Talk:Bret Hart

2006-2008

Stu Hart's Hall of Fame inductions

The article mentions controversy related to both inductions, but doesn't really give any details on how or why, just lists some names and what Bret said at one of the ceremonies to some guy. Curious to read more about it but it isn't fleshed out on Stu Harts or the WWE Hall of Fame page either.

Bloodstained Memoirs

It seems that a number of relentless, overbearing proponents for this obscure DVD are consistently trying to introduce anti-Hart material into the article. The citations provide links to juvenile, profanity-laced MySpace blogs featuring biased, derisive claims about Hart. These are clearly not valid citations. There are a select few editors who are determined to introduce this material, all of whom have a striking number of contributions to the article of this obscure DVD... I think I need not spell it out. Sidney West (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

All "Other Arena" citations are dead

A huge portion of this article is not supported. This mass of material is dubious and now viable for deletion by anyone at any time. Tablas666 (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Racial and homophobic remarks?

I don't think this should have it's own section because it was part of storyline. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to have it in the same section as his real-life feud with Ric Flair —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayfinkle1 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

THERE IS A MENTION ABOUT BRET HART BEING INDUCTED INTO THE GEORGE TRAGOS/LOU THEZ PROFESSIONAL HALL OF FAME IN WATERLOO IOWA--BRET HART WAS INDUCTED IN 2006 WHEN THE MUSEUM WAS STILL IN NEWTON IOWA--THE INCIDENT DESCRIBED IN WATERLOO HAPPENED IN 2008 AND IT WAS HIS FATHER STU HART WHO WAS INDUCTED NOT BRET!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.193.18.28 (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Bloodstained Memoirs

I see this has already been noted above. Proponents for this obscure, low-budget DVD have been trying for a long time to insert sensational material regarding a "strong conflict" between Hart and his management and the DVD's utterly unknown producer. Of course, Hart doesn't even know that the guy's been born. The "conflict" consists of the guy asking for Hart's involvement, Hart turning it down, and the the guy posting a load of juvenile myspace blogs deriding Hart. This should clearly be noted in article, as that's what the "conflict" consists of. Hart hasn't, and likely never will, acknowledge juvenile blogs from novice film producers. The fact he hasn't responded since this questionable material has been forcefully inserted (repeatedly by usernames and IP's which have an overwhelming number of edits to the Bloodstained Memoirs page) will remain noted in article. Brendan Heron (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take a break. There is no agenda, there is no conspiracy. There are simple editors trying to adhere to a neutral point of view and report the facts as linked on the references. So I suggest you calm down and stop vandalising this page, especially with threatening hidden warnings. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Best not to vandalise pages, then accuse other editors of doing so. If you have an agenda, that's your problem, not the world's. You're the one not adhering to WIki policy. "Strong conflicts" is a massive NPOV vio - you know this, as does everyone. The producer of an unknown DVD doesn't like Hart - big deal. Lots of people don't. Why should his myspace ranting be featuring on WIkipedia over anyone else's? Utter nonsense, and blatant bad faith editing from yourself. Brendan Heron (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite your sources please "Brendon", as far as I can see, you are mostly wrong. It is you who clearly has an agenda here and a desperatre need to change the context of the article. Google the incident. Bret Hart's official website covered the story at one point. The initial message was NOT on a MySpace as you are wrongly trying to say. You keep on saying "novice" with no reason, obviously trying to discredit things with no citing whatsoever. I've just checked the IP's, and you are lying again! Only a few editors have edited the Memoirs page, amongst other things. You state the producer is "utterly unknown", but where has he ever tried to make himself been known? Nobody has even named him in the article. Sounds to be like Brendon hold some very SOUR grapes (and how fitting from a Bret Hart camp) and is most probably Marcy Engelsin, the woman who got ripped apart for her incompetence in the article (and is known for posting a lot online in forums) which is trying to be swept under the rug, which is ridiculous because you are only drawing more attention to it. You have no right also to say the things you have been saying to Darren, who is another person brining an unbiased view to the table.

If this continues, I will be taking the matter to an admin who has no wrestling knowledge. I can gaurntee you that admin will thrown upon your editing on cited sources. I will also bring the entire bret Hart article into question, and question why it is written like a shrine from start to finish. An admin with no wrestling knowledge will dump on it in a second, lock it, and have it edited to paint a more balanced picture in fitting with Wiki guidelines. I will act on this today if needed. Commoncase (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: And take a look at how EVERY editor who has tried to remove the Memoirs section from the Hart article speaks and writes the same way, trying to hit the same points with no citing. Pay strong attention to my last paragraph above. Commoncase (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What makes it an obscure DVD exactly? Is it all those huge names which star in it, as well as all the news sites which pick up on it? Just curios. The fact it is listed on Wiki in the first place confirms it is notable, as obviosuly articles have to go through a full check. And I too am wondering why the vandal of the article keeps on ranting about a MySpace, when its clear the MySpace is a networking site, CC of what was put on an official website (not to mention Bret Hart's opwn website). Just take it to an admin and get the vandal suspended, then wait for "another" editor to come along and make identical vandal edits to serve a purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.77.107 (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking this to a senior mod right now. I warned people not to vandlise this portion, and it was ignored. Commoncase (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, it's a minor content dispute. I don't understand why you are so adament this be mentioned, but you keep adding downplayed wording. It doesn't even mention the producers' name or any specific comments. I figured it didn't add much to the article and didn't get a lot of google his (3100 + 2 google news, but both were non-RS wrestling sites). Considering that Hart himself - allegdly - hasn't even responded yet, how major can it be? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Scorpion, how the article is currently edited paints an unbiased picture. The producers did state Hart's camp was unprofessional. The article is in Wiki guidelines, it cites it sources and does not offer commentary on the fact. You are trying to remove the fact with your own commentary and opinions. It was also reported (and established) that Hart's official website reported on the incident. Whether Hart himself has ever publicly commented on this I don't know. Then again, had Gary Glitter ever commented on accusations of being a peadophile recently? Makes the accusations no less valid if they are founded and cited. I am not adament on this incident being mentioned, I am adament on it being taken down for invalid reasons. Wiki is not meant to be a fan shrine (something I have largely ignored about the Hart page, which I can flag at any second to be edited down by a senior mod who will no doubt clearly agree as its black and white). The fact is, this particular piece has been attempted to get taken down by various people FOR MONTHS all stating the same unfounded slurs, all using VERY similar language. I am sick to my back teeth of it. Commoncase (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't edited this page much, so I don't know why you are accusing me of making this page a "fan shrine", but I do agree that it needs some improving. The fact is that a lot of pages for big-name wrestlers are like that. Looking through the sources, you have WNW, WZ, WUO and WT, none of which are considered by WP:PW to be reliable sources. Notability is determined through reliable third-party sourcing, which it lacks, and the wording is biased against Hart (it accuses him of "grossly unprofessional behavior" without any information about what his behaviour was) and it just show's the producers' point of view and is very vague. If this was reported in, say, Slam! wrestling, which is just about the most useable wrestling news site, it would be different. As for your accusations of sockpuppetry, I encourage you to file a report. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, making this plain and simple for you. The article does not accuse Hart of anything. It stated an independednt entity accused Hart of something. That's what you need to understand. An accusation Hart's OFFICAL website mentioned, as well as the films offical website (which is not a MySpace as you are trying to claim). That's it in a nut shell, case closed. you have no right to take that information down. This has been made painfuly clear to you many times, ignoring this constitutes towards vandilism which can result in account suspension on a perm basis. Commoncase (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. It accuses him of "grossly unprofessional behavior" and that wouldn't be so bad if there was information about what his behaviour was. But there isn't, so it just represents the producers' opinion and not much else. Also, since you believe I am just a vandal, I encourage you to report me for vandalism. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I just find it funny that gong through the article history, one person has been trying to take this down for months using the same rude reasons which are A) false B) not cited anywhere. Brendon above is stupid enough to even reference an above posters complaint about Bloodstained Memoirs, however when you check that posters edit out (Sidney West) they both use the EXACT same language. EXACT SAME LANGUAGE. It is well known MARCY ENGELSTEIN (Bret Hart's manager) posts in internet forums all the time, so if I was a betting man, I'd say this is HER trying to take the article down. After all, it is HER who comes out of it looking terrible, after all. My advise would be stop worrying about how to cover up situations, and act with credability and honor in the first place to avoid bad situations. 92.11.240.228 (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, so are you accusing me, Brandon and Darren of being the same person? If so, I strongly encourage you to go to WP:SPI. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Look I made a revert because it was uncited, then I made a revert because one user pus a CAPS LOCK invisible warning. When I have reverted I have reverted to a version that was last used by Scorpion, the reason being that I know him (not personally but we have occasionally edited the same pages, and even exchanged words on occasions about things we agree and disagree over). SO if my edits look like Scorpion's then it is because I am reverting to the last version by him. I don't trust most edits made by IPs or users with less than 500 edits, so I will revert back to version by editors whom I recognise. On some occasions that edit may not be the "right" version, sometimes even editors I have known for the last three years can be wrong, but as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia then this is not a problem, as the version can be changed. However if one editor continually reverts while three or four editors are reverting back then that one editor needs to rethink their strategy. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems safe to say that Commoncase and all these random IP's which are desperate to introduce this sensational material, are either the "producer" of, or are heavily involved in this obscure DVD. Nobody could be this desperate to introduce sich pathetic material, which obviously attempts to deride Hart due to a personal vendetta and make the "producer" of this obscure DVD look like they are somebody. The fact that you know the name of Bret Hart's manager, and have an overwhelming number of contributions to the article of this obscure DVD merely serves to bolster my point... Brendan Heron (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does Brendan (Marcy) have a serious case of the taking things around in circles bug? She levels one obsurd claim, it gets responded to with facts which disproves said nonsense, yet she still claims it. Its all above folks, just read it. Her brilliant assumption that I am involved with this product is based around the fact I know her name. Ever stop to wonder that's because I have actualy read the article of which I am editing? You really couldn't make such stupidity up.

Nor could any unbiased entity call this product obscure. What makes it obscure? All those wrestlers that are in it (many of whom are bigger names than Hart) to star in, and help promote it? The fact that it has had national magazine and newspaper coverage? TNA have given it footage? Again, very clear what's going on here.

And again, I'm not so much bothered about the article going up, it just makes me sick to see the reasons its trying to get taken down. Stated many times, convineantly ignored also in order for Marcy to paint her argument to protect her client.

Now this has really pissed me off now. I will personaly see to it that the entire Bret Hart wiki article gets sorted out and I don't care how long it takes. From the stupidly long intro, to the many, many uneccasary writings within it. You have stabbed yourself in the foot here Marcy. Commoncase (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I love the display of intellegence you are giving this. Giving it so much attention that by default, its now going to show up in more and more Google searches. If I ever get a PR, I will be staying far, far away from you Marcy. Commoncase (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Marcy"? Premium idiocy. I am a 23 year old, male wrestling nerd from the UK. Run a check on my user and you'll see I'm with Tiscali UK. Perhaps I was wrong to assume that you are involved in the making of this obscure DVD, but you are certainly an ardent proponent for it, to the point of overwhelming bias. Give it a rest and accept the fact that the "strong conflict" is merely toddler-esque profane rambling from the producer of this painfully obscure DVD. Brendan Heron (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a bias, I just don't want the page looking any more like a biased shrine than it already does. As explained earlier, how the article was originaly was accurate. The film maker DID claim that of Bret and his manager. I'm not saying he was right or wrong. But its a FACT, he DID CLAIM it. That's the bottom line. Its all cited with reasoning - and NOT in a MySpace as people are trying to say in a desperate bid to discredit it. Now if you wanted to add "Hart did not respond" you are more than welcome to do that, as again, that is factual. But be prepared for somebody to point out that Hart's own website DID respond. Commoncase (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: And again with the whole "obscure" thing. it just discredits EVERYTHING you say as being a biased troll. Commoncase (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Say whatever you want. "Obscure" would be the correct term. Bret Hart's 2005 DVD package would be a popular DVD release, as would Michaels and Flair's DVD packages - this one is an obscure release. The fact remains that "strong personal conflict" is unfounded and a massive NPOV vio. Brendan Heron (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As it stands at this moment (as I write this) I think the paragraph accurately reflects the situation. Hart didn't want to take part (and has a rep for being awkward) and the producers made disparaging remarks (what those remarks were is not important, on this article). Brendan Heron has made 134 edits, and has been warned several times about his/her behaviour (which he/she seems to think is vandalism). Commoncase has made 196 edits although since February 2008 they seem to have done nothing but push Bloodstained Memoirs. Personally I don't care about Commoncase, I don't care about Brendan Heron and I don't care about Bloodstained Memoirs, what I care about is improving articles. Enough ink has been spilled on this with empty threats from both sides (although Brendan does well to accuse 1, 2, 3 editors with combined edits of 155,000 of vandalism), so for now I think both editors should take a step back and leave this article alone. As it stands that paragraph is as NPOV as it can get and the language is as moderate as could be expected. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Commoncase has made 196 edits although since February 2008 they seem to have done nothing but push Bloodstained Memoirs." I had hoped for impartial editing when I read this, but the current version of the article simply retains the smug bias that Commoncase was looking for, with his pro-Bloodstained Memoirs agenda. "Strong" remains a sickening NPOV violation - I see no grounds for argument. Whatever. I am a lone ranger battling for an impartial view against a sea of proponents for this painfully obscure DVD, it would seem. Brendan Heron (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As a lone ranger Brendan I suggest you read this. Because lone rangers end up being blocked for violating 3RR. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The exact same "usual" edits trying to blah blah on about a MySpace page (unfactual) and "Profane" (subjective) were made from another lone IP. Surely this must be embarrasing for all concernd in the hart camp? People aren't stupid, they can see what is going on. The issue is dead, get over it you bitter, bitter people. Commoncase (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Get over it", excuse me but who is responding to an eight week old post? The matter was resolved long ago. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Im afraid that "profane" is 100% supported. Challenging it has no weight - cite uses the word "PROFANE" in capital letters before presenting a copy of the MySpace blog (yep, it was a MySpace blog, so that's 100% supported too). "Strong" is an NPOV vio - best to familiarise yourself with policies. It's unfortune for you that this version is solidly supported. 79.71.223.198 (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It was on www.bloodstainedmemoirs.com - and CC'd on all networking sites. Stop trying to confuse people with your lies. STILL. All you are doing is promoting this film further, and making Bret Hart look like a small time diddy every time you post. If you are bret's manager - and due to "her" known reputation for posting in internet forums with an attitude, seems very likley - this must be beyond embarrasing for you. Commoncase (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Your agenda continues. Here are some inarguable facts: 1) Cite uses "PROFANE" in bold capital letters, therefore the use of the word is fully supported and inarguable. 2) Cite supports a MySpace blog - the producer's opinion was not given in an interview with a notable TV show or magazine. So stating that the comments were sourced from a MySpace blog is also completely accurate and inarguable. 3) "Strong" is a NPOV violation, quite clearly. Bloodstained memoirs is not a reliable source, as it's not a reliable third-party publication. If you can find a reputable third-party source which supports a "strong" conflict, we'll discuss putting it in. But my first two points are inarguable. Best to discuss any future edits before continuing with your agenda in promoting this DVD. 79.71.223.198 (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

not discussing this any more. myself, and many others have removed the vandal edits. I will continue to do so. The reasoning is above, and i will not waste my time on ignorant people. The fact that you took down heavily cited, and albeit negative for bret hart material elsewhere on the page which paints an event in a far fairer contrast than what was put up SAYS IT ALL. 92.14.250.10 (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And if anybody wanted to talk about the credability of the person highly suspected to be Marcy Englestein, Bret Hart's manager, I would like to point you to "her" edits made in between editing both the Bret Hart, and Bloodstained Memoirs articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.71.223.198

Yes, you will notice "she" was editing the page for "Cum Shots". Commoncase (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you've been unable to argue the three infallible points I made, which serves only to strengthen my position. Accrediting my edits to Hart's manager is pathetic and desperate. Quite clearly, as can be seen from tracking my IP, my provider is Tiscali UK. I'm simply an editor who disapproves of your childish, biased agenda in pushing Bloodstained Memoirs and deriding Bret Hart. Bret Hart is bigger than the entire project, doesn't needs the project (he released a high-profile WWE DVD only recently which likely sold more in a week than Bloodstained Memoirs will sell until the end of time), and simply couldn't care less what an obscure producer thinks of him. There's no "strong" conflict, only an angry, lonely little man swearing at an international wrestling superstar on his MySpace. Sad. 79.71.223.198 (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this issue really still going on? Really? As of the time of this edit, the page to me reads fine. As an editor of the Bloodstained Memoirs page in the past, i hope this doesn't mean I am biased. Rolls eyes. Arthur Cutz (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on this article

This is a warning to all involved to stop edit warring and start discussing your issues with this article. I've protected it for a week this time, please attempt to reach a consensus through discussion. I've noted some accusations of sockpuppetry, too - if you can substantiate them, please raise them at sockpuppet investigations, but do not resume edit warring on that basis. ~ mazca ^talk 20:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As it seems the majority of edit-warring was directly caused by Commoncase, who's now been blocked for abusive sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Commoncase), I've tentatively unprotected the article. Please treat this as a strong encouragement to try and address problems rather than edit-warring - if it's a good-faith dispute, discuss it. If you're suspicious that there's dodgy stuff going on, request admin assistance. Edit warring simply doesn't solve anything. Thanks. ~ mazca ^talk 21:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In the shawn michaels page, they do not list his 5 star accomplishments because they say that its not a real accomplishment but just a person's own individual rating of a match so I took off Bret Hart's 5 star matches out of the accomplishments section.

Future events warning

Please keep an eye out, rumors circulating that he will return to WWE in some capacity. Watch out for uncited/ poorly cited additions. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Bret Hart has signed a contract with WWE saying he will be guest host of monday night raw january 4, 2010. The contract lasts until April 14th. There is a possibility of one more match.

It has been reported by The Sun UK that he has signed a 3 months short term deal to return to WWE to coincide with the debut of Hulk Hogan on TNA. Bret should be debuting the same night. So someone may want to add this to the page or at least have something ready for when he does come back.BlackScreaminMachine (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Grandfather?

Does anyone think that it is worth mentioning that Bret will become a grandfather for the first time next year. I just thought it was interesting to know that his daughter Jade is due to give birth on her grandfather's birthday. Just wondering if anyone else feels this way.(MgTurtle (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC))

Maybe once she gives birth (something could happen before then, like having a miscarriage, god forbid). TJ Spyke 01:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Return to WWE

He has officially signed with the WWE so this information should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.115.65 (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's only rumored and shouldn't be mentioned until it's confirmed by WWE or Bret Hart. TJ Spyke 01:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Return to WWE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.49.251 (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not rumored, it's just hasn't been "officially" announced by the WWE or Bret Hart, as they are presently working out his return in their on-screen story lines. Every wrestling newsletter is reporting it, including those deemed by the frequent Wikipedia wrestling editors to be reliable sources (Wrestling Observer, PW Torch) and The Sun in the UK (which is a bit tabloidish so I can understand if that isn't considered a reliable resource)and IGN TV. Once again, Wikipedia is at the mercy of editors who don't know the difference between a "rumor" and a valid report on a signing that is intentionally being kept under wraps. --Goosedoggy (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

DirectTV have said in their programme guide that Bret will be the guest host of Raw on Jan 4th. [1] Can this be considered a worthy source?

I think personal since the thought of Bret Hart coming back into wrestling was SO never going to happen, that we here on wikipedia actually need to see it, and re watch the footage, OVER, and OVER again, hearing the crowd go insane. THEN we can believe it. i--Dr. Pizza (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC) mean come on, NO ONE, and i mean NO ONE dreamed Bret would come back with HBK around, and yet he is?! All i know is Bret might save WWE if they let him help out on the writing team. And i personal would like his one final match to be against HBK rather then Vince McMahon.

Does bret hart have more than 40 moves?

?????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.61 (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Until recently there was a Youtube video which showed 65 of Hart's best moves, which didn't include chest kip-up, enziguiri, cradle, bow and arrow, backslide and so many others. You'll never find the number of Bret Hart's moves in a reliable, independant pulication, for obvious reasons, but yes, he has well over 40 moves. Damone Rhodes (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why nothing about his return

I don't see a section about his return to WWE at all. It should and needs to be noted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.192.131 (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Arguably?

This phrasing is all wrong,

• The cite comes from the WWE.com, nothing short of advertising,
• Using the word Arguably is giving it a positive spin, and sounds like we are arguing that point, we are not "considered by some" is much more neutral.

Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You started all this because you didn't want repetition of "arguably", now we have repetition of "one of". As for a wrestler's popularity, only the WWE can definitively state who was among the most popular. Bit of a no-brainer. Lol, whatever. Calgarykid47 (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Should we add that Heineken is arguably the best beer because that's what their marketing department tell us? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Total non-sequitur. A brand can tell us what their popular products are. But your comment is just silly. Calgarykid47 (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

How is a WWE article on one of their stars not advertising? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a WWE article about some memorable heel turns that was on their main page for a few hours. In describing Hart, it stated that he was one of, if not the, most popular wrestlers of the mid 90's. Nothing was advertised. I don't really care about it anyway, have the article your way. I have things to do. If that means you win, then congratulations. Calgarykid47 (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Do to the fact that you are arguing right now, I think "arguably" is a fine word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.198.113 (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference list

I suggest the implementation of {{Reflist|30em}} on this article, because of the length of the reference list. Opinions, rejections? —bender235 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sergeant not in source?

The OWOW source provided for Bret's full name doesn't make any mention of his middle name being Sergeant. So why is it included in the article? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've added the failed verification tag at the end of his full name, and whilst I realise there are a number of sources out there stating Sergeant to be his middle name (including his official Twitter profile, which I guess would count as a primary source?), I'll let more experienced editors deal with it. I'm just bringing it to attention. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)