Talk:The Ultimate Warrior - Wikipedia


1 person in discussion

Article Images

Two pieces of information that I feel were noteworthy have been removed from the page and should be re-inserted. Warrior was a student to become a chiropractor and was studying in Atlanta, Georgia. Also, the page was edited to omit the claim from Warrior where he states he left the company after Summerslam in 1992, rather than being fired. The page, as it is stated currently, makes it appear as though Warrior was fired despite possibly having a valid claim. This lack of information makes Vince McMahon's version of the story appear as fact. When in actuality, this story is disputed by Warrior.


ADDED: Warrior University was not started during Warrior's second WWF/E stint. It was not until around 1995-6 that Warrior University opened. 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmurdock21 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can we change the picture at the top of the page to a picture of him in his wrestling gear or at least put a picture of him in his gear somewhere on the page? It seems only logical considering thats the way almost everybody recognizes him. --71.36.128.104 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

, I agree, this is a pic of him now in Nwe http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/3e7ab75553.jpg

The material added to this talk-page refers to the Controversial remarks about Heath Ledger section which was added to the article recently. If such material is verifiable, (and there is a link, which my browser wouldn't take me to today) and causes no undue Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons problems, then it seems that it is suitable for addition to the article page. FWIW Newbyguesses - Talk 04:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've pulled it, as it fails Wikipedia's original research policy. It's unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material (in this case a blog) that has not been published by a reliable source. Warrior has made numerous blog entries over the years that express his opinions (as ridiculous as they may be), and while this particular entry has been convered in some fringe media, (which would probably not pass if scrutinized if looking to determine if these sources are reliable by Wikpedia standards), it's hardly encyclopedic and is given undue weight by it's recency. Are we going to create a section every time Warrior posts something in his self published blog about a celebrity? Perhaps a paragraph about his blog in general with a passing mention of individuals Warrior has discussed/insulted, which Heath Ledger mentioned amongst the many would be more appropriate - if sourced properly. --Quartet 20:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Warrior is constantly saying things in his blog that could be considered controversial - but how are Warriors opinions on various topics of the day encyclopedic? This is an encyclopedia, not a place for certain editors to pick and choose what they feel is notable from an individuals blog and tag it on to that same persons Wikipedia entry. Warriors last last blog entry questions why we celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday and claimed that King "plagiarized a great many speeches" and wet on to claim that "George Washington’s life and its story deserves the same, if not more, reverence than even the man called Jesus Christ and his story."[[1]]. Certainly MLK is a far more important historical figure than Ledger, but where is the entire section related to this entry or the statement about Jesus? Allstarecho what is your rationale behind adding[2] a discussion of just the post about Ledger? Are there any reliable sources that reported this? Because a casual Google search reveals stories by nothing more than Wrestling blogs and other "news" pieces by independent columnists. I'll assume good faith it's not a conflict of interest, but to someone who just came across this Wikipedia article it could appear that way. --Yankees76 (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Just because his rants about MLK and Washington weren't in the section, doesn't mean to remove any other sections. It means, add them yourself if you feel they warrant inclusion, not just delete a whole section. Now, to address the concern, his notability makes everything he says and does come under a microscope. His comments about Ledger, and yes, MLK should definitely be included here. When a person has achieved that level of notability that a biography is acceptable, all known facts about the person have an equal chance of being represented. The person, short of pointing out libelous statements, has no special prerogative to exclude certain details. We do not allow this priviledge to Ann Coulter, we do not allow it to Jimmy Wales, we allow it to nobody. It is a red-herring argument that only issues *related* to notability are included. We include a biography based on notability, but once included, each statement does not need to pass notability to be included. As long as it's verifiable and sourced, it's fair game, especially in this situation. As for conflict of interest, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I don't know the man personally, never met or spoken to him. I just know of him from his WWF days and only saw him wrestle in person once, against Andre the Giant in Jackson, Mississippi. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have no intention of adding anything Warrior says in his blog to Wikipedia simply because I don't beleive the content of a self published blog is notable or even encyclopedic. As per WP:DUE an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Creating an entire subsection on Warriors reaction to the death of Heath Ledger makes it appear that this one blog entry received extensive coverage and is a significant event in Warriors biography - when in fact it was one blog post in many over a period of 8 or more years, many of which I'm sure contain similar statements about other individuals. I fail to see why you're giving this one blog entry the same weight as his, bodybuilding career for example, for which there is far more information from reliable sources available. As is noted above by Quartet, it may be Warriors blog itself that deserves the mention, not merely one blog entry plucked at random. --Yankees76 (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
"his notability makes everything he says and does come under a microscope" is a flawed argument as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no historical notability stemming from Warriors reaction to Heath Ledgers death, despite the notability of Warrior himself. Ledger's family did not react to this blog or make a statment about it. In fact no-one outside of a few Wrestling bloggers and independant columnists deemed it newsworthy at all. The article for Tom Cruise does not have a single mention of Cruise's reaction to Ledgers death, despite Cruise having a far stronger tie-in than Warrior.[3] And yet here we have an article where half of this individuals personal life section is taken up (with a header no less!!) by the synthesis of one blog entry made that discussed Heath Ledger that also contained yet another rant about Hulk Hogan? Undue weight is putting it lightly Yankees76! Now I'm not saying that this information should never be added to Wikipedia, but we're trying to create a biography of a living person here. I'm suggesting a re-write of the section as I mentioned above that discusses his blog in general, as these sorts of statements and "outbursts" seem to be the norm for Warrior, as pointed out by Yankees76 above. Literally this blog entry on Heath Ledger is deserving of a sentence in this section - if that. It could read something like this:
Warrior maintains a blog entitled "Warrior's Machete" where he discusses his personal life, his personal views on politics, sexuality, patriotism and his legacy as a wrestler, amongst other things. There have been numerous instances where Warrior has used the blog to attack?? members of his wrestling past(Vince McMahaon, Hulk Hogan) and celebrities who were newsworthy at the time of the blog (Heath Ledger, Saddam Hussein). He's even used the blog to post replies to letters from fans - both positive and negative.
Not the best copy, I know, but I just used it to get my point across. Thoughts??--Quartet 05:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Looks good to me. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hey fellas. I've taken a first stab at the new section. Feel free to tweak it, as it probably could be better. --Quartet 13:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Flynn" :
    • {{ cite web | url = http://flynnfiles.com/blog/warrior/warrior2.htm | author = Flynn, L. | title = Interview with the Ultimate Warrior - Part 2 of 4 | publisher= FlynnFiles.com | accessdate=2008-05-18|date=2004-06-28}}
    • {{ cite web | url = http://flynnfiles.com/blog/warrior/warrior1.htm | author = Flynn, L. | title = Interview with the Ultimate Warrior - Part 1 of 4 | publisher= FlynnFiles.com | accessdate=2008-05-17|date=2004-06-28}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't see anywhere in the given source that the plan was for Bret to face the Warrior at Royal Rumble '93. If it is there and I just can't see it, can someone tell me where in the source I can find it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.167.208 (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was

--SRX 14:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Gets rid of the quantifier, perhaps better known, too. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Two points, first isn't his legal name "Warrior" and second he hasn't wrestled as Ultimate Warrior since 1996 (or 1998 I can't remember if WCW used UW, I doubt it). So I don't think a move would be needed. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, GCF. I was thinking of leaving out the "the," either was is fine. And Darren, it gets rid of the quantifier.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes you have to live with a quantifier, we can't change it to Warrior (which has been his name for fifteen years, and he only wrestled as Ultimate Warrior for nine), so Warrior (wrestler) is the next best option.Darrenhusted (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

So Sting isn't better known as Steve Borden? RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

  • Neutral - like someone said, he has done more work under the Warrior name, but is mostly known as Ultimate Warrior. I support moving it to remove quantifier but I oppose it because he is best known as Warrior, so I'm neutral.--SRX 21:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

If Sting got to be moved to Steve Borden, then surely this should be moved. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sting's page move has nothing to do with this one, Warrior has changed his name to Warrior, Sting's name is Steve Borden. He tours on the lecture circuit as Warrior. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

When someone else asked for Sting's article to be changed to his non-notable ring name, Steve Borden, everyone supported, including you, because of the quantifier. Now when I ask for a change to a name way more than notable than Steve Borden, you oppose. So what if he changed his name to Warrior. RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because his legal name is Warrior, same as Steve Borden's legal name is Steve Borden. Warrior promotes himself now as Warrior and cannot wrestle as or use the name Ultimate Warrior in any context. If he lives for another fifty years he will be known as Warrior and on his death certificate it will say Warrior. His name is Warrior. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

So there's a rule that says articles must be named their real name? RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well there is a rule that says to title a biographical article you should use the persons name. Govvy (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

If so, then what's the point of WP:COMMONAME? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Common name is for if they are not well know by their real name, on UCN it gives examples of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. Warrior was know in wrestling for nine years as Ultimate Warrior, but that is a trademarked character owned by WWE so he can't ever use that name again (and has been sued for trying to use it), his legal name is Warrior and so that is the easiest thing for the article to be known as, however as Warrior is also a common word then it needs a quantifier, as it stands because Jim Hellwig is a loon there is no compromise where we can call his article by a common name that does not cause problems. He hasn't wrestled as Ultimate Warrior in 12 years, he advertises himself as Warrior, the reason for keeping it where it is seems simple to me. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I still find it funny how you supported the Sting move to Steve Borden. He isn't known by Steve Borden at all, you just wanted rid of the quantifier. Now you like want the quantifier.. Also, this "rule" probally isn't even real. RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are you not listening? Warrior is his real name, but because it is a common word it has to have the quantifier, Steve Borden is his real name, and because Sting is a common word this removes the need for a quantifier (and Sting is also a musician in The Police). I cannot support a move to Ultimate Warrior (a name the artist formerly know as Hellwig can never use) because he hasn't wrestled as it for 12 years, and he currently advertises himself as Warrior.
What you "find funny" has nothing to do with anything. The preference is for names without quantifiers, but if that is not possible then the next best option needs to be arrived at. In this case the current name is the best worst option, Warrior is not available and Brian James Hellwig is no longer his legal name. You asked for the move, I have given you my reasons, I suggest you read WP:UCN before proposing any more moves. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fine. Support when anyone else wants rid of quantifiers, but reject when I do. Warrior being his real name means nothing. Still laughing. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

<sigh> This is just like the WWE ECW crap. @Darren, he is best known as Ultimate Warrior. So, it would be a good thing to move it. BUT, @Randy, Darren has a point. He only had the "Ultimate Warrior" name for 9 years. And, it's owned by WWE, AND he does all his work under "Warrior." AND, Warrior is his real name. AND, just because quantifiers have been gotten rid of before, doesn't mean we can get rid of all the quantifiers on WP. In short terms:
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME
  • Oppose because he's had the name "Warrior" longer than "Ultimate Warrior."

Also, @both, he wrestled as Warrior in WCW.

--SAVIOR_SELF.777 02:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind him opposing because Warrior hasn't used UW in like 12 years, but it's stupid how that's his reason, yet he changes Sting (wrestler) (a name that's been used for like ever) into Steve Borden (a name that hasn't been used in 49 years). RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
You know, him has a name. And my reasons for opposing and supporting different moves do not have to all be the same, I can support one move to remove a quantifier and support one which adds a quantifier at the same time. I'm not sure what you think this process is, am I somehow wrong for supporting one move for one reason then opposing another move for the exact same reason? I didn't realise I was only allowed one thought and then I had to apply that to every single move. Sometimes and article is better under a real name, sometimes it isn't, sometimes it's best to remove a quantifier, sometimes it is not possible, sometimes I have never ever heard of a wrestler and so don't bother voting, is that wrong? As for Support when anyone else wants rid of quantifiers, but reject when I do, get over yourself. Most of these moves do not need to happen, that is why people oppose, not because you were the nominator. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

That still didn't explain anything. WP:CNP says try to avoid using the quantifier. No rule says it must stay at his real name. If you're gonna reply with he hasn't used Ultimate Warrior in 12 years, then refer to what I said about you and Sting. Still don't understand how you supported a name that hasn't been used in 49 years. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oddly enough, I can't find any mention of the word "quantifier" at the above link. And I've read itb before. It should be there... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

@Randy, you know I have said my piece six different ways and all you keep doing is going on about Sting, and I have already addressed that. This move ain't going to happen, so leave it alone. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Gavyn, I got the link wrong. NCP, not CNP.. here. Oh well, though. I give up. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

What Darren is saying is that Warrior shouldn't be moved to Ultimate Warrior because it is neither his commonname ("Warrior (wrestler)") nor his real name ("Warrior (wrestler)"). Either way, "Warrior (wrestler)" is the only/best option. On the other hand, "Sting (wrestler)" was moved to Steve Borden because out of the two options—commonname (Sting (wrestler)) and real name (Steve Borden)—one of them doesn't have the quantifier, so it is used. Warrior doesn't have a good option without the quantifier (as the above reasons that disqualify Ultimate Warrior from being his commonname). See the difference? Nikki311 22:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Did this conversation ever go anywhere? I think it should be closed since it hasn't been modified since the 11th. SAVIOR_SELF.777 03:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It ended in mostly opposition.--SRX 14:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Not done--SRX 14:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

put in a photo there used to be one whoever took it away can you put it back!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalajan (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

"With the win, Ultimate Warrior remains one of only 2 wrestlers ever, along with Kevin Nash (Diesel), to hold both the WWF Championship and Intercontinental championship at the same time." -Can we get a citation or a verification on this? I'm not aware of any such point in Kevin Nash/Diesel's career where this was the case (although he did simulaneously hold the Intercontinental Championship and World Tag Team Championship in August, 1994 and later the WWF Championship and the World Tag Team Championship in September, 1995). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.235 (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

why isnt it in the article that vince said on the dvd the self destruction of the ultimat warrior the warrior held a gun to his head during the pay dispute lol seems kinda note worthey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.195.240 (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

-dude, don't take that comment so literally. The "gun in Vince's head" was only a figure of speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.224.60 (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm fairly certain it's clear that it was published as a poster/pinup book. There is no text except the inside cover prose. I have a scan available if desired for proof. I also dispute it being valuable since this was a dollar bin book at VF condition. --Contributions/208.255.118.242 (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I know its referenced on Warrior' website, and was a huge rumor during his main WWF stint. He had supposedly OD'ed on steroids, and a new person took over as the Ultimate Warrior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadmd23 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC) You are right, that is what happened and now the next new person is taking over. 76.236.121.35 (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

It says he moved to California, and became a bodybuilder after he saw Robby Robertson.

When was that ? What year did he officially become a professional bodybuilder ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.104.108.6 (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

An image used in this article, File:Ultimate warrior.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 10 September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think it's worth mentioning that Warrior has been speaking out about the WWE, as well as wrestlers Hulk Hogan and Kevin Nash, online in videos on YouTube and possibly elsewhere. It's significant enough. I don't know why that hasn't been added already because he's been doing this for a few years now. And it's in par with Wikipedia's standards because the proof is in the videos, as he literally talks about some of the things you don't get to see behind the cameras, like Hulk's drug use and Nash's "two-faced" personality. --Matt723star (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Was in the article previously and removed as being unencyclopedic and not really notable. Yankees76 Talk 13:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm surprised, I figured that to be significant because it deals with how he feels about the company he worked for and is most known for. --Matt723star (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Warrior (wrestler) → The Ultimate Warrior – This is the name Hellwig used for the majority of his televised appearances. This is the name used to refer to Hellwig in DVD releases and video games in which he is featured. This will allow far more direct linking. McPhail (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

What's the point of "Ultimate Warrior (wrestler)"? Nothing is at "Ultimate Warrior" now, and "Ultimate Warrior" allows for direct linking. just [.[The Ultimate Warrior].] instead of [.[Ultimate Warrior (wrestler)|The Ultimate Warrior].] Starship.paint (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Prefer The Ultimate Warrior. WWE can style it how they want now, but "The" was undeniably there in the years Warrior was active and relevant. Hence, the common name. Has McPhail so quickly changed his stance on rewriting history? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:32, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
Also still the way the twit tweets. And what he calls himself in this recent WWE ad. Also, in the single most important thing he's ever done. Now that I look, also on WWE.com. Not in the heading, but in the bio (and videos, of course). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:36, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
Just one more thing (I think): "With or without the facepaint, I am The Ultimate Warrior!". As Lionel Hutz would say, "Case closed." InedibleHulk (talk) 18:23, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's a hugely important distinction, but I've changed the request to "The Ultimate Warrior". McPhail (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. It does seem like a big deal to me (as you may have noticed). The three words just naturally roll together, in my head. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Most of the article says 8th of April 2014, but last line of first paragraph says 9th. So 8th or 9th? 112.199.230.157 (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Officials tell TMZ ... Warrior collapsed outside an Arizona hotel at 5:50 PM on April 8th ... while walking to his car with his wife." As this is a developing story, and TMZ has been wrong when it comes to breaking deaths in the past, more should be confirmed as time goes on. What a shocking death. RIP.LM2000 (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Time of collapse

There's a sentence in the section about his death that currently reads, "According to reports, Warrior collapsed at 5:50 p.m. (PDT) while walking to his car with his wife in Arizona outside of their hotel." Arizona is in the Mountain time zone but most of Arizona (this includes the location of the hotel or motel) doesn't use daylight saving time. Therefore, if a time zone is included with a local time, it should be MST (though now, with the Pacific time zone using daylight saving time, it coincides with PDT). The cited source, a Pro Wrestling Torch article, states, "around 5:50 p.m. (8:50 p.m. EST [sic])" so adding "(PDT)" to this Wikipedia article is original research. The Pro Wrestling Torch article itself cites a TMZ article, which also gives the time as 5:50 PM without noting the time zone. (Why not just use the TMZ article as the cited source here?) --anon.71.183.139.60 (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Apparently there are no free use pictures of Warrior on Commons. Since he has left us (RIP) we can use a fair use picture instead. We should prioritize getting a fair use picture of him while he was still wrestling. starship.paint "YES!" 06:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here's some from Flickr that we should be able to get without issue. I feel like I've seen the top one on here before... LM2000 (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
The first one? Seems like Tony2Times asked for permission to use it on Wikipedia. But the picture's not very good. Warrior looks like a toy, his face is not shown clearly.
Obviously, the second one's copyright is owned by WWE. starship.paint "YES!" 06:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Actually, no - purely because someone has died does not mean you can immediately use a non-free image. There are undoubtedly free images available out there (there will have been thousands of photos taken during bouts, etc. that are on the net), it's just a question of finding them. Black Kite (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • And since the flickr picture is actually free, there is a free one available. Poor quality doesn't mean that you can use a fair use one in its place. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
      • The "free" flickr image was deleted a few times on commons so I don' think it should be uploaded again..the person probably doesn't own the rights to it..not everyone on flickr actually own the rights to images they claim to own..I have done my search, there isn't any free image available yet..--Stemoc (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Would anyone support this if I proposed this at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates? I need someone more familiar to justify that he was "a very important figure in his or her field."

  • ABC News: Pro Wrestling Legend ... one of professional wrestling’s biggest superstars
  • Reuters: one of U.S. professional wrestling's most celebrated athletes ... days after being inducted into the World Wrestling Entertainment Inc Hall of Fame
  • FOX Sports: earned a global following
  • USA Today: one of the biggest stars of the 1990s
  • New York Post: Legendary wrestler ... a longtime star of the sport

starship.paint "YES!" 06:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I support this. He was one of the many people instrumental in the wrestling boom of the 80s. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 07:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I went ahead and did it, see Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: The Ultimate Warrior. @LM2000: I hope you are not working on it right now. @CRRaysHead90: please voice your opinion there. starship.paint "YES!" 07:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

On the page for this, it has been requested that the "citation needed" and "refimprove" should be dealt with. Does that really need to be there? At its basest level, the purpose of "citation needed" is to issue a formal challenge to a claim, without deleting that claim. So this is my honest question about it: is there a legitimate challenge, or is this classified as common knowledge in this field? Is this necessary? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 08:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • I "fixed" the Nu-Wrestling Evolution (2008) section and added sources. It was too detailed and was only about one match. I also tried to tackle his theme songs, but only found sources for the WWE and NWE theme songs. There might not be much info online for WCCW (1980s) and WCW (1998), I could not really find it. The 1996 section has also been repaired... about 50%.
  • Could other WP:PW editors more familiar with Ultimate Warrior comment on the rest? starship.paint "YES!" 14:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Whew. Still not perfect, I'll see how many of these CN tags I can knock down later, but it has been posted to the main page. Glad we could get this done for one of the biggest stars in the history of the industry. I'm still in shock.LM2000 (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
 This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

When The Ultimate Warrior died, he collapsed out of nowhere walking to his car with his wife. I request that the cause of death will be put as Sudden Cardiac Arrest, as it is how athletes (such as he) suddenly collapse and die. Actster (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Without a citation, absolutely not! That would be original research. --Malerooster (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
  Not done:: until a cause of death has been announced by the authorities, it is speculation. NiciVampireHeart 00:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply