User talk:Ozzwald35

Boxrec.com
Why are you making wholesale deletions within this page especially without making any comment as to why you are making them? This is not the Wiki way to do things! If you wish to alter the article please you the discussion page first so that some sort of agreement can by made of what you point is first. Beaumontproject 10:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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...I've taken the issue up with Wiki administrators. Now if you want to post material that is relevant to boxrec instead of personal views then fine, but a beef that you have on some internet message board does not count as a legitimate criticism 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 13:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a personal beef with anyone and who are you to state that it is nonsense and who are you to state what is a valid source of information?? You make wholesale deletions without any basis - you delete references to the GFA agreement without any basis - you are a disgrace Beaumontproject 10:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it is nonsense!!! It is nothing but a beef that you and a couple of others have with boxrec...and thats pretty evident to see. As I stated in the other thread...if you want to post something that is actually relevant about boxrec fine, but if you continue with your personal beef toward boxrec and continue to post some internet flame war as your source, which look it up under "how to research," it is not a source, but if you continue then I imagine that you will be banned from Wiki as well. Now that's up to you...you can post relevant information that is backed by a valid source, or you can wait and see how the wiki administrators deal with it, but I will bet you that they agree with me about what is and what isn't a valid source!!

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 13:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

He is back on two minutes and acting like a maniac - time to put him back in the cooler! Vintagekits 19:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Ozzwald35
you put your comments in the wrong section, that why I moved them - do you just act and then read later on everything??

I did not realize that they were moved, I thought that they had been deleted.

As I stated...I am new and I do not know how things work yet...I am just trying to get my side out.

Maybe if you are new you should familiarise yourself with the way things work before ploughing head long into it!!!! Beaumontproject 14:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as you continue to post nonsense I will be there...and speaking of new member...you are only a few days in, so don't try to pretend to be some veteran...especially when the only thing that you are concerned with is editing john Duddy and your grudge against boxrec, but it will probably take a few days for the administrators to straighten it out!

Please stop
Your edits to Boxrec.com could be considered vandilism are not meant to sign articials and comments should be hidden (Gnevin 16:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

No...my comments state an obvious fact...the criticism comment reflects the opinion/POV of a couple of people and certainly do not represent all Wikiapedians. Also, it's rather odd that you Gnevin and Beaumontproject posted the exact same Criticism...just a coincidence I suppose that you both have the exact same thing to say...in co-hoots...maybe, or is it multiple usernames/sock puppet?

If you delete is again...thats the 3 revert rule and you will be making a direct violation!--Ozzwald35 16:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR doesnt apply to WP:VAN, yes i'm a sock puppet with over 2000 edits (Gnevin 16:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

It does when you are deleting an obvious fact...which the view of the Criticism is the view of only a couple of people and it most certainly is not the view of all Wikiapedians!!!--Ozzwald35 16:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The type of comment that you have made inthe article should not be there - it belongs in the discussion area. I am not going to delete it as it is ridiculous and I want others to see what sort of vandalism you have created today. (is there no possible way that a 24 hour ban can be put on this guy until he calms down!?!?!) Beaumontproject 16:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I didnt delete the comment, i hid it so only editiors can see it , anyway i've posted a comment about you over at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Gnevin 16:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

>>>The type of comment that you have made inthe article should not be there - it belongs in the discussion area.<<<

That’s exactly where your criticism comment should be as well…in the discussion area...which I will gladly move it to the discussion area. 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 od 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 joined only a few days ago also and the boxrec page and the John Duddy page is the only thing he has edited. And also for the record...I belong to several boxing organizations...what kind of orgs do you two cats beloing to to make such claims about boxing...are you the press?--Ozzwald35 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Gnevin---Good...I sent two e-mails many hours ago to wiki...you don't scare me, but as I stated above the issue can easily be resolved...unless you are also too overly bias to want an opposing view!--Ozzwald35 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My comments where not meant to scare you as  i follow WP:Civil and infact i just stumbled on too this artical and am neutral here in that i dont care about boxing and am only trying to enforce WP:MOS (Gnevin 16:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

Gnevin---Well now you are just lying...you did not stumble...you deleted my statements on the page and then you mposted the exact same Criticism comment that Beaumontproject did...sorry, but that's far from just stumbling onto something!--Ozzwald35 16:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB

...it's what I have been saying all along.--Ozzwald35 17:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As per what you were told above, you've now been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism. --InShaneee 18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism...Perhaps you could explain that move since all you did was delete my statement that: Any Criticisms should be backed with valid sources...Internet Message Boards are not considered valid sources and the comments below fit that category so read it with high suspicion as it is the personal view of only a couple of people and it certainly does not represent the rest of Wikipedia, nor does it speak for all Wikipedians

That's not vandalism...that's fact...and according to Wiki's Criteria for web content, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB, the Criticism comment should be completely deleted as well, as it does not meet any of the criteria for web content...or are you just overly bias toward the lop-sided view that had no valid source to back it?--Ozzwald35 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Belated welcome
Please read the 5 pillars of wiki and the Manual of style

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! (Gnevin 19:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC))
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I'm a long-time boxing historian who has been researching boxing for 20+ years and I could really add a whole lot of very good boxing material to this site, but the manner in which you have treated me and the manner that a couple of others have treated me being a brand new member, after I get the Boxrec page correct to proper Wiki rules, I have a good mind to not add anything else to the site.

It would look like experienced editors, such as yourself, would try to be helpful and welcoming to new members instead of trying to lead them into a trap that gets them temporarily blocked as I was, but if I decide to stay on after the Boxrec dispute is finished it certainly will not happen again...it's just sad that someone joins the site to offer they're time freely to try to improve things and the person is immediately treated in the manner that you showed toward me. I'm just going to be honest...right now, I don't care much for you as, until this very belated welcome, you have shown me nothing but disrespect and honestly I would have expected a little more from supposed experienced members of the site.--Ozzwald35 19:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have shown you nothing but respect and to imply otherwise ,is a harsh and unfair statement . I didnt lead you into a trap i mearly commented out some text (note i didnt delete it) that wasnt of a wiki nature .You got yourself banned by refusing to listen to my and others request too stop readding the offending material. All that being said wiki can be a complex and difficult place to understand, some times its seem wiki has more policys than articials and i can understand how you thought you where doing right and am willing to Assume good faith in this matter and mark it down aa a new users mistake. (Gnevin 15:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC))

Rocky
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Marciano&diff=84761896&oldid=84760741 This was most correct version, this idiot today reverted everything under umbrella of POV, which is not, go there and see what can be done to be reverted to this version. Everything has been deleted, the bio looks pathetic now, also, do you know any good sports administrators, so we can return to correct version? Today Nov 1st the page has been terribly vandalized. They do not know any history. Your last version was fine and the version that was there was there for over a year, go there and reverse, the guy who did this should be banned, ke killed lots of important information., take care. Also a link to Nino Valdez boxing record is missing. As far as 50th bout goes, nobody claimed for sure, but there are people who claim it, anyways, it'g good you put it in parenthesis, as a possibility, like it was.