User talk:136.49.166.71

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to figure out a way to respond to you. But I finally figured it out. One fight matrix is credible, your points that you earn jump based off of TITLE FIGHTS, regular fights, get normal bonuses. Weili Zhang is surpassed by the people you mentioned, because in her 20+ fight career, She's only been in 6 title fights, and 2 are with the UFC. Holly Holm, has only won ONE title fight, which was against Rousey, Cyborg has been in 14 title fights, while going undefeated for over 13 years, winning 13 of those title fights as well. Nunes has been in 8 title fights in her entire career as well. Fight matrix does everyone's metrics the same. Just like it has Jon Jones listed at the GOAT (which i completely agree with), others may not. Because you don't agree with the listing, does not make it incorrect. Also if you have such an issue with "fight matrix" take it off of Khabib's page as well. It's sited there "Fight Matrix has Khabib listed as the greatest Lightweight fighter of all time."

Also most "sites" are a personal blog. You have someone who personally states their opinion on things, and places it on a form. Because the UFC states their champion is the GOAT, does not make it so. They were also calling Cyborg the GOAT for years, UFC changes their minds on who is what. It's a personal preference. But for well over a decade, Cyborg has been called the Greatest Female fighter of all time.

If we're going based off of stats. Yes Cyborg is by far and ahead the GOAT. As I stated before, She was undefeated for 13+ years, because She finally lost. Does not mean Her accomplishments leave with her.

Oh and JUST FOR YOU, I even sited some more sites, so you can stop being unbiased and a hater of Cyborg, and taking down references pertaining to her.

Have a nice day. Leave the page alone. Jesus.

136.49.166.71 (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR -Cris Cyborg

Your recent editing history at Cris Cyborg 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. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Cassiopeia

Hello, 136.49.166.71. You have new messages at Cassiopeia's talk page.
Message added 01:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Cassiopeia

Hello, 136.49.166.71. You have new messages at Talk:Cris Cyborg.
Message added 01:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cris Cyborg

Hello, I messaged you on Talk:Cris Cyborg, we can discuss our dispute there. I will be waiting for you reseponse, take care. 2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:CA3D:DCFF:FE71:E371 (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Cassiopeia

Hello, 136.49.166.71. You have new messages at Talk:Cris Cyborg.
Message added 02:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Cassiopeia

Hello, 136.49.166.71. You have new messages at Talk:Cris Cyborg.
Message added 03:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Cassiopeia

Hello, 136.49.166.71. You have new messages at Talk:Cris Cyborg.
Message added 03:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Cassiopeia

Hello, 136.49.166.71. You have new messages at Talk:Cris Cyborg.
Message added 15:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cassiopeia^(talk) 15:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Nunes - Edit warring

{

Your recent editing history at Amanda Nunes 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.

You have been warned and explain in detail in Talk:Cris Cyborg talk page about edit warring. Pls discuss the issue in Talk:Amanda Nunes. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Cassiopeia

Hello, 136.49.166.71. You have new messages at Talk:Amanda Nunes.
Message added 23:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Nunes - GOAT

Hey by the way, I started a discussion on Amanda's talk page about the GOAT dispute, I pinged you but idk if it notified you. I would appreciate if you took the time to read it and actually respond, thanks. 2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:9529:F333:788D:6FEE (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Casseopia has sent you a message "you've been blocked for 72 hours."

@Cassiopeia: ok? am I supposed to cry or something? So you blocked me from editing? I really don't care. Your biased page means nothing to me. Next time at least TRY to be impartial, then maybe the "block" will hurt my feelings or something. Au revoir

Hi, You were informed before to discuss the matter on the article talk page and you didn't but continuing edit warring. And it is my duty as the counter vandalism trainer when I was informed of your actions to report such incident and the admin blocked you. Pls go to the article talk page and discuss, and do provide independent, reliable sources (at least 3 -5) to support your claim and based on the WP:V and WP:PROVEIT guidelines. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassiopeia: I don't really care. I did provide my sources, literally look at my edits, they all stated "arguably the greatest." Which by your own admission, causes it to be changed to "one of the greatest." But I'm not in the mood for your biased nature. You already proved all you needed. Blocking me, but let your friend keep commenting? Your favoritism showed a long time ago, when this whole thing started. I truly don't care anymore. You want it to call the Woman the GOAT, knowing She isn't? Then let it call her the GOAT, knowing she isn't. You and her go to such great lengths to stop the spread of new sources and more. You've shown this already. I even put up 8, count them EIGHT new sources, and you chose to ignore that and block me. So I truly 1. don't care for your opinion. 2. Don't care about this anymore. 3. SURELY do not care about these madeup rules you keep implementing only on me "If you both continue to edit the page, you'll both be blocked." But you know, only block me. And 4. This entire thing is a waste. Just say it, you're biased and you have what you want to be stated, other sources don't matter if they differ from your opinion. Simple.

Hello, good day. and pls come down for you have missunderstand what is going on.

(1). It is not my rules/guidlines of edit warring but it is Wikipedia's. You were block because you keep on reverting the edit as I have informed to discuss the matter in the talk page.

(2) I dont know anyone who have the edit warring with you and they are not my friends for they are just editors just like you and I. (I dont know who you are and you are not my friend either)

(3) In Wikipedia, if there is a content dispute, then we should bring the discussion to the article talkpage and not keep on reverting the edit, which in Wikipedia is considered "edit warring". The discussion should address the issue with the support of Wikipedia guidelines in civil manner.

(4) You can also get other experienced editors, besides the involved parties, (note I am not involved editors of the edit warring for the page) and ask for comment.

If you need help, then let me know. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassiopeia: I honestly want your biased self, to just leave me alone. You've already shown your bias, you backed your friend up so She could continue editing articles, after telling us both that you would block us both if we edited it more than 3 times, She actually edited it more than 10 times that day, while I did it 6 times. But you blocked me for 3 days, and left her be. You've shown your bias, and honestly I do not care what you or your friend want or think. So once again You biased person, do not message me again. I do not care what you want or think. Simple as that. "good day."

136.49.166.71 (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, pls do not accused me of being a friend to the involved editor, which I am no friend to anyone invovled in this content dispute. You were blocked because you were warned not to edit the page for edit warring prior which means you had known the consequences but you went ahead to do it again. This is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has its own guidelines and if any one want to edit in Wikipedia then they have to adhere to the guidelines. I am not bias to anyone, but I have asked for comment serveral times in content dispute in MMA page. I have not yet comment anything on Nunes talk page except ask all involved parties to discuss in the talk page of the content dispute. I have not even read what dispute content (source provided) and if you want I can do that and if the source indicate that she is the GOAT from the recent source, then I would indicate that in the talk page. However, do that, GOAT is a temporary as one day when someone comes along and good enough to be in the mix of GOAT conversation then the discussion will start again, just as GSP has been cited by many media that he is or might be the GOAT until now that Kamuru'win recently. Once again pls refrain from accusing someone without solid evidence for this is not the way to discuss issues in Wikipedia and would lead you to no where. Pls civil and proof your points with independent, reliable sources instead. Take care and stay safe. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Cassiopeia

Hello, 136.49.166.71. You have new messages at Talk:Amanda Nunes.
Message added 06:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Cassiopeia

Hello, 136.49.166.71. You have new messages at Talk:Amanda Nunes.
Message added 02:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassiopeia: Why did you respond back to me? I'm trying to be civil, and you've shown bias already. You literally banned me and not the other party, you warned of the same thing, and literally have made excuses, instead of just admitting you were wrong. Honestly I don't see why this is even still going on.

I've made my responses in the talk page, and don't know if it's worth making again. It's boring. She's boring and this entire ordeal is boring. Which is why I leave for as long as I do.

God bless, take care, but please There's nothing for us to discuss again Ma'am.

136.49.166.71 (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are an IP editor, you would not receive a notification when we ping you. So that is why I have to send a "talk back" message so you would know there is a message for you. Again, pls do not accuse me or making excuses or I have a friendship with other editor as I mentioned to you before and if continuing such accusion, I will report you. As mentioned to you, Wikipedia article is not about our opinion but it is about verifiability , ff you have no sources to support your claim, then we will close the discussion. Stay safe and best.22:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Ima be very nice, because if you focus on my last message to you, I didn't call you her friend. Haven't called you two friends since march. This last message was I didn't even acknowledge you both. I stated "you've shown bias." in the last message, haven't called you friends. So read what I type before going off about something like that.

Thank you.136.49.166.71 (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK I noted that you have not mentioned that I was a friend of an involved editor in recent edits. However, I am not biased and I can understand you might be frustrated. What I said was for you provide sources and not your opinion, or my opinions or any other involved editors opinion for verification is the key in Wikipedia. An uninvolved editor will close the discussion and decide the outcome and not me, unless the request for comments from me lead to an agreeable resolution, for this also the guidelines of Wikipedia. Take care. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cris Cyborg - disruptive editing

Stop engaging in disruptive editing on the Cris Cyborg page as you did here, a consensus on this issue was already reached in the article discussion page , so kindly respect it. Diana056 (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing on Cris Cyborg (against talk page consensus)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Cris Cyborg, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Diana056 (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued disruptive editing - against talk page consensus

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cris Cyborg. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Diana056 (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you are going to do, is leave me the hell alone. I make whatever edits I choose, as long as I have sources, my sources are valid, yours are not the only one's that matter. Mine are from SEVERAL different websites, and I know it's difficult for you to read and comprehend basic things, but remember you said it yourself "If the sources state it, you have to go by it." So I found several sources that stated what I said, now... Leave me alone. As long as I'm placing sources and abiding by the laws of this site, I can do as I please. I haven't been biased (unlike you) and I have no need to. Now kindly, leave me the hell alone. Thank you, and good day. 136.49.166.71 (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cris Cyborg

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cris Cyborg. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look? Like I provided sources, found new information that I added to the page that wasn't listed before, I even created a new area to put more information in, and that person removed it. Even with my resources, even with other things that I added. She's just being annoying and spiteful. Honestly tell her to stop. SHE is the one not following guidelines. You all stated as long as I provided sources, and blah blah I was fine. I found sources, and even added/edited more on the page, and fixed spelling errors on the page, so I want to be left alone. Talk to her.

There is the closing discussion in the talk page which you have been informed a few times. If you continues to edit warring, you will be blocked. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cass what the hell are you talking about "closing" discussion? 136.49.166.71 (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pls read the article talk page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cassiopeia Did you really just undo my s**t, when I provided sources, evidence, sites, and more? I found information that wasn't included in the page, I cited the betting odds, to show how much of a shock factor it was that Nunes won, even showing that MULTIPLE sites had it listed as "biggest upset of the year", you remove that, then you also remove that people called her the scariest female fighter of all time (which She's still being called), I cited my s**t on that too, then you went and removed that, you then went and removed my other sources, also that Cyborg had the longest winning streak in female MMA history which She is now 2nd place in, cited my resources in that, and you removed that s**t as well. Cited more Goat talks, which you handily removed as well in favor of your bias. So let me get this straight, so the annoying Woman Diana can have Nunes as 'goat' (which you know dang well she is not, but for the sake of argument with you both, because we know the bias between you both), She can have multiple sites state her as "arguably" the Goat, and that's fine, we just call her GOAT. But Cyborg has multiple sites that state she is also "arguably" the goat, and you... just ignore it? We change Cyborgs to "one of" instead of "the?" Then you remove my sources there as well? You removed everything I placed over the past couple of days, that I also cited my s**t, but it's not what you want, so you just remove it? You're both f*cking comical. So I abide by the rules Wiki sets, which is "cite your sources." I even used multiple 4+ sources with EVERYTHING I POSTED, just SO nobody had anything to say, and you just go and remove all of it? And you both go on and do this undo s**t on my posts, but of course she won't get in trouble, we know that. Every dang thing I posted was valid. Did Cyborg go on a 13 year+ undefeated win streak? YES She did, did she go on a 20 fight win streak? Yes she did, Was she called and is she still called the scariest female fighter of all time? Yes she is. This is f*cking comical. And here you go again with this S**t about "blocking" me, Woman, we know you will. you relished at it last time, when you chose to block me and not the other Woman and we all know why. So do what you want. I'm done with this s**t, your bias is just... too much. I provided sources, and THERE IS either CASS OR DIANA's name reverting it, because they don't like it. F it. "site your sources." Unless Cass or Diana is here, They'll revert it, if it doesn't prove their agenda. 136.49.166.71 (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ANI noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Diana056 (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no I'm so worried, the Biased Woman, brought me into a noticeboard, because She doesn't like the fact that I challenge her, and don't let her edit everything to her specifications, and that I go based off of facts and sources, while She just wants her biased opinion to be the end all be all. Oh no what ever shall I do? Leave me alone Woman. I've said this to you several times, at this point it's borderline harassment. Leave me alone. 136.49.166.71 (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 7 days for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.