User talk:Aladdin Zane

If you leave a message, I will respond on your talkpage.Aladdin Zane 22:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Kill Hannah article
Hi. I started a discussion of the music video item in the Kill Hannah article that we were working on today. Can you stop by the Kill Hannah talk page and give some input? Patrick925 21:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you stop by the Kill Hannah talk page again and add some more thoughts to the dicussion? If you're dead-set against the item appearing in the article, I would be happy to refer it to the third-party opinion queue, but I think we could probably figure something out before that. Patrick925 04:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Couture
Randy Couture resigned from the UFC a week ago, which included him vacating the UFC heavyweight title. This has been reported on repeatedly by numerous sources, including two here from Randy's wiki page:. Just because the UFC hasn't updated their website yet doesn't mean Randy didn't leave. Tuckdogg 23:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So to keep edit wars from happening while they are waiting for talks to happen. There is no harm in leaving the page as is until the UFC officialy declares the title vacant.Aladdin Zane 00:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hope you have a citation to back up that the UFC is doing that, because Dana's never said anything of the sort. Randy didn't "allegedly" fax anything in; the UFC confirmed that they received his resignation letter. Not to mention that he's done interviews with both Sherdog and ESPN Sports Center over the phone while in South Africa confirming that he's no longer the UFC Heavyweight Champ. The UFC doesn't have to "accept" anything for that to happen.Tuckdogg 00:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I already posted a discussion on WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts for other editors to comment to avoid the edit war. Feel free to contribute.Tuckdogg 00:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, seriously. There's no "allegedly" anything. Randy personally confirmed he sent it in at least two different interviews with major media. And the UFC doesn't have to accept a resignation for it to be effective. I know they use that vehicle on TV all the time, but it doesn't make it real. There's no legal requirement for someone to "accept" that you're surrendering their title to make it official. No one from the UFC has ever said they're waiting on anything before accepting Randy's surrender of the title. Dana said he wants to talk to him when he gets back, and he thinks they can work out something to keep him around the UFC, but that's it. He knows Randy isn't fighting anymore and isn't the UFC Heavyweight Champ. If you've got a source for the contrary, then post it. Otherwise, given that every single article from everyone who's talked to either Couture or Dana has said he's not the champ....then he's not the champ.Tuckdogg 00:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Told you, there was a difference between receiving a resignation and accepting one. Guess you'll listen next time.Aladdin Zane 01:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Sorry about the reversion. I saw that it was actually a good reversion and it should have gone back. If it didn't, sorry. BeanoJosh 03:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's kool, I fixed it.Aladdin Zane 04:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Elvis - "writer and producer"
Hi. Have you seen the talk page of the Elvis Presley article? You added the writer-and-producer bit to the article - perhaps you could state your reasons for doing so on the talk page. Rikstar 20:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)
Aladdin Zane,

I saw your name on the WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) page and wanted to stop by and welcome you and thank you for joining up. If there's anything I can do to help you out with anything project-related just let me know on my talk page. Reb 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Lilith
Why did you change the Lilith article back to the old source? Alistair Haines and Egfrank both offered excellent counterpoints, and Haines offered an good compromise: 1. We can verify that there is a theory that Lilith was in an earlier version of Genesis. and 2.We can verify that she certainly does not exist in any known text of Genesis (from c. 1st Century to present). Can't we just put in that there is a theory that Lilith was in earlier version of Genesis? Please let me know on the Vampire talk page. Asarelah 03:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. (I'm on vicodin right now, so perhaps my mind is a little fuzzy) Are you telling me that we should leave in the source stating that older versions of Genesis state that Lilith is Adam's first wife and also state that she does not exist in any known text of Genesis? Because that seems to be contradictory to me. Asarelah 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actor
Woo hoo! Thanks for changing back to "actor" on Angelina Jolie. I had originally put that... I go around putting the correct gender neutral term "actor" on female actors' pages and watch as they all get changed to "actress", one by one. Sometimes I fantasize about going around Wiki and writing "sculptress", "poetess", "aviatrix", etc. just to show how ridiculous it is to stick with "actress," but of course I don't, since it would be unhelpful and vandalizing. Perhaps I next time someone changes Jolie's "actor" to "actress", we should change "director" to "directress." Just kidding... Anyway -- good on you for the edit, and nice to encounter someone like-minded. --Melty girl 05:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Elvis as Producer
Although Elvis produced - his career was not focused on such; nor is he known for such work in the extensive. Generally, we do not include minor roles a figure played in the introductory lead unless that individual was known for such or substantial and reliable sources can provide the background for including such a role. For example, President Kennedy may have been an author, but he was primarily a politician with World War II service on the PT-109. See the John F. Kennedy article. Here there is no need to include the factual, he was an author - rather that comes later. The same is true of Albert Einstein, known as a physicists yet he was also an author. Here, although Einstein had works published, his leading contribution was as a physicist and not as a known author, much the same as Elvis Presley who is known for his singing and acting but not for being a producer. The lead should concentrate on the propensity of occupations that individual is known for. For Elvis Presley, that would be Singer and Actor. Would it not be better to remove 'producer' and somehow include the facts of producing in the article itself as a sidenote to a career of Singing and Acting? --Northmeister 15:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Sale Records in intro
Hey there. I think theres been a bit of a misunderstanding with my removal of the 'best-selling' part in the introduction. I didn't delete it because I thought Presely wasn't one of the best selling music artists. I deleted it because it seemed a bit repetitive given that in the previous sentence it was already mentioned that he broke records for sales. I took it back out because I really feel it reads better without it, but if you really do think it merits inclusion I'm more than happy to compromise.--Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 01:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

List of women of the WWE
I am sorry, the article was already deleted. The procedure is as follows: If the page is tagged for "speedy deletion", you can put on the page, which means, that it is not deleted while you are trying to address the objected deficiencies of the article. The reason for deletion appears in the red deletion box. You should have been notified too, which did not happen as I can see.

Now you can do the following: Have a look at the deletion log, which can be found, if you try to start the page again (must have exactly the same title!). Then contact the administrator, who deleted it and explain your problem.

Hope I could make things clearer (I know it is somewhat complicated). If you have any questions/problems feel free to contact me again. Regards, Tirkfltalk 08:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Trish Stratus
The citations you are referring to are listed specifically for Dave Finlay. In the early career section of the actual article, there is already mention of Ron Hutchison and a citation placed to confirm he trained her. Since it is already in the article, the same information doesn't need to be cited twice from the same source. - Deep   Shadow  04:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't insult me, and SLAM! is a reliable source. I don't understand why you would say it is a dirtsheet.- Deep   Shadow  04:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with DS, Slam is not a dirt sheet. It is a legitimate full sports website, and very reliable (I have used the site many times for sourcing PPV articles). TJ Spyke 06:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to call this site a dirtsheet, then you may as well call WWE.com a dirtsheet too because both websites operate the same way, and I consider SLAM! to be more reliable than WWE.com. Using a similar statement you issued to me, if you finished reading the sentence instead of stopping after the word "compiled", you would see that they created the biography for Stratus by using files from their own library. WWE.com uses the same method when creating biographies for their superstars. I strongly suggest you read WP:RS before quickly labeling any website other than an official site a dirtsheet. - Deep   Shadow  12:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Slam! is not a dirtsheet and neither is OwW, please read WP:RS before labeling anything other than WWE.com as a dirtsheet. Neither Slam nor OwW print backstage news and rumors. Your behavior is becoming increasingly disruptive, please stop and work with other editors. Thank you. Bmg 916 Speak 12:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Slam! is most certainly not a dirtsheet. Slam! is a subsite on the Canoe.ca website, which is owned by Quebecor Media, which among other things owns the Toronto Sun and Le Journal de Montréal. I believe Slam! definitely qualifies as a reliable source. Tabercil 21:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Kristal Marshall
Please stop being disruptive and reverting back to saying she works for the company. The fact of whether she is or isn't is in dispute and SpeedyC1 and myself worked very hard on finding a compromise for both this article, and the WWE Roster article than everyone could be happy with. We brought said compromise to the roster article talk and the general consensus has accepted it (although you are welcome to comment on it). Please stop being disruptive by being stubborn and continuing to edit war when a compromise has been reached. Your actions are only going to get the article locked and/or yourself blocked. Again, please realize that when people disagree with you it is best to work out consensus and a compromise, not edit war. That's what has been done and you are disrupting that process. Please stop. You are also dangerously close to violating the three revert rule on the Kristal Marshall article. Bmg 916 Speak 12:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wording it the way it did blatantly says she works for the company, when this is in dispute, and is not vague at all. Wording it the way the consensus agreed upon is vague enough where it doesn't say directly whether she works for the company, or has been released. Also, her official website said she will comment on her release when she feels the time is right, and Marcus Cor Von's video is still on the site, and he was released. Please feel free to comment on the proposed compromise which has so far been generally accepted at the WWE roster talk page instead of just continuing to be disruptive by edit warring. Thank you. Bmg 916 Speak 12:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * click here, it's under the first heading "A Note From Kristal", the exact quote is "She also says when the time is right she will be putting out an official statement on her release." It's the last sentence of the first paragraph. Bmg 916 Speak 12:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the legal disclaimer on the lower left hand side of the website. It is her official site. Bmg 916 Speak 12:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So it avoids being sued by WWE for saying they have the rights to their images, just because it is not affiliated with WWE, does not mean it is not affiliated with the person (Kristal). The first two sentences clearly state "This site is run with the full knowledge, consent and input of Kristal Marshall. Kristal-Marshall.net is Kristals official site.". Bmg 916 Speak 12:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent).a)"people like you"? don't personally attack me. b) if it's a trick, that's a very big legal pitfall the site owner is falling into. Do you think they are really going to run the risk of being sued by me, you, anyone who visits the site, and even Kristal Marshall? Also, they could be sued by Ken Kennedy,Romeo Roselli, and Matt Morgan for claiming to run there official sites as well. It's not a trick and they could land themselves in a heap of legal trouble, a risk I'm sure they aren't willing to run. Also on her official site she said she doesn't post on any site or myspace herself. Bmg 916 Speak 13:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I went to her myspace. The only link there is the URL for the myspace site. Bmg 916 Speak 13:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, arguing about whether or not that is her official site isn't getting us anywhere. A proposed compromise until official word comes from WWE or her was reached and is being commented on at the WWE roster talk page. I once again invite you to comment there, as it seems a majority of the people involved in this dispute are for it. Bmg 916 Speak 13:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So you finally realize you were wrong bout the site huh? Because as stated, Go to the site your provided, it provides a link to her myspace page, that myspace page says it is her official myspace page and then states if you want to go to her official website to click the image, when you click the image it does NOT go back to the original site, It goes to a different site.Aladdin Zane 13:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It does go to a different site, thank you for pointing out where to find that for me, appreciate it. However, I have no idea why her MySpace links to that, as the disclaimer on that site says This site is in no way affiliated or associated with Kristal Marshall . Confusing to say the least. However, if you want to consider that site her official site, that is okay with me. This site linked from her myspace, also is reporting she was released (albeit it says it hasn't been confirmed). Bmg 916 Speak 13:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, that is definitely something I can agree with. Bmg 916 Speak 13:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why you can't really believe any of the three.Aladdin Zane 13:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And that puts us back at our original dispute of whether or not she was released. Since nothing is confirmed either way, please comment on the proposed compromise (to satisfy both sides of the argument) at the WWE roster's article talk page, thanks! Bmg 916 Speak 13:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

On an interesting note, in JR's offical blog this week in this entry he replies to a fan saying ''I do not know the whereabouts of Kristal, as it’s not my day to watch after her. I have no idea if she is through with the biz or plans on trying it again.'' I know this doesn't confirm anything directly, but what else could it be interpreted as? What do you think? Bmg 916 Speak 14:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I just noticed that. Interesting. Do you really think that person has really been reading our conversations on our talk pages though? That's kinda creepy... Also, the website thing aside, what do you think of the actual proposed compromise? Thanks. Bmg 916 Speak 15:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted it on her page on here as well as the other pages you mentioned WWE roster and such, check my contribs to see everywhere i posted it. The site deleted the link and posted a disclaimer after i first brought it to your attention. So yea, they read it on here and tried to cover their tracks, but what they actually did was prove the site wasn't real otherwise they would know whether or not the myspace was real. "the compromise" I actually don't like the wording in it, because it is the exact wording used once someone is released from the wwe and other federations, I don't mind it being vague, just not with the wording it has now. The fact of using (has been or been) or other words of the past tense alludes to the fact she is no longer employeed there.Aladdin Zane 15:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that. We can come up with different wording. How about the compromise for the WWE roster page? Bmg 916 Speak 15:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Responded. I'm wondering now how to vaguely word the intro in her article so it doesn't allude one way or the other... Bmg 916 Speak 15:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a lil reminder to watch what you are doing because you had 4 reverts in a 24 hour period on wwe roster right before it was protectedAladdin Zane 16:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I know, I'm pretty embarrassed about violating the 3RR. I was reported by SpeedyC1, and that's what led to the locking of the WWE Roster page and us coming together to propose the compromise we did. Bmg 916 Speak 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's now alluding to her still being employed by the company, but whatever, I'll leave unless someone can come up with a better idea. It's very hard to come up with neutral wording for a situation like this. I also replied to you on the WWE roster talk page if you'd like to have a look. Bmg 916 Speak 16:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey
I'm tired of you blatantly erasing my contributions as if you own the wiki pages in question. I've followed mainstream wrestling feds for the last 10 years or so and I know my stuff. I've provided citations and you claimed they are not 'reliable'. Some of the women I have editted were clearly not full-time wrestlers and only valets who enter the ring on the odd occasion if ever. And yet you allowed external links of dodgy websites like Online Women of Wrestling on some of the women's wiki webpages.

Also, finishing/signature moves means a select list of moves that are identified with the wrestler in question, not their entire moveset. Haleth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haleth (talk • contribs) 16:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I asked you nicely the first time. Guess there's no point reasoning with an arrogant prick like you. Discussion's over. Don't send me a reply, I don't want it. Haleth

As if you have been civil to several other wikipedia editors here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haleth (talk • contribs) 17:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because I gave up dealing with you. Since you're hell bent on antagonizing me further, I am going to report you for issuing threats to me, and from looking at your history page, for insulting other wikipedia editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haleth (talk • contribs) 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Kristal
With everybody's site calling everyone else's site fakes, I don't know which one to believe anymore. It would help if she had a picture of her holding the URL like other wrestlers. Anyway, should we remove her from the roster list to then (even though I just inserted her under inactive talent per the compromise, lol)? Bmg 916 Speak 18:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, no problem, always better to work with - then against others. Good luck at the DMV, hope to see you back before next week! lol. Bmg 916 Speak 18:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Trishelle Cannatella
Have you read WP:NOT? It says this is not a place for speculation, and that all things must be cited. This says what I'm doing is right, and the reversion of yours is wrong. Where is the problem? -Mike Payne (T &bull; C) 01:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one that added that speculation, I added that it is speculation and citation is required. Again, I do not see the problem... -Mike Payne (T &bull; C) 01:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you not reading what I am saying? It was already there when I first saw the article, I just put that citation is required for it. Things are added to wikipedia without citation all the time, and then it is added later, and all I did was put a citation needed tag there so someone would do it. I'm not the one that said she was an aspiring singer, I just wanted proof. -Mike Payne (T &bull; C) 01:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

wwe roster
i was reverting the other guy's edit.look at the times of your edit to the page and mine. we were editing at the same time because that one guy blanked the page.SpeedyC1 18:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

DX
It isn't up to me to find a source whether it was official or not. You want to include it as an official incarnation and according to WP:V "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Please find a reliable source that it was an official incarnation and I will leave it alone. Thanks. Bmg 916 Speak 14:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, how about this? We put it back in but after Hornswoggle, Boogie and Khali names we put (honorary member) ? I think that's a good compromise, how about you? Bmg 916 Speak 14:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's all a matter of POV in my opinion, based how one interpreted the show (especially based on what Shawn said after everyone but him and Triple H disappeared) but if you're good with the compromise, so am I :-). Bmg 916 Speak 17:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, he said something along the lines of it being a debacle "just like that Katie Vick thing you (Triple H) did a few years back" If you don't know, or don't remember, Triple H did a pretty idiotic storyline with Kane some years ago about how Kane got a girl (Katie Vick) killed in a car accident and then had sex with her dead body. Triple H would mock this and at one point even had a Kane mask on and proceeded to simulate sex with a mannequin in a coffin. Thus, I interpret this as meaning that Shawn thought that part of the segment and the writing of it was a debacle, not the incarnation of DX itself. Bmg 916 Speak 21:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

kelly kelly
when did she switch?the storyline still has her contract being controled by the miz.SpeedyC1 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC) this week she got her but kicked by layla in a match.balls came out after the match.i didn't watch last weeks show.SpeedyC1 21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Burt Reynolds on TV
A tag has been placed on Burt Reynolds on TV requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tiptoety 21:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The tag after the deletion said to comment on it's talkpage. Thats what i thought i did so i moved it to it's talkpageAladdin Zane 21:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but due to the fact that the page has been deleted because of a WP:AFD discussion it can not be recreated with out going through deletion review. Thanks Tiptoety 21:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Tiptoety 21:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Burt Reynolds on TV
If you wish to contest the deletion of this article, please open up a discussion at deletion review. Thanks, Caknuck 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It said you can do it on the talk page of the article too. so thats why i did itAladdin Zane
 * You were not on the talk page, but on the article space. Tiptoety 21:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, that was an accident, if you go check as soon I saw it I changed it. Go lookAladdin Zane 21:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The page has already been deleted, so i can not. But the fact of the matter is the page was deleted due to a discussion at WP:AFD, so it can not be re-created without going through deletion review. Tiptoety 21:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In the tag where it says it was deleted, it said if you opposed it, you could do so in deletion review or on the deleted pages talk page. So thats what i was trying to doAladdin Zane 21:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is true, but the tag was a bit wrong in the fact that it should not have said you can discuss it on the articles talk page, that fact of the matter is you must discuss this at deletion review, and that is the only place. Cheers! Tiptoety 21:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry by you/Rogue Gremlin
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Aladdin Zane for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Crazysuit 03:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Spring Thomas
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Spring Thomas, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Spring Thomas
An editor has nominated Spring Thomas, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)