Talk:Amanda Nunes

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Amanda Nunes. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130108082317/http://www.mmajunkie.com/news/2013/01/invicta-fc-4-live-results-7-p-m-et to http://www.mmajunkie.com/news/2013/01/invicta-fc-4-live-results-7-p-m-et

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amanda Nunes. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820052723/http://mmajunkie.com/news/23816/amanda-nunes-out-of-strikeforce-overeem-vs-werdum-due-to-injury.mma to http://mmajunkie.com/news/23816/amanda-nunes-out-of-strikeforce-overeem-vs-werdum-due-to-injury.mma

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * AmandaNunes.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * AmandaNunesHeroUpdated.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1035500 v9 ba.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Amanda Nunes.png

Content dispute - edit warring - GOAT
pls discuss the GOAT in the LEAD section and not edit warring. Both of you have been warned on Talk:Cris Cyborg and my talk page. Pls stop revert/edit the article immediately and bring your issues here. Discuss/comment the issues and not the editor. Pls keep the discussion civil. Thank you. Cassiopeia(talk) 23:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, so according to, I'm the one whose obligation it is to start a discussion about this despite me not being the one who wants to change the original wording of the sentence in the article. Fine ! I can do that. The issue is very simple, the article's introduction section contains a sentence stating "Nunes is widely considered to be the greatest female MMA fighter of all time", which wanted to change to  "Nunes is widely considered to be one of the greatest female MMA fighters of all time". Since 136.49.166.71  did not give absolutely any explanation as for why do they want to change it, I don't know what am I supposed to discuss or react to, but let's look at the sources the that sentence is referenced with:

1. https://www.mmamania.com/2020/9/3/21419779/ufc-256-odds-amanda-nunes-betting-line-highest-career-against-megan-anderson Quote: She’s widely considered the greatest female UFC fighter of all time after finishing former champions Ronda Rousey and Miesha Tate, as well as Cris Cyborg and Holly Holm. 2. https://sports.yahoo.com/amanda-nunes-defend-featherweight-belt-180025227.html Quote: Nunes is widely considered to be one of the best fighters in history, regardless of gender. (Here it doesn't say she's one of the best female MMA fighters, but one of the best regardless of gender, to put it simply for those who would like to pretend they are incapable of reading comprehension) 3. https://www.bjpenn.com/mma-news/ufc/opening-betting-odds-released-for-amanda-nunes-vs-megan-anderson/ Quote: Nunes (20-4) is the greatest women’s MMA fighter of all time and she has been incredible since joining the UFC in 2013, going 12-1 overall in the Octagon including her current 10-fight win streak. 4. https://sports.yahoo.com/baby-way-amanda-nunes-latest-182208944.html Quote: The only sure next step for the woman many consider to be one of the greatest fighters of all time is awaiting the arrival of her first child and growing her family. (Here, again, it doesn't state she's one of the greatest female fighters but that she's one of greatest fighters. As in, overally.) 5. https://www.espn.com/mma/story/_/id/29277039/amanda-nunes-overpowers-felicia-spencer-defend-ufc-featherweight-title Quote: She is also considered the best female MMA fighter of all time. 6. https://www.espn.com/mma/story/_/id/28335537/the-best-female-mma-fighters-decade Quote: Nunes is the female fighter of the decade, and in the eyes of most people, the greatest female fighter of all time. 7. https://www.sportingnews.com/us/amp/mma/news/ufc-239-amanda-nunes-is-undeniably-the-greatest-female-fighter-all-time/1uyoyb1hpf97y1u5uavlwo101k Quote: Amanda Nunes is the greatest female fighter of all time ; Her standing as the greatest female fighter of all time is not up for debate. 8. https://www.mmafighting.com/platform/amp/2020/6/2/21277441/dan-lambert-amanda-nunes-deserves-recognition-as-one-of-the-pound-for-pound-greatest-of-all-time Quote: While there are a long list of wins that help make Nunes’ case as the greatest women’s fighter of all time already, [...].

6 out of 8 reliable, independent sources very explicitly and plainly call her the greatest female MMA fighter of all time. Not one of, not arguably. The. The phrase "one of" is used in the remaining two sources to call her one of the greatest fighters regardless of gender. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Wikipedia is supposed to adhere to what the sources say, no ? If the sources call her the greatest female MMA fighter if all time, then why, pray tell, do you consider it necessary or even correct to change the formulation of the sentence to "one of the greatest" ? I'm very curious about your reasoning, please do discuss. If 136.49.166.71 won't answer as usual, then I'm gonna go and ask  what I'm supposed to do after that, really curious about that too. Goodnight. 2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:9529:F333:788D:6FEE (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC) My post. Diana056 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, can I get your opinion on this since is not responding ? They just keep editing the article without me having any possibility to communicate or object to these without engaging in edit warring again (which I probably already have, I know). They are even insinuating that this is some kind of vendetta for the Cyborg article, which is... ? Not even remotely the same situation ? I don't know. Please, I hope you respond. 2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:598A:9E9B:7D48:9631 (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC) My post. Diana056 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have reported 136.49.166.71 for edit warring and the editor has been blocked for 72hrs - see here. However, you need to "STOP" changing/edit the page "IMMEDIATELY" before you got reported as well. Discussion of dispute content should be in the article talk page. Thank you. Cassiopeia(talk) 09:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. I will not edit the article anymore for a week. If 136.49.166.71 still doesn't respond after a week, what should I do then ? Is it fine to edit the article after that or not ? 2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:598A:9E9B:7D48:9631 (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC) My post. Diana056 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If editor 136.49.166.71 does not engage in the content dispute discussion after their block is lifted, and no other editors involve in the discussion, then you can edit the content with independent, reliable sources (more than 3 sources) one week from now. Thank you. Cassiopeia(talk) 09:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Let it go man. These two are extremely biased. I actually just went through the Cris Cyborg talk and the talk here. And watched them both state "outdated" resources and things like that. I also noticed that the other user was able to use outdated resources and her claim stay constant. Let them keep the wording man. It seems the cass and the ip user here know one another. Did you notice how she stated she was new at editing but went straight to cass? Suspicious. But no need to even respond to this man. Maybe calling Nunes the goat helps them sleep at night or something. You're wasting your time talking to either one of them. You put up the resources. She literally said "if an article calls someone arguably the goat. Then it must be changed to 'one of the greatest, not the greatest'" and you gave them several articles and they blocked you? That's... biased. She stated you both would get blocked for editing several times. But she is still able to edit while you can't? Also Suspicious. They're both obviously new to mma and don't know much. Maybe it helps them feel like they have a grasp on something they cannot comprehend. It's just too far above them. I just read several more articles calling cyborg the Goat. But I refuse to be harrassed and flamed like what is happening to you. Obviously this matters to them enough to have you blocked even when you place sources to back up your claim. That's all the proof you need man. This "talk" isn't a talk. It's to try to get you to fall in line to what they want. Or they'll block you. Kind of sad really.. But just wanted to tell you I support you. And i have a different website you should come to. One that is fully unbiased and we actually speak. Ima try to message you but i don't know how. But good day sir/ma'am. And hopefully you come on over to an actual site that actually takes sources and not just the one's they want. Hopefully we can talk soon. 2600:387:A:902:0:0:0:30 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, first of all I would like to assure you I don't know Cassiopeia personally at all, I went to her for help because I often see her editing MMA articles and being very active in the MMA wiki project in general & I already went to her for help once before with a different issue, and she was able to help me. I think you misunderstood the point which was being discussed in Cris Cyborg's page. I wasn't trying to say that if there's so much as one source calling her one of the greatest instead of the greatest, the article automatically must state 'one of'. That would be silly. Obviously, if there's enough sources stating a fighter is 'the greatest', then no matter how many sources call them just 'one of the greatest', it's fair to say they're 'widely considered to be the greatest', since there's a wide array of reliable source which do consider them that. I would like to emphasise the 'widely considered' part of the sentence; we are not trying to state here who is the goat as a matter of fact since that is highly subjective. The goal of the statement is to simply inform about the consensus of public, fans, journalists etc. on this topic, which is easily sourceable and objective. The point I was trying to get across is that in Cyborg's case, there are no current sources which call her the greatest, let alone enough to warrant a statement that she's widely considered to be the greatest. You can go over those sources in her article yourself to see, the only sources which do call her the greatest are 3-4 years old. Now, you're probably asking why shouldn't those sources be considered as valid as well ? In my opinion, the general consensus on who is the goat is changing constantly as the sport evolves, and this info can become outdated very quickly. I could probably find a lot of sources from years ago which call B.J. Penn the greatest lightweight of all time and edit it into his article, but this information isn't accurate anymore after the come-up of Khabib Nurmagomedov, who is currently considered the greatest lightweight. Similarly, no one is disputing that Cyborg used to be considered the greatest, but after Amanda beat her and became first female double champ the narrative shifted and she isn't considered that anymore. In Amanda's case, all of the sources used in her article (which I cited one-by-one above) 1. do explicitly call her the greatest, 2. are from 2019 or newer, 3. there is enough of them to warrant the statement that she's considered to be the greatest. Hopefully this clears up why I feel differently about this statement being in Amanda's and Cyborg's article. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings about the topic, I very much respect both women as martial artists and pioneers in women's MMA. My goal is to simply accurately reflect what the sources are saying & what the current widely accepted consensus in the discussion is. Lastly, regarding to your objection to me not being blocked while the other user was, I am fully aware that I was also engaging in edit warring and I absolutely would accept if I was blocked too. However, I think the reason for this is that while I tried to discuss it here,  136.49.166.71 simply ignored me and continued to edit. Thank you for sharing your opinion in the discussion, I appreciate it even if we don't agree. 2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:CA3D:DCFF:FE71:E371 (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC) My post. Diana056 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yo, yeah I'm a guy, so Sir. Yeah man I noticed when this entire thing started that they were biased, you knew they were biased when they started saying "If it says arguably, it cannot be allowed and must be changed to 'one of the greatest' But I do it, and provide EIGHT new RECENT sources that states Nunes is 'arguably' and they refused to accept it because it isn't what they wanted. They're willing to block me, and do whatever just to keep up what they want, hell, let them keep it man. I mean anyone with a brain knows the actual Women's GOAT. Why would I argue with these kids about this? Please inform me of that website. Like I read the drawn out message She wrote in reply to you, and I truly don't care. They both want it so badly to state She's the GOAT, so in their minds they're correct. Hell let them have it. I just found it funny that She stated "Multiple articles call her the 'greatest' yeah there were multiples of mine that stated the same. But Her and Her friend didn't allow that to pass, a few were MMAfighting, BJ penn and MMAmania. They removed those, but She puts up sources from the EXACT same site, and they allow it. It's funny, honestly at this point I just feel bad for both of them. The biased nature is just... I mean they're friends so of course they'd be biased, but still like... At least try to hide it better you know? Honestly I wish at this point I took your route, I figured this site had some integrity, but I wish I honestly never edited a page on this site, because they don't care about sources. This is obviously a recency bias site, rather than an actual informative site. Do you know who Lu Bu is? He was an ancient Chinese Warrior from the Dynasty era. If you ever look up "greatest warriors" He is almost always (rightfully so) listed at number 1. This site doesn't call him the greatest warrior like... what?

Honestly before dealing with this harassment, I was actually content with this site. Now that I know the truth and that they allow what they want. I mean, I now know not to trust anything here, and I'll just let people I know; know this and show them this. But yeah hit me up when you can man, idk how to personally message. hell let's just talk here for all I care. 136.49.166.71 (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The way you continue wildly misinterpreting all of my statements and twisting my words to fit your narrative despite me explaining everything as simply as I would to a 3 year old child is kind of questionable by itself, but ok, let's say I'm not gonna assume the worst (aka you doing that deliberately) and I'm gonna assign it to a genuine lack of reading comprehension instead. But with your only arguments contributed to the discussion being unsubstantiated accusations of bias supported by absolutely nothing (me personally knowing Cassiopeia, which is something that 2600:387:A:902:0:0:0:30 came up with and you just decided to run with it) and sympathy-seeking cries about harassment (because of a justified block whose reasoning was explained to you multiple times), I'm now not convinced you actually have anything of value to say regarding the arguments I presented and the issue as a whole, and I definitely am convinced that any kind of discussion, let alone such that could lead to reaching some kind of consenus, is not possible to be had with you. 2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:68E8:C3E6:32D2:CFD5 (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC) My post. Diana056 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

hold up, let's talk about the most important of everything said. They don't have Lu Bu listed here as the greatest warrior? Yes i know who Lu Bu is. The flying general. That's wow... yeah can't take sites like that seriously then. It is worldly renowned that he is the greatest warrior.

Back to the discussion. Yeah i saw you provided 8 more articles. I go through the edits to see if anyone is being biased, I saw the referrals as well. And noticed they were completely biased. It is not worth your energy sir. Yeah this was beyond harrassment, then they took it even further when the mod herself stated you both were on a warning and if you edit the page like that again, you're both getting a ban. Then literally only blocked you... i can't get over that. I see why you say she could've hid her biased actions especially with her friend a little better, but she didn't even try. You're correct on the recency bias thing too. I mean yeah any actual fan of mma, knows Cris Justino, is the greatest female fighter of all time. Sorry for them harrassing you man. 2600:387:0:9C2:0:0:0:63 (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I already adressed every single point you brought up here in my previous comment if you actually bothered to read that, but I went through your edit history just now and you being someone who regularly straight up vandalizes pages (1, 2, 3) is not really something that would surprise me, but it sure does say a lot about your integrity as a wiki editor speaking on this issue. 2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:68E8:C3E6:32D2:CFD5 (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC) My post. Diana056 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That's what I'm saying, pure bias, but it doesn't actually matter. And YES They don't have 'LU BU' listed as the greatest warrior. I might go edit it myself, just because He deserves that Honor and distinction, He earned it and I don't like it when people don't get what they deserve. He deserves it. Also not sure, but I think you made cass's best friend (aka Amanda Nunes's wife) upset. She's blasting you about some articles you wrote on. You have her so mad, She's going through your edit history lol. She's speaking about 'integrity' but her and her friend blocked me so I couldn't do anything, while they ran around arguing and fighting with anyone who have a different opinion (Mine's a fact) than theirs. Wiki people are... comical but what else would you expect from some uneducated people, especially on the topic at hand. Yeah I know I provided articles and 8 different sections and pages to prove my claim, etc... But they don't care and I don't either. They're both extremely boring and biased. But ima go edit that Lu Bu page. Bu yes Cris Justino is the greatest Female fighter/mma artist of all time, bar none. And anyone would be a fool to doubt that. Also homie, wanna hear something funny? So remember those articles I put up that were recent that had Nunes as "arguably" the greatest? Her and Her friend took them down! HAHAHAH, OH MY GOD, they're so biased it's sad, I added it back anyway. But eh I'm probably near being blocked again, don't wanna make them mad again, they might find some reason to block me but not her again.

136.49.166.71 (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It was actually another editor who took it down, and they also explained why did they do so in the edit summary section, but yeah, obviously any and all people who dare to disagree with your opinions are apart of one big friend group that's out to get you and wikipedia rules don't apply to you because your judgement is clearly superior to everyone else's so you are allowed to make whatever unexplained edits on articles you want while the rest of us who weren't blessed with such incredible intellect and educated mind as you have to discuss our disagreements on the talk page. But now seriously, the lack of self-awareness one has to have to whine about being blocked and 'harassed' by the supposedly biased editors as much as you do while you keep doing things like editing the page when you were told not to until a consenus is reached, ignoring my messages and overally making absolutely no effort to reach said consensus, personally attacking me and other Wikipedia editors and using an article discussion talk page as a chatting platform with your new friend is just astonishing. 2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:68E8:C3E6:32D2:CFD5 (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC) My post. Diana056 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, i decided to tag some of you here in hopes that you can provide an opinion on this discussion, since I saw you being active in editing MMA articles and some of you also editing the Amanda Nunes article. Tomorrow it will be a week since I first posted in this discussion, and sadly it doesn't really seem like there is going to be a consensus reached and the other editor is ignoring my messages. I would really appreciate it if any of you could read the discussion and weigh in on this issue, if you'll have the time. I apologize if I'm bothering and of course, you can just ignore this message if you don't want to get involved. I just thought I'd ask because I don't know what else to really do in situation like this. 2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:CA3D:DCFF:FE71:E371 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC) My post. Diana056 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The person above you just complimented your superior skills compared to her. She stated you have more intellect and it's far above her's, also that you're clearly superior to everyone. You're gonna make her cry lol. She thinks we're personally attacking her, when you were the one blocked for you BOTH doing the exact same thing. Like... idk think? If someone tells you not to do something and you and another person do it but only you're punished, isn't that biased? Now i know as people we want Special treatment and want to be able to do whatever we want. But your friend and yourself did this. I watched the entire talk, the edits all of it. Honestly idk why i did all of that because i saw from the first post the biased nature. Removing articles that don't go towards your opinion and more mrs editor. And you're upset that the editor doesn't want to 'talk' to you? At first a consensus was attempted to be reached. Everything was fine and everything that stated "arguably" was informed to be changed to 'one of the' you however took it upon yourself to ignore that in spite of your own bias and changed it to what was not agreed on because you wanted something to state something it isn't. We simply ignored you because your excuses, "explanations' sound more like CYA rather than what is actually going on. He put up 8 recent articles (literally those articles were 4-5days old. And when he placed them up were hours old at the time, that is the very definition of recent) that called her "arguably" you took it down because YOU didn't want it not listing her as what you wanted. The only person whining has been you. Yeah he was harassed, heavily. You're just too dense to see it. However, I believe it is a waste of time to talk to you ma'am. Because you don't actually use facts, you and your friend are opinion/recency biased based. Now ima get back to my conversation.

Hey man, judging by the way she is acting, you may be near being blocked. Sounds like she's cooking something up and it's gonna be bad (or blow up in her face), and i figured they'd take those articles down lol. I honestly expected it. Also i was looking for the lu bu edit. But I'm sure you don't sit around on the internet waiting for replies.

Cyborg is the Women's MMA GOAT. War Cyborg. 2600:387:0:9C2:0:0:0:54 (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

My IPs under which I posted here are: 2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:598A:9E9B:7D48:9631, 2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:CA3D:DCFF:FE71:E371 and 2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:68E8:C3E6:32D2:CFD5. I also noted which posts in this discussion are mine next to its original signature in each one. Diana056 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * . First of all, I am asked to comment.(2) pls comment on the edit and not the editors. (3) pls comment in civil manner. No accusation, attacking editors and disruptive edits (no calling an editor of a 3 year old child, or accusing somethign without solid prove) here on for you will be blocked. (4) I have said and again here, I dont know any editors here personally and no one is my friends but fellow Wikipedia editors so, do not accuse such incident whiteout solid prove just because you are upset, for I will report you. (6) When discussing the content dispute, pls use Wikipedia guidelines and provide independent, reliable sources to discuss the issues and not your opinions who is the greatest.  Here We have Diana056 provided 6 "recent" sources stated Nunes is the greatest "female" MMA fighter and 136.49.166.71 and 2600:387:A:902:0:0:0:30 feel differently, then pls present your "recent" independent, reliable source to discuss. If no one join the discussion for the next 7 days, then we go by the what the sources say. Thank you. Cassiopeia(talk) 06:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the discussion above we already went over the fact that I provided 6 recent sources that call Nunes the greatest female MMA fighter. The reaction of 136.49.166.71 to that was that they also provided number of recent sources that call Nunes "arguably" the greatest, which doesn't necessarily dispute the original wording of that sentence ("the" greatest), but according to them, it should be changed to arguably the greatest because in a similiar dispute about the same statement in Cris Cyborg's article it was agreed upon that it should be changed to one of/arguably the greatest. They based this on their misinterpretation of what was actually said in the discussion - that if there's sources that call the fighter in question "arguably/one of the greatest" it should be changed to that wording, no matter how many other sources call them "the greatest". When you read the discussion, it becomes clear that this wasn't what was said at all and was actually a misunderstanding on their part - the reason for changing the wording in Cris Cyborg's article was changed not because there exist some sources that call her the greatest and these should be prefered above any others (there would be no reason for this), but because there are no recent sources that would support the statement that Cyborg is the greatest, only sources calling her one of the greatest female fighters. Logically, in this case the statement "she's widely considered to be the greatest" is not warranted, because there are no sources that would support this and wiki should adhere to what the sources say. However, if there's enough recent and reliable sources that call them the greatest, like in Amanda's case, it is completely justified to say "she's widely considered to be the greatest" because there literally is a wide array of sources that do consider her that. How many other sources potentially disagree (which wasn't even the case in the sources 136.49.166.71 provided) is irrelevant, especially because this is a highly subjective matter in which there can't really be reached an objective consensus. I already stated all of these arguments above, and this is where our discussion reached a stalemate, because neither of the other two editors reacted to them. When I asked you for comment, I was therefore hoping you will weigh in your opinon on this specifically, because this is the crucial part which we can't reach an agreement on (I should've made that clearer). If it isn't much bother, could you please say what your position on this is ? I don't think waiting yet another week will solve much whether the other two editors do join the discussion again or, since it would be just (another) repetition of what was already said many times. Thanks. Diana056 (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Do allow the content dispute IP editors to read the messages first. If they choose not to responded or respond without sources provided then it would be the discussion can be closed. Btw, GOAT is not a permanent status as when there is another good fighter come along that the media would think there might be the new goat, then it would be back to one of the GOAT instead of female mma GOAT.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 08:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, of course I'll allow them to react, but they already did respond with their own sources, in the very beginning of the dispute (136.49.166.71 added them to the article before it was locked). The question is now whether those sources directly dispute the statement "Nunes is widely considered to be the greatest MMA fighter of all time" and whether they justify the change of the wording from "the greatest" to "one of the greatest" (which was already initiatively done by 136.49.166.71 and left up for some reason despite it being a current subject of discussion, but whatever). I already explained my stance on why I think it doesn't in my above comment, and I also tried to summarize why, to my understanding, the other two editors think otherwise (though you can also see all that above written in their own words). I'm not sure what asking them to provide the very same sources again accomplish except bringing us to the same problem we already reached. Diana056 (talk)


 * pls wait and see if they would comment.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 08:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I obviously will wait, I already stated that. If I'm understanding this right however, you don't intend to comment further on the subject of the discussion/give a third opinion on it ? Diana056 (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I had commented on my first message to day " If no one join the discussion for the next 7 days, then we go by the what the sources say" - Which means the sources do support the female MMA GOAT claim.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 09:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Diana056 (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh this is still going on? Oh ok boring, I was contempt with letting you have your petty victory, until I see you stated what you stated. So with Cyborg it was stated "If multiple sources indicate the person is 'arguably' the goat. Then the post will state 'one of' the greatest." We've had this discussion many times, because you want to run over it and pretend like it isn't there, when I can show you it is.... Won't change the fact it is there and has been stated. By the person you keep bringing in here as well. Now.... Several sources, and I've brought them up and can bring them up again, state she is 'arguably' the women's mma goat. That is really all I have to say... Honestly should've never said it. Because if you want to backtrack, we better change both pages to "considered the greatest women's mma fighter." Because it's what YOU want, doesn't mean it works that way. 2+2 is 4 no matter who states the answer, they're correct. Do not change because you want it changed. Several sites you sited, stated Nunes was 'arguably' the Women's mma goat. Why are you pressing this so hard? I mean being "one of" is not really that bad, especially since Nunes has literally only defended the bantamweight belt 5 times (should've lost it to Shevchenko in her first defense but whatever). Rousey defended the belt more times and had the belt for less time. Shevchenko is literally on her 5th defense, and has been champion almost 3 years less time than Nunes. Almost even in title defenses. Just stop, jesus.... Leave it at "one of" because this is irritating to deal with. The sources state "arguably" So it's "one of" not "The" unless we're changing Cyborg's page, this is done. Leave it alone.136.49.166.71 (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * oh yeah here are quotes from you and cass, just so you can shut up. " The sources are independent, reliable source and some do indicate "arguably" the female GOAT in MMA so, it is not unanimous stating she is the GOAT." and "There's no reason there whatsoever to reformulate the sentence in the article which calls her the greatest. In Cyborg's case, all of the recent sources call her "one of the greatest" or "arguably the greatest", hence why calling her the greatest in her article is not appropriate nor accurate." That is the issue here. So it's not "appropriate" when it's Nunes, but when It's Cyborg... It is? Like I said, this is done. Now leave it be, because you're being biased, and not even taking your own words into it and it's starting to get annoying. You're all over the place instead of being 'unbiased." I'm done.
 * 136.49.166.71 (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , Wikipedia is not about any editors' opinions, including mine, but it is all about veribility and Wikipedia gudilines. You are welcome to present independent, realizable source to address the issue. I suggest you to familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * In Amanda's article, there are multiple recent reliable sources that call her the greatest. In Cyborg's case, there are no recent reliable sources that call her the greatest. Hence, in Amanda's article it can state "the greatest", but in Cyborg's it can't. Not really that hard to understand. Diana056 (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Jesus, I really have to do this s***. Ok. Here, you used "mmafighting" as a source. So here's one and it's recent https://www.mmafighting.com/2021/3/6/22314910/megan-anderson-defiant-fight-against-womens-goat-amanda-nunes-everyones-invincible-until-theyre-not In this article, It called Nunes "arguably the Women's mma goat." Which per YOUR WORDS "" The sources are independent, reliable source and some do indicate "arguably" the female GOAT in MMA so, it is not unanimous stating she is the GOAT." The article came out on March 6th 2021. So... Last Month. Not done, here since you won't stop. You also used "MMAJUNKIE" As a source for yourself, so same here. https://mmajunkie.usatoday.com/2021/03/ufc-259-amanda-nunes-unsure-whos-next-responds-julianna-pena This Article also called Nunes "arguably the Women's GOAT." This article came out March 7th 2021, so... Recent. Here's "sportskeeda" next. https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/news-i-will-retire-anytime-soon-amanda-nunes-hints-ending-mma-career also called her "arguably the greatest women's mma champion." Arguably being used again, you see where I'm going with this? Using yours and Casseopia's own words.... You both stated "arguably" is not unanimous, and therefore must be changed to "one of the greatest." Also this article came out March 4th 2021. So... Recent. We're done here. And I'm bored. I've used EVERY WORD AGAINST YOU! Every word you've stated, has not been used towards yourself. This is done. Leave it. Go to another article, and maybe it'll be more entertaining. But this is done.136.49.166.71 (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You keep confusing the meaning of 'widely considered' and 'unanimously considered'. It's not the same thing, and like I already said multiple times, the fact that some sources state that she's arguably the greatest still doesn't make the claim that she is 'widely considered' to be the greatest - a.k.a by a lot of/majority sources, untrue. Similarly in Cyborg's case, if you provided 1-2 recent sources that call her 'the greatest' and put them in the article, it would be completely fine to leave the original wording of the sentence. However, if the sources currently used in the article are only and solely the ones that call her 'one of/arguably' the greatest, and none that call her 'the greatest', it would be factually incorrect to say that she's 'widely considered to be the greatest', since such statement is not supported by the sources. You can go ahead right now and try to find some recent sources that call Cyborg the greatest, then compare the number of the sources you found with the amount of sources you can find that call Amanda the greatest - I did this, and I could find absolutely no sources from 2019 or newer that would call Cyborg the greatest despite my best tries, but I found dozens that called Amanda the greatest just after one simple google search. Hopefully that clears up why the statement "she's widely considered to be the greatest female MMA fighter of all time" is (currently, with the current sources used) acceptable to state in Amanda's article, but not in Cyborg's. It has absolutely nothing to do with unanimousity of the sources (which would be impossible to reach on basically any given statement), and for the record I never claimed such either here or in Cyborg's discussion page. That you your clearly misunderstood what I said and decided to take it as fact of what I meant even though I already explained that was not the case is a different thing, but I digress. Diana056 (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi 136.49.166.71 thank you for providing the sources. Hi Diana056, if you have additional recent sources, pls represent. An uninvolved editor will close this discussion and decide the outcome by tomorrow. Thank you.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like providing any more sources on my part is necessary, I already provided 8 recent and reliable sources in my very first post in this discussion, all of which are also used in the article. Thank you a lot for your help in this matter, I really appreciate it. Diana056 (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Decided to add some more sources after all, because in my orginal sources there were none from this year. So, majority of these are from 2021, and all of them either call Nunes the greatest female MMA fighter of all time, one of the greatest MMA fighters regardless of gender, or state she's widely considered to be the greatest female MMA fighter of all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diana056 (talk • contribs) 12:26, April 3, 2021 (UTC)

Family members got covid
, Pls note that Nunes is the one whose' bout was cancelled/to be proponed due to she is tested positive for Covid 19. Her family is not in the fight and plays no part on she got pulled from the event. Many fighters got covid including their family, we dont included that even it is sourced. Sourced content does not mean inclusion and no relevant for the bout cancellation/proponed.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 09:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Last sentence didn't make sense but whatever, it is still relevant information and should be included in her article somewhere else then, perhaps you can edit it back into under personal information etc. Sixone63 (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * the last sentence missed "content" which I have added it. The article is about Nunes and not all info should be included even it is well-sourced. Her family got covid is not relevant of her fight got pulled from the event. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 09:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)