User talk:The K.O. King/Archive 1

Majin Buu
Regarding these edits [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majin_Buu&diff=149545234&oldid=149473784 here] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majin_Buu&diff=149803558&oldid=149696643 here], Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Sandbox for test edits. Provide a reason for your edits. If there is something you'd like to discuss, leave a message at Talk:Majin Buu or let me know on my talk page. Lord Sesshomaru 16:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

About userboxes
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. You asked about userboxes on user talk:intgr; please see Userboxes. If that doesn't help, you can ask your question at Help desk, you'll probably get an answer quicker than from me. -- -- intgr #%@! 22:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Majin Buu
Why do you come to me now about this? Just being curious, that was a long while ago. I had reverted you because you never explained in your edit summary field why you proceeded to erase the image. Also in case you were unaware, sign your signature with ~, just a suggestion. Lord Sesshomaru 16:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hulk
No prob about the Ghost Rider section. I'm planning to update the tie-in section if no one does before me and it will include an entire synopsis for each tie-in except maybe Front Line which needs its own page.


 * No idea what happened to the sword (probably just looked cool holding for that one issue) or it may return in the arena when Hulk goes to smash.
 * At this point in history I'd put my wager on the Hulk. Superman hasn't undergone any upgrades in power from what i can recall and I'd say the hulk is probably one of the strongest comic book characters in existence in light of his recent upgrade in power. From what Wolverine said in WWH: X-Men the Hulk's healing abilities are almost as good as his thus making him near immortal.

Now the Hulk and Sentry is a contentious issue because of two things;


 * Writers are really picky when it comes to distinguishing something as important (albeit trivial) as power and status among characters. One good example is the Hulk and Juggernaut fight in WWH: X-men

which was largely inconclusive when debating about who 'won' the fight (There are talk pages that only discuss this fight all over wiki)
 * and two, the power of a thousand burning suns...c'mon..thats just not fair.

I say the Sentry will flip-out like always and the Hulk will have to save everyone else's ass again from a crazed Sentry. Or maybe something really dumb like an entire issue of the Sentry and the Hulk talking. --Savre 06:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hulk's sword
Hi! Thanks for stopping by my page and as for your question about the Hulk's sword, frankly, I have no idea what happened to it. But I would assume that the writers of the WWH series decided to remove it since the Hulk, since in the beginning, never really uses a sword/weapon in his adventures on Earth. But we all know he became a gladiator in the planet of Sakaar and being a traditional gladiator, its a requirement to arm oneself. Maybe Im wrong or Marvel, most of the time, have inconsistencies in their storytelling, but who knows? †B lo o d p ac k† 22:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

i would go for hulk =)
The Hulk is my pick. Without the yellow sun, Superman wouldnt stand a chance against the Hulk. I dont know if the Hulk has any known weaknesses unlike Superman who's greatest weakness is kryptonite. Before, many of the Hulk's enemies used mental/psychic attacks to subdue him, but in the current WWH storyline, the Hulk has proven to be more powerful, able to withstand Dr. Strange's hallucination techniques (when he tried to trick the Hulk in using the Sentry's aura to persuade him). So yeah, I would go for the Hulk and I would love to see him pitted against Doomsday! ;] †B lo o d p ac k†  01:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages

 * See WP:NOT: "bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles" and "Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board." Wikipedia is not a chatroom/forum. Discussion is supposed to be about editing Wikipedia. You probably didn't know. (Yeah, I'm being a killjoy. Sorry about that.) Doczilla 04:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Give it a headline? No. Not if I'm talking about something else that's already covered by a headline. Creating a new headline for every remark could actually create confusion or at least make it necessary to add explanation as to what the heck I'm talking about. I was talking about the exchange under "i would go for hulk =)" and now am talking about something already covered by the "Talk Pages" headline you put on my remark (which I'm correctly to fit Wikipedia section heading guidelines). Doczilla 00:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again: I didn't put a new one because I was talking about the discussion going on under ""i would go for hulk =)". Doczilla 02:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but I was talking about that conversation. You obviously understood that. Had I put a heading, that would have separated what I said from what I was talking about, in which case I could have been referring to something else. Doczilla 02:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay then. Doczilla 02:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you just trying to make trouble? THIS IS NOT A CHATROOM. See WP:NOT: "bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles" and "Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board." Wikipedia is not a chatroom/forum. Discussion is supposed to be about editing Wikipedia. Doczilla 02:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Done
I added the Doctor Who Box and tidied your user page up, if you dont like my idea of tidy then just tell me and I'll untidy it again! --Wiggstar69 07:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Annmat
Ant-man #10 was WWHulk. Someone removed tie-in section on WWHulk page so that the info on Ghost rider and ant-man is gone. Needs to be added back in but may have been removed for some reason. Make a fuss on the diss page and it will probably be added back in. Ant-man is a really good series.

--Savre 11:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Userboxes
Hi. I don't mind helping you to get the userboxes, but i'm curious on why you asked me out of the blue! Also i won't be able to make any userboxes as i'm not experinced enough yet. If i can find one then i will put it on ur userpage. please respond soon --I.W Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 19:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah Yes. You may know me as Sichamousacoricothingmabob. I think they are some DC userboxes and they almost certainly will be Hulk ones. I will put them on your page when i find them. cya.--I.W Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User Page
Hi, K.O. I edited your user page like you asked. Leave me a message on my talk page.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

BB User Box

 * Just open this page to edit it, then copy & paste it to your user page.

Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: The wolf userbox
There might be a better box, but I copied the code off of another person's page. Anyway, here you go. If it doesn't work for any reason, just ask me.  Grey Maiden   talk  23:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Yeshua" vs. "Jesus"
I looked at the Talk:Jesus page, and I fell really bad for you, man. They do have a point, most of the people in the world know Jesus by that name, so it only makes sense that the article go by what most people know and refer to Him as. The only thing I can think of is to put the link to our church like this: http://www.lojministries.org on the talk page. If you get this message by Saturday, then I'll talk to you more about it then. If you want to talk to me sooner about it, leave me`a message on my talk page, or call me.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Are your ears burning?
We are talking about you over here. regards. --Vintagekits (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Boxing
Hello, K.O. I assume you are online now. I'll join the project in a couple of minutes. I was looking at a few article that need to be created, and I noticed that ones such as "Riddick Bowe vs. Evander Holyfield" or "Lennox Lewis vs. Mike Tyson" need to be created. We need to create these articles. They would be great contributions to the project, so I'll pull a fight link from Wikipedia somewhere. Try to find someone who is good at uploading images, and I'll find a few pic links. Please send me a message.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * O.K. I found a few links here, here and finally, here. Oh, by the way if you want to find about the new Star Wars movie just go here. See you Saturday.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What truth really is
Hi. It appears you like telling the truth to the people. That's really nice, but do you know what truth is? I kindly ask you to take a look at its article, if not to read it. Long, huh? It seems people don't harmonize. But how does your understanding of truth fit there? More, you're not talking about any kind of truth, but about one regarding faith, which is by definition subjective. And you do it repeatedly ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=185672950][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus/Archive_90&diff=prev&oldid=186240947][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=186241354][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=183519552][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=183065151][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=182575215][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=182214488][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=171983620] etc.).

I must tell you that Wikipedia isn't about truth (WP:V). Nor it is a soapbox (WP:SOAP), a place for religious propaganda. WP is only describing things, based on reliable sources. You may believe anything you like, anything you think is true, anything is close to your heart. This choice is indeed yours. But it doesn't necessarily mean (1) that you're right, or (2) that the others must have the same opinions as you.

You think that the Jesus article should be renamed Yeshua [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=193054278&oldid=192947597], and that Christmas has nothing to do with Christ [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChristmas&diff=193056094&oldid=191884681]. This is where your are biased, because in an encyclopedic article we need undue weight. The fact is your views aren't shared by the majority of Christians: see List of Christian denominations by number of members and do the math. To change things accordingly to your (and your denomination/group) views would be unfair for a lot of people. It would be also missleading for the reader, because he will read the point of view of a minority, and not of the majority. I say it again: WP is describing things; WP isn't about truth (yup, the long article).

Thus, no one is "covering up the truth" (as you've said on Talk:Jesus). It just happens to be the majority's view. And we present it in WP. Because WP is only like a photo album: it describes things. So please reconsider your position and try to be constructive, instead of flooding talk pages with biased edits. There are many people, there are many points of view. That's why we must stick to the rules.

Finally, I kindly ask you to allow me to quote someone. Thanks. Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it. (André Gide)

adriatikus |  talk  04:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking from a religious perspective (although I've already pointed you that WP isn't a place to promote religious views -- see undue weight), the vast majority of Christians don't have the same principles as Jews or Muslims (who think that sacred texts – and so the names of religious figures – are to be read in the original language). The vast majority of Christians don't think a particular language is sacre. Thus, they translate the Bible and adapt the names to their language. That's why you can read the Bible in English and call Ίησους/Yehoshua/Yeshua by the name Jesus. That's why I can read the Bible in Romanian and call Ίησους/Yehoshua/Yeshua by the name Iisus. You have no point: the origin of the name is in the very 1st paragraph. More, I've explained you why Jesus is as real as Ίησους/Yehoshua/Yeshua (because no language is seen sacred by Christians). Briefly:
 * Please answer on the same page (it's more easy to have the discussion in one place) -- but obviously it's not compulsory.
 * On Jesus' name. Read carefully the 1st paragraph, and you'll find this sentence: "The name 'Jesus' is an anglicization of the Greek Ίησους (Iēsous), itself a Hellenization of the Hebrew יהושע (Yehoshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic ישוע (Yeshua), meaning 'YHWH rescues'." It's the same for the city I live in: in English is Bucharest, but in Romanian is Bucureşti . The same is for Rome (which in Italian is Roma), etc. So, Jesus, Ίησους (Iēsous), Yehoshua and Yeshua are all "real" (as you say) in the same degree. They are the same name adapted in various languages. Read the article on anglicization to understand why. It's the same for John (English language) = Jean (French language) = Ivan/Иван (Russian language) = Ion (Romanian language) = Johannes (German language) etc.
 * On Christmas you are so close to sci-fi and so far from facts. Firstsly read Christmas. You'll see that: (1) in the first centuries the feast wasn't celebrated (Nero died in 68 AD, so no link between him and Christmas); (2) the article talks about previous (pagan) festivals on the same date.
 * Christmas is a Christian holiday because is celebrated by the majority of Christians.
 * It wasn't celebrated in the first centuries of Christianity. Obviously, no one knows when Jesus was born.
 * Christmas was initially celebrated together with Epiphany (read the #History section).
 * Later, the two feasts were separated (see #Western Christian Churches section), and Christmas was set on 25th Dec. The fact it's the same date as the winter solstice (by the Roman calendar) helped the people (who previously were practicing pagan religions) to accept the new feast who coincide as date, and has a similar meaning with the previous festivals. The similarity between pagan festivals and Christmas is that the pagan feasts celebrated the increasing in days' length after the solstice (and so the returning of the Sun), and for Christians Jesus may be seen as bringing spiritual light to the people. It's only a similarity, not identity. This similarity helped the people (who previously were pagans) to understand who Jesus was.


 * So, not all you hear is true. There are some Christian groups who reject a great part of Christian tradition. But it doesn't mean that they are right. One part they miss is where historians support the mainstream Christianity. E.g. this article from Encyclopædia Britannica who is "widely perceived as the most scholarly of encyclopaedias" (quoted from its article). Where do you see the word "Nero" in the article in Britannica? Nowhere.


 * adriatikus |  talk  22:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) It's POVish because one group doesn't represent all Christendom (btw, they aren't even recognized as being Christians by all – wonder why); (2) You should have come with scientific sources (you know, scholars, historians, academics, professors); (3) If you don't get what WP is about, then, please, find you another site to be disruptive. Thanks. adriatikus |  talk  05:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is your source? adriatikus  |  talk  13:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't insult my intelligence by suggesting me to type by hand. Instead click on your own link. Why should I figure out that you mistyped 'crg' instead of 'rcg'?
 * A 1990s split of a less that 100 years old whatever-you-like-to-call-it movement is by no means scholar or authoritative. You can cite them to present their POV, but their POV is not a reliable source. (BTW, rejecting the Trinity dogma makes them anything but Christians.)
 * A reliable source would be Gale's Encyclopedia of Religion (2005) (written by 14 university professors, and 26 consultants, themselves univ. prof.), which on vol. 3, page 1756 reads that there are two theories for Christmas origin:
 * Xmas originated in opposition to or competition with the Roman festival of Sol Invictus; or
 * Xmas date was calculated on the belief that the conception date of Jesus coincided with the date of Crucifixion, supposedly on March 25
 * I bet you know what in opposition means. If you don't believe me, find a library near you to check the source.
 * Please stop writing me messages with links to obscure denominations. They prove nothing. I'm not interested.
 * adriatikus |  talk  22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

B. Bills

 * A short answer to your question would be "yes."


 * A slightly more elaborate answer would entail weighing the list of pros and cons, which I don't intend to do here. Suffice it to say that I think they've got some decent building blocks in Edwards and Marshaun Lynch-probably butchering his name-but I don't see them overtaking The Patriots any time in the near future. Hopefully they'll be able to make the cut for the AFC playoffs next season.

Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't remember their regular season encounters during those years, unfortunately.


 * Their matchups in the post-season did leave an indelible image in my memory though, and, with the exception of Tasker's brilliant rundown of that idiot Leon Lett, an unpleasant one.

Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Peter Deer (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jedi Kasra/Project "Real Deal vs. Big Daddy I"
Hey, K.O. I started up a new project, and I need your help. Leave me a message on my talk page.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's nice
But it doesn't have to be Easter for such an attitude. It works the same all over the year ;) adriatikus  |  talk  18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Per your request
I created a userbox for you on a new user subpage at User:The_K.O._King/Kingbox and organized your boxes as you requested. Hope you like it. -- Captain Infinity (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rocky Marciano Amateur Record
I will not change wiki from 8-4 to 11-4 but its wrong, since there are 'references' proving me 'wrong' but after careful review, rocky's record is 11-4 or 10-4, the new england amateur championship he won, he claimed he fought 4 fights in 2 days, other claim people like joe sidlaskis and/or mortimer fought on a different date, not in the same championship section, thus the current reference of 8-4 is totally wrong as most sources say different. If Marciano said he defeated 4 guys on 2 days, all by KO, he must be correct, something has been wrong and lost during these 60 years. It's not 8-4, it's either 11-4 or 10-4, the ref source is wrong and one book can not be always right on marciano as was the case with ingemar johansson. Rocky wanted to fight him but only if he beat Floyd again. Since he lost, there was no reason for Rocky to fight again, but if he said he beat 4 guys in 2 days for the championship, 11-4 should be correct, the problem is the fight (i have originals) cards says Rocky fought 2 guys, not even 3 or 4, but it says one day, so a card might have been lost, but the fights probably happened on 2 consecutive days. Sources: Rocky Marciano: Biography of a First Son by Everett M. Skehan Also The 100 Greatest Boxers of All Time by Bert Sugar, they all say the same thing 8-4. But... Here's the problem:

New England Tournament of Champions – Heavyweights, February 1948: > >  Feb 16 – an unnamed opponent... This bout was scheduled but not held; W > – DQ > The opponent did not show up. Rocky advanced to the > next round. I know name of opponent. >  Feb 17 – George McGinnis Lowell, Ma TKO 1 > -Marciano won the Golden Gloves Heavyweight Championship of New England

We have 2 fighters missing but 11-4 is most probable!

Hope my speedy reply is ok, no time, but you get the point, all should. Disqualification counts as well. ps if you give me your email i can send you rare pdf file, rocky talks about his amateur career. You must promise not to share it with anybody! Feb 16 and 17 dates according to cards are wrong, some says feb 9 but again it's been long time! It's veru unlikely marciano was wrong, it must have been 4 fights, since it was open championship section!
 * Don't bother with this anonymous user's ramblings. He's a long-time troublemaker here who has been banned many times: User:BoxingWear The sources I have seen say that Marciano had an amateur record of 8-4. Since we have a few sources that say that, it seems safe to put that here.MKil (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)MKil
 * Sure I am boxingwear and i never hid it, but not other users, but dont bother with mkil who is from vario crew mafia and has and is executing people. (when he is not otherwise screwing around here) simple:User talk:MKil He made dozens of mistakes on simple wiki, that book above is incorrect, rocky was at least 10-4, most likely 11-4, one source, one book should not tell the whole story, however you can include 8-4 or more.

Again, find other sources. I have the pdf file, rocky beat 4 guys in 2 nights, once again, i have the original fight cards you know and 8-4 is wrong, even though you will find this information with other sources, because it was copied from the book. Vandal mkil who is a total pain in the ass was wrong on the above patterson contract, he argued over this little thing forever and then was proven wrong by administrators. Again, read what I wrote. One source is bad and mkil will always point out to that book!/I will send you info and proof, i do not want to waste time on wikipedia arguing with mafia members. Thanx!
 * KO King, as you can see, this user has some strange ideas. I'd recommend against giving him your e-mail address or replying to any e-mails he sends to you through Wiki. He'll use your e-mail to harass you if you make him angry. Many here (including myself) have experienced that.MKil (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)MKil

LOL, why should Boxingwear ever be angry at you, you did not say anything wrong to him, no sir, and I had perfectly normal conversation with him. Hate to call people names but it's true-Mkil is a well known mafia member from Vario family and I've been following him. What boxingwear said is true, in the link below, this is 9-4, not 8-4 record. There are other links as well. http://geocities.com/pedrinet/marciano.html verified website, good quality. I'd like to ask mkil for some civility not to link one user with another as it's obvious those users including boxingwear are deleted and are fully not in use. It seems 9-4 is most probable. Also on rockymarciano.com/biography.html it says rocky was 18 months when he survived pneumonia. Boxingwear did say most sources talk about 8-4 record as does this one, but if you count there is one forfeit and that boxer's name has not been mentioned many times before, but a forfeit also counts as victory in any sport. So, 4 fights in Lowell, this seems to be true.

I am however worried about Joe Sidlaskis fight as boxingwear pointed out, it's not on the official records and score cards, the book is wrong, it did not happen on january 26 1948 and probably Joe Sidlaskis fought in February in an open section as this boxingwear pointed out. But 60 years is a long time, you can never be certain. I am on shared IP, so it's hard to type, very slow, if you take joe sidlaskis into consideration, then it's 10-4.

Re:The K.O. King 50-0 (50 k.o.)
I'll edit your page providing the redlink. For the second and easier question, Mike Tyson in his prime (essentially with Kevin Rooney), against Rocky Marciano? (in his prime as well, I suppose) I might say Tyson, if you factor in better nutrition, healthcare, boxing equipment, etc. For example, Tyson during his prime normed at 215 1/2 lbs., 41 pounds over Marciano's prime weight, which was 184 lbs. Tyson, weighing more than Marciano, with the superior training of Cus D'Amato and Rooney, who, not being utter fools, might have focused on (occasionally) staying outside of Marciano's reach, kinda outboxing him, only going inside when needed. He might have won a split decision, or, if lucky, KO'd Marciano on cuts or a 8th-11th round K.O. Could Tyson take a punch? We are, dealing with the current rules, I suppose. As for the first question, I don't know. Are you talking about P-4-P kings? Then it might be Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Robinson, Tyson, and Joe Louis. For least losses, I would say Lennox Lewis, Rocky Marciano, and Gene Tunney. For heart, without a doubt the Heart King would definitely be Evander Holyfield. You can click on the pic of the poster for Tyson-Holyfield II.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protection
Ask Hut 8.5 to protect your user and user talk pages. See you Saturday!--Jedi Kasra (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done the userpage, but as I told Jedi Kasra I can't semi-protect your talk page because new users may need to give you (legitimate) messages. Hut 8.5 09:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Forbes-De La Hoya outcome
In case you didn;t get my message 6:00 A.M. Sunday, De La Hoya won against Forbes via unanimous decision. Two judges saw it 119-109, one judge saw it 120-108. Start saving your money, cause it's on! (unofficlally, they still gotta work out the details) De La Hoya was impressive in the fight, the jab didn't go away like in De La Hoya-Mayweather. He, with Floyd Sr.'s guidance, might be able to beat Pretty Boy. I'll try to get a job after I graduate with you guys and get my learner's.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2008

Oh, I see you sent me a message, already, meaning the text must not have made it, or you didn;t check your cell. Oh, well. Bring your mouthhguard Wednesday.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User page changes
O.K. I fixed your user page like you asked. I aslo spruced it up a little. Hope you like it.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, K.O.--Jedi Kasra (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Doctor
Hi, it's the Doctor.

No, I don't know of any user boxes mentioning the Tenth Doctor, unfortunately. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by --=The Doctor=-- (talk • contribs) 18:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sam Peter set to defend his title on July 12th.
He will defend his WBC belt in the O2 arena in London against either Audley Harrison or Matt Skelton.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)