Talk:Randy Orton

Picture

Don't you think the champion picture should be up their instead of the current one? He is currently champion. NimiTize 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, we already had a discussion about this. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

how bout this picture this is the link ----- http://www.flickr.com/photos/snerkie/1990254197/

This is not good

Whats wrong with you people? if I wanted more infomation about Randy Orton in 2007/8 i would go to a middle aged whale! Its wrong. ITS WROOOOONG! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.62.188 (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

read the above section called "Update the page". ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

2008

Is the 2008 section worthy of being there yet? There is one sentence after it had been fixed, and with no sources added, it doesn't really add much to the article. --Blazzeee (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I think so. Looking back up the page the consensus seems to be that his victory over Hardy isn't notable anyway, so I'm going to remove it. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 02:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's say that if he loses the title at WrestleMania, we can add something with Orton having successful title defenses against Chris Jericho and Jeff Hardy. Again, I'm just assuming. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pre-GA review

I'm a bit behind on these reviews, but I'm trying to get through them anyway. I'll do a section or two at a time, as I'm fairly busy these days. Overall, the article seems good and is well-referenced. A few things that stand out:

1. Reference 111 doesn't work.

   Removed since no url was provided. –LAX 10:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

2. In the "Wrestling training" section, references for his trainers would help. Currently, only one has a reference (Danny Davis, although it is not clear which of many Danny Davises this is), and the reference is from blogger.com, which doesn't seem like a reliable source.

   --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

3. In the second paragraph of the "2004-2005" section, is a reference available for Orton gaining heat?

   Nope, the info. has been removed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

4. In the third paragraph of that section, a reference is needed for Graham's quotation.

   --GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

5. Later in that paragraph, "whimper" could be seen as point of view.

   --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

6. Later in that paragraph, it isn't clear who "his father" refers to. Saying "Bob Orton, Jr." might help.

   --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

7. In the next paragraph, "ceremonious" seems like an odd choice of words.

   --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

8. Later in that paragraph, "his father" is used again in a sentence that discusses both Orton and The Undertaker.

   Do you want it to say "Cowboy Bob Orton"? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

9. Later in that paragraph, "classic" seems like point of view, but it might mean something that I'm missing. "Annual", perhaps?

   --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

10. Later in that paragraph, "sole survivor" might be unclear for some readers.

    I think I got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

11. Later in that paragraph, there is a bizarre sentence: "The event also marked the return of the Undertaker, whom had been absent because of a storyline where Orton had killed him on an episode of SmackDown!." It acknowledges that this is a storyline, but non-wrestling fans might be very confused. Did the storyline also see The Undertaker come back to life, or was he not really dead, or did he just return while dead?

    Again, I think I got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

12. In the second paragraph of the "2006-2007" section, the reference for Orton spending four weeks in anger management classes does not mention anger management classes.

    --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

13. In the third paragraph of that section, "Following the sabotage of Edge's title opportunities by the newly-reformed D-Generation X" seems like a strange sentence. This is the first mention of Edge, so we know nothing about what this "sabotage" is. "Sabotage" could also be considered point of view, although it might work if there was an explanation of what happened.

    I think I covered it. –LAX 10:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

14. Later in that paragraph, "the dominant tag team" is unclear and point of view.

    –LAX 10:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

15. Later in that paragraph, why was Orton reluctant to team with Edge?

    Simply removed "reluctant." –LAX 10:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

16. In the following paragraph, were Michaels' injuries at Judgment Day legitimate?

    I think I got it. –LAX 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

17. In the fifth paragraph of the "2006-2007" section, it says, "enacted his rematch clause". What rematch clause?

    –LAX 00:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

18. Are sources available for the first few sentences in the "2008" subsection?

    –LAX 00:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

19. The first sentence of the "Controversy" section is long and should probably be split up.
20. Also in the "Controversy" section, is a source available for Jindrak defending Orton?

    Couldn't find one. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

21. In the personal life section, "his upper back finishing his shoulders" sounds awkward. I'm not really sure what is being said.

    I think I got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

22. Also in that section, "the brig" sounds colloquial. Could it be replaced with "military prison" or something (I'm not sure what the proper term is)?

    --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

23. There appears to be a formatting problem with reference 82. Nikki311 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's all that I can find. One thing that I would recommend is waiting a little while longer before nominating it because of the post-WrestleMania additions that people are making. I hope this helps, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I see my suggestion has not only been ignored, but the article was nominated before these issues were addressed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The article hasn't been nominated. It's on the waiting list, but hasn't been nominated. Nikki311 00:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It was nominated, but it has been removed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Hopefully nobody will renominate until GCF's comments are addressed. Nikki311 00:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that the week was up and I saw the pre-GA review and I removed the nomination. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything seems to be resolved now. The IP edits don't seem to be as big a problem as I thought they would be. I think the article is ready to be nominated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I nominate it now? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Every comment was addressed and GCF seems to agree. I say go ahead. Nikki311 23:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, cause I don't want to give Nikki a heart attack, from what happened with the Triple H situation. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass

I fixed the only problem I saw ... the middle graf of the intro did not cite his OVW career, which might not have been a problem for me except for the fact that the other grafs in the intro cite their sources. So I just took the source from further down and put it there.

Very good work, comprehensive and well-written, sourced meticulously, using free images. My suggestions for improvement should an FA drive be mounted would be to try to get some images (free, of course) of him outside the ring, in the middle of a match, and maybe historic (His official USMC portrait is PD if someone could get it). There are an awful lot of pictures of him standing, shirtless. It needs a little variety. Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try look for some free-use images and add them to the article. Thanks again for reviewing the article, I really appreciate it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

please update end 2008

in the aretical, there is no history between him and chris jericho. can someone can aad that? 41.243.0.77 (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That feud didn't add anything to his career, so its not in the article. Not every feud that he has can be noted, or the article would be way too long and just unmanageable. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale Nici is laughable. The Orton vs. Jericho build to Armageddon 2007 was featured heavily on television and was portrayed as a high profile match and needs to be noted to keep the page accurate and respectable. I covered the storyline in an edition of The Torch since it held importance. Also missing is his most recent PPV headliner against Triple H at Judgment Day 2008. That too is notable since it was his return match and since it closed the show it is worth noting. Please do not continue to be lazy with your contributions. It gives actual fans a bad name. WadeKeller2012 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree, I think my rationale is correct. Please explain to me exactly what both of those events did of his career? By the way, just because you or anybody else covered something in "The Torch" does not mean that it is notable to their overall career, or is going to be mentioned in the article. Also, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK, and please do not call be lazy again. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A Pay-Per-View Main Event against Triple H, of which it's part of an ongoing feud that re-started in March isn't notable? What is it with you "smart" fans that makes you make such poor judgment. Leaving out the two items I previously mentioned makes the article inaccurate and results in poor quality. Just because you as a common fan may not care about the events does not mean you have the right to exclude it. You only make yourself look bad in the process. As someone who works within the industry it is important to include the noteworthy events. These were not throw away Raw bouts that went nowhere. But since you have it in your head that you know more sitting on your couch than people who actually contribute to the men and women of professional wrestling, you do as you please. Your decision is a highly poor one. WadeKeller2012 (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think his feud with Jericho should be added because it added more "flair" to his "Legend Killer" gimmick. (Gregsalazar818 (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

But the feud was cut short. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't mean to burst your bubble, but Chris Jericho isn't really a legend. I mean, come on. The guy might have defeated Stone Cold and Duane Johnson in the same night, and it is a great feat. The fact that WWE lacks in the talent pool is proof of the fact that they have to bring back a washed up guy like Jericho back. He never really did much and being the first Undisputed Champion is his only claim to fame. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Jericho, but he needs more credibility. But, then again, WWE has inducted some other questionable honors into the Hall of Fame (this is my opinion). All in all, Orton's feud with Jericho isn't really notable. It was for a few weeks and he beat the guy and he shut his trap afterwards. The Orton/Cena feud has more credibility of being noted, as Orton has Cena's belt (I call it that not because Cena was stripped of the belt (even though it was about damn time someone else held the title), but because the belt is stupid. I mean, come on, a "spinner" belt? That's a bunch of bunk! They should've changed the belt design by now...sorry, I'm getting into my personal opinion.) Well, there's my thoughts on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.179.34 (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed this, I haven't signed my posts. I can't remember my old user ID, nor my password, so I'll have to create a new one. Just to address that issue for those of you who get butt hurt because one doesn't sign their post.  ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.179.34 (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes i can see your viewpoint. Yet Even mentioning It should be important because at the time, Orotn had nobody to beat, as Orton proclaimed. So it should get some mention Gregsalazar818 (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, its noted that he won the championship at No Mercy, only to lose it, but win it one more time. The other feuds are only known as "title defenses", therefore not adding notability to the article, as the feuds were very short. But, his loss last night, adds the fact that he's no longer champion. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXIV victory

I discussed this on the WrestleMania page, but should it be noted that, other than Triple H, Orton is the only other heel to walk out of the title match at WrestleMania with the WWE Championship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.179.34 (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That information is mostly considered Trivia and its not allowed on articles; see WP:Trivia. Zenlax ^{T C S} 18:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a grey area because besides Orton and HHH wouldn't you also have to consider Yokozuna? Yokozuna defeated Bret Hart at Wrestlemania IX to win the WWE championship, Even though Hulk Hogan closed the show as champ it would still be a heel Championship win at Wrestlemania. Also, you may need to include Stonecold Steve Austin. Steve Austin was a heel when he won the WWE championship at Wrestlemania 17 to close the show, as his heel turn actually occurred during the match. So it's really not anything historical or notable.

I see your point. But, as you said, Yoko did NOT walk out with the title (guess I should've said the event instead of match) in his hand, and, Stone Cold, at that point, was gaining momentum as a face. The Submission Match featuring Stone Cold and Bret Hart was, actually, the turning point for Stone Cold's face turn, not the match with Shawn Michaels. I do see your point, though, for not looking at it as notable, but if you look at it, Triple H and Randy Orton are the only two to walk out of WrestleMania with World gold.

I would like to add that his tattoo information would also qualify as trivia. There are a whole bunch of random bits of information on wikipedia that are trivia, but aren't, but this is my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.179.34 (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I would still count Steve Austin defeating The Rock at wrestlemania 17 as a heel ending the show as champion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.220.220 (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but when you consider the fans cheering Stone Cold on as he beat The Rock to a pulp with a steel chair, he was more along the lines of a tweener if anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.179.34 (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how this conversation is helping or discussing the article at hand, i.e. Randy Orton. Besides it was earlier noted by Zenlax, that even if Orton was the first heel to retain a world championship at WrestleMania, it wouldn't be noted because it's trivia. Also, wikipedia is not a forum, if you wish to continue this conversation, perhaps take it to a real forum? Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 22:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to ask why trivia isn't allowed on this article. I find no reason there can not be a trivia section. who makes that call? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.220.220 (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:Trivia. Zenlax ^{T C S} 18:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, I'm going to go remove the info on his tattoos. How does it add to the page? Thats trivia, so therfore, not allowed. Killswitch Engage (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If deleting that sort of information, why not remove the fact that John Cena is a Boston Red Sox fan. The topic was the notability of Orton being the second heel to walk out of WrestleMania as champion, therefore not noted and not reliable. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry for trying to improve this page an take out trivia, which according to that policy, is not permitted. Won't happen again, I'll just leave vandalism next time I see it.Killswitch Engage (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, don't be sarcastic, he was trying to make a point. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, I'll be sarcastic if I feel like it, especially when I get attacked for trying to improve the page. Killswitch Engage (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, what exactly did you improve? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed usless trivia. And please, make your signature a little smaller as far as the coding goes, it takes up a rediculous amount of space, and makes it hard to find where to start typing. Killswitch Engage (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's how the article passed GA for you removing the tattoo info. and don't come after my signature because you can't find where I indented at. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I improved the article, I never claimed that it made the page GA. I'll go after your sognature, because of the amount of room on the edit page that it takes up. You call me rude and sarcastic? Pot, kettle, black. Killswitch Engage (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you criticizing the fact that I comment on the talkpage discussions? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

House show pic?

What's the point of that pic? It does nothing for the article. The pictures of him with titles are relevant as are him preforming the RKO and posing. Would anyone object moving the house show pic to the infobox and deleting the current infobox pic? The current infobox pic is quite dark. The house show pic has better lighting. I really see no reason to have it in the article otherwise and the infobox pic is sort of bad IMO. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree; the house show pic should be in the infobox. –LAX 19:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound "gay" in any sort of way, but the current image does show Orton the best, as oppose to the house show image. Again, I don't want my comments to be taken out of context. Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Orton looks more muscular in the house show pic... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

He does look different in the house show image. Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Again with this? Just leave the image alone. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The song is actually called "They Talk To Me" and was written and performed by the WWE's own Jim Johnston. It's in-house, so you won't find much info about it anywhere. The GothKat Gothkat (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

New Theme?

Randy Orton's new theme song is "Voices" by Rev Theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheepdaaa (talk • contribs) 14:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you people sure that this is the name of the song and band? I searched both on iTunes and the song doesnt exist by the band Rev Theory.Jonathanmbarnes (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)JMB

Haven't seen the whole show, but watching the Cena/Orton match on WWE.com, after he got the pin, the song that played wasn't Burn in my Light, if anyone knows it, should it be added, or given a chance to see if it is used again? ---Вlazzeee 06:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

it should be added even if played for one night its Killswitch Engage - Fixation on the Darkness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.62.217 (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's The Ripper by Chinchilla. --Gtadood (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed the same debate is taking place across other websites, such as Yahoo Answers, where I attempted to find what it was, however, it seems as though there hasn't been a general consensus yet. However, I agree that I don't think it was Fixation on the Darkness, it's already being used by CM Punk, and it didn't sound like it; I don't think it should be added until it is certain. ---Вlazzeee 15:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the previous comment, it wasn't being used for Punk as I've just realised, the latter can be discarded. It has also been added as Fixation on the Darkness now, I should have looked at the page first. ---Вlazzeee 15:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Its Neither You Idiots Its A New Song No One Knows Yet I Have Heard Both And They Are Not His New Song--RKOFAN4LIFE

No personal attacks please. However, I do agree that an agreement needs to be made, and this is why at the start I said that it should wait until it is certain. ---Вlazzeee 17:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We should definately remove the fixation on the darkness note until we know what the theme music, because it certainly is not that song. I can see why people thought it was The Ripper, but its not. I think its possible the song is completely new, so we should remove the note until we are given a good, citable source.--76.104.252.229 (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to log in.--ProtoWolf (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't add anything until we recieve confirmation of the title. And CM Punk isn't using Fixation, he's using This Fire (This Fire Burns) by Killswitch Engage.Killswitch Engage (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If that was directed at me, about Punk I realised my mistake shortly after and corrected it :). Glad that there is an agreement though, I brought it up as I anticipated wrong information being added, or a possible edit war for no reason. -Вlazzeee 18:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh ya, no prob, just thought I would point it out. I havn't heard the song yet, I'm hoping when I get a chance, I may be able to identify it. Killswitch Engage (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I vote we don't add it until we get the name of the song and the band who did it. Steveweiser (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's "Voices" by Rev Theory Slydogman920 (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What should we accept as official confirmation? WWE.com? An interview somewhere? Steveweiser (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If it does become his theme, if he continues to use it, it should be found on a future WWE CD, however, that's a not a suggestion that it needs to wait that long, just saying that is an official confirmation. However, it generally seems as though people believe it is "Voices" by Rev Theory ---Вlazzeee 15:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone told me that WWE Mobile said it was "Voices" by Rev Theory. Phoenixmuffin (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems firmly established that it is "Voices", with many music videos showing it, and his entrance on Youtube -- however, I don't think that it is notable until it is used more than once, or became his entrance theme permenantly. Although it wil be added if it is used just once, I don't think it should be added as of yet. ---Вlazzeee 21:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If he used it once, how can we say that's his official theme song? If he uses is at Judgment Day and the upcoming weeks, then yeah, I'd be fine to add. But, until now, its notable. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Whats the problem with all of you? Why dont we just add it? Imagine the following - Guy watches Raw on monday. orton comes in with his theme, guy thinks 'hmm, i like that song'. what could be his first place to look for the songs name? right, wikipedia. we can easily delete it, when he doesn't use it anymore. a new entrance theme IS notable. Diivoo (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with you? Don't you read? Speed CG ^Talk 16:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any problem with leaving it as it is at the moment, as it has only been used the once, that doesn't mean that it will become his entrance theme full time, it could be used to promote Rev Theory for a few weeks, it's unsure at the moment. That being said, a note will be left at some time regardless, as has the "This Fire Burns" under the music; there isn't a rush to add it. Diivoo, that's (partially) why we don't "just add it" yet -Вlazzeee 16:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I just think it is wrong, to keep people in the dark. sure, you know what the song is called. the guys who read the discussion know what the song is called. But why is it ok, to add "This fire burns", which was also used for just a week, but its not ok to add "Voices", which has also been used for one week now? Just because the other one is now used by CM Punk? I think THAT is really not notable. Diivoo (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the point is that we are unsure of the fate of it at the moment -- it may be used for just one week, however, if not, it won't be added as such. Remember, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball we don't know what is going to happen, there is little harm in leaving it a week or two, it's still future whether or not it will become his full time theme. -Вlazzeee 18:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I do want to ask, why would Wikipedia be the first main source for information of that sort? My first guess would be WWE.com, not Wikipedia. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Now we are sure his theme is "Voices" by Rev Theory, what does the note -- When he debuted the full 'Age of Orton'-- mean? Wasn't/isn't the 'Age of Orton' over since he lost the WWE Championship, and the song debuted after he lost it to HHH? Or is it just to signify the newest stage of his clear, different to the 'Legend Killer'? -Вlazzeee 11:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Will this do as a source? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geWIMcwr-SY Lemon Demon (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Youtube is not a reliable source. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 11:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, cause we all know that people edit WWE footage before they post it. Sorry dude, but thems the rules, no matter how crappy they are. Killswitch Engage (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point well made. I needed a bash over the head for that one. Unfortunately, however plausible that stuff is (w/ JR's commentary etc. fitting with the motion), some clever dick coulda edited it. Thanks a lot. Lemon Demon (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Double R DDT

He is using this DDT since Wresltemania XXIV. He then did a double Double R DDT. The feet are still on the bottom rope and his opponent is in a front facelock. He then does a DDT. He is the only one who uses it. So I guess it's a signature move.Zaheer12a (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you mean a **Rope-hung spike DDT? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is the Double R DDT. On One Night Stand Jim Ross called this DDT a Double R DDT wh nOrton did it on HHH. This is the same as lionsault and moonsault. If Jericho does it it's a lionsault otherwise it's a moonsault.Zaheer12a (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the DDT to Double R DDT but I don't understand why it's changed back. It;s called the Double R DDT. Watch One Night Stand again! When he does this DDT it's called the Double R DDT and not the Rope Hung Spike DDT. Zaheer12a (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavyn Sykes (talk • contribs)

Randy Orton is Out

Randy Orton is out because of his shoulder's are injuried. Randy Orton will be gone for a while and he will return in September 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.177.96 (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, seriously, please stop adding false information. Randy Orton is out with a broken clavicle (also known as the collarbone). His time of recovery is based on his body's ability to heal and upon his will to be rehabilitated enough to rejoin the active roster. For example, observe John Cena who was supposed to be out for well over a year. Truthfully, in accordance with his injury and the time estimated for recovery (one year or more), he shouldn't have returned till this month, yet we saw him return at the Royal Rumble. Stating that he will return in September 2008 when there hasn't even been an announcement as to the current state of his injury or when he will return is in itself false and shouldn't even be stated. Once more, please cease to add these false statements. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess technically i may have been right when he was injured with his match of Steven Regal back in april. May not have fully healed, and then the area where he injured his collar bone got hit/slammed/hurt again and now it is broken. It's odd that someone deleted my discussion and not citing my other site wasn't enough proof for the above of his injury in his match with Regal. Whoever deleted it, probably wasn't watching it on TV and didn't bother to atleast say "oh thats not enough proof". I only think if your not watching it on TV, then why the heck are you on the article, ya know? [[majinsnake|majinsnake]11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you do need a source for that claim, that he got "injured" in April. But, adding Raw as a source doesn't make it reliable, since they all seem to be hurt and stuff. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Randy Orton's Return

Randy Orton is supposed to return on August 31 on the Raw/Smackdown supershow.--75.65.177.96 (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)