Talk:Brock Lesnar

brock

People please have peace around here. Let this man have his history correct not by your thoughts.

why does someone keep putting lesnar on vikings? he isnt there any more its better with the obsessedwithwrestling profile where it shows his whole carrer and why is the shooting star press is not his signature move he doesnt use it at all he has just done it

He is current listed as 6´3 and 295 pounds in japan

actually brock is like 6 ft 4 not 6 ft 2, and 300 lbs not 285 ive seen him u havent.----

You have no idea who I've seen in person. For the record, he is 6'2" and 285 lbs. These are stats from his football tryouts with the Vikings. The WWE stats are worthless. He's not 6'4"!

i noticed under un-active, it stated Lesnar was appearing onto the WWE on June 2nd.. but then went away the next day.. anyone know what that is about? -Cos

iono. hey does anybody wanna make note of the incident on Smackdown! where Lesnar superplexed Big Show causing the ring to collapse? user:slapslapslap

Looking at this pic, if Brock was really 6 ft 4 in then The Rock should be 6 ft 7 in. [obsessedwithwrestling.com/pictures/04/rockbrock1.jpg] (Halbared 16:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)) That thing aboot the discussion pages in my edit in the main page was a mistake, please ignore.(Halbared 16:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

arrrrghhh god are u on drugs? since when has "rock" been bigger than brock? thats bullshit.ive seen the dude he's huge! so are u trying to say kurt angle is about 5 ft 6 or something? i dont think so. no one cares about his stats in his "burger flipping days", or his pizza boy delivering days. he's 6 ft 4 ok?

Look at the oic, Rock has 2-3 inches on him.(Halbared 08:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

Kurt Angle is 5'10", and Brock Lesnar is 6'2". If you actually believe Angle is 6'2" and Brock is 6'4" then it shows how gullible you are to believe WWE stats, who bills BOTH Kane and Big Show at 7'0", and Big Show clearly has 4" on him. I could make several more points, but someone with your limited capacity for common sense makes it impossible and a waste of time.

oh by the way if we're gonna, argue about this can u at least get a decent picture of brock,not from his burger flipping days or something,like the one already up. get one from 2003 or something.

fuck it you dont know anything about wrestling anyway,and youve never seen brock lesnar. kiss my arse.

oh and you're so hard you have to delete my comments because you cant take it. and you know im right.

Your comments wouldn't get deleted if they had something valuable to say instead of just wasting space with useless name calling. Here is a link to Lesnar's football stats: http://img411.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lesnarvikings6vk.jpg

Source for Brock's resigning with WWE for the ECW brand?

It has been listed tha Brock has signed with WWE to work the ECW brand as of the 14th July. I would like to see a source on this, as this news has not yet appeared on any of the major news related Wrestling sites. In addition, the date listed as his signing - 14th July - is an ambiguity as it was only made public that he had left New Japan on the 15th July, while still having one remaining match on his contract.

To the guy saying that "Batista couldn't move him in OVW in their matchups and neither could Big Show" -- you do realize that wrestling is scripted right? If they wanted to move him, they could move him (espcially the freaking Big Show). Nobody is immovable. That's just telling a story in the ring, has nothing to do with reality. 129.21.144.217 17:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Banned

Is he banned to come to the WWE until 2010, wrestle in th US until 2010, or wrestle period until 2010?

The detail of the deal he has made with the WWE is a secret. He seems to be intent on working for Pride or another shootfight organisation. I would guess that the reason TNA have not made a move or annouced they want him (and vice versa) is because he is not allowed to under terms of the agreement.(Halbared 22:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

well if brock is supposedly 6ft2 then so is goldberg!! and everybody else are midgets!! and btw I REALLY HAVE SEEN HIM AND HE IS WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A FUCKING DOUBT, 6 FT FUCKING 4!! he's a big bastard. and his ' american footaball stats dont mean jack. ill get some pics of him standing next to taker, and then tell me he isnt 6 ft 4. theres like a couple inches height difference.

Goldberg is 6'3". He is 1" taller than Lesnar. Here is a pic to prove it: http://nori.boo.jp/results/img/senseki_wm20b.jpg Also, he was listed at 6'3" in his football playing days. Again, here is proof: obsessedwithwrestling.com/pictures/f/football/goldberg.jpg Did it ever cross your mind that Lesnar wears lifts??? He is 6'2", end of story. Get over it!!!

the neverending story.

brock lesnar's 6 ft 4 end of. watch the match he has against hulk hogan,before summerslam 2002 and he's actually taller than him. and can tw*t face stop deleting my comments please.and whats that guy on about all the times he's seen brock next to batista? brocks only ever been next to batista once on tv.but batista definately isnt 6 ft 3. and brock isnt 6ft 2. try this. http://wrestlingzone.ru/shop/cd/cd23/hoganlesnar.jpg

[[1]]

Hogan is taller than Lesnar in that pic! Undertaker has about 5" on Lesnar in the second picture. That would make Undertaker 6'7" like I said above. Don't even tell me for a second you believe Hogan is 6'7" lol! He is about 6'3" to 6'4" right now. He has about an inch if not a little more on Lesnar. Look at the tops of their heads, Hogan is indeed taller.

For the last time, do NOT make insulting or profane remarks, because they WILL be edited. It's real simple. Debate the matter civily, and there will be no problems. I have never made profane remarks to anyone on here, and neither should you or anyone else.

I have looked at the Hogan/Lesnar pic. The top of Hogan's head looks to me to be 2 inches taller than Lesnar. Even though the picture might be deceiving because Lesnar's eyeline is above Hogans. Hogan has a huge forehead, while Brock has a tiny forehead. he reminds of of a goblin or someting similar.:o)(Halbared 08:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

5 INCHES OVER BROCK? wtf are you thick? he has about 2 or 3 at the most... .. an undertaker isnt 6 ft 7. u dont know what an inch is do u? and hulk hogan isnt 6 ft 3 thats a joke!!

[[2]]

watch now,one of you will probably say something like- oh look! undertaker is about 50 inches taller than brock in that pic!! when he isnt.

This is getting (or rather, has got) out of hand. I suggest that this matter be taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment to try and sort it out, as this discussion isn't helping the article or the users involved. The Halo (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Halo, don't worry about it. I am done proving myself right to this guy. I am content as long as the stats in the article stay the same, unless of course someone can prove and cite a RELIABLE source stating something different. Halbared, I don't know about you, but to me it looks like Undertaker is "50 inches taller than brock in that pic!!" LOL :)

If everyone's happy with that, then that's fine. BTW, I met Lesnar once, and while he did seem huge, his handshake wasn't nearly as strong as Chris Benoit's was! I mean, Benoit's felt like he really wanted to hurt you ;) The Halo (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

well no offence ,but im not content if the stats stay the same. i think they should just leave the wrestlers stats at the official stats they have,unless its someone obvious like kane,then fair enough. in the words of matt hardy I WILL NOT DIE!!

Well, if this discussion is going to keep going then, I shall say this. Firstly, The WWE has changed Kurt Angle's height more times than I can remember from anywahere between 5 10 to 6 2 whenever they feel like it, so WWE offical sats aren't always going to be reliable. Secondly, both Hulk Hogan, and even more so The Undertaker, are famous in wrestling circles for wearing lifts, so judging Lesnar's height by other wrestlers isn't going to prove anything. Thirdly, after doing a quick google search of Brock Lesnar + Height, I found that most sites had him as being 6 2, three of the sites being very crebible; The vikings stats page on Lesnar, theWrestling observer page, and IMDB (though IMDBpro has him at 6 3), and in an old issue of Power slam, it listed him as 6 2. Also, a google search of his height shows that 6 4 only gets 11,700 hits while 6 2 gets 13,000, and 6 3 gets 14,200.

In closing, this evidence suggests to me that Lesnar is in between 6 2 to 6 3, and as such, should be considred one of these heights (my personal leaning is toward 6 2, as I believe he wears lifts, just like all the other 'Giants' in wrestling). While I hope this sloves the issue, though I doubt it will, I certainly hope this evidence has been helpful. The Halo (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

hey halo where did u meet brock lesnar? and how tall was he when u saw him? and its unfair that the stats just get left at that, its stupid. since when did people start saying he was 6 ft 2? coz it definately wasnt untill after he left wwe.and that picture of him wearing the tanktop and tracky bottoms, he easily looks 6 ft 4 in that. he cant have lifts in his trainers.

How come you don't believe the Viking stats? I have collected Powerslam since it was SOW, and it was breaking kafaybe before other mags followed suit, it usually does try and get the most accurate stats (it has Sid Eudy at 6 ft 6 in).I'm not gonna go thru my 100+copies to look for Brock though!:oD(Halbared 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

I met Brock in Sheffield on one of the WWE's tours of England, and he was certainly much taller than I was (me being only 5 7). However, he was always sitting down, so I can't make an accurate judgement based on that meeting. It was quite a few years back now ;). Hmmm...trainers huh? I don't know enough about lifts to comment if he could squeeze a pair in his trainers, so i won't even go there. The only way that this is really ever, EVER, going to get resolved is if we track Brock down and measure him ourselves. Volunteers? The Halo (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

lol halo yeah lets go and track him down!! that would be solid!!! brock solid!!! but you gotta admit by the end of his wwe career, 2004 he had let himself go a bit, physically i mean. he's definately out of shape nowadays though, and he no way looks like he used to.he looked a bit flabby on his last match.but that was crud anyway. but i did have an old wwf mag,or raw mag or something ages ago before he was in wwe ,when he was in ovw and it said he was 6 ft 3 or 4. who knows.

Yeah, I think he lost interest at the end, and has gone down hill ever since then. The Halo (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

but he could've shrunk a bit??

Beats me. Steroids do stange things (that is of course, assuming that he was on them). Just look at One Night in China for an example ;) The Halo (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

er i think brock was definately on steroids.

Just wanted to protect myself from being sued, just in case brock's lawyers ever see this ;) The Halo (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

oops yes. i agree. good idea. lets hope he doesnt see this.

omg give this guys personal information a break he is 6´4 295 pounds thats how he is listed in his matches if you have seen him in japan then you see thats how he is listed and how he is listed currently is what matters.

Wiki protocol is to go off the best stats available, when a wrestler gets measured by legit organisation, this is used. In former American footballers situations, their football stats. In Lesnar's case, the last time he was legitimately measured in 2004, he was 6 ft 2 in.(Halbared 13:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC))

no way i think it should be left at 6 ft 4 and 295 pounds, if batista and everyone else have exaggerated stats because batista isnt 320 lbs or whatever they say, he's 300 at the most because he is no way bigger than brock.i hate the way they put stats THEY think are right on this website.and oh yeah how come brock doesnt have his own website? is it because he cant be bothered doing one. if brock was 6 ft 2,that would mean edge and loads of other people are 6 ft 2 ,when they obviously arent

The stats will keep getting reverted to the legit ones.(Halbared 16:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

yeah the legit ones you make up,or the actual official real ones they have in the first place? its silly, just leave it at 6,4 and 295 coz thats what he is...gods sake

I didn't make them up. He was measured by the NFL.(Halbared 22:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

yeah well he's not in the nfl any more so that means nothing. he wrestles now and it says he's 6'4 and 295 lbs. if everyone else are gonna get left at the official stats so is brock.

I can't understand why this article has attracted so many stupid people. 24.154.173.50 23:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

shut up mr no name!youre the idiot!

Oh, and...As far as his appalling behaviour in NJPW is concerned, Lesnar is a disgrace to wrestling and isn't worthy to polish Tanahashi's boots. Good day to all. --Voievod 00:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please cite your information for WWE being in talks with Lesnar over a return to ECW? I have not seen anything about that on PWInsider, The Torch, or the Observer. Provide a reputable source please.

hey voidid or whatever your gay name is,u dont know anything so shut the f*ck up! and who mentioned anything about brock coming back to wwe? ive got news for u,HE ISNT get over it!

Huh, wha ? The nobody is talking to me ? --Voievod 23:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

yeah your mum.

Even if he's isnt in the NFL no more, how would that change the fact he is still 6'2. Just because he left football doesnt mean he grew any. I dont see how that makes any sense at all. And when you did see Lesnar up to person, do you actualy measure him? Anyways.. Does anyone know if Brock has ever re-tried the Shooting Star Press after WMIXX (Being in the japan leauge)? And the fued between Holly and Brock, did that really break Holly's neck or was that part of the story to get Holly out of the ring for the time he did? I have the clip, cant really tell if he landed that unproperly since Holly's neck was tucked and seem to land more on his shoulders. I'll try cliping it on the net. - Cos

• The Vikings stats should be used. Professional wrestling statistics are frequently inflated, which is not as easy in regulated sports. McPhail 18:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

your ego is frequently inflated. :D

Brock's strength

Is this guy the strongest professional wrestler ever? I've been watching pro wrestling since the mid '80's, and I don't remember ever seeing a wrestler with as much burst strength as his. Dionyseus 01:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you'd ever really find a definitive answer to that question because everyone has their opinion. I don't really think he was the strongest however. Aside from the wrestlers with the bodybuilder-ish physiques like Scott Steiner, Lex Luger, the Ultimate Warrior, Billy Graham, and so on and so forth, Andre The Giant was massively strong during his prime despite not exercising, similarly is the Big Show. I've seen old footage of Vader working out as well, doing a powerlifting routine. He was tossing around some pretty heavy weight Wreslters like Ken Patera and Dino Bravo, however, set legitimate powerlifting records back in their day. Patera competed in several of the annual World's Strongest Man competitions. Having a bodybuilder like physique doesn't always entail being the physically strongest. Some of the physically strongest men I've ever seen have been powerlifters that look as if they're nothing more than extremely overweight slobs. Odin's Beard 01:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

batista could never move him in a lockup in ovw neither could big show in their matcher or goldberg at wrestlemania..

I think he is about at least top 10 (Wrestlingfan4life 03:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

I belive The Great Khali (despite how bad his wrestling skills are) could easily overpower Brock Lesnar in a test of strength.

Expect Brock Lesnar in TNA as Jason Reso's(Christian Cage) informant.

K-1 Hero's / Mixed Martial Arts

There are two contradicting statements in this particular section. Which is correct? JRHorse 23:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag is back in place. When did Brock officially join the K-1 promotion, April 28 or August 12? Who will he be training under, Pat Militech or Royce Gracie? JRHorse 00:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Good eye JRHorse, but in fact, both are correct. In MMA it's not uncommon to train multiple camps. MFC is a great fighting system, but knowing pure BJJ can be a great asset as well. I offer this, from http://www.presstelegram.com/sports/ci_4401008:

"Among the fighters who could be found at the Miletich camp with Hughes during his training for UFC 63 was MMA newcomer Brock Lesnar.

The former amateur wrestling champion/pro wrestler/NFL wannabe is going to try his hand at MMA and is scheduled to make his debut in 2007 with K-1/Hero's organization. Hughes offered this on the 6-foot-3, 295 pound Lesnar, who he has grappled with during a few training sessions: "He's a heck of an athlete. He's so strong, he's definitely got a future in the sport. He doesn't know much about technique, yet, but he's learning. He's definitely going to be a force."

Ironically, Lesnar announced he will be trained by MMA legend Royce Gracie, who Hughes beat at UFC 60 in May." p6 06:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It says he's going to fight for k-1 in Las Vegas this Feb. but I can't find any such event.

According to website, mmaweekly.com, in an article posted on March 23, 2007, it made official the event “Softbank presents DYNAMITE!! USA in association with ProElite,” a major pay-per-view event at the massive Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

Among four of the key fighters for the event include Lesnar, Gracie, , 7-foot-2-inch K-1 fighter Hong-Man Choi, and former NFL player Johnnie Morton.

The pay-per-view event will take place on June 2, 2007. It seems, the main event of the show will feature Brock Lesnar making his MMA debut against Hong-Man Choi."

In a recent interview, Lesnar contended that Gracie training him was a false rumor and he's never met him.

Hong Man Choi was not cleared to fight due to medical reasons. Brock's new opponent will be Min Soo Kim (http://www.sherdog.com/news/news.asp?n_id=7663) Asy7 22:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Lesnar, in his MMA debut, defeated Min Soo Kim at 1 minute, 9 seconds, in the first round of the event. (http://www.411mania.com/MMA/columns/55291/The-Day-After:-Brock-Lesnar/s-MMA-Debut.htm) Budash2 14:10, 3 June 2007

NFL

Whatever happened with him being in the NFL?

He was cut from the Vikings after a few preseason games and did not persue it any further. --70.48.174.110 00:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

OWW has him as 6'3" as well,

The page says he is a free agent in Madden 2005. I looked through the free agency and he wasn't there. Is there by any chance he could be TE #46. He is 6'3 256 pounds on the game and he's a rookie. Is that him?

Contract w/ WWE

I believe that Lesnar is a Great 6ft 4in Wrestler, but why can't he wrestle until 2010? He can't work for TNA, but he can wrestle in Japan that dosen't make a lot of sense. Can WWE stop Lesnar from making a living in the US, is that even legal?--AD Double J 02:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

He signed a contract, but if I remember right, they settled and now he's fighting next month in one of the MMA organizations. Don^MEGĂ|60645 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Vprotect

I escalated to full protection because we seem to be running into an endless supply of sockpuppets and/or edit warriors who refuse to speak to others calmly and constructively. Hopefully, this will be brief. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

edit

Can the last line of the trivia section be reworded:

currently it reads

"Lesnar was famous for lifting the Big Show in a superplex and when both wrestlers hit the ring after the superplex, it collapsed on impact."

can it be changed to

"Lesnar was involved in a famous SmackDown! moment when he lifted the 500lb Big Show over in a superplex which collapsed the ring on impact to the mat."

Thanxs -- Paulley 12:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the editprotect tag as the citation doesnt support the statement about collapsing the ring, it does support the superplex move. Suggest Lesnar was famous for successfully lifting the Big Show in a superplex in June 2003., though base on the cite this should be expanded into a para in the Main roster (2002-2004) section. Gnangarra 10:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the ring did collapse (clearly seen in the sources pictures) but it was a planned stunt and should really be merged into the career --- Paulley

Hey, the page said before that he was a free agent in Madden 06, but then it got deleted and they put '05 on there. I personally own Madden 06 for the original Xbox, and he was a free agent in the game, I even oicked him up and put him on my team. If the page gets unprotected again, i would like to request putting him in 06 back i the article. JSelby 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected

I can't work out what's going on here, so in the meantime I protected the article to stop the edit warring. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is truly a candidate for one of the lamest edit wars. -- Richard D. LeCour ^{(talk/contribs)} 20:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

lol your telling me, if he didnt annoy me the first few time back about a year ago i proberly wouldnt have bothered watching the page and he would have go away with it -- Paulley

Unprotect it we need to be able to edit the viable information

Russian Version

ru:Леснар, Брок

Kurt Angle

Are Brock Lesnar and Kurt Angle good friends or not?--989 RVD 05:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This site isnt a forum --- Paulley

Edit Requests

in the K-1 Hero's / Mixed Martial Arts (2006-present) section can we change the sentence about his first fight being in February 2007 so that it reads "Brock Lesnar announced on August 12, 2006 in Las Vegas that he has joined the K-1 promotion. His first fight will be on June 2, 2007 against Choi Hong-man of Korea.

Thanks. Bmg916^{Speak to Me}_{Leave Your Mark} 18:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Completed SGGH 19:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do feel free to request further edits via WP:RFPP. Protecting the page is of course an inconvenience for you, but there's no need to keep the page not edited by you. :-) --Deskana (ya rly) 00:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

brock lesnar isnt 6 ft 2 ffs,if ur gonna be bitchy about his stats ,then u should change everyone else's wwe stats shouldnt u.

Can we please mention that after he lost the WWE title to Big Show in 2002, he was responsible for costing Big Show that title in his match with Kurt Angle at Armageddon 2002 by interfering in the match and delivering the F5. Angle would then turn heel the following night by aligning himself with Paul Heyman and the Big Show, having had Brock help him win the belt, thus setting up the WMXIX match.

Cheers, Mark

New Edit Request

The following sentence is located in the Trivia Section: "Lesnar broke The Rock's record of being the youngest WWE Champion at age 26 when he defeated him at Summerslam 2002 and became the youngest WWE Champion at age 25." Can you please change the link on SummerSlam to read SummerSlam 2002. Thanks. Nikki311 03:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Needs work

This article needs quite a lot of work, any chance of it being only semi protected so we can spruce it up? Kris Classic 02:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, it is still being targetted by a banned vandal. Semi-protecting it would allow that vandal to edit the article as he has a large number of abusive sockpuppet accounts. It may be best to create a new subpage and edit that, then when that's in a reasonable shape, move the changes wholesale into the main article. What do you think? --Yamla 03:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, is their anyway you could just ban the vandal by his IP? The changes that need to be made aren't too major, just adding more sources, and sectioning off the article some. Kris 17:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We have blocked his entire ISP but he just uses open proxies to continue creating abusive sockpuppets and continue editing. It's a major problem. Heck, not many vandals are bad enough to be banned but this one was. --Yamla 17:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to just allow this to a few particular users so it can be fixed up? If not, how long will this protection be up for? Kris 17:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no way to allow only certain editors. The protection is currently set to expire on 2007-08-01 but given that Verdict (talk · contribs) continues to try to get the page unprotected so he can continue violating his ban, there's a good chance it won't be unprotected then. It may be best to create a new subpage, copy the contents over there and edit that. --Yamla 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just passing by and I noticed the ridiculous tone of the section concerning his NFL career. For example "Lesnar played in the Minnesota Vikings, where he created controversy in some games by starting minor fights and got heat from the Kansas City Chiefs for a sack on quarterback Damon Huard, which drew a big response from the crowd of 6,000. Huard was knocked silly, and had to go to the sidelines and sit out a few plays. Giving hard hits to quarterbacks in scrimmages violates an unwritten understanding, and the Chiefs were not too happy with him." Hard hits, got heat, knocked silly, not too happy...these are unencyclopedic ways to describe certain actions. I hope that someone will edit them out when unprotection occurs.--Thomas.macmillan 15:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected request

I've been working on sourcing and cleaning out any fancruft from the article. I've finished with what I can do with this and hopefully would like to get this edit request up as soon as possible (to avoid any hassle from Verdict). The page is at Talk:Brock Lesnar/Temp (permanent link). If a consensus is needed, then feel free to comment. -- Oakster  Talk   15:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Oakster  Talk   16:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Message received on OTRS

Message received by the Wikimedia Foundation through OTRS: "Brock obviously cannot be only 6-2 if he is taller than Triple H who is u have as 6-4. When he stands next the big show or "Paul White" who you have as 7-1 he is half a head shorter not a full head. He has to be 6-5 or 6 or taller." David.Monniaux 06:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotta love exaggerated heights in professional wrestling vs actual heights in MMA listings and pro football. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Lesnar's win at K-1 Dynamite!! USA

Could you add Lesnar's win against Min Soo Kim (who replaced Hong-Man Choi) at K-1 Dynamite!! USA? -- Steveweiser 14:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It was a first round submission at 1:10, strikes to the head from a full mount position. I'd add it myself but I don't know the proper formatting. 14:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's completely locked. Why, I don't know. I'm sure if I scroll through this page, I'll find out, but if someone want's to save me the trouble and give me the bottom line, I'd appreciate it. Don^MEGĂ|60645 12:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

See the conversation directly below this one. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 12:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Page needs to be unprotected

No one can add new information regarding Lesnar including his recent K1 fight. Unlock this page.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It does not need to be unprotected. If it concerns you that much, make an edit request. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This page simply doesn't meet the criteria for being fully protected. Moreover it being protected is harming the article itself and preventing updates.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

When a page is constantly attacked by a community banned user whenever it is unprotected, it meets the criteria for being fully protected. And as I stated before, it is not hard to get the changes you need done, just make an edit request at WP:RfPP. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 02:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no evidence that user would come back and attack the page again. If they did then we simply re-protect it. However it's simply too troublesome to go through the process of asking for information to be added to it each time I think a change needs to be made.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence, such as evey time it was unprotected, multiple socks of his returned, that's why it was re-protected. I know it's a pain, but that's the way it's going to get done right now. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 02:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That was over two months ago. Things change. If it gets vandalized we revert it. If the vandalism becomes too much we then can re-protect it. However we can't indefinitely protect a page when there is no immediate danger to it. That's absurd.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Look in the edit history, it happened again last week, not just two months ago, that's why the page was re-protected, because this guys socks wouldn't stop coming. This is why the re-protection was necesarry and not absurd. There was immediate danger. If you still have such a huge issue with it, take it up with the blocking admin User:Yamla. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 02:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How was he able to make those edits if it was semi-protected? I looked at all of those accounts and it appears that it was the first and only edit they made meaning they would not of been able to edit it if it were semi-protected.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Verdict (talk · contribs) long ago learnt to set up sleeper accounts, wait until the five days (or however long) has expired, and then start editing with them. Semi-protection stopped working against this banned vandal months ago. --Yamla 03:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Why can't Wikipedia make it so in order to be "established users" you must not only have had your account for a week but also must have made let's say 20 non-vandalism edits? That would surely deter vandals like this.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not straight-forward. It may work better, for example, to require people to note 20 of your edits were specifically productive (that is, specific positive feedback rather than negative feedback). Citizendium is trying to solve this sort of problem. There are no easy answers but I agree that it is a huge problem. --Yamla 04:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't feel like going through the process of requesting an edit. Lesnar won his K-1 fight last night by submission in less than 2 minutes.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you let me know what paragraph to change and the exact new paragraph, I'm more than happy to make this change for you. --Yamla 13:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all changes his "Wins" to 1 and "By submission" to 1. Then change the paragraph about his k1 career to mention that he fought hong man and won.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't Hong-Man Choi, it was Min-Soo Kim. Choi was sidelined with a tumor on his pituitary gland. John cena123 05:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected this page. If there is any evidence that the banned vandal, Verdict (talk · contribs) (or one of his hundreds of sockpuppets) is back, I will immediately reprotect. --Yamla 14:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Turns out the very first edit was made by another Verdict (talk · contribs) sock. This page is likely to be reprotected almost immediately as a result. --Yamla 16:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The page has been reprotected due to continued targeting by banned vandal, Verdict (talk · contribs), and continued copyright violations. Looks like the necessary changes were incorporated. I'll note that we were unable to leave this page unprotected for even one hour. --Yamla 16:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Which ones were the vandal again? The first edit after unprotection was an IP edit and wasn't a clear vandalism.[[3]] The next edit was done by Yamla who reverted the IP edits, and didn't explain the revert BTW. The other IP edit also wasn't clear vandalism but somewhat of a rewrite [[4]] and was reverted again by Yamla without explanation.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

These edits introduced copyrighted text from other sources, exactly in the same manner as Verdict (talk · contribs) often does (in fact, the first edit was exactly the same as the recent edits that Verdict has made). At least one of the two addresses was an open proxy which fits what Verdict does. --Yamla 13:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted texts aren't the same thing as vandalism. Moreover you shouldn't jump to the gun and assume that it's automatically a sockpuppet simply because of that.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Deliberately violating copyright is indeed a form of vandalism. And when you have caught a user copying text from a particular source over and over again and proven using checkuser that the only person doing that is Verdict (talk · contribs) then when you see a new IP address copying the exact same text from the same source, it is reasonable to conclude that this is the banned vandal, Verdict (talk · contribs). --Yamla 12:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No, You need to assume good faith. You can't automatically assume that it's the same person just because they copied the same material from the same place.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We did assume good faith the first few times this happened. Now that the vandalism has happened more than 150 times, we are no longer obligated to assume good faith. Remember, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying" (WP:AGF, WP:DUCK). --Yamla 14:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a way for a developer to implement an edit limit so you can reach "autoconfirmed" status more effectively (such as you must get so-and-so number of edits AND wait a certain number of days to reach "autoconfirmed" status). Anyone can wait out for 5 days (bypassing that status) and let sockpuppet sleeper accounts attack one or a group articles simultaneously (assuming they use OP). Can't we ask a developer right now whether we can add the "edit limit" feature so getting autoconfirmed status won't be easy?--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 06:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say we should. Though I believe it would take some sort of vote or something similar, I don't think changes can be made that quickly, there's a lot of bureaucratic obstacles we must jump through before we see any real changes in what constitutes a "confirmed editor".Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been looking at the 2nd IP edit made when it was unprotected and this edit doesn't contain copyrighted material nor does it go against any Wikipedia policy, It simply improved the formating and style of the page. See [[5]] to see what I mean. Though this edit was reverted by Yamla and the IP User:166.61.231.56 was banned (by Yamla) as suspected of being a sock puppet! I'm very confused as to why this IP was banned and why this IP's edits were reverted. Neither the edit summary nor the suspension of this IP provides any explanation, simply that it's "suspected" of being a sockpuppet of a previously banned user. Perhaps Yamla could explain. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That edit was made via an open proxy. Wikipedia does not allow editing via an open proxy. See WP:PROXY. --Yamla 14:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing via an open proxy doesn't mean that editor was the same vandal as before. Especially the 2nd IP edit who's edit wasn't vandalism at all.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have told you the reasons to believe the first editor was Verdict (talk · contribs) and why WP:AGF does not apply. As to the second address, that may or may not have been Verdict (it is much less clear), but still, we don't permit editing via open proxies so that edit was reverted and the open proxy was blocked. --Yamla 14:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case simply semi-protecting the page would make more sense since both edits were IP edits in the first place and couldn't edit if it were semi-protected. One person vandalizing the article every now and then doesn't justify full protection. Such edits can easily be reverted within minutes and the editor banned as a sockpuppet.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, semi-protection does absolutely nothing to stop Verdict (talk · contribs). Additionally, this is not "every now and then", this is vandalism within one hour of a page being unprotected. This has all been covered, please reread the discussion. --Yamla 13:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection stops IP edits. The edits that caused you to re-protect the page were IP edits. They wouldn't have even occurred if it was semi-protected. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As I have already explained, there are hundreds of examples of Verdict (talk · contribs) setting up accounts, waiting for the semi-protection period to pass, and then edit. He used an IP address this time because it is easier but I encourage you to take a look at the category that lists the 150 or so sockpuppets he has set up. Semi protection does absolutely nothing to stop Verdict (talk · contribs). I will not be responding any more unless you bring up something new in the discussion. --Yamla 14:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously though, semi-protection is becoming less effective in the past few months (especially with sleeper accounts). As I said before in the discussion, isn't there a way to enchance/upgrade semi-protection (like how much time you have to wait until you get "autoconfirmed" status and get a certain number of edits) so we can stop Verdict's socks. We should seriously contact a developer to upgrade semi-protection as more and more profolic vandals (one who use Open Proxy and create sleeper accounts) know how to bypass it and full protection harms the article itself (it is a hassle to repeatedly ask admins to ask for edits in a fully protected article).--PrestonH 22:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

PrestonH, I would support such measures. If you can find a way to do it, Please let me know.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, You can't use a single vandal sometimes vandalizing a page as justification for it's continued full protection. WP:PPOL makes it clear that you can't indefinitely protect a page due to preventative measures.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The page isn't being indefinitely protected, however, this one vandal doesn't "sometimes" vandalize the page. Whenever it is unprotected, he comes back with plenty of socks and vandalizes it dozens of times a day. This justifies full protection. It is not a preventative measure, it is a reaction to his socks blasting the page relentlessly whenever it is un-protected. Bmg916^Speak 12:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not indefinitely protected? How long is it protected for then? Is there a timelimit? 1 more week? 2 more weeks? It's definitely indefinitely protected as far as I can tell. If this person vandalizes the page then we revert it and ban the sockpuppet and the problem is fixed. As I noted before, Why isn't this person vandalizing the Dave Bautista article which is semi-protected? Hmm? His reason for being banned initially was vandalizing that article as well yet he hasn't been doing it. The best thing to do is to semi-protect the page and simply ban that person if he returns. You're preventing this article from being improved because not many people are willing to go through the process to request an edit just to make small changes every now and then.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing the same points over and over again and I am tired of beating a dead horse. He has not targeted the Dave Bautista article upon his return, that's why it hasn't been re-protected. And I'm sure there is a time limit, check the block log. And we've tried the "semi-protect and ban the socks if he returns" countless times, it didn't work, his socks kept coming in droves, that isn't a solution, it doesn't stop him, the problem is not fixed that way. I, like Yamla, will no longer be replying unless you bring up something new in the conversation. I would like to note however, I agree that we do need to raise the standards in order to become an established editor, and also that having this page protected is frustrating. However, for the time being, the only solution. Bmg916^Speak 14:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I continue to repeat my arguments because your replies are baseless and have been refuted. The problem is your reasons for this indefinite block are inadequate. Protecting when it was last protected wasn't justified either since there was no evidence either of the IP editors were vandals. The protection-log lists the expiration of the protection for SEPTEMBER!! Most likely Yamla will unprotect it again in about a month, see a random IP edit which isn't obvious vandalism, assume it's another sockpuppet of "verdict", Revert the edits and then re-protect it for even longer. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My replies are not baseless, and have not been refuted. The reasons for the block are not inadequate, as many administrators (since many at this point, are familiar with Verdict's sock farm) will tell you. There was clear cut evidence that the IP editors were Verdict, because he made the same exact changes to the letter, that Verdict has to this article in his last two sock bombardments of the article. While these edits may not be clear cut vandalism, they are made by a community banned user, and banned users are not permitted to edit the wiki, in any way, shape, or form. And yes, if we do unprotect it, and Verdict does come back (which it will be obvious if he does, because he makes the same exact edit to the article every time), it will be re-protected. Now please, Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, our arguing over this is not helping anything, nor will it get the page un-protected. Bmg916^Speak 15:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Provide evidence that both of the IP edits made since it's last unprotection were the "same exact" edits made by Verdict.

Secondly, As I've said before, the vandalism that has appeared when it has been unprotected in the past has been minuscule at most and could easily be reverted and the sockpuppet(if they are indeed puppets to begin with) banned. It's not hard to do. The potential harm to the article which might come from unprotecting it (which can be removed instantly) is far outweighed by the harm from a clearly indefinite protection without any valid justification.

Thirdly, You're right, We're getting nowhere. That's why I'm going to move forward with dispute resolution to get this article unprotected.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Catch Wrestling

Brock is not and has never been a catch wrestler. His amateur wrestling background is not a catch wrestling background. Catch should be removed from his profile.

Jobjobjob 16:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please put the editprotected tag immediately beside the request. You will need to provide a reliable source either describing Lesnar's wrestling style, or at least saying he isn't a catch wrestler, before anyone will change the article for you. For somoene who knows nothing about wrestling, there is no way to evaluate on our own whether or not he is a catch wrestler, so you need to have a reliable source on the subject to back up your request. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I did that at first but moved it up to the top, i thought it would be een better there, should there be a mini one made for beside the request and the big one up top.Ω§|Blacksmith2 04:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment concerning page protection

This is a dispute concerning the total protection of the page.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• The page was unprotected on the 7th of June and then re-protected the same day with the assertion that it was being vandalized. The purported vandalism were 2 edits made by anonymously IP's. The first edit here [[6]] seems to be copyrighted material from here [[7]] though itself not vandalism. The second edit was this one [[8]] which isn't vandalism at all and actually improved the article. Both edits were reverted and then the page was re-protected. I have discussed the page being unprotected with those who have kept it protected but no leeway was made. The protecting admin has since refused to comment on it further. At most this page should be semi-protected not fully protected. The user who vandalized that article initially which resulted in it's protection also vandalized Dave Bautista and Franklin Lashley however neither have been hit with frequent vandalism and both are semi-protected. It doesn't meet the criteria for full protection as outlined here WP:PROT, but possibly semi-protection. All pages get vandalized and if this page gets vandalized it should be easily reverted and the sockpuppets banned. However keeping it continually protected is actually harming the page itself because it prevents improvements. Keeping this page indefinitely protected is preventing this article from being improved because not many people are willing to go through the process to request an edit just to make small changes every now and then.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• While the edits from those IP's were not clear cut vandalism, they were obviously Verdict (talk · contribs) because he has made those same (copyright violating, and unsourced, I may add) changes with each sock bombardment each time we have tried un-protecting the page. Verdict is a community consensus based banned user, and whether his sock's new edits are useful or not, banned editors are not permitted to edit the wiki in any way, shape, or form. Bmg916^Speak 15:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Comments from outsiders concerning dispute go here.

My understanding as a fairly new user, is that there are forms of semi-protection that do not allow unregistered users or users with very new accounts to post. Why would one of those methods not be acceptable? If it is this banned user and his/her sockpuppets, they would be easy to revert/ban again it seems. The alternative is a form of protection that only certain editors (a listed group) could add to the article, but that would mean only a "cabal" of interested parties would be editing the biography. A bit off topic but, do any of the regulars here know why the editor in question feels that the material needs to be in the article?Rocksanddirt 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. As previously mentioned, this does absolutely nothing to stop Verdict (talk · contribs). I was spending a great deal of time every day reverting edits allowed by semi-protection. There are only two forms of protection, semi-protection (which does not work against Verdict) and full protection (which does). --Yamla 20:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. That's to bad. It seems very counter to wikipedia's intent. Rocksanddirt 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That won't be true for very long.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be unprotected, and moved on. It´s time for MMA fans to start editing now that Brock´s career is MMA. And Brock is not signed to HERO´s. He had a one fight deal with K-1. He is now a free agent. I could point out alot of other stuff, but No, it must be unprotected already and one single admin can decide the faith for it, it just dosen´t work that way, enough with all this now.--Wikikidboy 14:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)