boxing or MMA. You can fight a world champion without Wikipedia even in the second fight. Some of these are big names without Wikipedia pages and sometimes right from the career start. It is a totally different sport and from a boxing perspective it is very difficult to understand. I was a big fan of boxing and I watched it a lot. So I know. PLUS we don't even have Boxrec/Sherdog. Some of the information is collected from television. If you feel, you can remove the flagicons in the boxing record table! KarelRo 00:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Most of your pages (boxers) have them too. You also had a reason, just for identification. This is even more important here, I told you why. If you want to remove for boxing I don't mind, because most of them are anyway anonymous, most of the times cans. In kickboxing, some are world champions. KarelRo 00:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I've copied your comment to Talk:Amansio Paraschiv#Flagicons and left my reply there. – ².O.^Boxing 00:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Bro, I respect your work. Please respect also mine. KarelRo 02:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

BLP DS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

I am letting you know about an additional area covered by our discretionary sanctions system. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of this notice, I'm unaware of what discretionary sanctions are in place as these notices are stupid. – ².O.^Boxing 16:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

thanks

hi User:Squared.Circle.Boxing! Thanks for rolling back the spammy edits to Ali Sethi. Can I ask: how did you come to discover that non-optimal edits were made to the page and needed to be rolled back? I watch the page, so I got notified of the changes and was about to Undo them. :) Do you watch the page too, is there some other mechanism by which one is alerted to disruptive edits and/or vandalism? I've always been curious about this, thought I'd ask. Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia! Priyanka2330 (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Priyanka2330: Thanks for intending to revert the spammy edit. Sorry I beat you to it :P. It was just a bit of guesswork really. The editor added this reference to an article on my watchlist. I thought it was a bit weird seeing as there was already one there and the content wasn't controversial. I checked his source and the author of the article had a surname to match the editor's username (Usman). I found my way to the Sethi article after checking his contributions. I'm not aware of any tool or mechanism that gives alerts for such edits, but I'm not really in to the tech side of Wikipedia. The WP:Teahouse would be a good place to ask. Hope that helps. – ².O.^Boxing 22:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing:It does, thank you! And haha, not at all; if anything, I appreciate you beating me to it. :) And that's some serious sleuthing skills you've got there. I just assumed there's some kind of a "red flag" mechanism in the system that alerted some editors/page watchers to disruptive edits and vandalism, because sometimes things get fixed in warp speed. :) Take care and thanks for your help. Priyanka2330 (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)