User talk:Rocco30

Hey, Rocco30! Welcome to Wikipedia! I've had to remove your recent contribution to Maruchan as you added unsourced content. Everything on Wikipedia needs to be cited to a reliable source.

I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. valereee (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Canterbury Tail talk 15:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop the edits you're making to Dark Souls articles. They already contain their Japanese names in a footnote, per MOS:VG. Additionally, please do not add flags to infoboxes, per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Continuing to make these changes against MOS despite reverts may result in a block. -- ferret (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• When you update sales figures, you need to update sources as well.
• Please take more care in your edits. You're making basic, sloppy errors, like not even capitalizing the first letter of months. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Shinzo Abe shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Shinzo Abe. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. John Yunshire (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

When I searched for "legacy" English words, only positive parts were found, so I knew that should"nt not use the controversy. now i looked at the Obama part and found out that wasn't . so now I understand your talks. Rocco30 (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I replied to the discussion forum. Please check.Thank you. Rocco30 (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

If you believe, certain countries should be added for whatever reasons, please feel free to start threads on Talk:Assassination of Shinzo Abe with proposal to add them, you can see existing examples of such proposals on the page below. If there is consensus to add it, it will be added. Venkat TL (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Tatsuki Fujimoto, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Xexerss (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Tatsuki Fujimoto, you may be blocked from editing. Xexerss (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Tatsuki Fujimoto. Xexerss (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

i'm sorry. i,m check and revised. Rocco30 (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Naoya Inoue, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Your last three significant edits were at Naoya Inoue and consist of continuing an edit war: 14:20, 14 September 2025 + 02:22, 21 September 2025 + 02:54, 21 September 2025. You have never edited the article talk page. See Talk:Naoya Inoue#Edit war. I have restored the before-edit-war version of the article and have fully protected it for a short period. You must get a clear consensus on article talk before repeating that edit. That should have been done before continuing the edit war. Blocks will occur if edits are repeated without that consensus. See WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand.thanks. If you're an administrator , please participate in this discussion. Because, looking at the conversation between GOAT Bones231012 and Songsten in the previous discussion history, I think it will be difficult to reach an agreement on this topic without the intervention of the administrator.

My argument is consistent with the policy of Adding information to Wikipedia. "be particularly cautious about removing sourced content. Information in Wikipedia must be verifiable and cannot be original research." However, GOAT Bones231012 continues to assert only his subjective impressions without providing any sources to support his opinions, which is against Wikipedia policy. Rocco30 (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not have any knowledge or interest in the topic and will not be commenting about the disagreement. My actions will be to provide information about what should be done, and to prevent further edit warring. Please examine my comment above. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

And seriously?? I haven’t provided any sources? I’ve literally linked Inoue's own BoxRec page which specifically excludes secondary championships in his championship record. See below link again:

https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/Naoya_Inoue#Professional_Record

GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss at article talk (not here) when and if my advice about starting a new section with a proposal is taken. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The timing of the article before the Starting criteria is strange. My description existed before the dispute between GOAT Bones231012 and Songsten, and GOAT Bones231012 unilaterally deleted it before the dispute even ended. If the description were to be reverted to a time before the dispute, I believe the time should be set to 14:23, September 14, 2025. Please consider this. Rocco30 (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Both records are directly relevant to the dispute we’re having. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

That title fight hosted by "WBA" not boxrec. The BBC also reported the match as a "Title Fight." The credibility of the BBC and WBA is superior to you and and Boxrec's. See below link :

https://www.bbc.com/sport/boxing/44250462 Rocco30 (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think you are getting how the WBA works though. He fought the secondary champion and became secondary champion himself. He won the "Regular" belt. Ryan Burnett was the true primary champion at the time for the WBA. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

So again, I'm asking you to bring me a source that supports your opinion, not your own, but from a reputable source like the BBC. Rocco30 (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

From ESPN: Inoue more than lived up to his nickname of "Monster" as he destroyed secondary bantamweight titlist Jamie McDonnell

Sky Sports: The Doncaster man is making the seventh defence of his WBA 'regular' belt against Inoue this Friday afternoon in Tokyo

Boxing News: Scary Japanese puncher Naoya Inoue needed less than two minutes to stop Jamie McDonnell and snatch his WBA Regular bantamweight title. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. All The sources you provided admit that match as a title match. So, your opinion that the match wasn't a title match is unfortunately lacking in credibility, regardless of whether the WBA is a high or low-level competition. Rocco30 (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

That title fight hosted by "WBA" not boxrec. The BBC also reported the match as a "Title Fight." The credibility of the BBC and WBA is superior to you and and Boxrec's. See below link :

https://www.bbc.com/sport/boxing/44250462 Rocco30 (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Why are you copy and pasting the same message? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not here to evaluate how the WBA operates or whether it's right or wrong. The most important thing is that you provide a source, like the BBC, that says the match wasn't a title fight. Rocco30 (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m not saying it wasn’t a title fight, I’m saying he wasn’t the primary champion. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m not saying he wasn’t the primary champion. Leaving aside the WBA's level issue, many media outlets, including the BBC, Sky Sports (as you linked), and Boxing News, recognize the match as a title fight. Therefore, there's no reason for my description of Joe Louis and Inoue's record to be deleted. Rocco30 (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Recognize it as a secondary title match, there’s a difference. So much so that even BoxRec excludes it. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Saying there is a big difference is your personal opinion. and as I said before, boxrec is not hosted by match. also boxrec is not major medialike the bbc.

Personally, I have my doubts about the WBA's belt abuse. However, aside from that, I believe personal opinions should be avoided on Wikipedia as much as possible. Please take this into consideration. Rocco30 (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

It’s not my personal opinion if they’re the ones excluding it. It’s also not my personal opinion that there is a secondary lineage on all the organization's wiki pages for a reason. And it’s not my personal opinion that all the sources I’ve cited above refer to it as a secondary or "Regular" title. These are facts. We can agree about the WBA's title abuse though. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

YES. We can agree about the WBA's title abuse though. But what I'm saying is, I'm not saying Inoue is the true champion, but that the regular champion is also officially recognized as the champion. all the sources you've cited also mentioned that he was the regular champion, never said he wasn't the champion or that the match wasn't a title match. These are facts. So there's no reason for my description of Joe Louis and Inoue's record to be deleted. Rocco30 (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but there can only be one true world champion for every organization in each division. At that time it was Ryan Burnett. Inoue's streak is not the same as Joe Louis in that Louis was the primary champion throughout his reign. We’re not going to start counting WBC Silver or IBO world title fights are we? That was rhetorical, obviously not. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

your claim that there's "one true world champion for every organization in each division" is your own subjective dogma. Please review the sources you cited again. Do they say exactly what you just said? Rocco30 (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

If you want to refute the comparison with Joe Louis and inoue article, bring me a statement from a major media source "like the BBC that makes exactly the same point as you," not your personal opinion. Then I will accept it. Rocco30 (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Here are links to the WBA announcing their title reduction plan, in order to reduce the overall amount of champions in the organization as they realized their mistake and received a lot of backlash.

https://www.wbaboxing.com/boxing-news/wba-keeping-its-promise?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.wbaboxing.com/boxing-news/wba-world-title-reduction-plan-moves-forward-10-unique-champions?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Not only that, but the World Boxing News also questions in depth the validity of Inoue's supposed record. See the following link which specifically discusses this:

https://www.worldboxingnews.com/naoya-inoue-wba-record-controversy/

and like I’ve said before BoxRec themselves exclude it from his championship record. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I keep telling you this over and over again, but I'm asking you to bring up "the narration that says this isn't a title match." The sources you've presented "aren't the ones that raise questions about comparing Inoue and Joe Louis." That is, it is your own interpretation.

I propose an agreement.You'll explain the controversy surrounding the comparison between Inoue and Joe Louis, based on the sources you just provided. I think this is fair.

If you don't agree with this either, then you and me shouldn't be talking to me here anymore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Naoya_Inoue

Let's Judge here. Rocco30 (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The reason I make this suggestion is that many media outlets including the BBC, Ring Mazine, and Boxing Scene have mentioned it as a title match, and among the sources you provided, only Boxing News "directly compared Inoue and Joe Louis," and even that is questionable, "not a complete denial."

So I think it's reasonable to describe the controversy surrounding the Inoue and Joe Louis records together. Rocco30 (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Should I title the section on the talk page "Disputed records" and then add a message at WikiProject Boxing linking people to the discussion on the talk page so they can participate? I’ll state my case and then you can add a message of your own stating your own case against. Fair? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could do that. 122.32.181.37 (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Wait, who are you? Is this your IP @Rocco30? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is written not logged in. Rocco30 (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok I will add messages now on both. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)