Talk:The Undertaker/Archive 11

Greatest Legend of WrestleMania

We should add that the Undertaker was recently voted the Greatest Legend of WrestleMania by WWE.com readers. This is no pretend poll, it was a real survey and it deserves to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.222.68 (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I don't see that happening. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask for your opinion. I know you neer support any initiatives anyone has in this Web site. I am asking for a more general concensus, not just you. Every article in Wikipedia outside the wrestling world contains information regarding significant polls and recognitions. Plymouth, Minnesota has in its very introduction the words "The town was named the Best Place to Live in America by CNN Money." Winston Churchill's article informs the reader about the fact that he was voted the greatest Briton ever. Now, this article's introduction contains pretty insignificant information, such as the fact that he was BOOKED to win the Royal Rumble 2007, and it doesn't say anything about the fact that the WWE.com readers consider him the "Greatest Legend of WrestleMania." Now, you like to say no to everything but you never give a reason why you NEVER like ANYTHING to be included on the article. At least be a good, sensible contributor to the encyclopedia and substantiate your opinions with some arguments. It doesn't hurt, trust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.222.68 (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

TBH it seems pretty notable, I mean it has been stated that the fans are what the wrestling business is all about so and the fact that he was voted and beat Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels and even the Golden Boy Triple H seems pretty notable! I have to say Darrenhusted if you are going to shoot down an idea at least give a reason! This would be perfect for a legacy section which sadly this article doesn't have =( Adster95 13:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nearly everything on WWE.com is kayfabe, especially polls. How many times has HHH been voted the best whatever? And if an article states that it was voted the best anything in anything then that is not really notable, and my recourse would be to remove that from the other article rather than falling back on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and adding anything trivial to this article. The Winston Churchill thing is another case where a TV company needed to fill airtime so held a poll, the UK has 60m inhabitants, how many voted for him to be called the greatest Briton? Certainly not a majority, only a majority of a minority watching a TV program, and many could have voted multiple times, as it is not like an election where it operates on OPOV. All WWE.com polls are trivial, and to add them goes back on WP:V, WP:N, WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

However one must also keep in mind that the Undertaker's entire career is also kayfabe, inculding his Wrestlemania streak. If we argue that the poll isn't significant because it was made (which Im not very sure) then we can argue about everything related to WWE's Undertaker.--Pgecaj (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right his wins and losses are controlled by VKM and are not competitive. However the guidelines for notability already recognise that a pro-wrestler's career is notable, and that all title wins are as well. What I am saying is that if a panel of sports wirters who had nothing to do with WWE sat down and complied a list of who they felt were the greatest and then they named UT as the greatest then maybe that would be worth noting, however the poll was limited to four choices, and if I were going to pick I would say that Eddie Guerrero, Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, The Rock and Hulk Hogan have done more for WM than any other wrestlers, but those weren't listed as options, WWE wanted to work the poll so one of their choices came out on top. Plus the poll is open to multiple votes, unlike political polling which only counts single votes. And as you can't change the two worked aspects (the WWE's choice of shortlist and the possibility of vote stacking) then there would be no way to allow this poll. And that is regardless of whether the entire of UT's career is pre-determined. We could argue about everything UT has done, but the IP wasn't looking to exclude UT's career he was looking to get this poll in, and to quote myself, I don't see that happening. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No actually it was a list of

Hulk Hogan: The Rock: Mankind: Ted DiBiase: Big Show: Triple H: Kurt Angle: Andre the Giant Rowdy Roddy Piper: Kane Undertaker: Randy "Macho Man" Savage: Ultimate Warrior: Edge: Yokozuna: Shawn Michaels: Stone Cold Steve Austin: Randy Orton: Chris Jericho: Eddie Guerrero: Bret Hit Man Hart: John Cena: Batista: Jake "The Snake" Roberts JBL And it was a one vote per round proccess! Adster95 11:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

While the WWE have full right to control the results of the voting, there are certain cases where they cannot change the results because the polls are often controlled by third-party organizations (e.g., AT & T for Cyber Sunday text-voting). In case of WWE.com voting, it is upto the WWE as to whether they will allow the fan-voting to reign supreme or change it. Recently, I've noticed that they allow the fan voting to be shown as it is. Why? Because they had earlier announced that the winner of the Greatest Legend of Wrestlemania voting will be announced at the Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony of 2009. But then they did not announce the winner officially on stage because the Undertaker won it (maybe that the commentators mentioned it, at the maximum). Had any other wrestler won the voting, it would've been announced on the stage but it was not announced that the Undertaker has won it to prevent his character and because it would've hurt Shawn Michaels' momentum heading into Wrestlemania (because he had the upper-hand in their rivalry and promos before their match started). That pretty much infers that it was not pre-decided as to who the winner will be, otherwise they would not have said that the winner's name will be announced at the Hall of Fame induction ceremony. Similary, Undertaker had also been voted on WWE.com as the Greatest Superstar in Raw History during the 15th anniversary of Raw. While there is no written proof as to whether the WWE did not rig the voting, there is no written proof that they did rig them. I am of the opinion that we should mention these 2 results along with links to WWE.com. These are not insignificant rankings like the weekly Power 25 but long-time votings based on accomplishments over the past 15 years or more. Mayankeagle (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You include awards given by Wrestling Observer News and Pro Wrestling Illustrated, many of which are voted on by the fans of those publications, and are essentially a poll, i.e. Match of the Year, as the choices are pre-selected and you vote for one of them. It's not like they just happen to get 50,000 votes for 1 match.Superman7515 (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The WrestleMania streak

Should the streak have its own section on The Undertaker's page including a list of all of his opponents from 1991-present? I realise that this information is elsewhere in the article, but the streak is now so important to The Undertaker's career that I think it warrants its own section.--Bravo Plantation (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have created this page on my user page take a look at it see if you think it needs work done on it its still work in progress--Dcheagle (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey um Ive been messing around with a posable section About the Streak its on a sub page just follow the link on my page and tell me what you think and point out if there's something I should change all comments welcome.--Dcheagle (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There is already a table in the championships and accomplishments section that I think is sufficient. Nikki♥311 04:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I still believe that The WrestleMania Streak deserves ether its own page or section not just the table that is in the article as of right now. The main reason being is that the table provides little information about the match's it self only who was in ti and who won. I know it the past that some of you have disagreed with the possible of there being a more in dept section or page about the Streak but i think that something like that deserves to be shown in more then just a table at the bottom of the page. But thats just me please tell me what you thing also i have been working on a possible way to do the section or article its on my user page just take a look and tell me what you think of it.--Dcheagle (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "I still believe that The WrestleMania Streak deserves ether its own page or section not just the table that is in the article as of right now. The main reason being is that the table provides little information about the match's it self only who was in ti and who won." - Wikipedia; the biggest mockery on the planet. The whole subject of wrestling deserves nothing more than a footnote in a decent encyclopaedia and you braindead wankers want more information on a scripted "undefeated streak". 86.147.131.66 (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

First, talk with more respect to fellow posters. Second, his streak is important to the business - its listed as the greatest WWE record at http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/wwerecords/. Third, it is the only thing in wrestling which was listed by The Sun in its list of greatest undefeated streaks in sports - http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/2009/06/01/rafa-nadal-and-sport-s-top-10-winning-streaks-115875-21406739/ Mayankeagle (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hard bump at WM

Is it woth Mentioning he took a hell of a dive at WM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Washington95 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No. As of now, no hiatuses have been reported and I have read on several other wrestling websites including Wrestlezone.com that he did not sustain any serious injuries after the match, and was interacting fine with everyone back-stage. That is why he was able to finish the match properly and is likely to be in action soon. Mayankeagle (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes But it has also always been reported that even after his most serious in-ring injuries that he always finishes the match and never seems to show any discomfort Aarow142 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.106.151 (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

True, he never complains. However, he did not have a head/ neck injury after the bump and he did wrestle in a few weekly matches after Wrestlemania, so I don't think the bump at Wrestlemania is worth mentioning. He probably had a hip surgery done during his hiatus as per what several wrestling-websites reported, but I don't know if Wikipedia considers them reliable (although I know that they are true because I moderate an Undertaker fan-website myself www.PhenomForever.com). There is a lot of information I'd like to add this page about his legacy as well like him being the locker-room leader/ mentor to other superstars and the most respected athlete backstage, but some jokers here always finds a way to tell me that the sites I am referring to are unreliable (if I post a link to a superstar's "out-of-character interview on a news channel", they say Youtube is unreliable, which is preposterous because the video and the news channel are still reliable). Mayankeagle (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

O-17

Shouldn´t Taker´s 0-17 streak at WM be in his wrestling accomplishments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.156.24.134 (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the article completely? The Streak table was always there in his wrestling accomplishments since 2007 or even before. It still remains there and somebody else posted the same question above. Please continue related discussions in the same heading instead of starting new ones. Mayankeagle (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

He's not 0-17 he's 17-0 thats a big difference.LifeStroke420 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

his name is big philip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.31.107 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of his 17 nil record, is there any need for the new column that numbers them? It's not MMA and even if the numbers are there, there's really no need for it to have room for draws too. Tony2Times (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

worl

The undertaker began his carrea in 1984 as a wcw wrestler in 1990 he became a world westling federation wrestler was called that until 2002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.134.110 (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Undertyaker is 17 and 0 not 0 17 if he was 0-17 that means he lost 17 years in wrestling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.10.165 (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WrestleMania 25

Undertaker was injured during his match against HBK--76.107.68.244 (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So? Darrenhusted (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Undertaker Debut

The Undertaker Debut in 1984 in WCCW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.104.58 (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Mark Calaway started wrestling in 1984 why do people keep vandalizing the article first you remove the fact that he originated and mastered alot of matches and now you change his debut gimme a break it is quite clear he made his debut in 1984 check out www.phenomforever.com and go to the info section and click biography and if you bother reading the first two paragraphs it is quite clear Mark/Taker started wrestling in 1984. And now please don't tell me that this source is not reliable. And you guys keep on removing the information like you own this article when you are editors just like us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali92shah (talk • contribs) 18:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hindi movie reference

It is mentioned that "His character also influenced the Bollywood film Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi in which Brian Lee (who played the false Undertaker in 1994) starred as the Undertaker.[citation needed]"

Why is any citation needed for this? Anyone who has seen the movie knows it is the Undertaker character which was portrayed in it - the same name, the same attire, the same wrestling moves and style. Those who have not seen it should check out the videos on youtube, and see the pages for Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi and Brian Lee to confirm the same. Mayankeagle (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Because youtube is not a RS, the CN is needed to back up the "influenced" part of the claim. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. If youtube is not RS then buy the DVD and see it. That's like saying that the fake Undertaker character in the WWF portrayed by Brian Lee was also not influenced by the Undertaker but it was just a coincidence that he resembled him. It was the same character played in the movie, for your information. If there is a "wrestler" in a movie using the same name ("the Undertaker"), the same attire, same look, same wrestling moves (tombstone piledriver, chokeslam, etc) and same style (slashing the cut-throat sign before finishing off the opponent), you would still say that he is not influenced by the Undertaker or that he is not mimicing the Undertaker? How many other wrestlers with the screen-name "The Undertaker" have been there? The link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246729/trivia also confirms that the part was played by a look-alike and Brian Lee's Wikipedia page confirms that he played it. Mayankeagle (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Also check http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_the_Undertaker_in_the_1996_movie_Khiladiyon_Ka_Khiladi_1996_and_if_so_did_he_speak_Hindi - mentions that Brian Lee was brought to play this role because he played the same role in the WWF. Mayankeagle (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Now will somebody educate me as to why was this information removed? Mayankeagle (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The Undertaker's knee surgery

Shouldn't it be noted that The Undertaker will miss up to two months of action due to knee/hip surgery? Danny Boy 420 (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source, feel free to add it. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 11:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is he, he and michaels been gone since WM25??? --Cooly123 (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Injury

Undertaker needs knee surgery and will be out for 2 months shouldn't that be included —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.79.82 (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If, and only if you can provide a reliable source for that. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Undertaker Had Hip Surgery After WM25 That is why he was out until Summerslam. (Info From PhenomForever.com)Aarow142 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.106.151 (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I am a moderator of PhenomForever.com but whenever I put any information from our news articles here, they were removed stating that PhenomForever.com is not a reliable source, although the news articles that we put up are from other wrestling sites like wrestlingnewsworld.com, wrestlezone.com, etc. I know through these sources that he had a hip surgery, but would we be allowed to put that information here? Mayankeagle (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Undertaker's Finishers

Just wanting to point out that the arm triangle facebuster finisher is wrong. If it is correct, it needs a date on when it has been used, as I have never seen it used as a finisher. Also the citation mentions NOTHING about The Undertaker using an armtriangle facebuster as his finisher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.12.206 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a signature move of the Undertaker missing...Snake eyes...there is a Wikipedia page for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.229.160 (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I've heard

Undertaker isn't hurt, according to my Uncle's "cheat sheet" he always takes time off after WrestleMania, and he'll be back at SummerSlam. Is he hurt, taking time off or just gone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.31.68 (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh who knows, but Wikipedia isn't the place to ask forum-type questions.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

the undertaker is 47 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiesfrew (talk • contribs) 00:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have a valid source for his age we will make the change tell then it stays the same.--Dcheagle (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Height

His billed height is 6´10.5" not 6´9.5"

His legit height is 6´8", he described himself as 6´8-6´9" in "This is my yard" and was billed as 6´8" as The Punisher

kind regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Specialist66 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Last outlaw

On the latest ECW Matt Striker referred to Undertaker as "The Last Outlaw, The Undertaker". Should this be added to the nicknames? Numerous Superstars (inculding Big Show and I'm pretty sure Jericho) also called him this. 142.162.38.95 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No he's only been called it once so no it will not be added--Dcheagle (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hell's Gate/Modified Gogoplata

Under the undertaker's move list, it says that the hell's gate submission hold is banned. i am changing this, since this is no longer true. here are the sources: http://www.wwe.com/shows/hellinacell/matches/11798344/preview/ and http://www.wwe.com/content/media/video/vms/smackdown/2009/september22-28/11812000 --JereMerr 23:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)--JereMerr 23:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes go right ahead and make the changes.--Dcheagle (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

This article has a quite extensive protection log, apparently because of long term vandalism. The last action on the log is quite old however, nearly two years ago, and the last edit protection action (rather than move protection) was even longer ago. I'd like to review this to see if edit semiprotection is still necessary. As well as welcoming the opinions of regular editors I have contacted MZMcBride, the protecting admin. --TS 12:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not the top protecting admin, though I have reduced protection on this article given the length of time since the underlying situation has been evaluated. Let's see what happens. (Any admin is of course free to re-protect if problems re-arise.) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cite problem

For some reason there is a problem with the number two cite. If you go down to the refs it says theres a cite error Ive look at it and I cant for the life of me find the problem so someone with fresh eyes needs to take a look at it and see if they can fix it.--Dcheagle (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The cite works fine for me. Can you be more specific? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

problem with the nicknames

for some reason or another it has been neglected to place the nickname "dead man" and/or "dead man walking" and recently (within the last 4-5 weeks) he has been reffered to as "snake eyes" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voldemort1 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

got a source--Dcheagle (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Deadman has always been there. Snake eyes is one of his moves, dead man walking refers to his opponent. Tony2Times (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sections 1.2.8 (World Heavyweight Champion 2007-2008) and 1.2.9 (Return 2008-present)

I feel that we should merge these 2 sections together under one heading "World Heavyweight champion (2007-present)".

He became the WHC champion in 2009 also, hence his pursuit and victory of the title was not only in 2007/ 2008 but it still continues. Moreover, he has taken time off in all these 3 years and made returns, so we perhaps shouldn't have Return (2008-present) as a section which comes after WHC because he is still the WHC belt-holder. I feel we can altogether drop the "Return" heading because the details of his returns will be provided in the paragraphs anyway, but the broad title can be about his pursuit of the WHC belt because that's what he has been mostly after since 2007 (other feuds like Vickie Guerrero/ Big Show were also resultant of the same, due to his earlier WHC-rivalry with Edge).

Let me know your thoughts. Mayankeagle (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I see somebody has renamed the Return (2008-present) section to "Return & various feuds", however I think we should extend the WHC section to include this because he is still the WHC. Mayankeagle (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like this is done. 122.181.161.153 (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell in a Cell

Is this list really necessary? His undefeated streak at WrestleMania is used to sell matches; though he is famous for his Cell matches, I don't think it's up there in the same vein. Also I still don't see why there's a WLD record for his undefeated streak. By its very nature, the Loss and Defeat numbers are obselete. Tony2Times (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel the list is not required. He has had the maximum impact at Hell in a Cell, no doubt. However, it is not very easily verifiable from the table because of the number of losses. Perhaps a one-liner comment about each match can also be included wherever it is relevant or had an impact on the outcome of the match (e.g., Kane debuted and attacked Undertaker in the match against Shawn Michaels; Undertaker threw Mankind from the top of the cell to the announce-desk, then to the ring below and then choke-slammed him on a ring full of thumb-tacks; Edge disguised as a camerman attacked Undertaker in the match against Batista, etc). Mayankeagle (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WrestleMania 25

Undertaker's last match for a while wasn't at WM it was against the Big Show on Friday Night SmackDown on i think 24-4-09 he lost so that was his last match after WM not against HBK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.110.35 (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct, however WM25 was his last Major match before returning at Summerslam 2009 and then winning the title at Hell In a Cell 2009--Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 00:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC) It should still be noted that he still wrestled after WM25 even though he only versed on SmackDown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.110.35 (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Grammar corrections

I am fed up of this. Some idiot is constantly changing the grammar of the "Third World Heavyweight Champion reign (2009-present)" section of the document. I had mentioned that the Undertaker "defeated" Big Show and that the Undertaker "defeated" Batista, but some goon is changing this back to Undertaker "defeat" Big Show and Undertaker "defeat" Batista. If you don't know English, go and learn it before you come and edit Wikipedia pages. Undertaker "defeat" somebody is incorrect and wrong grammar - Undertaker "defeated" somebody is right. Use an editor like Word to validate your grammar before posting and making changes to a public article. If I see this being reverted back to the incorrect grammar version, is there a way that I can complain against the miscreant? Mayankeagle (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

KNOWN AS

The Dead man The undertaker hells gates and others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.10.165 (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What? Mayankeagle (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sara Tattoo removed?

Noticed recently on WWE TV that the "Sara" tattoo Undertaker had across his throat looks like it's been removed or faded to where it's not noticeable. Any word about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.125.161 (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like he covers it with make-up. 204.17.17.249 (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

PWI Match of the Year (2009)

Winner:PWI Match of the Year (2009) The Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania XXV—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.104.58 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Divorce

Hi,

Shouldnt the page mention something at all about his divorce from Sara and how his tattoo has been removed also, plus as far as I know he is officially dating Michlle Mccool now who is currently a WWE diva. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.169.254 (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source to back it up, then sure. Until then, per WP:BLP, it will not be added. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tkeiffer (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)here is a source http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=476397305&blogId=507162987

Burned

May I note that during the PPV last night (The Elimination Chamber), that there was a pyrotechnics incident that involved the Undertaker giving him legitimate burns, and that it could be turned into a major angle depending on what WWE decides to do. However, regardless of the burns, he still worked the entire length of his match, losing to Chris Jericho after Shawn Michaels interfered. Gamloverks (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, he then showed up on RAW the next night with burns all over his face and body. The facial burns were clearly visible including extremely red eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkeiffer (talk • contribs) 03:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrestlemania 26

Undertaker defeated Shawn Michaels forcing him to retire on March 28,2010.

Source www.wwe.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkeiffer (talk • contribs) 03:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Changed Cain to Kane

I went ahead and changed Cain in the article to Kane because the website used as a source for the name does not list the name "Cain The Undertaker", but instead lists his name as "Kane The Undertaker". TheGary (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)