Talk:Danny Green (boxer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Paul Briggs Fight

Wednesday the 21st of July 2010. Anyone want to post on how poor Danny was distraught after Paul Briggs took the dive to the canvas in the first 30 odd seconds of the first round after only taking a glancing blow, not even a full punch? Danny Green struggled, yet held his composure after the incident and apologized to the fans for the farce that Briggs made of the fight. Comment also on how NSW refused to sanction the fight before the Australian state of WA took on the bout. 60.240.14.140 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought Danny called Briggs a dog, and knew he was bringing Briggs out of retirement with the IBO world title shot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.66.136 (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

whats up tar heels men i want to went he campionship next year —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.25.243.137 (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoever is removing the DETAILED & REFERENCED content I am adding is effectively increasing the inaccuracy of this document. Remember, the article's purpose is not to mislead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.98.188 (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to edit the Danny Green webpage as it is inconsistent in many, many areas.

However, there seems to be someone (Dianna and others) with a conflict of interest that is intent on removing the accurate and referenced content I provide, that is detailed and completely checkable.

What results is a webpage of propaganda.

Essentially, the Danny Green webpage contains many, many inaccuracies and far too little detail about his true achievements and how they cam about. Whoever is removing my material, citations and references appears to be breaching the Wikipedia guidelines as the material I am contributing is referenced, cited, details and accurate - unlike that before it which reads as if Danny green's mother wrote it.

I have provided approximately 20 citations/references for the detail provided, yet Diana and others that remove these changes and have locked the page for editing so that it remains inaccurate and reverts it back to the previously non-referenced and inaccurate version; seem intent on ensuring an inaccurate, misleading and poorly referenced biography exists.

If you're interested in releasing propaganda, removing references, ignoring facts; then continue with what you're doing. However your changes and actions come across as if you have a conflict of interest. Please remember, not all facts will embellish. But removing facts that don't and leaving those that do, is the same as providing false and misleading information.

Finally, please also note all my provided content is referenced from reliable sources.

Please provide your reasons for doing this.

Edit request on 21 December 2012

49.176.98.188 (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to edit the Danny Green webpage as it is inconsistent in many, many areas.

However, there seems to be someone (Dianna and others) with a conflict of interest that is intent on removing the accurate and referenced content I provide, that is detailed and completely checkable.

What results is a webpage of propaganda.

Essentially, the Danny Green webpage contains many, many inaccuracies and far too little detail about his true achievements and how they cam about. Whoever is removing my material, citations and references appears to be breaching the Wikipedia guidelines as the material I am contributing is referenced, cited, details and accurate - unlike that before it which reads as if Danny green's mother wrote it.

I have provided approximately 20 citations/references for the detail provided, yet Diana and others that remove these changes and have locked the page for editing so that it remains inaccurate and reverts it back to the previously non-referenced and inaccurate version; seem intent on ensuring an inaccurate, misleading and poorly referenced biography exists.

If you're interested in releasing propaganda, removing references, ignoring facts; then continue with what you're doing. However your changes and actions come across as if you have a conflict of interest. Please remember, not all facts will embellish. But removing facts that don't and leaving those that do, is the same as providing false and misleading information.

Finally, please also note all my provided content is referenced from reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.66.202 (talk • contribs)

I would like to edit the Danny Green webpage as it is inconsistent in many, many areas.

However, there seems to be someone (Dianna and others) with a conflict of interest that is intent on removing the accurate and referenced content I provide, that is detailed and completely checkable.

What results is a webpage of propaganda.

Essentially, the Danny Green webpage contains many, many inaccuracies and far too little detail about his true achievements and how they cam about. Whoever is removing my material, citations and references appears to be breaching the Wikipedia guidelines as the material I am contributing is referenced, cited, details and accurate - unlike that before it which reads as if Danny green's mother wrote it.

I have provided approximately 20 citations/references for the detail provided, yet Diana and others that remove these changes and have locked the page for editing so that it remains inaccurate and reverts it back to the previously non-referenced and inaccurate version; seem intent on ensuring an inaccurate, misleading and poorly referenced biography exists.

If you're interested in releasing propaganda, removing references, ignoring facts; then continue with what you're doing. However your changes and actions come across as if you have a conflict of interest. Please remember, not all facts will embellish. But removing facts that don't and leaving those that do, is the same as providing false and misleading information.

Finally, please also note all my provided content is referenced from reliable sources.

Please provide your reasons for doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.66.172 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am Dianna and I am an administrator on this wiki. The reason you were stopped from editing this article is because Wikipedia has strict guidelines for content, particularly for biographies of living people. For legal reasons, we are very strict about the quality of the sources and the type of content that is permitted. Some of the material you added was poorly sourced, and some of it was speculation not backed up by the quoted sources. If you have a close connection to the subject of the article, you should not be editing it at all - that's what we call a conflict of interest. People who are close to the subject matter may not be able to edit in a neutrally worded manner, which is a requirement for us to maintain high standards and encyclopedic content. That is why I removed a recent addition to the article and protected it from editing temporarily. Repeatedly adding your content in spite of the objections of other editors is called edit warring, which is against Wikipedia behavioural policy, and can result in a block. -- Dianna (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that several editors have now removed your text, so you need to slow down and figure out what you are doing wrong. You are perceiving that there are problems in the text, however you cannot address those problems by adding enormous swathes of text (with URLs that are not tied to specific parts of the text).

I agree that there are lots of problems with the article, however we have to be aware that readers visit this page every day and they have a right to read consistent and supported information. I would like to address the problems with this article in the following manner:

1. The text (especially the unsourced parts) must be reduced to the minimum so that it is a concise summary of non-controversial facts.
2. We need to work (quickly) to find sources for that minimum level of text.
3. The article could then be expanded (with sources) to elaborate on other aspects of Green's life and career.

No one is saying that at least some of your text shouldn't make it into the article, however the way you are doing it is not appropriate. Please note that Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, fan site, or forum. Nor is it a means to reproduce large amounts of text taken from other web sites. It is simply not appropriate (as you have been doing) to drop in thousands and thousands of poorly-written words, using a citation system that is not found anywhere else on Wikipedia.

Regarding policy, please take the time to read Levels of desired details, Reliable sources and Biographies of living persons. You might also spend some time learning how referencing and citations work at Wikipedia. If you create an account, I will be more than happy to help you if you get into difficulties with Wikipedia's policies.

Please respect that experience editors have more understanding about how articles should be progressed (and revised), and please have some patience to see what evolves as we all work to create a better article for our readers. Thank you for your understanding.

GFHandel ♬  23:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Continuation of complaint after question was answered

Diana can you please explain why you have removed ALL the content I have provided, whilst you have not bothered to clarify exactly what references of mine you claim are poorly sourced and justify your actions; which come across as if you have a conflict of interest – as you are removing accurate, referenced and well sourced material without comprehensively explaining why and replacing it with that which is false and misleading. Furthermore, both you and other contributors have repetitively added inaccurate and poorly sourced/structured material and then removed that which is accurate and well sourced. All the material I have provided comes from a reliable source, as shown by all the references and citations I have provided. Please detail where you believe the information I have provided is poorly sourced (as you claim) and please explain why you have removed ALL the material I have provided based on what can only be, if any, a few oversights. My material originates from years of research that others have done; hence the references to respected boxing websites and journalists – which you have removed. Furthermore, I find it remarkable that you have had the time to read and check all the material and references I have provided; in order to support you claims and actions. I am very interested in hearing which material I have provided is poorly sourced Dianna? Please explain that and how the version you are favoring is more accurate? Finally, can you please explain why you have not applied the same scrutiny to the existing content, which is clearly less referenced, detailed and researched and effectively unreliable? As the material you give preference for reads as if Danny Green’s mother wrote it and is inaccurate in as many ways as the references I have provided (that you delete) indicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.100.197 (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC) With respect to your comments "It is simply not appropriate (as you have been doing) to drop in thousands and thousands of poorly-written words”. I cant believe how hypocritical that comment is. You're meant to know what it more accurate, and you're not meant to bulk delete accurate information that you haven’t read because you think it may not be accurate. (Likewise it is not appropriate to delete appropriate and more accurate content that saves readers from propaganda – are you sure Danny Green saved someone in Yallingup in monster surf? There are so many inaccuracies with the versions you are giving preference to that it is amazing you're pushing away more accurate work; in the role of an administrator). This is clearly where you have erred, and it shows that you have not read the material you are deleting. Once again Dianna, the information I provided was accurately written and well referenced from extremely reliable sources. You have simply not had the time to read all the material and references to make this wrong judgment. I think you have made a big mistake, because you came to a webpage and saw a lot of information that originally had the references’ parenthesis wrongly applied – so you deleted it all – repetitively – without consideration for the fact that it may actually be hundreds of accurately written words that are well referenced from extremely reliable sources. Which is the case. I repeat my request to edit the page and also my request for you to answer my previous questions. Please detail where you believe the information I have provided is poorly sourced (as you claim). Please explain why you have removed ALL the material I have provided based on what can only be, if any, a few oversights. Please explain how the version you are favoring is more accurate? Please explain why you have not applied the same scrutiny to the existing content, which is clearly less referenced, detailed and researched and effectively unreliable? As the material you give preference for reads as if Danny Green’s mother wrote it and is inaccurate in as many ways as the references I have provided (that you delete) indicate. Also, can you please explain why my provided material is poorly written? It is very comprehensive and supports all its claims with accurate references. Also, can you please explain why you simply didn’t make the changes to my material in only the areas where there were mistakes, rather than deleting it all? For your information Danny Green was one of the few boxers to build his own website that referred to himself as a world champion when he was not. I have not bothered to define these aspects of his career, but whilst you and your friends engage in bulk deletes of material that actually embodies everything Wikipedia calls for; because you didn’t take time to read it all and check, and because you simply guessed it must be wrong – you assist with the propaganda. Could you please answer my above questions? And explain how my sources, material and references are poorly sourced? Finally, can you please grant my edit request. I have previously and successfully corrected many other Wiki pages, and know a few Stewards. If necessary I am prepared to correspond with them and detail how referenced, accurate and well sourced material has been treated by administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.65.173 (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Yes, just as I thought. You're very quick to delete and jump to conclusions, but slow to read the material you delete and explain your actions - particularly when asked about specifics. Please Dianna, explain how is the provided material poorly sourced and how did you get time to read what was provided to make this judgment and bulk delete? Please, also kindly tell us which part was poorly written, and how did the existing article get to be in its misleading state and enjoy such freedom from your administrative perception for so long? No doubt this is why you are not getting paid Dianna. I think it is disgraceful that you or anyone would misrepresent the concept of Wikipedia and accurate information like this, where effectively information that is more accurate, referenced, detailed and originating from reliable sources – that is information that replaces propaganda – is deleted because you; 1) Don’t understand it. 2) Didn’t read it. 3) Wrongly guessed it was not accurate. 4) Wrongly guessed it poorly sourced. 5) Wrongly guessed it was poorly written. 6) Altered and manipulated the webpage in exactly the same way as you have claimed I have; but in one that resulted in it going backwards. 7) Failed to explain in detail any of the above. 8) Give preference to propaganda. Please Dianna we're waiting to hear how the material we have provided is poorly sourced. Can you please explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.65.171 (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Dianna .. . where are you? You have been so quick to support propaganda and delete accurate information, yet you're nowhere to be found when the questions are asked about your actions, accusations and claims? I still haven't received your response to the above, or your substantiations for your (hypocritical) claims and actions? Surely you can substantiate what material it is that I have provided that is poorly sourced - after all it is that that you have used as justification for the bulk deletes you have engaged in. I also repeat my request to edit the page and also my request for you to answer my previous questions. Please detail where you believe the information I have provided is poorly sourced (as you claim). Which material is actually poorly sourced Dianna? Which "poorly sourced" material are you referring to that actually justifies your actions of ensuring the webpage has less references, accuracy and detail? Please explain how the many references to reliable boxing websites and authors, that all support the material I have provided - that you have hastily removed under the ruse it is poorly sources - are - according to you - poorly sourced? Please explain why you have removed ALL the material I have provided based on what can only be, if any, a few oversights. Particularly considering that it is clear you have not read all the information provided (before removing/judging it) and are unable to support your claims for doing so. Please explain how the version you are favoring is more accurate and aligned with Wikipedias' policies? Can you also explain how you and/or your administrative pals found the time to check that my work was poorly referenced - as you claim - as the editing history reveals that your bulk deletes (that you have failed to substantiate) took place during timeframes that make it virtually impossible to have read the material to ensure you were not just edit warring yourself. Furthermore, had the provided material and references actually been read; it would have been patently clear that, contrary to your false and misleading claims, it was exceptionally accurate to the point where a fair question may be "why wasn't the scrutiny that was applied to the provided accurate, well referenced and detailed information; applied to the information and propaganda that persisted before it for quite some time"? Please explain why you have not applied the same scrutiny to the existing content, which is clearly less referenced, detailed and researched and effectively unreliable? As the material you give preference for reads as if Danny Green’s mother wrote it and is inaccurate in as many ways as the references I have provided (that you delete) indicate. Also, can you please explain why my provided material is poorly written, as you claim? It is very comprehensive, contains more than 10 references & citations and it supports all its claims with easy to check and accurate references - unlike that version you have jumped at. Also, Dinanna can you please explain why you simply didn’t make the changes to my material in only the areas where there were mistakes, rather than deleting it all, so we can see both; 1) That you have not simply done exactly as you wrongly claim I have - repetitively deleted and added poorly sourced and written material? 2) Where the examples are in my work that supports your actions and claims. Because Dianna, if you cant do this then you are simply guilty of guessing and assuming that because you could not accurately contribute so much information and failed to previously identify all the false and misleading claims the web-page had - no-one else can. Also, Dianna, can you please provide citations and references for your version of the web-page? As it has less than 10% of that which I provided and still reads as if Danny Green's mother wrote it. I can imagine that it is embarrassing to be caught out doing precisely what it is that you claim others are doing; as you fail to justify your actions and effectively show preference for supporting propaganda - rather than admit you deleted well researched, referenced and detailed work because you didn't take the time to read and check. But as an administrator that is not paid and someone that clearly has no idea about the content she is editing; unless you can substantiate how/where my work is poorly referenced then not only should you restore it, but you should stop playing political games and remove the editing lock. Then if the webpage is populated with material you believe is inaccurate and or poorly referenced; you can comply with the rules yourself and (rather than guessing) explicitly detail where and how to support your actions of removing well researched information. Waiting for your reply and to learn where my work was poorly sourced Dianna. Please do tell. Finally, I think you Dianna have a conflict of interest here. Because now that you have been discovered for making the above-mentioned errs and changes without properly reading/understanding the material you altered, and now that it is clear you are unable to clarify, justify and appropriately explain your deletions, claims and reasons for the bulk removal of accurate information; it appears you are prepared to place your own interests before the accuracy and detailed information and overall pursuit of Wikepedia. Not in the least as you're clearly showing a bias towards maintaining your view and version simply because to do otherwise, or explain your claims/actions in detail (so we can see where the poorly sourced material is that you claim justifies complete removal), would be akin to substantiating that you were wrong and actually guilty of doing the very things you say justifies your actions. You in fact have been responsible for altering the webpage and ensuring it is less accurate, and you should no better, and at least take the time to check and read material you claim is inaccurate. And considering you are an administrator that is unable to support your claims and actions, I assume that is very challenging. Still, an admission would be cleansing for you. Danny Green must love Wikipedia "administrators" like you that don't bother to read the accurate, detailed and truthful material that is provided to straighten out questionable web-pages related to him. Particularly when the "administrators" resist more accurate, well researched and excellently referenced information that exposes propaganda, and particularly when they're unable to properly explain their provided justifications for removing accurate, well researched and excellently referenced information; solely because properly explaining their claims and actions risks revealing that they simply didn't read the material they deleted, blindly guessed at its value, and would prefer to have inconsistent material available to Wikipedia readers - rather than admit they bungled and removed more accurate, well researched and excellently referenced information as a result of not only failing to understand and read it, but also because they completely overlooked the possibility that the provided material was accurate and detailed. Meaning that the version that had flown under the radar and been allowed to persist for so long - without even half of the above mentioned scrutiny - was actually, if anything, what should have been deleted in the first place. No wonder you and you're administrator pals have gone into hiding and are unable to explain/answer the above. But then, if I am honest, this is actually a bigger laugh than seeing how easily someone can run a propaganda webpage about themselves - as this explains how they do it. I hope you don't mind but I have cut/pasted our discussion and sent it to various boxing websites that have originated the material I have referenced that you claim is poorly sourced. If your claims are correct, there should be no problem with this - as you say - my information is poorly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.98.155 (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Dianna? Where are you? Still no answers to justify your actions, claims, assertions and work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.97.90 (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

ACDC Conert.

Hi Danny i meet you last night at ACDC, I would like to say to you how very polite you where towards me, especial when i mistaking you for some one esle, i know who i was thinking off now, it was Lester Ellis, he is also a great and nice person, and last i had seen of him he was of the grog and getting his life sorted out, Hopefully he still is. I was thrilled to have meet you, Bart van Ekeris, cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.146.85 (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)