Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 2.O.Boxing 15:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
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 ~~~~}}.
On 2nd thought, I decided you were not sufficiently warned. But please note that further edit warring will be viewed harshly. El_C 03:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, I am unsure if replying on this will result in you seeing what I have wrote but I shall try regardless. All of my edits have always been constructive as I am a huge fan of the sport of boxing and have never made any edits on a matter I was not sure of completely. My edits have recently been reversed unjustly by an account that is continuously wrong for removing my content. I enjoy Wikipedia greatly and would never abuse it but in this case I wish to assure you that I do not believe that I should be blocked or having my edits reversed over and over as I believe myself to be in the right and if anything I should be allowed to continue to make constructive edits without having them be undone by ONE INDIVIDUAL who is the only user who has any problems with the edits I make.
Hello Sweet Science Fan. You and the other party are both warned per a complaint at WP:AN3. Either of you may be blocked if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Dereck Chisora. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Be cautious of how you refer to your fellow editors in edit summaries. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect C.Fred despite the fact I agree with you completely that all users deserve to be treated respectfully I deemed some of the remarks made towards me to be personal attacks on the part of Squared.Circle.Boxing
Two wrongs do not make a right. Do not commit personal attacks yourself, even if you feel you have been attacked. —C.Fred (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss any VALID issues you have with constructive edits made to Dereck Chisora on the talk page. You have already been warned and also had your IP banned for edit warring. Stop needlessly reverting without explanation. 2.O.Boxing
Sweet Science Fan, do you have any intention of actually discussing the content at Talk:Dereck Chisora, or do I need to take some administrative action to prevent further edit warring at the article? —C.Fred (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've discussed the matter previously in the past to no avail and any conversing with him is deemed abusive despite him not exactly being complimentary of me so I am in a no win situation as he clearly cant't just leave the page and has to get his own way by reporting me over and over, I would never report another user, it is just very immature for him to continually do so for the same reasons, if I was vandalising articles that would be different but simply going against what he wants if his sole reasoning. do as you think best (talk) as I'll respect your decision as a more experienced and impartial user, but just know that Squared.Circle.Boxing is constantly undoing not only my edits but COUNTLESS edits of MANY OTHER USERS across MANY OTHER PAGES if you observe his edit history. Who does he think he is... Does he have a right to just undo everyone's edits with impunity. If he would just leave that page alone we would not have a problem. Anyway I will no doubt be blocked by yourself or whoever and if you think that is fair then what can I say, I would implore you to prevent him from reverting my edits but if I am in no position to ask that then I understand.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 2.O.Boxing 22:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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: . ~Swarm~{sting} 17:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bold editing is encouraged on Wikipedia, as a matter of policy. Obstructing bold editing without providing a rationale is disruptive. Edit warring is also disruptive, and you ignored multiple warnings and chances to stop. Communication is required, and you failed to communicate, besides personally attacking the user. I do not see you having explained your objections once. The other user explained their edits, which you ignored. Refusing to listen is disruptive. You also demanded that the other user just "leave it alone". You do not own the article, and acting as if you do is disruptive. So, that's why you're being blocked indefinitely for "disruptive editing". The other user was blocked as well for their role in the edit war. I acknowledge that your intentions are good, and that you are a new user. You are not being kicked off of Wikipedia. You may request an unblock. However, you need to show us that you understand these points that I'm making, and that you are going to take steps to ensure that this doesn't happen again. This is not the time to assign blame or make excuses. Focus on yourself, what you did wrong, and what you're going to do to fix it. Regards, ~Swarm~{sting} 18:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I have taken time to reflect on what I did wrong and humbly request an opportunity to prove that such behaviour will not recur in the future, thank you. Yamla (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
I wish to apologise for not previously writing the unblock request correctly as I was not fully confident in knowing how to structure my request adequately in order to show that I understood what I did wrong and the steps I intend to take to fix my mistakes, so I thank you Yamla for explaining the points I would need to address. I would like to ask that I be given the opportunity to show that I have reflected on and learnt from my past mistakes and have absolutely no intention whatsoever of engaging in any further edit wars or arguments with fellow users of any kind, I understand that I was wrong to continue to revert the edits of users in the past repeatedly without reason as it was causing disruption across pages which I regret immensely. I fully understand why I was fairly blocked and fully agree that at the time as an unexperienced user it was what needed to be done for the betterment of wikipedia. I can assure my fellow users that under no circumstance in the future shall I cause any damage to any wikipedia pages or engage in any negative exchanges with fellow users. my primary reason for requesting this unblock is that I would really like to be able to make constructive edits in future only on pages in which I am completely sure are warranted and valid to do so that do not conflict with the guidelines that are set. I very much hope I am given a chance to prove myself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet Science Fan (talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accept reason:
Procedural decline only as stale. You are welcome to make a new request to respond to NinjaRobotPirate. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
I wish to apologise for not previously writing the unblock request correctly as I was not fully confident in knowing how to structure my request adequately in order to show that I understood what I did wrong and the steps I intend to take to fix my mistakes, so I thank you Yamla for explaining the points I would need to address. I would like to ask that I be given the opportunity to show that I have reflected on and learnt from my past mistakes and have absolutely no intention whatsoever of engaging in any further edit wars or arguments with fellow users of any kind, I understand that I was wrong to continue to revert the edits of users in the past repeatedly without reason as it was causing disruption across pages which I regret immensely. I fully understand why I was fairly blocked and fully agree that at the time as an unexperienced user it was what needed to be done for the betterment of wikipedia. I can assure my fellow users that under no circumstance in the future shall I cause any damage to any wikipedia pages or engage in any negative exchanges with fellow users. my primary reason for requesting this unblock is that I would really like to be able to make constructive edits in future only on pages in which I am completely sure are warranted and valid to do so that do not conflict with the guidelines that are set. I very much hope I am given a chance to prove myself. I am reapplying as my previous request was deemed stale upon being answered.Sweet Science Fan (talk) 21:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accept reason:
Block has been removed. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What will you do if others disagree with an edit you make and revert it? 331dot (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, I would simply leave it be and allow the page to remain as they left it. I would not revert the edit or change what they did as if they did so correctly then they would have been right to do so and if they reverted my edit incorrectly then I would not take it upon myself to correct them.
Sweet Science Fan, please don't change unblock requests after they've been responded to. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NinjaRobotPirate, I did not meant to do so, I apologise. I merely was trying to request an unblock once again as I was under the impression I had been declined due to not writing it correctly. I just thought I was re-requesting armed with the knowledge of where I went wrong at first. I did not mean to change anything.
Giving WP:DISPUTE a read and acknowledging the multiple options for a resolution during a dispute may help with getting yourself unblocked. Just because somebody disagrees with and/or reverts an edit you have made, it doesn’t mean you’re in the wrong. I’m not sure that my opinion is worth anything here, but as the other party that was unfortunately involved in the edit war that lead to this user being blocked, I believe their intentions to correct their approach to editing seem sincere. – 2.O.Boxing 01:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Swarm, do you object to an unblock or have any unaddressed concerns? 331dot (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify why I removed all those additions, MOS:BOXING/LEAD states two things regarding opponents in lead sections,
Notable wins or opponents should not be included in the lead section, as that does not represent a concise overview of the article; it does not present a neutral point of view; and there is no objective way to determine what makes a victory notable. If it is believed that a single notable victory should be added for a specific boxer, discuss it first on the article's talk page or on the talk page of this WikiProject to determine by consensus whether or not that information should go in the lead section.
If they have never won a world title but have defeated a significant number of past or future world champions, then that can be mentioned for notability.
A lot of the opponents you were adding simply aren’t notable by those standards. And to be honest, a lot of them aren’t notable by any standards. You were bold, I reverted, the next step would be discuss. WP:BRD. – 2.O.Boxing 10:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making those edits 2.O.Boxing and showing me where I had went wrong, I appreciate it and can now see clearly why world title challenger opponents are not notable victories enough worth mentioning in the lead section of all places.
I’ve restored the content and added references. If you struggle to find references in the future then you can go on their boxrec and click the "bout" button (on the far right hand side of the opponents name) and use that for individual fights, but it would be best not to use them for every fight. Use media sources (in any language) where possible. – 2.O.Boxing 00:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2.O.Boxing Thank you very much for restoring my content and providing references, I greatly appreciate it!
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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 2[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edmund Gerber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halle. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention JTtheOG (talk), I appreciate being made aware of the WP:NBOX which I had not previously seen before. I apologise for creating these pages of late that understandably some fellow Wikipedia users if not most find to not be notable or meet the guidelines in place that warrant their pages being made. I fully accept if they are to be deleted on those grounds. I will refrain from creating anymore in the meantime so as to avoid this problem from arising again!
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
As stated above! I am grateful for you bringing this matter to my attention JTtheOG (talk), I am fairly new to creating pages & inexperienced editing regularly to Wikipedia etc so it’s good for a more knowledgeable user to let me know where I am going wrong and so forth. It’s just over the years I have seen many older or lesser known pages that aren’t up to date shall we say presentation wise or with little to know information so I swore to myself that if I ever started making pages I would try & make sure that they were made to adhere to the latest Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines & had hoped that would be enough to see them through.
Hey! It's okay. We all have to start somewhere. Those were pretty decently created articles for someone who is new to Wikipedia. And yeah there are a lot of poor articles on Wikipedia. I try cleaning up boxing articles as much as I can. Continue the good work though. Like I said in my other message to you here, as a boxing fan myself, I do appreciate the time you are putting into boxing articles on Wikipedia! But if I didn't delete them, someone else will in the future. That's why I'm just trying to set you on the right path. List of current boxing rankings is a good place you can find notable boxers without articles. Cheers! JTtheOG (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
If you're looking for a boxing related article to create, Jessica Gonzalez should be notable enough; current interim champion and has previously challenged for world titles.
In regards to NBOX, it isn't the be all and end all of boxing related articles. The main thing to bare in mind when creating any article is WP:GNG; which is a must. I personally use NBOX as an indicator of which boxers may be notable, then search the ode tinterweb for WP:Significant coverage that satisfies GNG. It's almost a guarantee that the article will remain (for modern day boxers, at least). – 2.O.Boxing 23:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zurab Noniashvili until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniil Peretyatko until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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.
Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Daniil Peretyatko. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Issuing level 2 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))[edit]
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Zurab Noniashvili. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies! I thought seeing as I was the one who created the pages that by replacing the heading & proposing they be deleted that would speed up the process of them being deleted. Sweet Science Fan (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi. What source are you using for the exhibition boxing records you are adding?--Jahalive (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I am adding exhibition records for the documented opponents of notable boxers who already have existing exhibition records & using those bouts listed to create corresponding records. Sweet Science Fan (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. For example, where is it documented that Mike Tyson fought an exhibition against Anthony Davis?--Jahalive (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t add that particular exhibition bout on Mike Tyson’s record but there is fight footage on YouTube of the Tyson-Davis fight. Sweet Science Fan (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 2.O.Boxing 00:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Dereck Chisora. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Be cautious of how you refer to your fellow editors in edit summaries. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Curb Safe Charmer. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Senad Gashi, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
