Talk:Rory Fitzpatrick

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: But Youtube is not a reliable source. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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  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)
thread_title:  The Vote For Rory campagin 

message: 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).
according to the versus network (picture here ), 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)
thread_title:  Spirit of the law versus Letter 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page