User talk:Marina - Revision history

Ric: Reverted edits by Ricwilldie (talk) to last revision by Marina

2014-05-24T18:46:07Z

Reverted edits by Ricwilldie (talk) to last revision by Marina

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:46, 24 May 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~DIRTY SCUMBAG SUK ON THIS: http://mywikibiz.com/User:Boxstuf/Boxrec~~

2014-05-24T18:36:13Z

DIRTY SCUMBAG SUK ON THIS: http://mywikibiz.com/User:Boxstuf/Boxrec

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:36, 24 May 2014
Line 1:	Line 1:
		DIRTY SCUMBAG SUK ON THIS: http://mywikibiz.com/User:Boxstuf/Boxrec

2013-09-24T13:25:00Z

Blanked the page

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:25, 24 September 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~you said you answered me, but mistakes still remain:~~

	~~http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Bob_Baker where it says lost to colley wallace, it must say lost very close controversial decision.~~

	~~http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Tommy_Jackson_vs._Bob_Baker_%281st_meeting%29~~

	~~Archie Moore was returned to the rankings as light heavyweight champion by the NBA, however The Ring magazine still considered him the light heavyweight champion.~~

	~~This is wrong, it should say ring magazine still considered moore #1 heavyweight contender!~~


	~~I did answer you and the answer was that we do not use the term controversial decision as this is a judgement and we report, we do not judge.~~

	~~I also asked you for the exact source in the ring magazine.~~
	~~: It's common sense Ring considered Moore as #1 contender!~~
	~~That information was there before but idiot changed it. You want correct info, im offering it, otherwise your encyclopedia is full of mistakes,misleading!~~
	~~You can write close split decision!~~
	~~: I PROVIDED YOU WITH THE PROOF, SO STOP PLAYING N FIX IT NOW~!YOUR ARTICLES ARE MISLEADING PEOPLE!~~

2013-09-05T00:54:34Z

FIX IT NOW!

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:54, 5 September 2013
Line 16:		Line 16:
	That information was there before but idiot changed it. You want correct info, im offering it, otherwise your encyclopedia is full of mistakes,misleading!		That information was there before but idiot changed it. You want correct info, im offering it, otherwise your encyclopedia is full of mistakes,misleading!
	You can write close split decision!		You can write close split decision!
			: I PROVIDED YOU WITH THE PROOF, SO STOP PLAYING N FIX IT NOW~!YOUR ARTICLES ARE MISLEADING PEOPLE!

2013-08-27T00:23:29Z

Idiot changed info

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:23, 27 August 2013
Line 15:		Line 15:
	: It's common sense Ring considered Moore as #1 contender!		: It's common sense Ring considered Moore as #1 contender!
	That information was there before but idiot changed it. You want correct info, im offering it, otherwise your encyclopedia is full of mistakes,misleading!		That information was there before but idiot changed it. You want correct info, im offering it, otherwise your encyclopedia is full of mistakes,misleading!
			You can write close split decision!

2013-08-27T00:21:08Z

Idiot changed info

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:21, 27 August 2013
Line 14:		Line 14:
	I also asked you for the exact source in the ring magazine.		I also asked you for the exact source in the ring magazine.
	: It's common sense Ring considered Moore as #1 contender!		: It's common sense Ring considered Moore as #1 contender!
			That information was there before but idiot changed it. You want correct info, im offering it, otherwise your encyclopedia is full of mistakes,misleading!

2013-08-26T23:14:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:14, 26 August 2013
Line 13:		Line 13:

	I also asked you for the exact source in the ring magazine.		I also asked you for the exact source in the ring magazine.
			: It's common sense Ring considered Moore as #1 contender!

2013-08-20T09:38:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:38, 20 August 2013
Line 8:		Line 8:

	This is wrong, it should say ring magazine still considered moore #1 heavyweight contender!		This is wrong, it should say ring magazine still considered moore #1 heavyweight contender!


			I did answer you and the answer was that we do not use the term controversial decision as this is a judgement and we report, we do not judge.

			I also asked you for the exact source in the ring magazine.

2013-08-20T01:47:21Z

wherer r answers to mistakes

← Older revision	Revision as of 01:47, 20 August 2013
Line 1:	Line 1:
		you said you answered me, but mistakes still remain:

		http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Bob_Baker where it says lost to colley wallace, it must say lost very close controversial decision.

		http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Tommy_Jackson_vs._Bob_Baker_%281st_meeting%29

		Archie Moore was returned to the rankings as light heavyweight champion by the NBA, however The Ring magazine still considered him the light heavyweight champion.

		This is wrong, it should say ring magazine still considered moore #1 heavyweight contender!

2013-08-14T13:34:03Z

Blanked the page

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:34, 14 August 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~==BOB BAKER CORRECTION==~~

	~~http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Bob_Baker where it says lost to colley wallace, it must say lost very close controversial decision.<br>~~
	~~http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Tommy_Jackson_vs._Bob_Baker_%281st_meeting%29 <br~~
	~~Archie Moore was returned to the rankings as light heavyweight champion by the NBA, however The Ring magazine still considered him the light heavyweight champion.<br>~~

	~~This is wrong, it should say ring magazine still considered moore #1 heavyweight contender!~~