Talk:Vince McMahon/Archive 2

message: I have protected this page.  There is too much nonsense going on on this article about his "death."  Vince McMahon did not die tonight.  It's storyline.  This article is a combination of Vince the wrestler and Vince the head of WWE.  Because of this, we cannot go around claiming him dead just because the storyline says so.  Metros 03:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's why I protected this.  So people can discuss what to do from here.  What should be stated in this article about the event?  We cannot add a death date to his infobox or state a date of death, this is a severe breach of WP:BLP guidelines.  Metros 03:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's clearly kayfabe as nearly everything else that happens in wrestling.  The nature of the wwe article confirms it.  WWE would genuinely be concerned about it if it were real and would give details about the body being taken to the hospital and what not. Borrada 03:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed totally with Metros and Borrada. Just like with any other biography, had Vince McMahon actually been killed by a car bomb on live television, it would require appropriate verifiable sources. [[Briguy52748 23:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Full protection should not be enabled, no matter how bad people were getting with edit wars. Report them and have their IP banned temporarily. Many people believe Mcmahon to be dead, and there arent any solid sources to say otherwise. Rather, all sources say he is presumed dead, and no body was found. This means that he cannot be confirmed as dead. After watching the clip of it a few times, I noticed the flames began in the front and under the car, so I believe it was staged. Still, remove the protection on the page
we all know he is not dead so calm down 76.223.189.149 02:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Considering recent, ahem, events, would it be feasible to create two separate articles, one on the character and one on the person. This has been put into place for Stephen Colbert (the real person) and  Stephen Colbert (character). This way we can keep kayfabe and real life separate. On the other hand something like this could create too many articles, such as the real life Brooklyn Brawler or something, but Vince is established enough to merit an article for each of his personas: Vincent K. McMahon, real-life businessman, and Mr. McMahon, kayfabe autocrat. --Valley2city₪‽ 05:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could that for every wrestler, though. That would be bad --Maestro25 05:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This would have to be done for every wrestler article with a gimmick.  There is no point in that. D4S 01:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Not necessarily. With the possible execption of The Undertaker, no one in the WWE has a gimmick so different from their real life personna that has been in effect as long as the Mr. Mcmahon character. Most wrestlers' gimmicks can easily be encorporated in their articles. However, with Vince, his onscreen character is so vital to the day to day programs that it could warrant its own article. (Sawyer 04:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also believe that the Mr. McMahon persona should be separated (markedly) from the real person in this article. Perhaps moreso than any pro-wrestling performer, Vincent K. McMahon's public and private identity is muddled. And, unlike other wrestling performers, the man and the character are both signifigant and/or encyclopedic. Diligent Wikians should be attempting to clarify where the one ends and the other begins, rather than promoting the (widely evident) confusion. 64.111.226.34 05:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another observation: in terms of in-ring exploits, Mr. McMahon, who has played an onscreen role for the better part of a decade, is covered much more briefly than many WWF/WWe characters elsewhere on Wikipedia who spent less time on that stage. By the looks of all the notes on this talk page, this appears to be the result of broad-stroke removals of character-related detail. In defense of chronological accounts of wrestling storylines (here and elsewhere), please consider pro wrestling as a similar product to other serial television dramas and the characters portrayed in them, where summaries of every episode are common on Wikipedia -- even expected. Mantic 05:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate articles? 

message: I do think that there should be some kind of mention of the episode on the page.  The only reason I ended up here was to see what Wikipedia had to say, as I most frequently come here for current events.  That Wikipedia appears to have nothing to say at all is very disappointing to the regular Wikipedia visitor like myself. Let's try to get a very safe and conservative sentence put on the article to recognize it at least happened, and then tag it as a current event so that it is not presented as an unchanging fact.
It should be tagged and mention of this kayfabe "death" should go under the "Controversy" section, seeing as, particularly in the post eddie guerrero world, doing a "death" angle is going to be controversial.69.9.31.137 07:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regardless of where this goes 

message: I tried to visit his profile on WWE, and was greeted with the message of not found. I looked under ECW, Raw and Smackdown with no luck. It would seem they have removed his profile now he is no longer the ECW Champion.
TheFreak2007 14:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/20070612_12wwe_breaking.html Done. 72.226.196.12 20:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's hardly a credible source. --Maestro25 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're kidding me, right?  It's the newspaper from the area.  They are the ones with the best access to the site of the "murder" and the police and firefighters who "investigated" the "crime."  Metros 21:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the link again. They updated it. I can not believe that there are people out there above the age of 13 who think this is real. Legendotphoenix 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point of the newspaper articles — in mainstream media, which as I understand Wikipedia policy is acceptable to use per WP:NOR — was that there was a certain segment of the population who saw the USA Network broadcast of the limosuine explosion and presumed Vince McMahon was unable to escape (rather than thinking, "hmmm ... must be some sort of stunt"). I have added more thoughts below about ways this can be acceptably incorporated into an encyclopediac article, not some kayfabe b.s. [[Briguy52748 21:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update from Local Print Media 

message: Based on suggestions above, this is what I propose to add to this article:
::On June 12, WWE aired a segment at the end of RAW that featured McMahon (in character) entering a limousine moments before it exploded. The show went off-air shortly after, and WWE.com reported the angle as though it were a legitimate occurrence proclaiming that McMahon was "presumed dead."http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/mcmahonexplosionupdate  
Does this look fine?  Metros 21:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's precisely where it was going to go, in the storyline section.  Metros 21:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Fixed, how's that look now?  Metros 21:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Looks fine. Definitely should go under the "Mr. McMahon" section though so it can be made clear that the character is presumed dead not the actual person.-- bulletproof 3:16 21:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: On June 11, WWE aired a segment at the end of RAW that featured McMahon (in character) entering a limousine moments before it exploded. The show went off-air shortly after, and WWE.com reported the angle as though it were a legitimate occurrence proclaiming that McMahon was "presumed dead."http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/mcmahonexplosionupdate The explosion was staged the previous day and the real Vince McMahon was not killed.http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/20070612_12wwe_breaking.htmlhttp://www.citizensvoice.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18462342&BRD=2259&PAG=461&dept_id=455154&rfi=6 
Thoughts?  Metros 21:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Socby19 — At some point, the fact that the "limo explosion" was pre-taped, then spliced into the live footage (to pull off the illusion of McMahon's "death") will have to be included in the article. Not necessarily now, but at some point; if not here, certainly the kayfabe article or other appropriate article. [[Briguy52748 22:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I put the real world spin of it in there only because there are going to be a ton of "he's really dead!!!" comments in the article when this gets unprotected.  Adding those references will (hopefully) help to deter some of that.  Metros 22:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In addition, this article needs to put into context what's real (it was a stunt to advance a storyline) and what's fiction (Vince is dead); the kayfabe article (which also needs work, could help complement this). Someone who is a lot better than I am at this will no doubt go in and discuss the segment that aired on the June 12 RAW in a real world context, and life will go on. Yes, we'll still have to be on the lookout for marks who truly and honestly beleive that a man was incinerated by a car bomb on live television, and we editors will need to continue to patrol this article to erase inappropriate statements ... but working together, the article will be written appropriately, revised as the storyline and real-world fallout (if covered in the national media; it hasn't as I write this) unfolds over the coming weeks/months/years, and life goes on as we turn our energies to other articles. [[Briguy52748 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No speculations please.-- bulletproof 3:16 05:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I will put in this article 

message: There's an article about Jerry Seinfeld and an article about Jerry Seinfeld (character). It's an elegant prototype solution to the Vince McMahon fact/fiction problem. I like this idea. Although it should be noted that Seinfeld was a character on a sitcom, while some people for some reason (which is really beyond me) actually believe that the character and the real person are one and the same. However, that doesn't change the fact that those people are very mistaken, and I think this solution is actually perfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.161.71 (talk • contribs) 
I agree this should be done for all wrestling personas. Personas are characters that are played by actors. Too many articles are ruined by the grey area between fiction and fact. (203.222.110.46 01:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would have to be done for every wrestler article with a gimmick.  There is no point in that.-- bulletproof 3:16 02:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So go ahead and 'do that.' I can understand having a seperate article for Stone Cold and Steve Williams, or for Vince McMahon and Mr. McMahon. But there's a line that we'd have to draw somewhere, and *I* think it should be when the lines between the two actually become blurred. Like in this situation. For example, I'm sure there's no confusion in the article for Marty Wright, so he can stay on one page. Similarly, I'd say there's no confusion between Kevin Nash and his onscreen persona. But in a situation like this, I'd say there's a significant amount of people who could possibly be confused between the two. I say we do a vote or some shit. 71.162.59.253 07:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if a new article were to be created to describe Vince McMahon's on-screen character, the article discribing the businessman would still require some mention of his kayfabe character. Although relevant content would be truncated and/or edited into a scholastic context, the "Mr. McMahon" character he plays on television, notable feuds (e.g., Stone Cold Steve Austin) and storylines are still an important part of his biography. [[Briguy52748 17:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create second article for fictional character 

message: I put in a note with the "limo explosion" that it was a storyline, seperate reality from the "Kayfabe events" of the WWE - make it obvious that it's a storyline. It needs to be stated here, Wikipedia is a dictionary which isn't written "in kayfabe" just like we don't have Star Wars "written in the Universe" type of articles etc. Modify it or whatever but seriously if it's mentioned on the article we have to make sure it's clear that we're talking about a storyline here.MPJ-DK 08:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a reference to the Kayfabe bit, and removed a large portion of text copied from WWE.com. Cactusrob 09:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What a mess. All reverted until someone can find a better way to approach it, many people confused on whether its fake or real and the way the article was written (especially the first line) was just false. Rewrite it and MAKE IT CLEAR, along with the previous attempts that it is PART OF A STORYLINE. - Boochan 10:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest listing it as a subtitle in controversy, making it clear that it's a storyline and not real. - Boochan 10:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Leaving something there (with refrences) is going to be better than nothing, otherwise it will just be added again, in an even worse way. I'd say leave what was there and work on that (move it, clean it), but don't get rid of all the mentions. What was there CLEARLY stated it was kayfabe. Cactusrob 10:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  With the reference to the "limo explosion" storyline now added, I would be very selective/cautious (what's the right word here?) about adding week-to-week updates. Clearly, there will be storyline developments (e.g., "suspect" development, kayfabe interviews with "investigators," etc.) and on-air commentators, wrestlers, etc., acting as though a legitimate death had occurred, and the temptation will no doubt exist to add every detail of what happens (which of course is not only unneccessary but goes against Wikipedia policy and the agreement of the Professional Wrestling project). I'd say unless it is really groundbreaking or such, I'd limit the edits for now. The fact that the "limo explosion" storyline resulting in the kayfabe "death" of Mr. McMahon has been added (and a clear distinction that it in fact is just a storyline) is enough for now, save for perhaps a generic statement about commentators and others (in kayfabe) continuing to act as though it were a legit death. (Whew, I'm all kayfabed out!) [[Briguy52748 01:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  storyline alert 

message: I'm getting a bit concerned with the the sprinkling of kayfabe all over this document. My understanding of kayfabe is that kayfabe is the maintaining scripted behaviours, or supporting worked activities (e.g. maintaining a feud when one actor is injured). There should really be a distinction between kayfabe /worked events and real life events. As far as I can there are two options. One as mentioned above splitting Vinnie Mac into two (read above for my comment on that) or two using some way to highlight kayfabe/worked events in the text. I would welcome more discussion on this issue as Vinnie Mac is currently rather a mess (the article that is - figuritively rather than literally!) Sparkyboi 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty Simple as far as I can see. There is a Mr. McMahon heading so keep all wrestling character stuff under there (death, firings, wrestling moves and accomplishments, feuds) and keep everything else (personal, harrasment, professional career) elsewhere. Cactusrob 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The use of kayfabe

message: I think that what should be done is a typical timeline-esque setup (generally done with other wrestler's Wikipedia entries) with the top 'zone' for FACT (true, NOT kayfabe) and then the bottom zone for FICTION (false, kayfabe)events (i.e., his 'death'). Anyone else agree? 75.68.132.121 14:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. I don't think there's need for two articles, just one well organized one. Cactusrob 12:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact and Fiction Zones 

message: Some people have said if we do it for McMahon, we'd have to "do it for every wrestler". This is not true. For the most part, most wrestlers don't have anything interesting enough that they would need a seperate article for their "real life" persona. McMahon is different. Vincent K. McMahon inherited his father's wrestling company and built it into what it is today, he is a businessman. "Mr.McMahon" is an insane charic..characture...however you spell it...of himself. Putting his "death" on this page would be silly, but it would fit in on a page that also mentions his hatred of Steve Austin. him being the mastermind behind The Ministry, etc. Thoughts? --Smart Mark Greene 04:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the "we'd have to do it for every wrestler" is a foolish argument. Only a handful of wrestlers are notable for anything outside of the ring; and in the case of most of these (like Jesse Ventura) they did their non wrestling stuff before or after their wrestling career, making it easy to write their articles. McMahon is different. That's why his article is so difficult to write and why it's the mess it is; he's had a notable storyline going on in the ring while simultanously having notable one going on outside of it for 30 years; we all know both need to be covered. By shoving them all into one article we get a hodgepodge that doesn't make sense, and the dilemma of having a guy dead and alive at the same time. (By the way, where is the source that verifies he's alive, as it boldly says at the top of this article. Are we just assuming so?) Celedor15 04:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed that few professional wrestlers — if any — require a separate article on their kayfabe characters. Even if a new "Mr. McMahon" article were created to cover the major feuds, wrestling accomplishments, etc. of Vince McMahon's kayfabe alter-ego, the main article covering the real-life promoter would still require at least some kayfabe content, given that his competition in the wrestling ring and decision to play a ficitonal "evil boss" on television are important parts of his real life. [[Briguy52748 22:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another request for a "Mr. McMahon" page 

message: Why can't we separate McMahon's article into a 50/50 thing. Ken Shamrocks page is seperated into MMA and UFC then into Pro Wrestling. Why don't we do that for Vince. Like "As a Businessman" and "As a Character". It would help as far as creating another article is concerned. You can just edit the one we have into two parts. That way we can include his death as a major event that it is and heave stuff like the XFL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.121 (talk • contribs) 
So you are proposing; announcing the death as real, writing an article about Vince's private life for which we have no sources (which we do for his on screen life), deleting stuff about the XFL, and all while you have a total of 17 edits and an IP, and never sign your posts. I think you're over reaching. Darrenhusted 13:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What?!? No, he is proposing splitting the article to "Real Vince" and "Character Vince". It's not that difficult. By heave I assume the user was referring to moving it, not deleting it. And referring to the amounts of edits the user has is rather unnecessary, and makes you sound rather elitist, and is not the type of attitude that will encourage editors. Cactusrob 17:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Click on the contribs button for the above editor, he has yet to edit an article with anything constructive. The only issue for a split is the fake death angle, other than that the article already makes clear the difference between Vince and Mr McMahon, in fact there is a heading "Mr McMahon" , so I cannot see what 209.247.21.121 is talking about. Darrenhusted 18:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On top of which, this article does not even include the notice that it's subject is the biography of a living person right now -- only that it refers to a fictional work. I don't know if a clean split is possible, either way, but so long as Wiki authorities are using this conflict to prevent the development of a complete article (primarily via deletion of chronological summary of the character's onstage career), this is a problem. 64.111.226.144 11:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What someone should do is write out the new article and propose it to Wiki.  This really needs to be a separated article.  One half being Vince McMahon, and what he has accomplished in terms of the WWE and other business ventures.  The other half being Mr. McMahon, the evil boss we all know from WWE tv; the evil boss who do anything to let himself or the bad guy win.  The only issue with that might be that McMahon was a nice guy at the beginning when he was on TV. Foodmaster 08:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Seperation 

message: So why can't we edit this article?
: Its temporarily protected to avoid troll edits, about the death storyline Cactusrob 15:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article no edits 

message: If you want some reliable sources about the death go to . --Sha0000 11:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable Sources 

message: Unfortunately, the article is protected from editing. I was thinking about adding a section about the "death" that talks about the memorial shows, and any other storyline related occurrences. Anyone agree? Tails0600 17:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to the Article 

message: Should it be noted in the controversy section that the reaction to the "Moment of Silence" for Vince's fake death at the beginning of Smackdown (as well as the following "dedication" segments) were met with incredible hostility from the crowd? It might be worth mentioning, considering that this angle is in the Controversy section. Sir 0rion 22:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction on Smackdown 

message: I would like the article UNBLOCKED so I can do real edits and why that kind of thing on the Article it's self--  Hornetman16  23:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Request for page (un)protection is that way.  Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 23:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Protection 

message: Just wonderin but does anyone know the reason why his character has been killed off? Is it to give him a relief from the pressure of being on screen or is it to make more money through yet another controversial storyline? I think it would be good to have a mention of this in the article--Duality344 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WHY?

message: I have reduced the protection level to semi-protection (preventing IPs and accounts less than four days old from editing the article) becuase the news now seems pretty clear about his death and I'm hopefull that we can edit it productively. If protection is necessary again, please make a request at WP:RFPP or WP:ANI, the latter for a faster response. In both cases, keep it brief. Thanks.--Chaser - T 06:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: I note the article is still protected against non-registered edits, but there's supposed to be a tag that goes at the top of such articles and it appears to be missing. 68.146.8.46 13:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection tag missing

message: I heard someone saying that they seen Vince talk about this whole thing with Benoit, is it true?The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 14:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vince Not dead 

message: this link doesnt mention anything to do with the angle so what makes you say its over?--81.129.49.55 16:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: will he ever reveal who would have "killed" him? ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 17:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not. They may not have determined that yet. You can never tell with the WWE. The Hybrid 17:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: well vince isnt shy about using death for storylines and he could just pretend that the raw 3 hour tribute never happend (they preted Bobby Lashly was the first to brake the Maserlock it was Cena and he put Masters in a Master lock} . ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 21:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This comment applies to any of the "Is the 'McMahon is dead' angle" still on - unless we can get verifiable word (from a reliable source) that the angle has been dropped, I don't know (or see) how Wikipedia could state that the angle was ended. Perhaps this has already been covered by McMahon's (real-life) appearance on the June 25, 2007 RAW (the Chris Benoit Tribute episode). [[Briguy52748 20:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  McMahon Death Angle ''not'' over 

message: Paul Heyman was not fired as GM of Smackdown.  He quit after being drafted to Raw in the 2004 draft.  24.89.69.22 21:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firings 

message: due to the recent events unfolding in the benoit case the wwe seem to have ignored the fact that they held a memorial service to him and are seemingly continuing the mc mahon death storyline. Information on this can be found on the wwe official website on the preview section of the smackdown! page.(near the final paragraph)--81.152.114.229 02:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you heard absolutely nothing on either ECW or Smackdown about Chris Benoit or Mr. McMahon. I'd say it's safe to say that it's over. 63.215.27.139 20:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see smackdown yet (TiVoed) but I'm pretty sure the storyline is over. I read rumors from somewhere (I know, not the best source of information) that they were going to, for the forseeable future, have the murderer be Linda McMahon but then bring in Stone Cold as the ringleader. Actually, now that I typed that, I realize that The Ringleader was a previous persona of Steve Austin... Anyway, I think the storyline is dead seeing as Vince was in the center of the ring this week. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be fun to make him dead again, seeing as the WWE is going to do everything it can to avoid talking about Benoit ever again. Just pretend that it was actually someone in a McMahon mask that came out last week. Weirder things have happened in wrestling and, anyway, nobody believed he was dead in the first place anyway except for gullible marks. Valley2city 06:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly OT but his old name was actually the Ring Master.  --67.68.155.222 00:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vince still dead 

message: Perhaps a new free-use photo should be used to replace the existing one. I make this suggestion because of Vince's new hair-style since WrestleMania 23. There is the existing ECW champion photo that could be used, but, perhaps someone has a more "universal" free-use photo? Unless of course, you don't believe that a new photo should be instituted. Please, post what you think. Kyle C Haight 12:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if there's a free use image of what your trying to request then its fine!!! But, the original image will just have to do!!!! --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: OMG so many exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *lol* - anyway, if you can find a good quality free use image, than we would be more than happy to replace the current one with a more modern picture of VKM. Cheers, The Hybrid 02:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photo 

message: In that Forbes article it stated he was 55. I think it was source 13 or 14 that said it.
Tyeman64 03:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Age? 

message: According to What would have been the outcome of the McMahon death angle?, "Dave Meltzer is reporting that the conclusion of the McMahon death angle would have saw Vince McMahon returning to television to reveal that he faked his death. Believe it or not, last week’s Raw would have featured a false arrest of Linda McMahon." So, McMahon would be revealed NOT to be dead and Linda would have been arrested, although, they might still have that happen on the June 2nd edition of RAW. 24.7.217.221 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: June 2nd? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:39, 03 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the "Vince Is Dead" angle... 

message: There is no mention of whether or not Vince attended college.  I remember a "shoot" interview between Vince and JBL in '05 where Vince mentioned that he went to East Carolina University (JBL asked which Ivy League school he attended, and was dissapointed with Vince's answer).  I checked the notable alumni wiki page for East Carolina and Vince wasn't mentioned.  Does anyone know if this is Kayfabe? THX-1138 18:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: :Image:Vincemcmahontrial.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Vincemcmahontrial.jpg

message: An edit saying that Vince McMahon is no longer refered to as Mr. McMahon on camera was deleted as non notable, but, I wonder if it is so non notable.  A lot of talk around here and elsewhere (including a statement to shareholders) was pretty clear in the difference between Vince McMahon the person and Mr. McMahon the character.  So, if the character Mr. McMahon is finished, that might be notable. XinJeisan 04:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vince McMahon vs. Mr. McMahon