Talk:Punch-up in Piestany

message: Somehow I doubt that the current Russian president ever played hockey at international level. --Bicycle repairman (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, heh.  I've removed the link. Resolute 17:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The link is still there!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.117.10.229 (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Medvedev

message: This is a pretty good looking article, has anyone ever considered pursuing GA status? -- Scorpion0422 03:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a goal of mine when I created it.  I did want to add a section regarding the legacy of the incident first, but never got around to it for some reason.   That missing section is alluded to in the lead in discussing how Don Cherry's popularity grew.  I should get back to that. Resolute 03:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reading a book on it right now.  I'd like to help plug away at this one.  :)  leafschik1967 (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA status

message: As I haven't finished the book yet, I don't know if Joyce mentions it, but I read in a 'History of Hockey' article that Harold Ballard had gold medals made up and issued to the team members.  I figured this should be in there, and I'll look for the article.  And I apologize if I just missed it.  leafschik1967 (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not in there now.  I really should go back and finish this article, heh.  But you are right, that is an important aspect of the aftermath. Resolute 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gold medals for the team

message: The paragraph about Mogilny has only a tenuous connection to Piestany and probably needs to be dropped. Bulbous (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably true.  I'm trying to find more of the aftermath that focusses on the Soviets, so as not to make this article too focussed on Canada's side of things. Resolute 01:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy: Mogilny

message: Someone keeps reverting my removal of a link to a YouTube video of the incident, citing that WP:NFCC actually applies in this case, when it doesn't (since it is not directly inside the article, which is when it must comply). WP:YOUTUBE and WP:LINKVIO contradict this, since this video was uploaded by a random uploader that I assume does not own it. He also told me not to remove it again without consensus, but I disagree per a combination of my cited statements and WP:IAR. Anyway, does it need to be removed? ViperSnake151  Talk   15:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I am not arguing WP:NFCC, but rather fair use in general, even knowing Wikipedia's policies are stricter.  My argument is that being of low quality, and and containing only the relevant aspect of the incident (i.e.: specifically the brawl, and not the entire game), and that the you tube video is of significant value to the article, especially as words alone cannot hope to convey the scope of the incident, that it's inclusion can be justified as under fair use.  WP:YOUTUBE does not apply in my view, as it specifically says to treat such links case by case, and I think there is sufficient argument to justify.  WP:LINKVIO is a relevant argument, but I suppose the question is whether it is truly copyright infringing if a fair use claim is supportable. Resolute 15:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not Wikipedia's job to police YouTube.  It doesn't matter who the video was uploaded by, we presume that it was uploaded in good faith and can link to it.  You can't "assume" that some "random uploader" doesn't own a video, that's not your problem and not your jurisdiction.  That's YouTube's concern.  How in the world can any of us be expected to know or to accurately verify who any given poster or why anything is being posted?  Maybe it's like that recent AP problem, where one department formed a YouTube channel and set the videos for reposting on websites and then another department threatened legal action against a radio station that linked the videos on its site and didn't believe that an official channel had been created.  Maybe they're trying to surreptitiously release something and get it going viral.  The point is that we don't know and we shouldn't be expected to care.  If it is demonstrated that something is illegal, such as if a group contacts the wikimedia foundation, shows that they are who they purport to be (and not some crank yankers) and requests that the link be removed, or if YouTube takes the video then, then of course we remove the link.  But in the absence of actual verified information that the video is actually violating someone's copyright, it's neither our place nor our responsibility to police the web.  Although, we do not repost any videos on Wikipedia and we try to keep our eyes open when we place actual information here (instead of just a link to where someone purports to own the site). 98.119.207.176 (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I too would have to agree that this falls into the valid link category. As WP:YOUTUBE specifically states to take it on a case by case basis. In this case being that video describes the situation in a way that words cannot, it is a valid link. -Djsasso (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The link 

message: I wonder if there is a good way to combat the plethora of misinformation regarding the tie-breaking scenario for Gold.  Canada needed to win by four, unless it was a 4-0 score.  I know that practically all media at the time reported the "5 or more" notion, but that is simply not true.  Chomsky would have a lot to say about simply passing on incorrect information, I don't think that is an acceptable practise here.  Since Finland and Canada tied their game, goal differential would break the tie.  If Canada won by four, goal differential would be equal at +22.  The next tie breaker would be goals scored, Finland had 45 goals, Canada came into the game with 41, so a four goal win where the Soviets scored at least one goal would give Canada the Gold.  Because a 4-0 score would still give Finland the gold (they fared better against the next best team Czechoslovakia--the next tie breaker), I believe they simplified the reporting to help viewers understand what would ASSURE Canada of the Gold, in a concise statement.18abruce (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumstances for Canada to win gold