User talk:Justhockey1

2014 Stanley Cup playoffs
I will be reverting your most recent edit again and if you do not stop adding this irrelevant and poorly sourced material to the article I will be forced to formally warn you about vandalising the article. The reason that your edit has been removed is because it falls under WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:UGC. I will ask that you read the links that I have provided for you and that you try to understand the consensus of acceptable standards for sources moving forward. Deadman137 (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The source is legit. It does not fall under questionable or vandalizing.  It is an article from a sports blog that features a professional writers and editors who are very trustworthy.  The writer here has checked his facts and proven his facts through a photo and references including CBS.  It seems the misunderstanding was where that actual article was from.  It came through Diehard Sport.  I appologize for using the Yardbarker link that referenced this.  It is not an article from Yardbarker, but rather a redirect.  I have provided the direct link for you.  "Diehard Sport has been featured on several prominent websites including: FOXSports, Grantland, Sports Illustrated, Bleacher Report, Yardbarker, LarryBrown Sports, Business Insider and The Big Lead."  It is no more or less trust worthy than Yahoo sports, Bleacher report, and any other sports pages out there.  The facts remain though, it was questioned, it has proof behind why it was questioned, it is an acceptable standard compared to any other acceptable source out there.  I thank you for your concern and hope this clears things up for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justhockey1 (talk • contribs) 10:44, March 2, 2015‎ (UTC)


 * Anybody with a web blog can post anything, even if it may be false. So help me find sufficient third party proof of what the direct web site, diehardsport.com claims. When I do a Google search for "SI.com diehardsport.com", I have trouble finding anything that has SI.com publishing something from diehardsport.com. I likewise have problems doing a Google search of "foxsports.com diehardsport.com"


 * In addition, some of these sports web sites generally have two sets of articles: one written by an established group of paid professional writers (and thus qualify as a credible reliable source under Wikipedia rules), and then a set of articles submitted by the average person, such as the Yahoo Sports Contributor Network (which makes it a questionable, self-published source) In the case of the Bleacher Report, there is a major difference between writers in their basic "Writer Program" versus their Featured Columnist Program. http://www.diehardsport.com/about-3/ does not give any evidence that it fails in the "established paid professional writers" category. They primarily only list where they graduated, which makes them more likely to fall into the "submission by the average person" category. If you like, I can open this discussion up to a wider forum at the Reliable sources noticeboard to gather more opinions. But the fact remains is that you only provided one single piece from a less than ideal reliable source, instead of multiple sources, news reports, or editorials offering the same conclusion -- which will make it harder to achieve consensus to keep it. (I mean if Diehard Sport has in fact been featured on several prominent websites, wouldn't these same sites picked up on this controversial no-call story as well?)


 * Furthermore, your edit should be written in a neutral point of view, especially with a controversial call like that. In this particular case, the author of the Diehard Sport article should be attributed directly in the text, because he was the only one providing us with that interpretation of the video of this controversial call (which could be disputed as "opinion instead of fact" by, for example, LA writers and fans). It basically should be no different than, for example, Fail Mary, where we specifically attribute the several authors directly in the article text. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I can understand the changes you have made, but will you also be making changes to the mention of the P.A. Parenteau's controversial in game 6 of the first round against Colorado and Minnesota or the mention of the Williams goal against the Sharks and Kings game 6? Both being referenced by independent authors from sites that allow anyone to supply articles therefor making it a questionable self published source.

Also the controversial goal was also questioned by Brian Stubits of CBS sports (https://twitter.com/StubitsCBS/status/473316938551005184). It was provided to him by another source and discussed by others as being a questionable call in his comments section? Should these be referenced and mentioned in the article as well, because with the way it is written it makes it appear that Jeff Weintraub is the only one who has mentioned or questioned the call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justhockey1 (talk • contribs) 10:22, March 6, 2015‎ (UTC)
 * What makes you think that the Yahoo Sports! Puck Daddy or NBC Sports' ProHockeyTalk.com are similar and "allows anyone to supply articles"? There seems to be a rotation of paid staff and contributing writers there, directly published on sites owned by the reliable sources of Yahoo and NBC Sports, respectively (and thus qualify as a credible reliable source under Wikipedia rules), unlike diehardsports.com which appears to be owned and controlled by two college buddies. Yahoo! Sports, NBC Sports, and other media organizations have these online interactive columns that they call "blogs", and may be powered by a blog publishing software program like WordPress, but they are essentially still articles and opinion pieces written by their staff and contributing writers.


 * Did Brian Stubits actual have an article published on CBSSports.com mentioning this? I do not think we can link to his tweet directly. His twitter account is currently not even marked as Verified with the blue verified badge, so how can we be sure it is actually him? Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Diehardsports.com is a independent site that is part of the Yardbarker network. The Yardbarker Network is part of Fox Sports. The purpose of Yardbarker is to take small independent sites that have no credibility and have them advertised and backed by Fox Sports. In order to be a part of Yardbarker you must meet criteria set out through Fox Sports Digital including having high quality work. The following can explain more.(http://www.yardbarker.com/ybn/intro) In short the articles on Yardbarker are from independent writers, however they are screened and verified by Fox Sports. This is the same with blogs such as Puck Daddy and Bleacher report.


 * The link that you provided says nothing about Fox Sports verifying any of the content posted by Yardbarker. If this is as credible as you claim then why has no actual news organization attached their name to this story?


 * If you read lower down in the provided link you'll also come across a line that states all content posted to Yardbarker must be original. This makes it far more likely that you will encounter original research by bloggers trying to get paid for page views than an actually well sourced article. Deadman137 (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The link provided is the application to be part of the Yardbarker Network. Yardbarker approves or denies an independent writer based off of the quality and reliability of their work. This is explained in the link provided. Furthermore Yardbarker only posts to its Yardbarker website select articles that they find to be of high quality. An "actual news organization" has attached their name to this story. That organization is Yardbarker/Fox Sports. A very reliable source. Finally yes the link does say all content must be original. This is true for any news organization at any level. You can not plagiarize. You can not copy someone else's work and post it. That makes it more likely you will have more original work. Again they work the same as sources such as Puck Daddy and Bleacher report which also get their information form individual bloggers, but again verify and only accept the highest of quality. The source is creditable and I have gone through great levels to explain to you why it is creditable.


 * If you can provide a source that has not been rejected then you can add it, just remember that this Yardbarker source is not reliable for inclusion in an article, so it has been rejected. The author of the link you have provided is a non-credible source in the subject matter in which he writes. Please learn the Wikipedia is edited by consensus not just one person's opinion. You have had an opportunity to try and prove the credibility of your source and you have failed to do so, if you attempt to re-add this link again you will be warned about making disruptive edits and possibly even edit warring. Deadman137 (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I have proven several times that the source is reliable. If you don't find Fox Sports as a reliable source then I apologize, but it does meet the requirements of Wikipedia. This has been attempted to be edited in different formats with separate references that you refute with no legitimate argument. Posting the info I have does not meet the requirments for making disruptive edits and edit warring has not been violated on either side as the situations have been discussed. Please review Wikipedia guidelines to better educate yourself before issuing warnings.


 * Your two sources are still garbage. On June 1st Fox Sports ran the article produced by the Associated Press about game seven. A day later the sports socialnetworking site Yardbarker ran a story from some un-notable blogger about a potential blown call that led to a goal being scored. You also found some information from an unverified twitter account, none of these will ever get you very far in a debate about how reliable these sources are.


 * As I have said though if a credible source could be found then this would be acceptable and it looks like there is a credible source. Prior to this season Al Cimaglia worked for a Fox affiliate in Chicago covering the Blackhawks for four years, he is also a contributor to the NHL's satellite radio broadcasts which he has done since 2006. On June 2, 2014, he wrote this article . If you want to use this published article then I won't object, but all Yardbarker and twitter links should be removed immediately. Deadman137 (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, if this is an acceptable source to allow us to come to a mutual agreement then I will be happy to use it. For future references Yardbarker works the same as sources like Puck Daddy and Bleacher report so I would caution a double standard on these. Fox Sports checks and has final word on their articles on Yardbarker. It works the same with Bleacher Report, it is a community of independent writers who submit articles to Bleacher Report and if they are acceptable and of high quality they are published. This would be an exception to the WP:UGC policy which states

""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG."

Again though I'd like to come to a mutual agreement and avoid any unneeded debate on this issue. So I will be happy to use the source you provided. I thank you for your cooperation and glad this got settle professionally.