Talk:Mickie James

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMickie James has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 21, 2007Good article nomineeListed
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 31, 2019.

Mickie James On Springer[edit]

I can't find a source for this, but Mickie James was on Jerry Springer. They did make a mention of it well over two years ago on Raw. If someone could find a source, than it would be good to add it to the article. Mr. C.C. (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is from my own personal knowledge, and as far as I know I've never seen it published. Mickie was a part of the roster for Maryland Championship Wrestling during the time that Steve Wilkos was associated with the promotion, and he selected her and several other wrestlers to participate as audience members. As far as I know, she did not participate in the show as a guest. Kamnet (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She was actually on Jenny Jones, although I guess its possible she was also on Springer. I added the Jenny Jones appearance to her article. --Celtic Jobber (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mickie James Poses for Leg Show[edit]

How come my addition of Mickie James Posing for Leg Show magazine was deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.167.109 (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, maybe because it's already mentioned in the article (in the "Early career" section)? You would have to ask the person who deleted it, but that would be my guess. No need to include it again when it's already mentioned. TJ Spyke 03:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should it not be mentioned that she has denied that it is her in the pictures?--AndyCPrivate (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source? TJ Spyke 20:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De-linking[edit]

A certain editor seems to think that relevant terms and stuff un-familiar to non-wrestling fans shouldn't be linked. Thy also think other notable and relevant info shouldn't be linked. This section is for them to state their case rather than revert over and over and accuse people of vandalism when they are restoring the page to the stable version that no one else has a problem with. TJ Spyke 22:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where are you discussing it? Here, where I asked you to do it twice? Or on my talk page, where you sent me the message? I'll repost what I put in response to your message on my talk page here:

Why are you not willing to discuss the linking in the Mickie James article? And example of what I mean: :...Stratus' biggest fan turned obsessed stalker..." You want linked to the wrestling term "turn". However, the common English use of the word "turn" is to change. How does that differ from the wrestling definition. Terms like kayfabe.....yes, those are unique to wrestling and those links are appropriate. But linking words like "turn" really don't clarify anything to a non-fan, it just adds more blue type to an article that is already awash in it. Further, linking common words like "farm" don't enhance the article. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. Next, you keep re-adding links to things like "American", leading to the article about the United States. The overlink policy cites that as a specific example of what NOT to link. Links to locations, words etc that people commonly understand aren't needed. So no, Washington DC really shouldn't be linked. It is a location known to most readers. How many English speakers don't know what the United States is? Or what New York City is? Lastly, sending readers to generic articles doesn't enhance understanding this article, which is the purpose of linking. Does sending someone to the article about DC enhance their understanding?

I termed your wholesale reversion as "vandalism" because you aren't talking about specific things, but simply clicking undo. I have asked TWICE to discuss and you simply ignored it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I am not the one who violated 3R Spyke. Before you talk about reverting "over and over", count your own reversions. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, when I removed the excessive links, I was careful to do so by section, so that it wouldn't be necessary to revert EVERYTHING just because someone disagreed with one term being delinked. A wholesale reversion is definately not wp:agf, especially when being asked to discuss your specific complaints. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not violated 3RR either, I have done exactly 3 reverted (it's 4 that violates. And my first revert was to revert what I considered vandalism). I have trimmed out the un-needed links (like the turned obsessive stalker one and the farm one). The American link is only linked once and OVERLINK talks about linking to it as a geographic term (i.e. "lives in America"), it is used here as a nationality. Locations can be linked to if they are relevant, in this case where she grew up/trained to wrestle/etc. TJ Spyke 22:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, it's more than 3 reversions.......not limited to the same material. Further, terming my delinking as "vandalism" isn't really valid either. In almost every instance, the actual text wasn't changed, just the WL removed. In other words, the same info that existed before existed after. That is not vandalism.

You know what, forget it. This my first step in trying to improve the article enough to put it up for GA review. One thing I've seen in reading GA reviews is that there was too much blue type (ie too many links). You clearly want to fight about every word involved and I have no interest in it. Let someone else improve the article and submit it for GA review. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what 3RR says "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page". I have only made 3 reverts to the article in the last 24 hours (actually, those were my only edits to the page in the last 5 days), so I have not violated 3RR. TJ Spyke 22:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already a Good Article. Nikki♥311 22:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad, I meant FA. I have GA on the brain from another article. Anyway, let someone else do it. This fight isn't worth it.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the person who helped make it a GA, I have to say...it is no where near FA quality. You'll have to replace a lot of the sources because the FA reviewers won't find them reliable. Nikki♥311 22:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're probably right. But as I said, first step. It was a simple one....well, supposed to be. Now it is the last step in a short lived plan. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep the conversation here rather than on our talkpages. You seem intent on de-linking "American". I already gave you one example of a Featured Article that includes the same link. Massive de-linking of terms relevant to the article hurts the article, not helps it and I would probably oppose it being promoted to FA if that was done. TJ Spyke 22:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Spyke, let me make my intent VERY clear: My intent is to end this discussion. You refuse to even answer a simple, common sense question. It doesn't matter to me what another article did with American. I can't see how any English speaker with enough of a command of the English language to read the article would not know what the United States is without yet another drop in the big blue sea of wikilinks to explain it to them. Do whatever you want with the article. I'm finished with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leg Show again[edit]

It looks like the section has been deleted again. I don't know the references for it, but if it could be found it should either be noted in early life or personal life. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added. Next time, just go through the history to find what was deleted and the ref. Nikki♥311 02:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been removed again, it seems. It doesn't make me respect her any less, I'm just curious as to why people keep removing it if it's genuine.--68.111.242.222 (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested semi-protection[edit]

Since IP edits somehow deem her title defense again Alicia Fox at the Hell in a Cell PPV, I have requested temporary semi-protection to hopefully keep them at bay for awhile. ArcAngel (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Mickie James[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mickie James's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "OWOW":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed something[edit]

Worst promotional etc it said BEING CALLED PIGGIE JAMES" i think this is wrong so i changed it too Being Exploited over weight issues by michelle McCool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.55.214 (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 90.216.147.147, 11 August 2010[edit]

Mickie James recently has been realeast! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.147.147 (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mickie james has retired for now and they dont know when she will com back they say that she retired for singing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.236.196 (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/\/\ Ummm no Mickie James is currently performing her craft on the independent scene. 91.105.2.169 (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for leaving WWE?[edit]

The wording of this article makes her departure from the WWE sound both abrupt and unexplained. However, and while I don't have evidence, I suspect it may have been due to her upcoming album release. It would appear that Maria left for this very reason and it would make sense if something similar occurred regarding Mickie. Perhaps someone who knows how to look into this kind of thing would be able to find actual information?--68.111.242.222 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mj[edit]

mickie james worked for wwe and won both divas and womans champion ships. when she left she wnt to tna now known as impact for one reason only. to win the knockouts title witch she did at lockdown 2011. everyone is asking me if mickie james is going to win at hardcore justice. and i'm guessing yes because winter keeps on atacing her. and 75% of the time the person who kept on atacing the other person loses. so at hardcore justice mickie james will probaly win. in case any of you were wondering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel105 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 26 October 2011[edit]

please Remove that info about Mickie james and Brutus Magnus its all not True its a fake info

You may notice the information in question is sourced; could you address that, either with an argument or source of your own, please? – Luna Santin

Its Just Rumours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiefan2005 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then apparently it's rumours with good sources. You will need to find reliable sources that contradict the sourced statement (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marking edit request answered, per Bwilkins. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I keep Telling you its not Reported by any news site its rumours Its Nothing http://wiki.answer.com/Q/Is_Mickie_james_Dating_Brutus_Magnus Answer is on this Link If you don't believe me i am trying to tell u its rumours — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.73.254 (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link in the previous comment goes nowhere. It should be this. CityOfSilver 16:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are not a reliable source, since you could be anybody, and Answers.com is not a reliable source since anybody can edit it. If you have a reliable source saying the claim is untrue, please provide it. Otherwise, you're not going to be able to make the edit because the claim that they are dating is sourced. CityOfSilver 16:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually quite borderline... so there is one source which is inaccessible (or does anyone have an online link?), and no-one else (I did a search) reports anything similar, which is strange in the case of a celebrity. And finding a reliable source that says something did/does not happen is usually impossible. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it doesn't hurt to remove that sentence. I too was irritated by the IP for continually removing the (what appeared to be) sourced information. But I have been checking the source and I wouldn't classify it as reliable. Both because of the inability to check it without user credentials and the fact that the source asks readers to forward gossip and rumors to the outlet. So perhaps it's best to leave it out until an unquestioned or verifiable source emerges. Dave Dial (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it is untrue because no other Website has said anything about it they know its just gossip and rumors its making me upset — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiefan2005 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you're upset, it matters that the Observer is considered, for wrestling topics, a reliable source. If you can find other sites saying they're not together, then please point them out. Answer sites is emphatically *not* a reliable source, for anything. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So let's cut to the chase: what does it actually say? Please quote ad verbatim here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hell if I know, I don't get the paper version of the Observer and the link to it in Meltzer's archives is login only. I don't really care either way whether this is included or not; my point is, the statement is sourced to something that is accepted as a reliable source for wrestling articles. Whether it's available online or not is a moot point. I'm certainly not interested in fighting over it. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean and there is No other source saying there together — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiefan2005 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

then remove it wikipedia Don't believe what you read it sometimes can be rumors you know — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.73.254 (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mickie james is Not Dating Brutus Magnus so Take it off wikipedia Wrestling Observer is Not a Real source it has not been confirmed by any wrestling site means its false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiefan2005 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're really not doing yourself any favors by your style of discussion here. However, since this fact is (1) disputed, and (2) based on a single source, (3) whose reliability has been questioned (plausibly or not), and (4) this is a WP:BLP; I've removed it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus/Nick Aldis[edit]

I thought the consensus was we're leaving the information about Mickie James & Nick Aldis off the article? The source given is paywalled, and there's nothing I could locate from any other source that says the same thing. Additionally the info about Mickie and Nick is not present on Nick's article.

As it is, I'm tagging as {{Better source}} for now in hopes that someone else has better luck in finding something to back the info up. If nobody can find a superior source, then we should delete it. Tabercil (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have the issue, but as it's a single source and is somewhat dubious when it comes to rumor I can see the argument for it being cut entirely. Seeing as the two have been seen together often a relationship can be inferred but there's no solid base for inclusion. Papacha (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title in italics[edit]

Why is this article's title italicized?Hoops gza (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was the {{Infobox album}}, the infobox automatically italicizes the title. I added |Italic title=no to the infobox to turn that feature off. GB fan 02:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TNA[edit]

Due to James' reigns as Knockouts Champion short the section may need to be changed. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her reigns may have been short but they were still reigns as champion in a short amount of time. Why start half of her reign in one section and then end it in another? That doesn't make sense. And yes she turned heel, but does turning heel no longer mean shes champion or something. CM Punk's first WWE Championship reign was short, but but even though it took him a little while to get it back, doesn't mean his year-long second reign need to be split does it? I changed it to "Women's Knockouts Championship reigns", before you change it read the talk page first please and lets talk about it here or on either one of our talk pages. Sir Wrestler (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Mickie James[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mickie James's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "release":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hidden comments removed[edit]

I have removed two hidden comments from the article that said <!-- Don't delete or alter this section, it will be reverted-->. The comments are in appropriate. Everyone is welcome to edit the article to improve the article. If someone objects to a bold edit, then the proper course of action is to bring it here to the talk page and discuss the edits and reach a consensus as to what the text should be. If consensus can not be reached then the next step is to try dispute resolution. No one editor gets to decide the content of the article, it is a collaborative effort of all editors involved. GB fan 22:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mickie James vs Tessa Blanchard image[edit]

I think this image needs to be removed given the presense of a nip slip in it - see Mickie's left breast. Tabercil (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Mickie James. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La Luchadora[edit]

We'll have to add that she was under the mask as La Luchadora. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Mickie James. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mickie James. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mickie James. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mickie_James&oldid=1207104909"