Jump to content

Talk:Rory Fitzpatrick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

This page should be edited to include the 2007 all-star game. www.VoteForRory.com is proof enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Riel2000 (talk • contribs) .

The website does not pass WP:RS. Though if the campaign to get Rory in is as successful as hoped, it will hit the mainstream media, and will certantly immediately be included. Resolute 00:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sounds fair, thank you - Riel2000
Side note, this WILL hit the mainstream media, just give it a few days. - go_leafs_go02, and I apologize for undoing your edits on the article.
I will unprotect the page now. If you are planning on adding to this article, please remember our policy on verifiability. -- JamesTeterenko 15:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is somewhat of a conumdrum. Wikipedia wants sources, and the media uses Wikipedia a lot. If we put it here, they will use it. But we won't until they use it. Vicious cycle. Also, remember to vote for him. Kaiser matias 06:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he does get voted in, then I'm sure it'll be on Wiki. I mean, it'd be such an unusual event that it'd merit some sort of mention, imho. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Kaiser matias: I don't see the conundrum. If the media won't say anything about it until it gets into Wikipedia, then it shouldn't be in Wikipedia in the first place. There are policies in place that state this. The two key ones are:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to challenge and/or remove it
Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.

-- JamesTeterenko 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Vote For Rory campagin

[edit]

Even though most of the people who will add this won't read here, I'm going to write it anyways. I am a supporter of it, but we have to respect the rules of Wikipedia. If you are at all involved with it, you know that the media is slowly responding. Give it enough time to have some sources, and then it will stop being removed from here. We have made it this far without the use of Wikipedia, so there's no reason we can not wait until there are sources that will comply with the rules set out here. Otherwise, anything put here is just going to keep being removed. That is all. Kaiser matias 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

–Thank you, and we have made major hints online on the forum to leave this page alone. WE will be given due credit eventually, and we respect Wikipedia's rules of credibility and such. I was the first one to actually edit this thread back in the day, but I thought it was professionally done and sourced correctly. Evidently, that was not the case, but I hope members understand that this page is and should be left alone for the time being. Go leafs go02 15:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[[reply]

VoteForRory should stay. There's no wikipedia rule saying otherwise. Just some users with sticks stuck up their you-know-what's Jaskaramdeep 01:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a rule. See Wikipedia: Reliable sources. Until the campaign's covered by reliable source, it stays off the page. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 02:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you denying the existance of this campaign because you haven't heard it reported in the media? Several media sources have acknowledged its existance in Edmonton, if that's what you're after, and I've been told that some in Vancouver have as well. In any case, to say that something doesn't exist because a "reliable source" hasn't reported it is absurd. With this basis, you can say that Kim Jong-Il has done nothing to North Korea worth reporting in Wikipedia. No one knows what the heck is going on in there, but we do know that several sources "unreliable" by Wikipedia's definition, have reported atrocities, and so we take that as truth Jaskaramdeep 04:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has said this movement does not exist. What is being said is that this movement simply is not notable enough for Wikipedia at preseent as it lacks reliabale sources. I am aware that there have been mentions on Edmonton and Vancouver radio, however all but one is simply the result of an on-air personality reading a submitted email. The fourth was a brief interview with the OP at hockeys future, but cannot be considered a reliable source because verification is impossible. Resolute 04:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I understand where you're coming from. But check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kvV2LTRNbQ This promo video for the campaign snatched up 6 youtube honors, including #6 - Top Rated (This Week) - Sports - All, #6 - Top Rated (This Week) - Sports - English, #16 - Top Rated (This Month) - Sports - English, and #17 - Top Rated (This Month) - Sports - All. It was also yesterday's most watched youtube video in the sports category. I am pretty sure that the campaign is noteworthy based on this. Jaskaramdeep 23:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Youtube is not a reliable source. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, just give it time. If you're as into the campaign as it seems, then you know that there has been lots of activity to garner attention. All the emails to The Hour come to mind. Just let it run its course; if George S takes into consideration all those emails, then I will assure you it will stay. Kaiser matias 10:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

meh, I'm not an advocate of the campaign, nor do I really give a hoot about Rory Fitzpatrick. It just buggs me when people get all high-and-mighty on the noobs over trivial things Jaskaramdeep 01:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this movement was interviewed by the FAN 590 in Toronto (radio). You can listen to it on http://shadowduet.com/SDPlayer.html (remember to turn any popup blockers off). Would this count as a reliable source? Canucks5551

rory has now been given mention on NHL.com http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app?articleid=284150&page=NewsPage&service=page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Go leafs go02 (talk • contribs)

I don't think a mere mention on All-Star vote results is enough. The above link doesn't at all acknowledge his votes or the campaign to vote him; it just lists him as one of the top 13 vote getters for defensemen (and at no. 12, which is really nothing to write home about). I've reverted the addition until some reliable sources have covered either his selection and/or the campaign. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 23:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the source that I mentioned above. Isn't that enough? Canucks5551

I will mention that the Fan 590 is one of the largest radio stations in Canada. It is listened to nationally, and segments of it are broadcast on national television. Just a thought for people. But, I am not going to either add or remove anything to this article, not yet. Kaiser matias 02:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's one source. One. For regular articles, one source about this incident is often not enough. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going to post this before they get to it, but there's another source: Link Here. It talks about it. Just so it's known. Kaiser matias 06:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another one. This time it's in a real newspaper, from Auburn, New York: Right Here. Just warning Wikipedia that there are sources being created. Kaiser matias 19:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A third source: From the Globe and Mail. I would have to say that it would be hard to deny this now. Kaiser matias 22:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was never about denying it, but making sure the campaign met Wikipedia's guidelines. As I figured, if the campaign had the steam to last long enough, it would gain the notoriety and merit inclusion. At any rate, I reworded the section a bit to make it more encylopedic. Resolute 07:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with the addition of those sources, I'd say the section is worthy of staying (to my dismay, since I don't really like the campaign to start with). However, the Globe & Mail blog reference link isn't very encyclopedic (since blogs are not considered to be reliable sources), so as soon as you can find an alternate source, such as a newspaper article, kill that reference and replace it with the article. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs generally arent, but this one is hosted by the Globe and Mail. Mirtle wouldnt have the same freedom to write what he feels (as he does on his own blog), as he would be subject to the same editorial controls as anyone else writing for the G&M does. Resolute 15:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I wouldn't even use editorials as a reliable source, even if it is from a major newspaper. I'd rather have hard cold facts from an article. In other news, the Vancouver Province had an article on Rory today, so I don't think the notability's up for question anymore. It's definitely notable now. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 18:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of the tone of the section on the all-star votes; it makes it seem like a sneaky campaign to unseat the all-star voting system, which it really isn't. I think more importance should be given to the idea that the point of VoteForRory is really whatever you want it to be. Voting for kicks, voting for hard workers, voting because the process is flawed. All of these are acceptable reasons. DamionOWA 19:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would one, and only one, of the many, many images created perhaps be suitable for this? Visuals are always a good thing for articles. Just a thought Kaiser matias 20:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Uncle Rory image would be the best, provided the user on HFboards is willing to licence it under the GFDL. Resolute 21:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added it right after I posted this actually, using the Wikipedia motto: Be Bold. I included that it is under the GFDL, since I know that it is being used everywhere, and is most appropriate. Kaiser matias 21:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rory is now second in voting among Western Conference Defensivemen. See Deadspin for update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.182.79 (talk)

The official NHL numbers come out tomorrow. An update can wait until then. Resolute 23:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"As a result of the campaign, Fitzpatrick sits in second place, 19,000 votes out of first place" This line is a bit awkward and misleading, only because it hides the fact that if voting ended today he would go to the All Star game. Two from his position represent his conference. He is now that second guy. Maybe clean up the sentence a bit

I just noticed a couple mistakes I thought I'd point out. I'm an avid hockey fan and the mistakes make the site look very amateur. There are two within this table:

"Player Team Votes Scott Niedermayer Anaheim Mighty Ducks 591,657 Nicklas Lidstrom Detroit Redwings 573,069 Rory Fitzpatrick Vancouver Canucks 550,177 Chris Pronger Anaheim Mighty Ducks 433,972 Dion Phaneuf Calgary Flames 395,168"

First of all, Niedermayer and Pronger play for the "Ducks" not the "Mighty Ducks." They changed their name at the beginning of this season. Secondly, Lidstrom plays for the "Red Wings," not the "Redwings." Why submit a contribution when you don't know what you're taking about? Go Leafs Go! 19:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Timbuckiii[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.Yankees76 19:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of the law versus Letter

[edit]

Forget all of this stuff about verifiability and reliable sources. Nobody is disputing the movement's existence and it is obvious that it has gained some traction by the number of votes that Rory has received. The point with stories like these is that if somebody heard about the vote for rory campaign but wanted to learn more about it from a nuetral source, then they should be able to find it here. In fact that was the very reason that I first came to this page; I saw the first Vote for Rory thread but didn't want to waste time sifting through all the propoganda and nonsense posts to learn everything about it, so I went here. I found the current information about the movement to be more than satisfactory and answered most of my questions. There is no reason to exclude topics like these from wikipedia articles because the goal of this encyclopedia is to provide relevant information about people, places, and other things, while holding a neutral point of view, and that is accomplished quite well by this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.231.38 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

according to the versus network (picture here [1]), rory is only 19000 votes behind niedermayer, and curently holds second place (as of Dec 18)

68.150.86.20 04:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.hockeyfights.com/news/100844
    Triggered by \bhockeyfights\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rory_Fitzpatrick&oldid=1199361645"