Jump to content

Talk:BoxRec

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Boxrec.com)

Untitled

[edit]

Please, provide an outside source for the Duddy criticism.--Matt1978 13:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Havent you read the linked sources that I have provided?? Vintagekits 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

[edit]
box: ON JANUARY 4 1956, ROCKY CASTILLANI FOUGHT GENE FULLMER, IT WAS VERY CLOSE BLOODY FIGHT, RING MAGAZINE NAMED IT 2ND BEST FIGHT OF YEAR :TU:, MOST BLOODIEST FIGHT OF 1956. ROCKY MARCIANO WAS TO FIGHT ON THAT DAY IN CLEVELAND ARENA, OR ON JANUARY 5 IN LA, @ LA OLYMPICS ARENA OR ON FEB 3 1956 @ MSG! :bag: ROCKY WAS TO FIGHT THE GREAT BULKY 'BIG BOB' BAKER 45-5, ONLY LOGICAL CONTENDER!

UNFORTUNATELY BOXREC & ALL ITS ADMINISTRATORS ARE FULL OF SHIT & THEY DELETE GOOD STUFF. THEY SHOULD NEVER B TRUSTED & ALL THEIR SPONSORS SHOULD BE TOLD TO WALK AWAY. BOXREC ONLY DELETES IMPORTANT INFO. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE USER WROTE ARCHIE MOORE'S RECORD AGAINST HEAVYWEIGHTS WAS 65-3-2, BOXRECIDIOTS BOXRECPEDOS LIKE MATT, WOUTER, RIC, JOHN, MARINA DELETED CORRECT INFO! THESE PEOPLE ARE NOTHING BUT BUNCH OF CURSED ETERNAL LOSERS!AMEN!LOL! ALL THESE FIGHTS WERE BROADCAST COAST TO COAST LIVE! :DD THAT'S PURE TRUTH RUTH! [color=#FF0080]BOOKMARK WIKIPEDIA-WATCH.ORG GIVE TO OTHERS, ITS ALL 100% TRUE![/color]LOL! :box:

ITS UNFORTUNATE THAT ON WIKIPEDIA THERE IS WIKIPEDO PORN, JUST TYPE IN SEARCH ENGINE WIKIPEDOPHILES PEDOPHILES N YOU LL GET MANY ARTICLES. GET YOUR KIDS OUT OF HERE N WIKIPEDIA SO THEY DONT GET PERVERTED N BECOME SAME! Boxrec is a site run by an anti Irish racist & bigot & that fact should be included in all references to this site

A disagreement on an internet message board is not a valid source…it’s just a link to an argument on a forum, which they're are million of those on the net...not are valid unless it is backed by a solid source…references usually mean something reliable…like a newspaper, book, magazine…or even a quality news website...they are valid cources…an argument from an internet message board is not a reference that counts, or matters, but I have taken your personal grudge with said website up with Wiki administration!!! --Ozzwald35 13:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is a valid source if it highlights information then its a source of information - each of the page images have been saved so that if the pages are now deleted by Boxrec then they can now be reproduced as evidence. The facts are not solely based within the arguement on a website the facts are based with within law - I will now post a link to the Good Friday Agreement, I hope that that is factually enough for you. Beaumontproject 10:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, but an Internet Message Board is not a valid source...it is not considered a valid source by any type of historian...it is not considered a source by MLA style, or APA...and Internet message board is hersay...nothing more...nothing less...a valid source would be a newspaper article...a magazine article...a book...or some other valid means...arguements on an internet forum is not a valid source recognized by anyone!!!

And you can save whatever you like...it's still not a valid source...which I am certain the Wiki administrators will strongly agree with as well as they require valid sources to back documentation...not an internet flame war source. --Ozzwald35 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is about a website then the contents of that website are applicable as a source of information especially as the owner of the website has commented on the issue and can be quoted within the discussion - there are also private messeges which have been sent on this topic - are they valid sources of information?? I consider those to me the same as hand written mail - which down through the years has been a primary source of information for historians. Beaumontproject 10:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


As has been stated...an arguement from an internet messag board is not a valid source...and whatever personal grudge you may have with boxrec it is not a valid claim...As has been stated, I've taken the issue up with Wiki administrators. Now if you want to post material that is relevant to boxrec instead of the personal grudge that you have, which I suspect that you were banned from that site for the exact same thing that you are doing here, then fine, but a beef that you have on some internet message board does not count as a legitimate criticism, but more importantly it does not count as a legitimate source and I will delete any such nonsense that I see until Wiki puts it on complete lock down, like I suspect they will if the nonsense is continued!!!--Ozzwald35 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Here's you a little sketch about sources from a "How to Research" page:

Another way to know what the research is valid is the type of source it comes from. A scholarly journal is more reliable than a magazine. A government document is more reliable than an unknown author or research writer. It is important that the sources used are valid. Information from web sites should have information about the author.

Has the information been updated? What are the dates of the information? The current information is more reliable and more accepted than out-dated material. However, some work is timeless and continues to be valid. Shakespeare, Plato, Aristotle, Emily Dickinson, and others are authors that continue to be valid today.

Some indication that Internet source may not be valid is if there is no date, no authors, and seems to be one-sided. Some information on the Internet has been written by someone who believes what they are writing but has no real authority to write the material. The information should be reasonable and balanced with citations from previous sources used. The information should be objective and other both sides of an issue with reasons why the author is taking the viewpoint.--Ozzwald35 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in bold is where you fit in!!!--Ozzwald35 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does not state that the contents of a discussion forum is not a relavent source of information? There is nothing one sided with what I am writing Who are you to lay down the law on this issue? if you have a problem with it being one sided then alter the detail to balance the article - you don't just delete the whole section because of your POV - that censorship not discussion!! Who are you to say I know nothing about a topic - what are your credentials? You have zero credibility and have no right to censor this page!

This article is about a website and surely the contents of the actually website that this page is about is a VERY GOOD source! As would you say that the John Duddy page on the Boxrec website is a good source? What about the information on the Good Friday Agreement from a government sponsored website - would you consider that a good source? - why did you delete that also?

What you are doing is just pure vandalism - if you have nothing constructive to add to this article then I suggest that you stay off it!! Beaumontproject 11:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing with you...this is the exact same thing that you did over a boxrec until you was banned from there and now you are vandalising wiki's site by spewing your personal beef with boxrec. I'll let wiki administrator decide what is valid and what is not and if they say that some argument from an internet message board is a valid source then I will leave it, but as you show here you are just on the site to whine about your personal dislike of boxrec and being that you were banned from boxrec you now want to spread your nonsense here...as well as insulting me because you are not getting your way, but as I said...we'll let wiki administrators decide. --Ozzwald35 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As anyone who wants to read this can see...you have no authority to make the claims that you have about boxrec...just some grudge that is very, very obvious, which being that wiki, like boxrec, is a very credible site, they will straighten it out if you continue to add the bogus criticism part to the page!--Ozzwald35 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly please use four tiles when you sign off. Secondly I am not banned from any website. Thirdly I have nothing personally against Boxrec I am just reporting. Fourthly I am not abusing or insulting anyone Beaumontproject 11:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well since you seem to have no idea what a valid, proper souce actually is then below is a few links that will lead you to the proper MLA style, which will show you what a proper, valid source is...and sorry, but as I have stated several times, an arguement from an internet message board does not qualify as a valid source!

Links on what is a valid source and how to cite it!


http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/legacylib/mlahcc.html http://www.studyguide.org/MLAdocumentation.htm http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/workshop/citmla.htm

As you can see from those examples, which there are many, many more that can be found...there are no examples for citing an internet message board...unless documentation comes from a website, personal, or professional then it is not considered a valid source and even in some professional and personal sites...certain things are not reliable either!!!--Ozzwald35 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USE FOUR TILES WHEN SIGNING OFF OR PEOPLE DONT KNOW WHO SAID WHAT AND WHEN!!!

This is an article about a website - therefore the contents of that website are applicable!!! Like I said Wiki does not state the discussion forums are not relevant sources of information - which in this case it obviously is - its not for you to judge it or to make wholesale deletions Beaumontproject 12:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


>>>its not for you to judge it or to make wholesale deletions<<<

Nice statement...the same thing should apply to you! Who are you to say that boxrec has come under criticism...was it in a scholarly journal, or some valid website...or maybe a boxing magazine because what you try to post is not a valid source that is recognized by anyone, but as I said...I've sent the issue to wiki so we'll se who is right about valid sources...LOL!!!!

I've also saved all of the statements that you have made in the two threads that you continue to whine in. In fact...if you do not know what is and what isn't considered a valid source then you should not be trying to make any kind of edits to any page, but it seems that the only thing that you have edited is the boxrec page, where you talk about your grudge toward boxrec for not taking your view about John Duddy and you have edited John Duddy's page! If you had wanted to be inconspicuous you should have left the Duddy page alone because altering both the Duddy page and adding nonsense on the boxrec page that is about Duddy you exposed your agenda...LOL!

>>>>its not for you to judge it or to make wholesale deletions<<<<

It is when the information is nonsense, which is exactly what your criticism is!--Ozzwald35 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have now broken the Wiki 3 revert rule so you will now be barred - I have rewritten the article, added reference and link for further read- you deleted them without reading them to suit your POV - i am now finished discussing with you and will let others sort it out Beaumontproject 13:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the link below:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sources

Especially the part about content...a web work is not a message board argument, and I'm pretty sure the 3 revert rule will be looked over in this case, since I contacted wiki several hours ago about the issue. Also it clearly states in the rules that editors should discuss the issue and come to an agreement, which all you want to do is post your little grudge criticism comment instead of posting valid data about boxrec!--Ozzwald35 14:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only read over this argument qucikly, but frm what I can see the Criticism section is fine. He may be linking to a forum, but it is the actual forum of the article, therfore is completly relevant. Its clear for all to see that criticism does exist. As we can see criticism exists, so I'm not quite sure what your point is Ozzwald. Derry Boi 14:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Of course criticism exsists, but it needs to come from a valid source and an arguement from some internet message board/forum is not a valid source. A valid criticism shoould be something that is read in a magazine, a journal, or a professional, or personal website, but not from a flame war that occured on an internet message board!--Ozzwald35 14:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


And the references that is posted, well they prove nothing except that Beaumontproject has an issue with boxrec and it his criticism...yet...as MLA and every other style will tell you...some people have no business making such a claim...and that really fits in pertaining to an internet message board!--Ozzwald35 14:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>He may be linking to a forum, but it is the actual forum of the article, therfore is completly relevant.<<<

There is no article on the forum...it is just an arguement between members of the forum...there is no article...it is completely irrelevant pertaining to boxrec. Now if there had been a well written article from some source and it was posted on a message board, well that is different, but what this guy is going by is not an article...he is going by an arguement between himself and other members of the forum--Ozzwald35 14:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this clear - I do not have a personal problem with Boxrec and I am not the only person interested in this debate - it seems a new user has join the debate also!! Plus there are hundreds on posts about the issue on Boxrec, East Side Boxing and other boxing related sites. Beaumontproject 15:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Let's make this clear...if you have no issue with boxrec then why do you continue to post the same nonsense over and over without a valid source? This site is a "factual" site...not a forum for you to spread your agenda! The criticism that you post is completely irrelevant in describing boxrec. If you have no issue then you should be able to just move on, but you are dead set to post the nonsense because of your grudge...It's obvious that you are only interested in John Duddy as that is the onlything that you have done on wiki, but in the end...if the rules of the site are an indication...your criticism grudge will only be short-lived! I saw that you have also had problems with the John Duddy page by posting POV material instead of consensual data.--Ozzwald35 15:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Gnevin---Please stop deleting my comments of the Boxrec page...they are facts...at least just as much as the criticism is!--Ozzwald35 16:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...I have no problem with the Criticism, but if it is to stay up then so should the Comment about the Criticism comment only being the view of a couple of people and certainly not the view of all wikipedians...that's a clear way to resolve the issue. You want it up fine, but I want it to be clear that it is only the view of a couple of people...can you live with that, or is your grudge just too bad to have a opposing voice...after all, wiki stresses opposing views in an article! And Beaumontproject, you talk about me just joining the site yet you just joined only a few days ago also and the boxrec page and the John Duddy page is the only thing he has edited.--Ozzwald35 16:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


But as it states in Wiki guidelines...debates from an internet message board does not count as a valid source...now it should be very clear about what is and what is not acceptable sources

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/WP:WEB


...it's what I have been saying all along.--Ozzwald35 17:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ozzwald35

[edit]

User:Ozzwald35 Edits have lead me to list him/her over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (Gnevin 18:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

No surprise that his account has been put on a temp ban! Vintagekits 15:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it civil. You were edit warring, as well. --InShaneee 17:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality Debate

[edit]

There is no reason to have this section in the article without sources outside of the forums. There are over 45,000 topics on the boxrec forums. Do all of them deserve a mention in this article? It's not notable unless a 3rd party reports on it, and some fans on a forum are not a 3rd party. --Onorem 11:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Duddy - John Duddy's management team has issued an official statement on the issue and it has probably been the hottest topic on the Boxrec forum for over 6 months - Boxrecs decision is also discussed on other forums on the internet so it is a topic of some note that people are disscussing especially as Boxrec are attempting to become an ABC recognised record keeper after being rejected last year. So there is an obvious issue and it needs to be highlighted. Yes other parts of what Boxrec does needs to be discussed so why dont you write a section on it?? Vintagekits 13:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If John Duddy's management team has issued an official statement, that should be on record somewhere other than the forums. If it's been a hot topic for over 6 months, that should be on record somewhere other than the forums. The entire section is without a reliable source and should be deleted. --Onorem 14:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The statement was made on the forum by Jim Borzell from Camp Duddy and was replied to by Boxrec.com owner John Sheperd - therefore as the posters where named and acknowledged by both side is fulfils the criteria as a reliable source and the source is documented, dated, issued to the public domain, the parties are named and acknowledge and credible sources when discussing this topic. To deny there is an issue would be simply ludicrous. Vintagekits 15:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
therefore as the posters where named and acknowledged by both side is fulfils the criteria as a reliable source
Really? Show me where that makes a forum a reliable source per WP:RS please. Even if that were the case, which link in the references is the "official statement" you're talking about? --Onorem 16:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the forum for the website and the owner of the website are not reliable then why is there an article at all? surely the whole website isnt reliable by those standards! Vintagekits 16:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at WP:RS at all? --Onorem 16:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


>>>The statement was made on the forum by Jim Borzell from Camp Duddy and was replied to by Boxrec.com owner John Sheperd<<<

Not that it matters as the criticism comment has no business on the page to begin with, as I have said from the beginning, but the comment made on the Boxrec forum, that Vintagekits keeps speaking of, was done so by a poster using the moniker "Jabby." Sorry, but even if the source had been a valid one, which it most certainly is not....Jabby would not be a reliable contact and to continue on and on like it is just shows how little you actually know about proper grammar, which in all honesty, if you have no clue about what is and what isn't the correct kind of sources that a person can use in grammar then you should not be trying to edit anything as you clearly have a lot to learn about writing and should take several English classes before you mess up any more pages on the site!--Ozzwald35 07:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your agruement has come down to grammar mistakes then you are on very shakey ground. Vintagekits 13:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Criticism Comment Should Be Deleted According to Wiki Standards and Rules

[edit]

It doesn’t matter how neutral you try to make the argument…it has absolutely no business on the page as it does not meet one single criteria in Wiki’s rules and regulations, nor is it at all relevant to Boxrec! These are links to the Wiki rules about what is and what is not acceptable…Vintagekits, I strongly suggest that you take a long hard look at what is stated therein:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Primary_source http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/WP:Reliable_source http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/WP:WEB


It does not get any simpler or clearer than the very first paragraph on the link below:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

The first paragraph clearly…very clearly states the following:

>>>Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.<<<

You comment on the Boxrec page is from a message board argument…there were no articles of any kind, much less being anything reliable!!! What exactly is it that you do not understand about Wiki rules?

Being that Vintagekits continues to ignore Wiki rules and every source that is shown to him by other editors then he and anyone one else that chooses to ignore correct Wiki procedure should probably be blocked from making any kind of edits to the Boxrec page!

After all, the fact of the matter is this, that other than ignoring proper Wiki procedure in posting, Vintagekits and others very clearly are not reliable sources to write about anything pertaining to Boxrec. It would seem that someone who has around seven years of experience with the website would be much, much more reliable to write about the site instead of people who have an obvious agenda and grudge against the very well respected site. Is it not obvious to others that there is an agenda that is incorrectly trying to be pushed here?

Another issue that should be mentioned about the Boxrec page is this…The Boxrec page was normal until Septemeber 30, 2006, which that is the date that Vintagekits chose to add his criticism comments…as can be seen from this history page below…

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Boxrec.com&diff=prev&oldid=78689578

…the page was normal and in a state just as it should be before Vintagekits added his little grudge piece, which again, according to Wiki rules and standards has no business at all on the Boxrec page.

In all honesty, if anything should be added to the page, other than just the original section that appeared before September 30, 2006 describing Boxrec, then it should be edited to look as the Boxrec mediawiki page looks in the link below as that page was written by a long time Boxrec editor who is very familiar with the website and it wasn’t written by someone who not only obviously has a grudge, but also who has very little experience with Boxrec in general other than being just a visitor to the site, which would make the person very, very unreliable to write about the topic, but as I said, the page below is very well done and it describes Boxrec as it should be:

http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRec.com


Editing in data that pertains not to any kind of article, but instead pertaining to an internet message board is completely irrelevant to the Boxrec page and irrelevant to any other Wiki page and as I have stated several times over, before I was blocked for 24 hours, it does not belong on the Boxrec page and needs to be deleted as it does not fit any of Wiki’s Criteria for web content, nor does it meet any of the guidelines put forth in the Wiki links below, which I am again posting in hopes that Vintagekits will actually read them instead of ignoring them due to the fact that they show that he is simply wrong about this issue…though I don’t think it really matters as he likely is not going to recognize the actual rules due to his agenda to post his irrelevant claim and due to the fact that the rules prove him and the others, who made the exact same change in the article, wrong!

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Primary_source http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/WP:Reliable_source http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/WP:WEB


If the Boxrec page is left with the criticism comment, then that would mean that anyone could take any kind of message board debate/argument…about politics, boxing, football, music, or whatever and edit it into a Wiki page and before long the site would be in a complete mess.

Like the page that is being disputed now…if the criticism comment is left then any other Wiki editor could go to the Boxrec internet forum and take any one of the 1000s of other debates and arguments that are going on now, or even debates that took place years ago and the Wiki editor could write a 1000 other irrelevant paragraphs above the criticism comment, in the same manner as the criticism paragraph using debates, or arguments from a message board, but just like the criticism paragraph that is in dispute…it would be completely irrelevant, but that is what would happen if the criticism comment is allowed to remain and it would greatly effect the entire Wiki site as people would be editing pages backing they’re claims with flame wars/debates/arguments from millions of message board forums all over the net and there would be 10s of 1000s of Wiki pages ruined by irrelevant nonsense that does not fit any Wiki criteria and which in no way is at all reliable!

The criticism comment is not from a debate about a reliable article from some respectable source that is being discussed on a message board…it is a arguement that comes directly from an internet message board debate, there are no reliable articles and other than the Wiki links that I posted which describe what is and what is not acceptable, Onorem also makes it very clear as well as he also provides some of the same links that I have to Wiki pages that speak of what is acceptible and what isn’t…yet Vintagekits continues to ignore it! If it does not seem like he has a grudge, then someone describe to me what a grudge is!

Actually, the page probably needs to be edited by someone who is experienced and someone who knows the actual Wiki rules very, very well because as the Duddy-ites continue to demonstart over and over, again and again Vintagekits, Beaumontproject and the others who continued to post the same criticism comment, they not only disregard Wiki’s policy and rules about posting data they are very dead-set with the intent of posting the unreliable nonsense that they continue to edit and as I stated in the beginning…it doesn’t matter how neutral the claim is…according to Wiki rules it has no business whatsoever on the page!!!--Ozzwald35 18:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

END

Ozzwald - you have already been banned over this issue - I wouldnt start it I were you! Vintagekits 18:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't banned, he was temporarily blocked, and it wasn't for this issue, it was for his use of a warning template. I'll warn you again to keep your tone civil. --InShaneee 21:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to worry about what I do, or do you have anything half-way credible to back your claim?

As to the Boxrec page...it should be reverted back to the state that it was in back in early September of 2006 right before Vintagekits messed it up by posting irrelevant material!

Oh...and by the way Vintagekits...this is not like a message board for you to argue and argue in...it's a dispute page for editors to post they're debate...so as I said, do you have anything credible to add, or are you just going to worry about me because I'm not getting into a petty flame war with you? And for the record...I was blocked for accidentally editing incorrectly, which being that I was brand new could be expected, but I'm not blocked now and unfortunately...I did a lot of reading so I do know a lot more about Wiki's rules and standards...I would suggest that you do some reading as well!--Ozzwald35 18:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You where banned for breaching WP:MOS and WP:3RR as listed on your talk page (Gnevin 18:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
And breaching WP:VAN (Gnevin 18:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Whatever...I'm not banned now!!!--Ozzwald35 18:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Actually, the page probably needs to be edited by someone who is experienced and someone who knows the actual Wiki rules very, very well You claim this yet i've over 2000 edits and know the rules that apply here , yet you refused to listen to me (Gnevin 18:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

So what is the punishment for breaching, or actually, just plainly ignoring WP:RS, or the many other Wiki standards that are being violated by posting the irrelevant criticism comment?--Ozzwald35 18:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzwald35 was not banned. He was blocked briefly to try and make sure that he understands how to contribute to Wikipedia articles properly, and can address controversial issues in the appropriate place and manner. This talk page is the appropriate place and manner.
The issue that he is bringing up is a legitimate policy question. On first inspection, my opinion is that the whole section is inappropriate for Wikipedia for reasons mentioned repeatedly by others above. It does not appear to be sufficiently important for WP to cover that aspect of the website, and nobody has provided external references for the incident beyond the website itself.
Based on existing WP policy I'd be entirely within my rights to just remove it now, with appropriate explanation. I am going to withold any action for at least 24 hrs to allow the talk page discussion to proceed, however. It's possible that its notability and encyclopedic nature are different from my initial impression, and I always prefer to see people who care about an article talk about it and look for consensus. Georgewilliamherbert 18:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As i've stated before to ozzwald , i don't really care about this artical and i only edited it to make his edits comply with the mos (Gnevin 18:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
"mos" ? What's that? Georgewilliamherbert 19:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOS (Gnevin 19:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
WP:MOS#Invisible_comments to be accurate (Gnevin 19:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
His problem edits weren't really MOS violations, though that's tangentally a problem. He needed to understand that the talk page is the place to make those discussion comments, which is simply new user education. Georgewilliamherbert 19:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree they are 100% MOS violations .You dont make comments on the artical page or sign the artical page ,which was pointed out to him numberous times (Gnevin 19:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Those things are listed as bad in the manual of style, but they're really other things. Calling them MOS violations is sort of naive. People don't get blocked for violating MOS generally; the things they're blocked for may be listed in the Manual of Style, but they're other more notable policies. Georgewilliamherbert 19:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Georgewilliamherbert---Thank you very much for clearing that up. When I said an expierenced editor that should make whatever edits, one who knows, respects and follows the rules...George is the type that I am speaking of!--Ozzwald35 19:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You dont get banned for a once of violation of the MOS but constantly will . Also , his contant addion of non MOS text lead him to violate WP:3RR] and WP:VAN as i've said before (Gnevin 19:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I deleted the section. Those who have noted that it's not notable and encyclopedic are correct. --ElKevbo 20:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very accurate and very correct, according to Wiki standards. Good job!--Ozzwald35 20:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo your edit was reverted and then reverted back again, the page is just an ongoing argument, delete the whole thing JohnShep 22:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way the AFD is going the page is likely to be deleted... --ElKevbo 23:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why should it be deleted - racism should be tackled head on!! Vintagekits 23:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with racism. You're welcome (and encouraged!) to participate in the discussion - it's linked to from the very top of the article. --ElKevbo 23:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2 things , george i could not be more WP:Civil and as i've said before i dont care about this articial and am removing it from my watch list , since i've achived my goal of the removal of MOS violation (Gnevin 02:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I hear on the grapevine that there is the possibility that Camp Duddy are going to publish a statement on the official John Duddy website regarding this - how does this stand with regards a source! Vintagekits 14:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear on the grapevine that there is the possibility that BoxRec are going to publish a statement on the front page regarding Duddy changing nationality - how does this stand with regards a source! This can go on and on and on, time for someone to hit the big delete button. JohnShep 15:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really changes anything. Unless this statement were to contain links or pointers to other outside parties who had published about the incident, we still haven't established the noteability of this topic. I don't doubt that among some folks who visit Boxrec.com or use its data that this issue is controversial. But so far the controversy appears to be very limited in scope. So limited, in fact, that it's not even worth putting in this encylopedia article. Another self-reference from Boxrec.com probably isn't going to change that. --ElKevbo 16:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Duddy website is an external source! As for your POV that it is NN - well I think you are going around blinkered - if it was NN why would there have been such an issue made of it over the past few days including comments on here from the websites owner JohnShep - just because you consider it NN does not mean it is not NN. What is you knowledge and background in boxing anyway?? In my opinion JohnShep, Ozzwald and other should be concentrating on improving the article and showing/highlighting all the topic and beenfits that Boxrec has - then the criticism portion of the article would then be put in context. To state that there is not an issue is like sticking your head in the sand Vintagekits 16:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that to an outsider this is nothing but a silly argument between a few passionate sports fans. You're going to need something from someone who is not a party to the controversy to establish its notability. If it's such a huge issue then surely some sportwriters have published material about it, right? --ElKevbo 17:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


All of this Duddy talk is really ridiculous. I'm one of the top forum posters on the site, and this whole ordeal consisted of one or two threads with a majority of the posts carried out by less than a handful of posters. Obviously, someone has a vendetta to challenge the data of the system at BoxRec or is a really irritable N. Ireland citizen. 99.9% of the people over at boxrec.com care nothing about this issue, and feel these ridiculous individuals should take their pointless arguments somewhere else. If the nationality problem with Duddy's profile is the only one worth recognizing on the site, than its doing a pretty good job considering the amount of information it holds. The people concerned with this issue need to get lives, and fast. BoxNut 18:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - this is one of the biggest boxing websites on the net and the owner of the website it treating Irish people like dogs and has called them "a bunch of IRA terrorists" - now that is noteworthy and disgraceful and should be highlighted on the Boxrec page. Now if you want to expand the Boxrec page go ahead - why dont you do that as I believe the nationality issue is only one issue relateing to Boxrec why dont YOU write about the other aspects and achievements of the site. That way it would be more balanced! The funny thing I find is that so many people want to cover up the issue!! That speaks volumes on its own imo. Vintagekits 20:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you think it's noteable doesn't mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Establish the noteability of the topic just you would any other topic in Wikipedia and I'm sure that we'll be happy to include it. --ElKevbo 20:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen VintageKits... I've known the owner of BoxRec to be a prick to Americans as well. He had a filter on the forum that turned the term "American" into something derogatory when it was typed in a forum post. He laughed it off, but it was definitely offensive. Nevertheless, the site is about boxing, not determining nationality. OK, so we have a site owner who is an immature British man.. so what? No one is trying to "cover up" the issue you speak enough, at least from what I know. What I know is that the issue is completely exaggerated and has no place in an encyclopedia article. BoxNut 03:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


>>>I disagree - this is one of the biggest boxing websites on the net and the owner of the website it treating Irish people like dogs<<<

That's nothing but nonsense, just like everything else you have been yapping about here. Boxrec has an editor from Ireland and several people from Ireland who post there. The people that John were talking about are the crack-head terrorists that kill children, which most people with sense picked that up right away. You're just upset because you were banned from our forum for doing pretty much the exact same thing you are doing here. Word of advice...nothing you try to say, or do will ever change the rules of grammar and nothing you try to say is going to make your little grudge article stick because it has no feet to stand on!

People here have stated...”if it was such a big controversy then surely there have been several writers that have wrote about it,” but guess what…there are no credible writers that have ever wrote about it and there are no hack writers that have ever written about it either because no one cares about the problem that you have with Boxrec…and as someone else stated…it most certainly was not one of the hot topics on the Boxrec forum…it was a hot topic between you and a couple of your friends, but no one else on the forum cared. In fact, in the six, or seven years that I have been a member of the site, it was one of the more ridiculous and very useless threads that has ever been posted on the forum…and that is saying a lot!--Ozzwald35 07:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you actually need to count the number of threads that there is and the number of posters on each thread, also you need to look at the other websites that are discussing Boxrecs 1. decision and 2. his attitude in running a site that is attempting to become recognised by the ABC.

Finally, as for more sources – I personally know of two journalists that have been following it and are writing a piece about it. Vintagekits 08:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


>>>Finally, as for more sources – I personally know of two journalists that have been following it and are writing a piece about it.<<<

Well something else that you should be made well aware of according to Wiki rules...an article has to be from a reliable source, so some "fluff piece" written by one of your buddies for some unrecognized website does not count either...LOL...as Wiki rules states...the sources has to be reliable, fair and of a balanced opinion, so an article written by DuddyFreak2006 for website www.duddyfreaks.com most certainly is not considered reliable!

Honestly, the best thing you can do is just move on with your life because you are so wrong in every part of this debate pertaining to Boxrec and Wiki and journalistic rules the world over and to be perfectly honest, other than your buddies, no one else really cares about the issue that you have with Boxrec! Now if you were someone who actually mattered in boxing it might be a different story, but you're not, so live with it and move on before you make yourself look more foolish than you already have!!!--Ozzwald35 03:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you are judging the merits of an article before its even written!! If you don't think that Vintagekits has a fair point and argument here then you are the one who is biased. Pretty much every website I have seen lists Duddy as Irish, but maybe they are ALL wrong and Boxrec is right - maybe you should do some reading on why Duddy is and his followers are so vehement that he is listed as Irish - you obviously dont understand any of mordern Irish history and that is why you dont consider it noteworthy - if you had some knowledge in this issue then you would understand why it is important to Irish people - or maybe its possible that like JohnShep - you dont think that the opinions of Irish people matter Beaumontproject 09:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


As I stated earlier...I don't agree with Duddy not being listed as Irish, but also, as I said earlier, I'm an American and I do not know how the United Kingdom is broken up between Northern and Southern Ireland, but as to it's meaning pertaining to Boxrec on Wiki it is completely irrelevant. The fact that you have got someone to write about it now just demonstrats the agenda, but as I said...an article written by DuddyFan2006 for the website, DuddyFreaks.com, well that is far from a valid source.

Unless there has been a controversy in the boxing community and a controversy that has been written about by respectable, reliable journalists, then it's basically no different than what is on a message board, actually it is no different than using the message board as that will be what the basis of the article is written on and that is no different than using the message board itself...it's just making an even less valid source than the message board as it will be second hand stuff.

I can start up my own website and refute whatever one of your pals is writing, but that would not make it credible either...although I am a credible and respected boxing historian, but some fan site, regardless of who it is is not a valid, creible source and just because you, or one of your pals is now writing an article about the issue on a message board it does not change the fact that it comes from an internet message board...how hard is that to understand? How hard is it to understand that no matter what you try to do that unless it is a controversy that is written about by credible sources then it simply does not meet Wiki standards...it's is just repeating what is said on a message board and it doesn't make it valid. Now if the article that you guys are now writing talks about articles written by several credible sources that say it's a controversy, sources such as The Cyber Boxing Zone, The Sweet Science, Max Boxing, Ring Magazine, or Boxing News, etc. etc..then you would have a case, but one of you writing an article now will not make it valid!

The issue is not a controversy, it never has been a controversy and it never will be a controversy. It's nothing more than a grudge that a couple of fans have and sour grapes that no one else cares.

If Duddy himself petitions that his nationality should be changed then it would certainly hold more weight than htis silly nonsense that you two have been trying to pull and just because you get someone to write about a message board argument it still does not meet up to Wiki's rules and regulations and it never will unless it actually becomes a controversy in the boxing community, but that is as likely as one of you two presenting a valid debate on the topic and if you continue to keep on then I would imagine that there is a possibility that you might be banned as you are doing nothing but causing irrelevant friction on this website, which from what I have read is a big no, no!--Ozzwald35 10:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. "I don't agree with Duddy not being listed as Irish,"

Right so first off, you do agree that there is an issue here! (I think thats what you are saying - because for someone who constantly brings up the issue of grammar you have just used a double negative! lol)

2. "I'm an American and I do not know how the United Kingdom is broken up between Northern and Southern Ireland,"

OK, so now you are admitting that you don't know what you are talking about and have no knowledge of the issue at hand! maybe you should read int the issue and get a full understanding of the topic.

3. "The fact that you have got someone to write about it now just demonstrates the agenda, but as I said...an article written by DuddyFan2006 for the website, DuddyFreaks.com, well that is far from a valid source."

I haven't asked anyone to write an article on the issue, and you don't know what company/magazine/newspaper/website this journalist/s works for that are goinging to publish or comment about the issue but already you are criticising the source - also there were a lot more sources than just the Boxrec board that were sourced within the article - it was kind of you to just ignore them all to suit your POV.

4 "How hard is it to understand that no matter what you try to do that unless it is a controversy that is written about by credible sources then it simply does not meet Wiki standards"

It is not for you to judge with is and what is not a credible source! What is controversial to one person may not be to others - I know plenty of issue that I do not care about that other people consider of the upmost importance.

5. "The Cyber Boxing Zone, The Sweet Science, Max Boxing, Ring Magazine, or Boxing News, etc. etc..then you would have a case, but one of you writing an article now will not make it valid!"

Again you have replied to a number of messages on this and you don't even know what the source would be - that says to me that you will never accept any source that does not support your POV.

6. "The issue is not a controversy, it never has been a controversy and it never will be a controversy. It's nothing more than a grudge that a couple of fans have and sour grapes that no one else cares."

On what basis are you making this statement - what mandate do you have - you are now going against what you already said! the very fact that you are writing about it shows that it is a controversial issue - and this same issue causes controversy on Boxrec day in day out - see the debates on Abraham, Maskaev, Baki, Kostya etc etc etc. Also if you do not think it is controversial try reading about Barry McGuigans experiences and you will know that this is a serious issue and it has followed McGuigan around all his life.

7. "If Duddy himself petitions that his nationality should be changed then it would certainly hold more weight"

He has - a statement was issued through Camp Duddy, Johns management team! - JohnShep (the owner of the websites) basically said the "he was not going to change his nationality back to Irish to keep a bunch of IRA terrorists happy" - that statement on its own is enough to shows the issues notoriety and how controversial the issue is!

8. "this silly nonsense that you two have been trying to pull and just because you get someone to write about a message board argument it still does not meet up to Wiki's rules and regulations and it never will unless it actually becomes a controversy in the boxing community,"

There are a lot more people interested in this issue than just two people - you keep talking like you speak for the rest of the world - you dont you there are as many people on wiki who consider that the nationality section of the article should stay in. You might think its nonsense and that just show how little you know about the subject. It might not be a major controversy within the boxing community at large (I never said it was) but this article is not about the whole boxing community, its about Boxrec - and it is noteworthy when discussing Boxrec. I am not say that is the main issue and item of noteworthiness on Boxrec, its not, its just one issue - but its the issue I have chosen to write about - other people can write about the other aspects of Boxrec and then it would be seen in its proper context - as just one thing that goes on on Boxrec - I would advise that you make the Boxrec article better and improve its content rather than just try and keep this issue out of the article.

Every Wiki entry you have made is about Boxrec - however not one entry has been to improve, extend or add substance to the article - that speaks volumes!

9. "if you continue to keep on then I would imagine that there is a possibility that you might be banned as you are doing nothing but causing irrelevant friction on this website, which from what I have read is a big no, no!!"

Thats a laugh, again, I will point out that you are the only one here that has had his account suspended! Secondly I have added to a number of articles not just Boxrec - I try to be constructive, have you even attempted to come to a compromise about the article? - try it! Beaumontproject 13:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Done Wasting Time

[edit]

Give it up already…you’re just ranting complete nonsense now and frankly just making yourself look like an idiot who not only knows nothing about the rules of how to write, but also someone who does not seem to have the ability to learn how to write after being told time after time after time about what is correct and what isn’t!

And as far as me sitting here wasting my time arguing this complete nonsense with you, I’m simply not going to do it. I have way more important things to do with my time than sit here and continue this little flame war with you arguing some nonsense about something that I am already right about. It’s now pretty much an open and shut case. I’m just glad that I was right in the matter according to Wiki rules, regulations and criteria and that the page correctly no longer has the irrelevant grudge claim!--Ozzwald35 13:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duddy, Again

[edit]

I'm removing the section on Duddy. There seems to be one and only one editor pushing for its inclusion. When pretty much everyone disagrees with you, Vintagekits, it's not proper to push your point of view. The consensus seems clear that the paragraph I'm removing should, in fact, be removed.MKil (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Incorrect, wikipedia is not censored. --Vintagekits (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What censorship? It seems you have a variety of people who have disagreed with you over the years on this. Wikipedia is also not a forum for you to push your own personal opinion. It is based on consensus, which in this case seems to be that the disagreement a few people have with BoxRec is not notable enough to be mentioned here. There is no coverage of this issue by a reliable source, pretty much everyone on this talk page disagrees with you, and a number of different editors remove this content when you insert it. I'd say if there were a textbook case of one editor bucking consensus, this is it.MKil (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]
Actually I think you will find that the opposite of what you are saying is that case.
The only people that have recently tried to take the information out are you, the IP 66.30.20.130 who has never edited anything except for the John Duddy and Boxrec article and JohnShep who is the owner of the Boxrec website.
The information was re-entered into the article by myself, Alansohn and Discospinster - all very experienced editors on wikipedia.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I believe the editors besides yourself that restored this content were doing so simply in response to the unexplained removal of it by an anon editor. They were not necessarily doing to because they agreed with it. As the conversation on this talk page indicates, pretty much no one supports your position who has any knowledge of the situation. Furthermore, the only "source" you cite is an editor of a boxing fan site, far from a reliable source.MKil (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]
Actually there are supplimentary sources as well. The discussion above shows that a lot of people agreed with be and this was back in 2006 before other sources came about. I'll tell you what - I will improve the paragraph and add other information about Boxrec as well so the the article is what you would consider "more balanced". I think I would probably listen to your arguments a little more if you actually tried to add to the article rahter than spending so much time and effort in removing information from the article. --Vintagekits (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What supplementary sources? A Boxrec discussion thread and a biased fansite editor don't count as reliable sources. The only way to improve this paragraph is to delete it, frankly. It's a minor squabble that involve a handful of people. There is no need to give it any mention here. I've got issues with BoxRec, too (for instance, John Shep's refusal to list Ring's belt as a title). Just because I'm dissatisfied with the website does that mean I should get to air my grievances here? No. This is an encyclopedia, not a personal forum.MKil (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]
If you feel there is undue weight given to this issue then I would advise you add information with regards other aspect of the website. Like I said I am going to add more information and references of the course of the following week. This will include details about the creation of the website, citations by notable boxing personalities on how Boxrec is an invaluable tool in the boxing trade, details about why it was rejected by the ABC as being the official record record for boxers details in favour of Fight Fax and more information with regards discrepancies in the information provided about boxers nationalities including the Duddy case as well as Arthur Abraham, Kostya Tyzsu, the Klitschko brothers, Sakio Bika and others. I would advise that if you as so worried about the state of the article the you also concentrate on improving the article by adding information and references. Kind regards --Vintagekits (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your additions to the page. However, why do you insist on pushing your POV about the Duddy issue? It's a minor thing that only animates a few people. Your sources on it are far from meeting Wikipedia standards and you go into great detail on it, giving it undue weight. Is there really any need to write a treatise on it when a line mentioning it gets the point across?MKil (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]

February Edits

[edit]

In order to placate Vintagekits, let me explain in full my edits: 1. I removed the reference "Boxrec Welcome." It no longer exists. Its url does not lead to any of the information used in the article. 2. Duddy was born in Northern Ireland. That's a fact. The dispute between Sheppard and the Irish folks is about whether that makes him British or Irish. Calling him an "Irish" fighter takes sides in the debate. I made that statement factual. 3. I removed the insertion about "inconsistencies" and the German/Armenian fighters. It was original research and the references did not support the opinion being pushed. Wiki is here to describe facts, not for editors to have a platform to blast websites they think are being "inconsistant." 4. The Hauser article was from December 2008. With Boxrec being updated with hundreds of fights daily, the information is out-of-date. I noted when the statistics were from.MKil (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)MKil[reply]

1. You removed more sources than that. Anyway, you do not delete "dead links" and the content to which is relates to simple because the link doesnt work anymore - you replace it with a new link, and if no new link can be found then you should add a {{fact}} tag and see if someone else can source the information. Please read Wikipedia:Dead external links.
2. Duddy was born in Northern Ireland, 100% correct - that is not in dispute, its never been in dispute - do you understand the difference between how citizensip and nationality is treat in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom? and indeed in Irish law as well?
Every source on the planet states that Duddy is Irish, Duddy's management team have informed BoxRec that Duddy holds and Irish passport and is Irish, only BoxRec lists him as British - there in lies the dispute - in fact BoxRec only lists boxers from Northern Ireland as British despite many is not most being Irish!
BoxRec is a website that is tasked with keeping accurate records of boxers - in this case it is failing to do so - hence the reason that is it discussed in the article.
Calling him an "Irish" fighter DOES NOT takes sides in the debate - it reflects what the sources say. The sources say he is Irish.
3. You cannot just remove content you disagree with or you think is not sourced properly - you can discuss it here or even add a {{fact}} tag or ask for further clarification and then have the sources improved, maybe even try and improve the article yourself by finding sources - you can not make wholesale deletions of sourced material. I am not "blasting" as website - in case you have not noticed I have added both positive and negative comments about the website - wikipedia is not censored, you cant just have the positive without the negitive if both exist.
4. You say that the statistics in the Hauser article is "out-of-date" - if you believe that then prove it - I have asked you to read wikipedia's policy with regards original research on countless occasions but you refuse to answer if you have done or not - have you read it?--Vintagekits (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No

[edit]

The section on criticism of accuracy is reasonable because it has at least one independent source, and it involves an evaluation of the whole site by an independent authority. The naming controversy section is pure crap. It is sourced to forum posts of Boxrec.com itself (unallowed circular referencing and unreliable source) and a blog (another unreliable source). Furthermore it is about a single entry in how many thousands of entries? Violates the principles of undue weight and soapboxing. Thatcher 15:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute nonsense - there are numerous sources used - all of them valid, including on this occasion the forum because the posters in the forum are identified and because it is self referential. Have a read of WP:V. As for it being about a "single entry" - that single entry is an example of how ALL boxers from Northern Ireland are listed. If you think there is undue weight then I advise you improve the section and give weight to other aspect of the article. I personally do not think that there is any undue weight or soapboxing.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. If there is a notable controversy about how all boxers from Northern Ireland are represented then the article should say, "there is controversy about how all boxers from Northern Irelan are represented", and furthermore, this controversy must be sourced to places other than the sites own forums and other non-notable bloggers. You need some showing that it is more than just a handful of cranks on a web site bulletin board. How about an article from Boxing News or Sports Illustrated, or even a blog post on a notable sports blog by a noted boxing journalist. The guy who edits the web site of another Irish boxer is not a reliable source, both for reasons of lack of established credibility as a reliable source and because of inherent bias. Thatcher 18:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore your edits such as Inconsistancies included the listing of Armenian born brothers Arthur Abraham who is listed as German, whilst his brother Alexander Abraham is listed as Armenian constitute original research. You can not, as a wikipedia editor, can not say this. You can not point to the site and say, "ah-ha, the site lists two brothers differently, one of them must be wrong." You can only report that an independent reliable source has done so. It's obvious this is a soapbox for you over the NI issue. Get off it. Thatcher 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Onorem was right 2-1/2 years ago, nothing has changed since then, "There is no reason to have this section in the article without sources outside of the forums. There are over 45,000 topics on the boxrec forums. Do all of them deserve a mention in this article? It's not notable unless a 3rd party reports on it, and some fans on a forum are not a 3rd party." Thatcher 18:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THIS is where your argument falls to pieces. This piece is by an independent 3rd party, it is factually well written and stands up for itself. Is his opinion not valid because he is Irish?
I also consider the comments made by the owner of the website which is the subject of this article but to a good source - be that in a blog, forum or article.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You like to refer me to Wiki polcies. I'll do you one better. I'll actually quote them to show why your www.bernarddunne.net source is flawed. As its policy on self published sources says, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources." The Bernard Dunne website is a fansite and it seems to me falls under the "self-published site" rules. By my reading, it falls under this ban. Also, as you'll see, forum postings fall under the ban. There are certainly exceptions to the ban but I fail to see how any of your references fall under them.
As far as your call for me to read the Wiki policy on original research, I have done so. It appears Thatcher has, too. It seems that your work, not mine, violates that policy. As the policy says, "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research." I'd say your comments on the Abraham brothers falls under this.
If you disagree, I'd like to see quotes from Wiki policies to back you up. Don't merely refer to them and claim they prove your point.MKil (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)MKil[reply]

The editor of a web site about a boxer is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS. I can't count how many provisions of that policy are violated by your source. Thatcher 19:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with VK regarding this it is well written and stands up to scrutiny. And with Thatcher also, WP:OR is certainly being breached on this article. BigDuncTalk 09:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the point of view of the reliable source policy, it does not matter how well written the blog post is. Mr. O'Brien may be a good writer and he may even be correct in his assertion but he is not a peer-reviewed scholar, a published author, or an independent news source. He is a self-published blogger writing on his own web site which he describes as "freely maintained, non-profit fansite for Bernard Dunne and we have no direct contact with Bernard." As such the only thing his blog is a reliable source for is his own opinion, and he is certainly not important or notable enough to be cited as a personal source for anything (unless he happens to be retired from a long career as a boxing journalist with several published books and many years of archived newspaper articles, in which case I am mistaken). Thatcher 12:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get caught up here, but how big of a deal is the Irish/Brittish/North Irish nationality issue to Boxrec's reputation as a whole? Did it get mainstream press? Did they make a press release? If not, then it may not be significant enough (undue weight problem) to make this article. Is it significant enough, if reliable sources are found, to be linked from the appropriate boxer's pages, if they have one?--Tznkai (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to let sleeping dogs lie for a bit until better sources are found but this isnt just a John Duddy issue or an IRE/UK/NI issue - its about the inconsistancy in how they record one of the primary fields of a boxers record - after all it is a record keeping website. There was a press release from "Clan Duddy" with respect to it but I havent got a copy of it - I'll do some more digging. I'll leave it as it is until more and better sources are unearthed. --Vintagekits (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, a press release is not in independent news source, it is extremely self-interested, as would any other press release be, whether from Microsoft or Pepsico or a politician. Newspapers (used to) take great scorn for running press releases without doing their own independent reporting. To answer Tznkai's question, no reliable sources have yet been offered showing that this matter has received any notice or media attention. The decision of the ABC not to adopt boxrec as an official source of stats is not well-sourced either, but it does have an independent source and the ABC itself is a notable organization. I did a Lexis/Nexis search and found hundreds of articles on boxers that use boxrec as a source for stats but no articles about boxrec. That does not mean there are no reliable sources but they are going to be very hard to find. VK, what you are looking for is not the Clan Duddy press release, but a newspaper, magazine or boxing journalist who received the press release and used it as the basis for a news story that included independent reporting on the situation from both sides (the complainers and representatives of boxrec). The newspaper, magazine or journalist needs to meet the other standards of a reliable source. There are two reasons for this; first, to have a reliable source that problems exist. And second, to show that the problem is an important enough part of the site's history and newsworthiness to include in the article without violating the undue weight principle. Let me give you an unrelated example: Should 50% of Powderham castle, an 800 year old estate, be about a single recent event that is of political significance to some people. Thatcher 12:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute about Duddy's nationality has received no mainstream press I can find. In fact, it hasn't received any press at all. The only time you see it raised is on a few boxing bulletin boards and on some self-created websites and petition sites. It is an issue that only a few Irish boxing fans care about. It is mentioned on John Duddy's page. I have a few quarrels with how it's presented there, but generally that seems like a good place to put it. The issue may be important to an article on John Duddy. It's not important to an article on BoxRec.
The BoxRec article quotes a news story by Thomas Hauser. You'll note that in this story Hauser discusses the problems with BoxRec. The Duddy issue is notable for its non-inclusion.MKil (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)MKil[reply]
Actually, the press release I was inquiring about is if BoxRec had made one, acknowledging the issue, but right now the answer is "None found (yet)?"--Tznkai (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think BoxRec has done so. There was some discussion in the forums that Vintagekits linked to, but that was it as far as I have seen. I think the owner of BoxRec is an editor here: JohnShep. Maybe you could contact him (although he would obviously have a bias).MKil (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)MKil[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BoxRec. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omar samano

[edit]

Hey my name is Omar samano. I’m a professional boxer from Glendale Arizona currently 25. I absolutely love boxrec but I would like to make some changes to my profile. I’m actually 5 foot 9 inches not 5,8” And I’d like for it just to be my professional record not the amateur one. I’d really appreciate if these changes could be made . Thank you 184.4.32.36 (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:BoxRec&oldid=1200304892"