User talk:76.110.181.55

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Briggs Revision

Just wondering you why keep reverting my efforts to clean up the article and remove language that clearly violates Wikipedia standards. What in my edits do you find objectionable?MKil (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)MKil


Well to begin with who are you? Let alone to tell my story. What is it to you whereas you need or find the authourity to speak about me and my life as well as carreer? I think I have a better knowing of MY life and MY carreer than you. In all honesty I would appreciate if you would not edit my page but then again why would you do anything that I might appreciate because evidently you have a dislike for who I am and what I represent or the way in which the wikipedia about me represent's me. If asking you nicely to not tamper with it will work I go beyond that and say PLEASE leave it alone. Thank you very much MKil sir or mam. I can easily be reached by email shannonthecannonbriggs@gmail.com

I am simply someone who is trying to make Wikipedia better. Are you claiming to be Shannon Briggs? If so, there is probably a conflict of interest with you editing the article on yourself. You may also be interested in Wikipedia's autobiography page.
Furthermore, the version of the article to which you keep reverting is filled with spelling and grammar errors and heavily biased. While your achievements need to be noted, Wikipedia is not the place for an article that sings your praises. It is supposed to be a neutral article that discusses the facts of your life.
I have no dislike for you or what you represent. I am a boxing fan and I want the boxing articles here to be up to par with the rest of the articles. Your reverts to the Shannon Briggs article, however, diminishes the quality of this article. It's nothing personal.MKil (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)MKil


With 79,000 active fighters on earth do you really find it necessary to care about my wikipedia? And yes this is Shannon Briggs. And if I leave it to anyone in a public setting to write anything about me I'd be a fool. Ignore me and the page PLEASE. That leaves you with 69,999 other fighters male and female to interfere with. Just a thought.

I'm not singling you out. I've made edits to a variety of different fighters' entries here. I've even created a fair number of biographies of lesser-known fighters.
As I pointed out above, it's strongly discouraged by the folks who created Wikipedia for people to make substantial edits to their own entries. If you read their reasoning I think you'll find that it is sound. Furthermore, as a public figure who has been in the spotlight for at least fifteen years you should realize that you do not control what people say about you.
What about my edits to your entry do you find so objectionable? I would think you would want your entry to have the highest quality in terms of writing and content. I have improved the grammar and spelling, which make it more readable. Yes, I have removed certain items from it that are clearly written as self-promotion. That kind of stuff has no place here, though. If you have specifics of what I did wrong, then please let me know. Your continual reverts of my edits with no reason given aren't in keeping with the policy here, though.
I'm happy to work with you, but if you want to turn the Shannon Briggs wiki page into some poorly written puff piece, then I'll continue my efforts to improve both its writing and the neutrality of the entry.MKil (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)MKil

You have way too much free time on your hands.


Why do you care? What's your obsession with wikipedia? Will it make your life better to change? 69,999 other active fighters awaiting your services. One that would you rather you not be concerned. Are you getting paid for this?

My obsession? Am I the one using Wikipedia for self-promotion? You may htink I have too much free time on my hands, but I'm not the one who is obsessively monitoring his own entry and reverting attempts to improve its quality.
Again, please explain why my edits are so objectionable.MKil (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)MKil

The fact that your so concerned about this page and wikipedia is frightning. . The fact that you called the wikipedia police is hillarious but agian frightning. Whats your point? This reminds of the movie the Fan with Robert Dinero. Good luck with your life as a wikipedia gangster. Hopefully one day you will reach whatever goal this accomplishes for you as an officator for justice and wiki rights. One last question was this affecting your life in any way? Will you now have a healthier life? Will this increase wealth to you? Will you ever make history for this? Are you happier as a person over this? This is the act of someone in desperate need of a hug. You shuld find better things to do with your time. Just a suggestion.

Trust me, if I ever was a fan of yours that's over now. I also find it ironic that a professional boxer would tell me that I need to find something better to do with my time than edit on Wikipedia. Perhaps instead of obsessing over your entry here you should be out training. Then maybe you wouldn't get "asthma" whenever you face a big-name fighter.
I was simply trying to improve the writing in the article about you. Apparently the fact that your self-promotion is against Wiki rules causes you some problems. Teddy Atlas said that you have surrounded yourself with yes-men and that's why he stopped training you. I'm sorry I wasn't a yes-man and did not do whatever you wanted here. I'm sorry I asked you the difficult question of what you found so objectionable. If that makes me a "wikipedia gangster" in your mind, so be it.
If your self-image is so tied up with what appears in your entry here, then I don't need a lecture from you about happiness or health.MKil (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)MKil


Are kidding me? Trust you that your not a Shannon Brggs fan. Shannon doesnt know that you exist. You reference what Teddy Atlas said. Teddy Atlas. How many fighters have came and gone through his path? Oh yeah... he's the speaker of truth and justice. And whats good in boxing. Why dont you go fiddle with his wikipedia and mention how many fighters that he's fallen out with or fought physically and had confrontations. Or the ESPN personell that he's fought and not just verbally. Your exactly what happens when fans become writers and have opinions that they feel like the want to voice. I'm a close personal friend of Shannon and I'm attempting to try and clean up the mess that jealous people and people with agendas have tried to put on his name. As far as him fighting with asthma why dont you post that. He's the first heavyweight champion in history to win the title with asthma. That would be making him look better as a man that accomplished something that no one else has in history. Shannon is an inspiration for millions of kids who have asthma and has been told they cant and wont make it. And as far as him fighting big fighters he's fought the so called best that wouldnt run and duck him. What do you know the business behind the one-sided crap you read. Again my point was to put up someting negative free. I notice in your lame wikipedia entry all of his loses whereas he has won 48 fights but you stay talking about his loses. Second he never lived with a aunt in East New York. Have fun dude. I think you really should think of why this is important to you? I GET PAID TO WORK FOR HIM. AND WHO PAYS YOU? RIGHT. GOOD LUCK.

Oh, so you're not Shannon Briggs. Why claim to be him, then? That's just sad. Masquerading as a fighter to win an edit war.
As far as the article, if there are incorrect things on there then please fix them. However, trying to make this into a puff piece to build up your friend/employer is just sad. Briggs's career speaks for itself. The article as it was written before your edits was a pretty fair portrayal of it.
I'm glad to hear that you aren't Shannon Briggs (even though you lamely claimed to be). I had lost a lot of respect for him by your actions. Perhaps you should consider how you make him look when you pretend to be him.MKil (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)MKil


[edit] April 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shannon Briggs. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — confusionball (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Shannon Briggs, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. — confusionball (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

[edit] April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Shannon Briggs, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Shannon Briggs was changed by 76.110.181.55 (u) (t) blanking the page on 2008-04-29T06:17:33+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Shannon Briggs. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 06:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)