User talk:MKil - Knowledge

1786:

go and learn polish, but again i am not getting polish keyboard, I was not born there and I have the right to make few mistakes, goes to show you administrators do not understand others in any language- i have another account where i edit since polish wiki was created, I am not editing since you started it, because I do not want problems there, but whatever, think what you want, you are always full of crap and yea i was proven right on many articles from kosovo to rocky to toni mannix as even other sites on wikipedia itself relate to my edits (as explained, i cant go on repeating myself), those sources are direct and from wikipedia even though they do not mean much to the outside world, especially universities (and we shall make sure it stays like that)

1394:

four rounds, after giving away most of the first 8 rounds, and that Hopkins was out-landed in the majority of the rounds. I'm a big Hopkins fan and I agree that Hopkins did much more than Taylor, even having Taylor look like he was on his way to being KOed. The problem was that he did it all in the last three or four rounds. Hopkins won most of his rounds big, Taylor won his rounds barely. It doesn't make a difference, they still only get scored 10-9 and Taylor won more rounds (as INDICATED not DETERMINED) by the round by round punch stats. To mention total punch stats but not the round by round stats is bias in this particular case, because it would lead a casual observer to think that Hopkins was on the end of a raw decision.

361:

Chuvalo fight, date sep 9, keeps on reverting, i mean, he is hopeless, this is now vandalism, he has his own agenda, and other users reported that problem to me. He should not be allowed on wiki, he creates problems. Besides I was a pro boxer, I know a little bit more. The problem is, he keeps on putting words into my mouth. Another point, on marciano page, he reverted my edit abour rocky's military service, i deleted united kingdom reference, since he did not provide evidence of that, this is not a self given, we need to know that for sure, he needs to provide sources, i wanted to add myself he delivered ammunition to soldiers in France, but I have no link to prove it.

478:). In it, it states, "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to." When you make changes, I do not automatically delete them. I try to improve your writing. That is what I did today. You added some info on Patterson and then when I tried to improve it, you automatically reverted it. That is a violation of Knowledge policy. 157:

greatness and so on, also, when i log off my computer, log on, new ip comes out, so, stop thinking of poor, poor excuses, when you have no point at all and you never did.I personally never said Rocky was the greatest, nor anybody else, that is not a proper question. yea, but it was not hard to delete things which have nothing to do with understanding, YES, IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND ME, WHEN I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF, WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED 100 TIMES, LINKS ARE ALSO ON THE ROCKY PAGE, AND IF YOU CAN NOT SEE IT, TRUST ME, I AM NOT POINTING THEM OUT! That's that.

777:

details, if they think I used some IP he used, well, all i know is they are wrong. Some time ago you told me you want to resolve situation, i simply wanted to correct few things and be on my way anyways, can you talk to plo and few others to unblock me, after all I tried to resolve situation, do not leave messages on my talk page, i can not edit there, reply here, i will look into this situation. I am not saying we should work together, i am only writing to let you know if they think that is whoever they think it really does not bother me.

247:

problems with calling rocky greatest, as some people consider him, i gave links, he reverted, I would like this user no longer to bother others, sure, he can reply well and may be he means well, but he is not doing it right, so even if he means well, eventually problems arise, I was asked by others as well to look into his problems. Here's some evidence, this guy HAS SERIOUS BEHAVIORAL problems, 3 rule revert, so this happened last year with others...

3561: 3424: 3336: 3261: 3188: 3115: 916:. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Knowledge's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well. 2800:

would say, they support a nation with a social safety net. They just want that safety net to be provided by private individuals and organizations. One does not need the government to provide a safety net. Trying to say that the Mackinac Center is against people having a safety net is inaccurate, or at the very least it is more accurate to say they are opposed to the welfare state.

2976: 2586: 1214: 1187: 317:

article and have minor disagreements over the way something is said. Right now, there is so little material there and so many weasel words (many, some, about, etc.) that the article has no chance of being retained over time. The guidelines here give you lots of information about what an article should look like and how to use and cite sources.

790:

certainly could touch other accounts, aside from the ones i touched so it would be impossible to find me. But I do not need that since I am not welcomed here. I simply want few things agreed, do not change those dates, just put citation needed, we shall be just fine. Honestly, my contributions, nobody had problem with them. For example...

2340:

integrity of the article. There is nothing within Wikepedia guidelines that says this is an inappropriate use of the link. Quite the contrary, the 'see also' templates allow readers to be redirected to content which is directly related to the topic in which they are viewing. For guidelines about the 'see also' template please refer to

2509:

However, the material I removed was inaccurate. The article is more accurate without it. It may be even more accurate if someone were to find the updated numbers. Leaving inaccurate information up merely because someone has supplied a reference (no matter how out-of-date or unreliable such a reference is) is not wiki policy.

1764:

make no sense or are unsupported by facts. It's not a conspiracy. It's just that you make very poor edits. That's it. But I'm sure you believe in the conspiracy as strongly as you believe you were a writer for Ring magazine or that you are some sort of a historian, as you've claimed here and in other places. Whatever.

1424:

not to overstate facts on wikipedia it is also important not to understate. Ignoring his undisputed status would, to my mind at least, be a case of the latter. The term "undisputed champion" is heavily sourced and editors should feel free to use it despite a single users boorish protests to the contrary. --

2793:

I'm happy to discuss my edits to the Mackinac page. First off, my edit of the Tea Party link, I think, more accurately reflects what was written. The author of that piece writes approvingly of the Tea Party movement. I certainly think that this characterization is more accurate than saying "in modern

2358:

Mkil, thanks for your response, I am happy with putting the 'see also' links at the end if that seems to be the most appropriate place. Just to confirm my position on the links, I do feel it is beneficial to have these at some point within the article so that readers can be redirected should they so

2292:

All-Eastern Golden Gloves was a term for the New York Golden Gloves Tournament of Champions 1937-1961. Check out the hardware (belts,programs,etc) of the era. The Marciano-Wallace fight was on March 1,1948. Most accounts have the decision being split and very unpopular. An understanding of the Golden

2008:

which I stated to you before which you probably did not read up on is the biggest PPV ever in Wrestling history period. Please read the Wrestlemania article maybe then you can understand until then I am not sure if you will. User Nhgaudreau was right in asking you what was the problem now I will make

1835:

My chess club (and its not mine anymore, never was) could easily destroy your mafia, tons of perverts with no feelings, robots, the undead! I am glad once in your pathetic life you feel sorry! And that's a lie in itself! But manners you will never learn! Contradiction is your name! And stop violation

1785:

I told you many times, my new polish account I created ONLY TO REVERT YOUR STUFF AND 99% WAS SUCCESSFUL ON THOSE EDITS, 8-4 record I can live with because its generally accepted but in reality is 9-4 as explained (rocky), so that account is blocked for 2 years but i will never use it again- i have to

620:

FINAL WARNING, I TRIED AND I TRIED TO BE REASONABLE WITH YOU- I WILL TOMORROW START FULL INVESTIGATION, WILL REPORT YOU FOR MANY PROBLEMS, THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED, IF YOU DO NOT LEAVE THIS WILL GO TO SPECIAL WIKI ADMINISTRATION, I AM SICK OF YOUR VANDALISM AND YOUR REVERTS, YOU WERE TOLD WHAT TO DO,

330:

As painful as it might seem, you might be better off in simply rewriting the entire article than trying to piece together improvements. Every time that you swap edits back and forth, it draws attention on the Recent Changes page and brings in folks like me. By the way, I have absolutely no interest

205:

I am requesting some info, you showed some interest in the above, i know you made some edits, are we going to do anything about that, which is much more important than any other edit you are playing with? I also asked you to look into other things, but you have personal vandetta here, keep on arguing

2811:

Those are the reasons for my edits. I'm happy to elaborate more if you wish. And, like you, I "work for nobody" in the sense that I don't work for Mackinac and am not getting paid or anything like that to edit this page. I do have a free market bias but don't feel my edits push my POV. If I'm wrong,

2761:

Also...if the Center is going to try to draw credibility from Nobel Laureates, at least they should be VERY CLEAR they're merely citing WORK by the Nobel Laureates in question, rather than arranging the sentence to seem as though the Nobel Laureates are somehow affiliated with or even agree with the

2003:

How can Mike Tyson being at Wrestlemania be a public appearence? It was ajob that he had he got paid to be the special guest referee. I think that you have a problem with wrestling. Do you? It was also false of you to state that it was minor in Tyson life. He was retiring from boxing at the time and

579:

To the matter at hand, I have no idea what you are saying. What article are you referring to? What article mentions the Marciano-Patterson exhibition bout? If you have one, put it in the citation page. I'd like to read about it. As far as the January 2 match, I explained that the boxrec source is a

316:

Use WikiPedia (as I did to find these articles) and Google to find other sources of information and cite your sources. (That doesn't mean just putting an external reference at the bottom or having WikiLinks within the article.) Then, once you have the facts and all agree on them, you can write the

256:

Every time I try to fix something, he keeps on inverting his own story, on the Baker talk page, I truly explained myself, on rocky marciano page, others tried to explain. He simply does not listen, will not listen,then when he gives an argument, he writes a whole book, repeats himself and adds stuff

156:

In reply... O yea, this is exactly what you just made up, anon, but correct, besides I know administrators and rocky fans who make edits, also now you tell me english thing, hey, another excuse, shut up, never once when you reverted things did you say it is because of english, but because of rocky's

152:

Your history here clearly indicates you revert things, I am not the one to judge you, but you reverted things on Rocky page and I do not mean just first paragraph. Also, i mentioned rocky was greatest, not the greatest, but some say he is greatest, so I am not putting any pov, but generally accepted

2853:

I'll certainly refrain from reverting any edits that don't violate what I understand to be Knowledge policy. The edits I reverted by you and others on the Mackinac page were, in my view, pushing a point of view. I saw nothing wrong with what McHugh wrote. Yes, he works for Mackinac but he disclosed

2799:

As far as "safety nets" issue -- the terms we are discussing is "nation with a social safety net" vs. "welfare state" (not "nanny state"). "Welfare state" is an accurate description of a certain type of society. It is not a derogatory term; it is a statement of fact. As I'm sure the Mackinac Center

2754:

It's also worth noting in the article that their previous director on environmental issues, Russ Harding, explicitly called environmentalists Communists. It's an accurate depiction of their environmental policy: "The environmental movement has been likened to a watermelon — green on the outside and

2747:

The Center's President wrote an article very recently explicitly stating: "For those of us dedicated to limited government and free markets, who have long sought a strong social movement to undergird our ideas, it looks like the newly awakened Tea Partiers might be the ones we’ve been waiting for."

2743:

Case in point the loaded term "nanny state" has no business in an objective article and should be replaced with the term "nation with a social safety net" The group also cites Robert Hunter, a former National Labor Relations Board member, as endorsing Michigan's transition to a Right To Work State

2489:

Like I said I agree that it is PROBABLY out of date - however you cannot just make whatever edits you want because you think so - if its out of date then update it with the revised information - you do not just delete it. Do you understand that that is how wiki works? I will ask you again, Have you

1862:

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. But the Charley Belanger was incomplete when i came upon it. I always refer to a boxer by his first name while making a page. I will also continue to. If you are a real boxing enthusiast then you would enjoy seeing Charley's notable fighters and what titles

1763:

Hey Gogy, I know in your deluded mind you were "proven right" about all kinds of things here. It's too bad that no one else here (or on the BoxRec wiki, or the Polish wiki, or Simple wiki, etc.) agrees with you. Your edits are continually reverted not out of some animus towards you but because they

1633:

Thanks. I didn't really consider it a disruption so that's why I went to the third opinion option. I sympathize with his position and am hoping that if he hears about the proper procedures from someone besides me (he apparently thinks I have some dislike of him) it would end the situation. I didn't

820:

ps. As far as my block goes, i simply want that removed, then we can make some editions and I WILL BE GONE FROM wiki, as you remember, i told you i need few things corrected, if i am not welcomed, fine, i shall not contribute. I do not have time anyways but when I do, I do contrubute well and I had

689:

I have protected the page again for a short duration. I would ask you to again return to the talk page and work out your differences there - I have started a new topic. I would love to moderate the discussion a little, but I'm afraid my time is a little limited at the moment due to some long work

616:

Ok, I am done talking to you on Marciano page, you really vandalized it, pov, well i may agree with you on punches, but would you say we should add a little bit, dude, just relax, be more specific, realistic, we are human, we can not have everything perfect, also remember popular opininon thru time

491:

Do not leave me any messages, DO NOT TALK TO ME, this has been explained 100 times, the above message 58 user is you, i traced the ip, ok, cool off, i will make sure you are blocked here, do you understand me? Every time i do small edit, you jump on it and not only that you reverse what I said, YOU

470:

2508:

I know exactly how wiki works. It isn't run by someone like you telling people how they can make their edits. You're not the boss here. I can edit how I like. Unlike you, I've never been banned. If you want to find the updated material, go for it. Perhaps I could do so, too, if I were so inclined.

1745:

its obvious I put down correct info on Lozzi, some other user did it, then it was reverted by Antandrus' proxy, how nice, but I am glad it was reverted to my version, that speaks for itself. (other edits like welles, patterson, kosovo status, gunfight at ok corral i was proven right as well, there

1570:

The rankings are updated later tonight. Just wait and see what Ring actually do. I didn't say Calzaghe didn't win the light-heavyweight title. I said that if Ring rank him as a light-heavy and place him as champion, they would remove him from the super-middleweight rankings. Ring never usually

1550:

Fair enough, based on the volume of messages and emails I have recieved I can understand your aggrivation. I saw that article and when I saw that the great poobah of WP Jimbo Wales was involved I let it go. There ain't an admin in the WP world that would touch that one. Besides as I told he who

1423:

Sorry to revert you last edit but I dont think there is any need to "find consensus" where one already exists. Calzaghe is the undisputed champ and I have provided about a dozen cites (mostly on the talk page) stating as much. As far as I know no serious source says otherwise. While it is imortant

1393:

Yes, but punch stats are looked at after the fight as an indicator of who did better. The article mentioned total punch stats for Hopkins vs Taylor, which favoured Hopkins and implied that he really really won. It neglected to mention that Hopkins landed a lot of these punches in the last three or

1175:

I will live with your decision, i always wanted to be sure we are correct. Ok, I will however ask boxing historians and take it from there. If it's over 200 lbs so be it, if you check my conversation from yesterday I said, let it be 201 or more for now, if it's otherwise, then we can change it. So

1097:

The claim is paraphrased from the report. Here it is verbatim: "The available evidence, which is quite limited, suggests that the bulk of the reduction in private coverage occurs because parents choose to forgo private coverage and enroll their children in SCHIP (because of better benefits, lower

532:

You think these are good sentences? "Many wonder how come Rocky did not wait around for Floyd Patterson, here was some talk about Floyd Patterson fighting Rocky on Wednesday Night Fights; either on January 11, 1956, or on January 4 or January 6, 1956, (Floyd's 21st birthday). This Los Angeles, CA

1033:

Some guy put something about his height, totally wrong, I deleted that! Was that you? Reach, it is important. Rocky was a small-time fighter, it is amazing he was the top dog with this reach, you said that is not important? You are WRONG. It is remarkable. Middle weight fighters have longer reach

853:

Look, BoxingWear, it was never my intention to get you banned. I wanted editors to mediate our dispute, but when they found you were a long-time abuser of Wiki, they rightly banned you. There is nothing I can do to reverse that. If you want me to create some articles on old-time boxers that you

785:

Here's the history of my main page. If you can get me unblocked it will be appreciated and I can assist you with boxing stories, i published a dozen of stories on eastsideboxing and on few other boxing sites. I knew I would get into trouble. You never accepted the fact that you made many mistakes

776:

Mkil, you need to realize you got me into trouble, anyways, i do agree with most of your edits like I told you on January 31st, I do know you had your buddies here, i had nobody, i found out I had somebody (who was banned) left me some messages on my talk page, i tried to help. I will not go into

246:

That is 100% not true, I am simply putting correct information, also Mkil had lots of problems with other users in the past. I simply want article to look good, i am not doing anything wrong, this man demands self evident truth, something that already exists in the world he wants evidence, he had

97:

Why did you say the "information about pictures with national Republicans" was "erroneous"? Did I miss something? I went through Steele's website and saw lots of pictures with smiling citizens but I recognized only McCain. What other prominent Reublicans is he pictured with, and where is the

1810:

and other sources, wikipedia is home for people like you!So enjoy yourselves until you all burst! Reply all you want, you have time on your hands, so go ahead and waste it! All your articles are waste anyways! But nothing of yours will be eternal here, nor your kind, waste your and other peoples

360:

I tried and tried and tried to reason with this man, not only that he is taking away important information on Baker, he is doing the same with Rocky, if you go on my talk page, it has been explained, other users complained, so, try to block that guy, he is killing very important informtion, e.g.

1805:

Keep on vandalizing wikia and i was not suspended on any other places you claim to be but you can claim all you want my 'friend' whatever, great, enjoy yourself, go kill some more people, you will get higher hierarchy in vario crew mafia! You are the real vandal with destruction of so many good

816:

If i remain banned, ok, we can still work together, i do not care if i am banned or not, but yea, i should not be banned. I am glad you move the baker page, i wanted to do that for a long time and the information box is something i wanted to do, but when i asked an administrator for assistance,

789:

To the problem... On January 31st we agreed we need new marciano greatest link, what do you suggest? I am not going away just like that. Sure I can have another account, no problem, I WILL NOT do that. And certainly I can log on from a computer at my work, so they can not check user check and i

509:

AGAIN, do not put words into my mouth, I NEVER SAID ADMINISTRATORS I KNOW, NEVER, I said i will report you and block you, may be somebody else said it, because on my talk page people left messages, complaining about you, reporting you to administrator is not threat but part of wiki or any civil

365:

All I ask is that my edits and BoxingWear's edits be compared and judged on their merits. Mine are better written and avoid the use of weasel words. This disagreement is becoming quite childish, I'll admit. It's unfortunate that it has to reach the level where we are drawing the attention of

2175:

I think the inclusion of this viewpoint is a total mistake. The statement unclear and is from a POV source. It should not be used. They guy hasn't read the book, and we don't know what description he's commenting on (including who made the description, what aspects of the theory were in the

1958:

You are right about one thing this is not my first time in a debate with someone over an article and this is not your first time either. I have came to a mutual agreements with anyone who has given opinions. But you are not justified by deciding what should be in someone article or not. If you

1085:

You inserted this in the SCHIP article: "The CBO speculates this is because the state programs offer better benefits and lower cost than the private alternatives." Where in the CBO report does it say this? I'm not saying it's not there, I'm merely asking because I didn't see it when I read the

628:

Say what you will, but it is all untrue. I don't use other IPs to log on and I never talked to Pulltoopen before this. I understand that you are upset that a third-party review of our disagreements vindicated me and delivered a stinging rebuke to you. Instead of claiming there is some sort of

377:

Folks, no one is going to compare your edits and judge them on their merits until you simply stop changing them and allow people to read them! You'll never be able to create this article if each of you have such ownership of the text. But, please understand, THAT is not the problem with this

2339:

Mkil, I have noticed that you have also taken out the 'see also' links which direct readers from the Sakio Bika and Jaidon Codrington pages to the main article of their fight for the contender championship! I'm afraid that I cannot understand what harm having these links in there does to the

893:

If you are an administrator, I'll gladly follow your direction. However, I think it strange that an administrator would not be logged in. If you are not an administrator (and are, as I suspect, BoxingWear), then I'll keep restoring the improperly removed material from the Marciano talk page.

1511:

Just wanted to let you know that this IP user left a not so nice message about you on my talk page and although I have left it for now I will likely remove it later. I have asked the user to create a user account so that we can talk through these issues that are occurring and we'll go from

1817:

Yeah, Gogy, I'll hang out with my mafia crew and you'll hang out with your chess club and we'll both be happy. You say Wiki doesn't mean much to the outside world. Why, then, are you so intent on editing here? Why do you return when you've been banned so many times? I just feel sorry for

3200:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1999:

I think it's irrelevant because it's a very, very minor incident in his life. If Knowledge were to start listing every single public appearance by everyone, it would quickly devolve into a trivia site, not an encyclopedia. Not everything someone does is notable enough to be listed in an

2805:

The environment issue -- from my reading of the article, I don't think it is saying that environmentalism=communism. I simply replaced your characterization with quotes from the article. I think it's better to let the author of the article speak for himself rather than relying on your

617:

become facts. Now... Liste of lineal heavyweight champion is gone, look what i said above, get in touch with this administrator....Gwernol and, I am perplexed, shocked, staggered, i mean we voted 5:2 or 5:1 not to delete and it's gone, we need that article back, shall you recreate it?

3273:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2096:

page, and checking out the same collection of photos came across a picture of 'Bat. Nelson'. I presumed it could only be Battling Nelson, but I can't be sure if it's the man himself. Could you give it a view and tell me if it's OK. Otherwise I'll delete it from the Commons. Thanks

572:

Well, I will again reply, but do not reply on my talk page, go reply on yours, do you ever read articles, no, it says exhibition only and citation has been given on other new year match, think... I moved citation to Cuba fight, I do have that old pdf file to prove that. Boxingwear

721:

Thank you for your rather infinite patience on this article, MKil. I'm afraid that I did not dig deep enough into the edit history of the article to see the long term issues that were present; and I apologize for that. I can promise you that the situation you encountered is a

1237:

they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you.

2028:

I mostly wanted the edit warring to stop before anyone breaks 3RR, and didn't think much about the two list sections that are still in. I don't know what the best form is here. It's not that there isn't precedent for having a detailed list of his boxing record, like with

1923:

is that irrelevant? For a boxing enthusiast do you know anything about the boxers life or just what you think you know. Do everyone on Knowledge a favor don't ever mess with information about something you think you know about but really only know very little. Thank You

2440:"Evidence"? If something is outdated (or sourced by unreliable sources, like the ones you used), you don't need "evidence" to remove it. Maybe if you'd spend more time trying to defend your biased edits and less time calling people names we could try and find consensus. 1116:

I'll have a look at this in a couple of days (hopefully tomorrow), but the edit warring is helping no one nor Knowledge. Remember, if someone changes a fact which is well sourced, it isn't just an content dispute, but vandalism, so it helps to source it well. Regards,

516:

Again, I do not merely revert; I improve the writing of poorly written articles. You are the one who keeps reverting my changes. When I try to improve your badly written sentences, you revert the changes and call me a vandal. That is a violation of wikipedia policy.

829:

I am in touch with few other people, banned or not, we need to fix that, what do you suggest, how do we bring back, yea, before i was "discovered" long before, I requested this from administrators, i was ignored. May be you should create that link again? Boxingwear

1863:

he held with the year and what boxer he took the title from I know other enthusiats are appreciating it. I se you have done around 20 boxer that is nice. I have done 100 boxing articles as well as mane other contributions to pages that were already made. Thank You

2071:

Ok, I just skimmed through the EAR and 3RR reports (to think that I probably gave Reallmmablogger the idea …). If anyone still wants me to give a statement of some sort, feel free to tell me, but as far as I can tell everthing's sorted out already and we can move

1702:

Addendum: I just ran into the previous via off-wiki canvassing that I took to be a naive user asking in good faith about reasons for reversion, and didn't realise the extensive background until I checked it out. Turns out to be a new sock of BoxingWear etc:

1076:

mkil, ok, just keep it clean and correct...I pasted a better web site on Marciano's reach. It is amazing how much confusion can arise after so many years. And even people who knew him really do not know him. (it happens to many, a similar situation or two)

195:

Did you know, that article has been deleted, i recall most of the people voted for it, do you agree, go there, amazing, wow, amazing, do you agree with that, that was a fine, reliable article... Shall we do something about this, write to idiot who did it?

749:

I tried earlier as you know, but I just didn't have the power to do much other than counsel you both. I believe that you saw yourself being sucked into a bad situation, though sometimes we can't pull ourselves up with our own bootstraps, unfortunately.

2755:

red on the inside. Most environmentalists would not consider themselves socialists, much less communists, but the policies they support in the name of saving the planet almost always sacrifice individual liberty for central government control." --: -->

3127:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

2765:

These are accurate depictions of the Mackinac Center. Not Point Of View. Removing items like these doesn't serve to create a clearer picture of the Center, they serve allow the Center to dictate its own POV rather than allowing an objective one.

2176:

description, or how clear the description was). We don't even know what he feels is absurd about it. He's also biased as he had an upcoming book with a competing thesis. I hope you'll see the issues with this source and remove that sentence.

1064:

I didn't write anything about Marciano's height. As far as the reach goes, what I meant was that it should not be included in the opening paragraph. It's not important enough to go there. Where you put it in the body works quite well, however.

230:

I, too, am trying to improve the Baker article. Unfortunately, my attempts to improve the writing on the page as well as remove weasel words, insertion of rumors, etc., are continually reverted. Let's work together to improve this article.

1736:

How funny and ironic it is, new sock NewBlock and IndyWisdom were used for emails only, there are dozens more accounts just for email alone, cant block all, lol, NewBlock means it will eventually be new block, duh, please block them.

2359:

wish. The Bika-Codrington and Calzaghe-Kessler fights were significant bouts and in many ways help to define the boxers concerned. It is for that reason that I feel people would be interesting in exploring those articles. Thanks

2344:. If after reading the guidelines you still feel strongly that the links are un-necessary or disruptive then it looks as if we may need to seek mediation from an administrator. I await your further thoughts on the matter, Thanks 2473:

Considering that the Boxrec mainpage reference was from 2006 and the Hauser column from a few months ago, I think it's safe to say it's outdated. You do realize, don't you, that the site gets updated with hundreds of new fights a

2211:

Anders Aslund, also at the Peterson Institute and the author of a forthcoming book, “Russia’s Capitalist Revolution: Why Market Reform Succeeded and Democracy Failed,” labeled a description of Ms. Klein’s argument as “complete

2685:), I just got "somebody" replying. You may want to tag them as a sockpuppet, I'd do that myself, but you seemed more involved witht his case then me, so I thought I'd check it out with you since you'll know more :). Cheers - 2407:. You state it is outdated without evidence - this is exactly the type of edit that you make that it totally pissing me off. It is quite possible that it is outdated - however you must prove it - you DO NOT just delete it. -- 565:

Mkil, if you go under the footnote jan 2, go under beecham fight, there is a full explanation to that bout, also claims on january 2 a heavyweight championship fight was scheduled, that is the reference to marciano fight.

2794:

times" (as if past Mackinac activities occurred in ancient times?) that the center has spoken approvingly of the Tea Party (which is exactly what that link proves -- it is someone from Mackinac approving of the Tea Party).

1752:

As far as me and mkil argue, that's between us, not his or his administrative vandals (antandrus) proxies. Resolving wiki edit problems thru others speaks bad about editor... my edits are always correct, researched, true,

1004:(by Knowledge policy those are to be blocked on sight). We could semi-protect the page, but since he's the only troublemaker currently active on it, and then only about once a day, reverting isn't a huge deal. Cheers, 2245:

given to Norberg, and it's strange to balance "Nobel Laureate and former Chief Economist of the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz" and the huge positive reception the book got with such a long and detailed crit section. The

1943:

Obivously you have your opinion and I have mine. Go bother someone else I dont have time for you and your pity arguements. My tone of voice was also not a problem. I you think so that is also your opinion. Thank You

1811:

time, you are expert at it! Now thank me for the honor of replying to your crap! On wiki, your types will always defend you but together you will fall in its own good time! -Boxingwear, where truth is 100% eternal!

965:

indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

2227:

It's pretty clear that Aslund hasn't read the book. No reading between the lines required. Also, any real life connection Aslund has to the topic of the book has to be clearly laid out, as not doing so is a NPOV

2051:

Hey bud I am writing you to let you know that I apologize. There will be no more disputes from me. I hope we can work together in the future to make the boxing section in to a great section keep up the good work.

543:

You do not stop do you, i do not care what you have to say, you revert, you put your own words, if it is bad spelling or writing, correct, do not kill mr. mkill sophisticated vandal, same old story, new excuses.

3070:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 3604: 3467: 3379: 3301: 3228: 3155: 786:

with boxing dates and I corrected them. It does not bother me to be suspended, :). Did you know they blocked all of the local ip's, HAHA, now, nobody can even edit and join wikipedia, ah well, even better.

2033:. I doubt that this boxer is notable enough to warrant a list with *all* his fights though, and since all but one of the blue-linked boxers are already part of the prose, I'm inclined to agree with you. -- 1882:

I wanted to ask you also why would the wrestling information sbout Mike Tyson be irrlevant Knowledge is here to provide researchers with as much information about a person of interest and importance life.

957:. Knowledge gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Knowledge, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an 2203:

Mr. Williamson, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, has not read the book, but after a brief description said, “It doesn’t sound like she has a full appreciation of my

1443:

Why is the wrestling info irrelevant? The article is not about Mike Tyson's boxing career; it's about Mike Tyson as a whole. I'm not the on that added the wrestling info, but I would like that clarified

1134:

As much of a problem as the "anonymous" user is, I don't really think this is vandalism. I truly think that he doesn't understand the distinction that I'm trying to make. Thanks for stepping in, though.

529:

There are no bad sentences, I am reverting what you revert, other people's good work, again you have time on your hands to come up with excuses after excuses and then again some new excuses.Boxingwear

621:

THIS WILL BE VERY SERIOUS IF YOU CONTINUE, DO NOT TALK TO ME, DO NOT CONTACT ME, I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU. UNDERSTAND, I do not mean to shout, but i do NOT want you on my talk page, ever again!

3588:. 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 3451:. 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 3363:. 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 3285:. 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 3212:. 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 3139:. 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 2161:

I restored the version which is accurate to the source. I think you'll see it is a completely ridiculous statement to leave in the text, but with out knowing more it is all that can be deduced.

817:

nobody ever replied, i was told from the beginning i should never put my faith on wiki administrator! By the way under baker, real name, it's empty, do you think that is appropriate? Boxingwear

710:

Actually Anderson isn't an un-notable amateur boxer. He's a student in y11 whom faked everything on that page wondering how long it would take to be taken down. (a long time as it turned out)

1790:

Either way, I am glad somebody reverted toni mannix page, at least for a moment, its obvious that was your proxy. I was proven right on rocky, muradi, kosovo situatin, valdez, baker, etc...

1379:

Why have you removed the information about the round by round punch stat results from Hopkins-Taylor yet left in the overall punch stats results? Fights are scored on a round by round basis.

1482:

I feel compelled to ask why you are continuously removing the edits done to this article. I read the reference I they seem to be in-line so I wonder if there is something I am missing.--

1887:

where he was the referre is the biggest wrestlig PPV of all time. You should look it up I highlighted it for you. Muhammad Ali was at the first Wrestlemania in 1985. Also even the great

174:

Hey, he keeps on putting same things into my mouth, generally accepted idea, he wants to change that, i gave him all the links he wants, he wants more. So, I am only doing what's right.

2708:? Some minor POV vandalizing going on there, and I'm hoping a demonstrably neutral party can fix it (I have and have disclosed a conflict of interest, but need action soon). Thanks, 3574: 3437: 3349: 1218: 2744:

without mentioning he works for the Mackinac Center, suggesting that labor approves of this transition. I believe it's fair to say he works for the Center, which he in fact does.

1571:

have a fighter in multiple divisions. They do now, of course, as they've released the new rankings, and placed Calzaghe as champion in both divisions, which is very unusual.

2831:

I ask that you please refrain from your past pattern of wholesale edit reversions. There is a lot more to say about the Center than what the Center has to say about itself.

1977:. I have not been anything but nice to you if you feel that I am not I am sorry about that. BEcause you do not get your way doesnt mean someone is not being nice. Thank You 2092:

MKil, as you built, and appear to maintain the page on Battling Nelson, I thought you may be the best person to ask to check this out. I have recently added a photo to the

854:

feel is missing, I'd be happy to help. I'm also happy to work on the lineal heavyweight championship article. As for unbanning you, though, I can't do anything about that.

3036: 1781:

Think what you want and as i told you i wrote articles for Ring (they do not have to be 10 pages articles) believe what you want P.V. Jr, mafia member, son of P.V. Sr.

1463:

I didn't know the user was a trouble maker thanks for the heads up and your right many sources Rocky had an 8-4 record so thanks for the heads up on the unknown user.

629:

conspiracy against you, though, you may want to actually read what Pulltoopen wrote and start abiding by Knowledge policies. I'm happy to work with you if you do so.

1354:

Someone has added that Hopkins won the Light heavyweight title vs Tarver & re-added the Ray Robinson reference. The page should be either unlocked or reverted.

674:

Thanks. I have to admit to some bad behavior myself in terms of edit warring, though. I should have also called for mediation sooner. Thanks for your help on this.

431:

My English skill is very poor.i am just a boxing fan in a faraway country. all i can do for Knowledge is just finding some source, remove or add a short sentence. :)

1230: 640:

Fine by me. I am confident than any examination of these issues will do more to vindicate my position than yours. I'm happy to leave it up to editors to sort out.

870:

We are working on resolving situation with this individual, so do not want him to be mixed with others, that particular talk must not be removed.DO NOT continue.

283:, You folks need to work together to resolve this, please. The Talk page is longer than the article! Here are two examples which are similar to this article: 177:

Natasha, perhaps I am in the wrong here for picking a fight with this person who hides behind the anonimity of his IP address. It's not worth it, that's certain.

1307:

I was the one who suggested WP:AIV. In addition to whatever good-faith issues the anon might have had, this was mixed with rather trival personal attacks.

410:

Why not register with a Knowledge account so you can establish a history here? You seem like you'd be a good addition. MKil 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

2325:

Hi Mkil, please could you explain why you reverted my recent edit to the Mikkel Kessler article? I can see no reason why you would have done this. Thanks

499:), specifically this: "Don't threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you." 220:==Wikified== Hello, I am trying to make this one article wikified, also I did provide few sources, hopefully you can review few things. —The preceding 3526: 2944: 114:

I wont bother protecting as at the moment its all coming from one IP (whom I just blocked) - I will keep an eye out however :) Keep up the great work

2524:

Listen I dont make the rules, I am not telling you how to edit - I am telling you to abide by wikipedias rules. You are totally out of order stating

2934: 1040: 873: 833: 797: 221: 65: 2857:

There is certainly more to say about Mackinac than what the Center says about itself. Others who write about it should do so in a neutral manner.

3000: 49: 2930: 3522: 2940: 1369: 837: 801: 3627: 3489: 3401: 3315: 3242: 3169: 3095: 2838: 2778: 989: 939: 474:

One, the user with the IP address beginning with 58 is not me. Two, you may want to read the following page on how to resolve disputes (

1127:

Thanks. There's also Ring magazine's ratings, which show the cruiserweight limit at 200. Therefore, anything above that is heavyweight:

513:

I would like good soluion to our problem, but you keep on reverting, reverting, reverting, thus, there is no compromise, end of story!

25:

to Knowledge! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

1406:

Xman52 is vandalizing again. Your last couple have edits have looked fine to me. Page should be locked & Xman52 should be banned.

877: 595: 202:

Lineal champs... WOW, should we have a say? Also gone... en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lineal_heavyweight_champions&action=edit

2878:

Hi, many boxers pages now include info about the Lineal championship. Username7212345 has added many, and also incorrectly believes

2705: 1339: 557:

Do not reply, this last change, I more or less agree with you, but these situations are very rare due to your attitude. Boxingwear

206:

rocky is totally not the greatest, reverting baker page, etc... Also, you left on my talk page word vandettta, there are no 3 t's!

3003:

to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources:

1052: 962: 821:

plans to create 10 more articles on some fine boxers the world barely remembers today. It's a shame, but, anyways... boxingwear

726:

infrequent occurrence; and I hope that you continue to contribute! You seem to have fairly quickly grasped our core policies.

3623: 3485: 3397: 3311: 3238: 3165: 3091: 2901: 2254:--that's some pretty heavy praise. Not quite the impression a casual reader might get reading through the criticism section. 1222: 576:

You can't ban me from your Talk page. These pages are used to discuss these matters and we can do it on yours as well as mine.

444:

actually i am the editor who added IBRO citation for the Louis page. that meant we have talk talked once at Louis' talk page :)

2937:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2590: 1714: 1280: 1249: 978: 958: 928: 3030: 1666:. Apart from direct speech, Knowledge uses the "logical convention" for quotes (i.e. punctuation marks outside the quotes). 988:. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at 68:

on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out

303:

for example which have been WikiFied. Note the use of an introduction and sections which pull together common information.

2309: 1787: 3597: 3460: 3372: 3294: 3221: 3148: 34: 22: 3082:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

3609: 3472: 3384: 3306: 3233: 3160: 3087: 1284: 1253: 690:

hours (can't edit from work), my responses may be a little slow if things get heated. Your patience is appreciated.

135: 3008: 187:

No, not hiding, simply trying to make that article ok, you have to read again and you will find out what I told you.

2423: 624:

I know you used other ip's to log on, defend yourself and other people who backed you are your buddies. Boxingwear

2251: 973: 923: 2882:

title is the same as the Lineal title. I've also added and/or edited some Lineal references in the articles also.

2996: 2057: 2014: 1982: 1964: 1949: 1929: 1868: 1722: 1671: 1365: 841: 805: 533:

bout may have used two-and-a-half minutes exhibition, 2 rounds format, originally planned for Los Angeles, CA. "

54: 2273:

I moved this discussion to the article's talk page. I think the Crit response section needs to be overhauled.

3012: 2842: 2782: 2917:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1907:

also has a wrestling section in his profile for the last Wrestlemania that he was in2008 is that irrelvant?

1623: 1599: 1595: 1468: 407:

You do some fine work. Good find on the Duva cite. Also, thanks for cleaning up my Marciano book reference.

2247: 1606:

and he will probably be blocked. If he persists in making self-promotional COI edits, please report him to

1335: 2364: 2349: 2330: 1551:

shall not be named in my talk page my RFA got shot in the face so there ain't nothing I could do anyway.--

1098:

costs, or some combination thereof ), rather than employers deciding to drop coverage for such children."

881: 666: 29: 2526:"If you want to find the updated material, go for it. Perhaps I could do so, too, if I were so inclined." 1836:

other rules. Oxymoronic perfect term for you! Just keep on playing mr ip user from IS X-Originating-IP:

3585: 3448: 3360: 3282: 3209: 3136: 2713: 2537: 2499: 2464: 2431: 2412: 2389: 2128: 2102: 1395: 61: 1799:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_status_of_Kosovo&diff=210566803&oldid=208722665

912: 2422:

Are you going to refuse to proved evidence for your edits or are you going to continue to act like an

1331: 954: 115: 3516: 3507:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

2984: 2889: 2834: 2774: 2297: 2053: 2010: 1978: 1960: 1945: 1925: 1904: 1864: 1718: 1667: 1535: 1449: 1445: 1407: 1361: 1357: 1327: 1048: 663: 362: 258: 225: 207: 3018: 2250:(which you might expect to be slanted to the right) actually equates Shock Doctrine's importance to 3083: 2897: 2740:

I can tone it down, but the page requires a serious look in its prior form for similar POV errors.

2690: 2682: 2665: 2644: 2610: 2594: 2124: 1801:

a good editor with kosovo knowledge put back my line, again i was proven right, you wrong AS USUAL!

1704: 1008: 257:

totally irrelevant to the situation, tries to revert the given, something already well, well known.

69: 2301: 1792:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bob_Baker_%28boxer%29&diff=101843717&oldid=101840502

2992: 2983:, has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Knowledge's 2009:

it my personal mission to make sure his questions and contributions do not go unheard. Thank You

1708: 1619: 1464: 1277: 1246: 599: 300: 82: 44: 1794:

Date also correct, keep in mind how you reverted october 7th 1955, baker-valdez fight, amazing.

1634:

realize there was a COI noticeboard, though, and if the conflict persists I'll mention it there.

378:

article. Your reverts will cause the article to be protected or the editors blocked or banned.

344:

Please write to me if you want additional guidance or suggestions. Thanks for listening. Larry

276: 1748:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:NewBlock&diff=212918345&oldid=212918300

1176:

for now, let it be. But, as long as the word over is included, it's ok, people will assume 201.

3568: 3542: 3431: 3343: 3269: 3196: 3123: 3105: 3059: 3050: 2960: 2748:

Saying they align themselves with the Tea Party is objectively and explicitly accurate --: -->

2602: 2360: 2345: 2341: 2326: 2305: 2123:

in hopes that you could work things out on the discussion page rather than rving on the page.

1908: 1556: 1517: 1502: 1487: 1191: 510:

policy YOU ARE NOT FOLLOWING. You are a sophisticated vandal who must be and will be stopped.

165:

I understand you are upset with a certain IP adress but please refrain from fighting with it

76:

on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

3616: 3581: 3479: 3444: 3391: 3356: 3278: 3205: 3132: 3079: 3063: 2709: 2569: 2533: 2495: 2460: 2427: 2408: 2385: 2098: 1308: 781:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:BoxingWear&diff=105012607&oldid=104944575

603: 457:

btw, i saw you editing boxer page in Knowledge for times. i like your works. Keep working :)

291:. Note, that both are basically a blob of text on the page without citations. Now, look at 3596:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3459:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3371:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3293:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3220:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3147:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3078:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3024: 644: 633: 2988: 2658: 2242: 1892: 1615: 1607: 1429: 1226: 1102: 1099: 1044: 763: 659: 384: 352: 280: 2564:

I've made extended comments at the appropriate section at ANI I would like you to read.--

1806:

pages, i certainly tried to make them look good and correct! But as sources indicate and

794:

this is general, but there are others who appreciate my additions. Boxingwear Boxingwear

3519:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 1743:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Toni_Mannix&diff=212721494&oldid=212716232

1128: 153:

fact, if you continue reverting I will make sure you are blocked, do you understand me?

3593: 3456: 3368: 3290: 3217: 3144: 3075: 3067: 2922: 2918: 2893: 2686: 2662: 2640: 2625: 2606: 2598: 2278: 2259: 2181: 2166: 2151: 1788:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=universities+do+not+allow+wikipedia+as+sources

1588: 1577: 1005: 985: 935: 734: 698: 292: 2723:

Took care of it. That was a pretty clear case of someone pushing their point of view.

2293:

Gloves before the current format (1964 on) has not been well documented yet, DSPORTS

496: 3589: 3533:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

3512: 3452: 3364: 3286: 3213: 3140: 3071: 3041: 2980: 2951:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

2636: 2529: 2381: 2120: 2076: 2035: 1996:

You posted this incorrect information to anotheer Knowledge user trying to help out.

1896: 1663: 1603: 1274: 1243: 1195: 1146: 288: 77: 39: 1602:

has already been warned.) If he persists in edit-warring today I will report him to

662:

and patient, and I wish you best of luck to your wiki-career in the future. Cheers,

3538: 3534: 2956: 2952: 2926: 2491: 2456: 2005: 1900: 1888: 1884: 1746:

are many more)Additional info on lies, non-sense, read this fine reverted version:

1659: 1611: 1552: 1513: 1498: 1483: 1199: 1086:

report. I didn't read it too in-depth, however, so I could have missed it. Thanks.

1001: 475: 166: 139: 3560: 3423: 3335: 3260: 3187: 3114: 1497:

Good to know, see I thought there might be more to that than met the eye. thanks--

2565: 2528:- if you are going to refuse to abide by wiki rules I am going to report you to 2093: 1920: 1534:

Extended for a week. If he comes back again, I might well make them permanent.

1221:. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Knowledge and 1150: 1118: 658:

I truly am sorry that you got pulled into an edit war with BoxingWear. You were

108: 2241:

Most of the criticism section is questionable actually... there's far too much

1225:

to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only

3508: 2374: 2030: 1973:

Oh yea here is a copy of the etiquette for you maybe you should read up on it

1425: 99: 2455:

PROVE IT IS OUTDATED!!!! Are we to just take YOUR word for it? Have you read

1959:

continue to re edit the profile I will continue to fix them have a nice day.

1598:

about abiding by the 3RR and about the conflict of interest. (Although I see

1383:

I know how fights are scored. They aren't scored by punches landed, you know.

2858: 2813: 2724: 2589:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Knowledge, as you did to

2510: 2475: 2441: 2274: 2255: 2177: 2162: 2147: 1974: 1840: 1819: 1765: 1682: 1638: 1572: 1384: 1298: 1159: 1136: 1087: 1066: 1018: 895: 855: 727: 691: 675: 641: 630: 581: 548: 534: 518: 500: 479: 393: 367: 296: 284: 232: 178: 2854:

that and his edits were factual and neutrally described what Mackinac does.

1035: 547:

I tried to correct both of those sentences, but you reverted my changes.

488:

It is you and I had enough of your stupidity and sophisticated vandalism.

199:

en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_people_considered_greatest_fighter_ever and

2113: 1916: 3600:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3463:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3375:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3297:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3224:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3151:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2585: 1213: 1186: 791: 3578:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

3441:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

3353:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

331:

in boxing--just in making WikiPedia better (not perfect, but better).

2979:

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote,

2987:. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be 392:

Sounds good to me. I'll back down. Thanks for the words of advice.

2885:

Is the Lineal championship no longer p.o.v under wikipedia rules?

264:

OK, please don't use MY talk page for your personal disagreements!

1912: 1297:

I did, and they said next time something happens report it at AIV.

3066:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge

3631: 3613:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 3546: 3493: 3476:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 3405: 3388:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 3319: 3246: 3173: 3099: 3044: 2964: 2905: 2866: 2846: 2821: 2786: 2756: 2749: 2732: 2717: 2694: 2668: 2648: 2614: 2573: 2541: 2518: 2503: 2483: 2468: 2449: 2435: 2416: 2393: 2368: 2353: 2334: 2313: 2282: 2263: 2185: 2170: 2155: 2132: 2106: 2082: 2061: 2041: 2018: 1986: 1968: 1953: 1933: 1872: 1848: 1827: 1773: 1726: 1690: 1675: 1646: 1627: 1582: 1560: 1540: 1521: 1506: 1491: 1472: 1453: 1433: 1410: 1398: 1387: 1373: 1343: 1311: 1301: 1291: 1260: 1202: 1162: 1153: 1139: 1121: 1105: 1090: 1069: 1056: 1021: 1011: 943: 898: 885: 858: 845: 809: 766: 736: 700: 678: 669: 606: 584: 551: 537: 521: 503: 482: 396: 387: 370: 355: 248: 235: 181: 169: 142: 124: 102: 87: 3603:

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review

3466:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

3378:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

3300:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

3227:

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review

3154:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

969:

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

919:

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

3572:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All

3435:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

1266: 1807: 471:

REVERSE MANY OTHER THINGS I DID NOT EVEN TOUCH. -Boxingwear

492:

REVERSE MANY OTHER THINGS I DID NOT EVEN TOUCH. -Boxingwear

2121:

Talk:De_facto#recent_edits_by_User:MKil_and_User:Mirandamir

792:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:BoxingWear#A_late_welcome

2681:

Hi there, you left a essage on my talk page a while agoe (

138:. Failure to do so may result in your IP being blocked. 1915:

at Wrestlemania in 1986. Roddy Pipper was acommpanied by

1172:

I always agreed, we need to make wiki much more accurate.

3347:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

2828:

I think we can peaceably agree on these specific edits.

1618:, but I hope I've been able to help you out.) Cheers! — 3584: