Talk:D.J. King
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey, an attempt at building a useful ice hockey resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information). |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
[edit] D.J. King is known to get into a fight during the second or third period if his team is losing.
To the anon IP who is continually edit warring over this. Note that pasting links to a bunch of box scores does not mean King is known for this. It's the same as posting a bunch of baseball box scores that happen to be games where Manny Ramirez hit a double in the 7th inning and saying that Manny is "known for hitting doubles in the 7th inning". Joe Sakic is known for his wrist shot [1]and there's an article to back it up. Has anyone written about King being known as a late period fighter when his team is down? Probably not, and if not, it's original research, and Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Quartet 22:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I changed it to say "Usually gets into a fight during the 2nd or 3rd period." Is that bland enough for you? When DJ King starts to get in fights during the first period when his team is winning, you are at liberty to change it. But as of his career now, he only gets in fights when hes losing, and the MAJORITY OF HIS FIGHTS ARE IN THE 2nd or 3rd PERIOD. COMPREHENDO? 71.157.171.205 22:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really follow hockey and, frankly, I don't even know who he is. For all I know, he could be Ron Artest's NHL counterpart. That is one of the reasons why proper citations are so important: they allow people not familiar with the subject to verify that a statement is accurate and factual. Hence, if I a claim of regular behavior (such as getting into fights) is made, I think, it should be backed up by sources that establish a pattern. It doesn't have to be an article that explicitly says "x is true". Multiple sources that establish a pattern of behavior are sufficient and possibly even preferable. I also think good sources are especially important since we're talking WP:3RR territory here and there's no use getting into an edit war. -- Seed 2.0 23:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hes a rookie, so he hasn't played many games, not even a full season yet. By looking at all his fights, you see a pattern. The team usually losing, its usually the 2nd or 3rd period. The statement fits, until a new pattern develops. 71.157.171.205 23:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Being known for something and 'usually' doing something are two very different things. King is barely known for anything by casual fans (he's not even played every team yet) and won't be known at all by non-hockey fans. Any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, which is why the statement was challenged. Posting a box score as proof that someone is known for something doesn't cut it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you - see WP:OR. Understand? "Usually" is good for now. Quartet 00:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hence why I changed it, there was no need to be all iffy about it, all it was was a grammar mistake, not a matter of how well its cited. I wouldn't put it there if it wasn't true, and at the time it is, so I will keep it there. 70.253.168.239 02:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- 20 fights this season, 5 of them in the first period. Who's being 'iffy'? I'd question it even being true. Quartet 04:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hes a rookie, so he hasn't played many games, not even a full season yet. By looking at all his fights, you see a pattern. The team usually losing, its usually the 2nd or 3rd period. The statement fits, until a new pattern develops. 71.157.171.205 23:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really follow hockey and, frankly, I don't even know who he is. For all I know, he could be Ron Artest's NHL counterpart. That is one of the reasons why proper citations are so important: they allow people not familiar with the subject to verify that a statement is accurate and factual. Hence, if I a claim of regular behavior (such as getting into fights) is made, I think, it should be backed up by sources that establish a pattern. It doesn't have to be an article that explicitly says "x is true". Multiple sources that establish a pattern of behavior are sufficient and possibly even preferable. I also think good sources are especially important since we're talking WP:3RR territory here and there's no use getting into an edit war. -- Seed 2.0 23:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
2 Fights were in the first period, champ. http://hockeyfights.com/players/801/fightcard/reg2007 75.28.91.93 19:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Jan 16, 2007; March 31, 2007; Nov 18, 2006; Nov 25, 2006; Dec 17, 2006; Dec 31, 2006; Feb 07, 2007 - that's 7 actually. And 7 more last season (out of 15). Quartet 19:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
We're talking about the NHL, not the AHL. You've been proving my point non-stop that wikipedia admins have no idea what they're talking about. 75.28.91.93 21:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
AND even if it was 7 outta like 25-30.. thats still USUALLY in the 2nd on 3rd period is the majority of his fights. Wow, Quartet, Wow. 75.28.91.93 21:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Kindly point out in this sentence where it says "NHL." "D.J. King usually gets into a fight during the second or third period if his team is losing." Quit posting strawman arguments. Quartet 22:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- And who else has even written or discussed this about King besides you? I haven't seen a single article that discusses King being a late period fighter. A huge section of this article reaks of original research. Quartet 22:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Its just fact, how the hell else can I expand low profile players stubs? You watch them and learn about them, because "Reliable Sources" don't cover them. I like how I owned you with facts and you change the subject. I honestly think you, Cambridge, and Yankees will be the only one that has an issue with this. If you look at his fight card, one would assume most of his fights happen late in the game. Hell, a lot of enforcers fight late in the game, thats there job. Its called a general observation, and its common knowledge to anybody who knows what an enforcer is, what hockey is, or who D.J. King is. Jeez-us, just let it freaking be! 75.28.91.93 23:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Quartet is right - you're now resorting to posting strawman arguments when asked for a reliable source to back up a statement by changing the parameters (nowhere in the article does it specify NHL over AHL trends), and pleading that is was a "grammar" mistake. Unfortunately, what you're posting, like it or not, is original research, and one of Wikipedia's official policies; WP:SOURCE states that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Please do us all a favor and re-read that a few times. It also states that Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Your material has been challenged, and the editors are looking for a reliable source (not box scores, and not an unofficial/personal website that tracks hockey fights) that indicates the notability of King being involved in or being known for fights mostly in the 2nd and 3rd with his team down by more than 2 goals. Otherwise it's just your personal observation, which true or not, isn't permanently encyclopedic. Yankees76 00:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm waiting for Cambridge so the *** trio can be complete. Hes what the page says. D.J. King usually gets into a fight during the second or third period if his team is losing. If you look at all his fights, they're usually late in the game, with only 2 NHL fights in the first period this season. Then, if you look at the box scores, you can see his team was losing when he was in said fight. Its called putting two and two together, its not that difficult. I'm sorry you're unable to figure it out, and need the New York Times to put it in black and white for you, but unlike you, I have much higher than a 3rd grade reading level, and can make the assumption that he fights late, and usually when his team is losing. Now it may not happen all the time, but it happens the majority of the time, say 8 times outta 10. And the fact of the matter is, this article is a STUB, so all I did was add information that is NPOV, I don't say he wins everyfight, but according to HockeyFights.com hes only lost 1 NHL fight to the 6'7" Derek Boogaard. Yankees76, are you truly this feeble minded? When the pattern changes, and the majority of his fights are in the first period when is team is winning, I'll gladly change it. DJ King is one of my favourite players, so what would I have to gain by adding just random information? Also, should the fact that DJ King scored his first goal against the Coyotes be thrown out the window because its just a Box Score? I don't know why that would be fine for goal scoring, but not for his fighting. You're both being very hypocritical. :) 75.28.91.93 01:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- To the anon user who continues to have trouble understanding WP:SOURCE: Nobody cares about putting up assumptions here. This is an encyclopedia - not a publisher of original thought or a publisher of unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. This article isn't for just us to read or for hockey fans, it's for anyone in the world to read - billions of whom have never heard of the sport of hockey or a borderline NHL player named DJ King - which is one reason why Wikipedia requires all material to be verifiable. Until you grasp that it's pointless even having this conversation - especially if you're going to continue to quote "Hockeyfights.com", which is just some personal website run by a guy named David Singer who will accept the opinion of anyone - knowledgable or not, and can hardly be considered a reliable source for an encyclopedia. And this is the consensus of the community, not just two or three editors - that's why it's a policy. The user above is correct - unless you have sources for your assumptions, your material is not permanently encyclopedic and not to be included here. Quartet 04:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's true; anon is just posting a strawman argument. The source for his first career goal actually says he scored his first career goal; and it's an NHL.com article, actually a reliable source and certainly not just a box score. And using that to refute my request above to show sources for the "usually" claim? Sorry, it doesn't cut it. I've looked at all his fights, and the claim in the article is weak at best. In fact in his AHL season last year almost half of his fights were in the first period alone (7 out of 15), with an 8th taking place in 4:03 of the second. The season before it was 7 out of 18 with another in the first 3 mins of the second. He's 1/1 for fights in the first period in the postseason in 2004. With the 7/15 from this year, at a glance that's roughly 44% of his fights occuring in the first period or the first few minutes of the second. This hardly shows a pattern of "say 8 times outta 10" (or was that another "grammar" mistake?) What the IP above is basically saying is that if a player fights 65% of his fights in the second or third period, it needs to be added to an encyclopedia article on that player - especially if he's one of your favorite players and the article is currently a stub; rather than actually doing some research and writing something that is sourced reliably. What a joke. There shouldn't even be a debate - the material should be removed as being not notable. Yankees76 05:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- And what's often been overlooked in this article is that this is a bio of a living person. And, according to the official policy WP:LIVING, We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles[2], talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.
- This is quoted directly from Wikipedia's founder. And that's pretty much all I need to refer to, to remove any questionable unsourced info from this or any other living persons bio. Thanks. Yankees76 05:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's true; anon is just posting a strawman argument. The source for his first career goal actually says he scored his first career goal; and it's an NHL.com article, actually a reliable source and certainly not just a box score. And using that to refute my request above to show sources for the "usually" claim? Sorry, it doesn't cut it. I've looked at all his fights, and the claim in the article is weak at best. In fact in his AHL season last year almost half of his fights were in the first period alone (7 out of 15), with an 8th taking place in 4:03 of the second. The season before it was 7 out of 18 with another in the first 3 mins of the second. He's 1/1 for fights in the first period in the postseason in 2004. With the 7/15 from this year, at a glance that's roughly 44% of his fights occuring in the first period or the first few minutes of the second. This hardly shows a pattern of "say 8 times outta 10" (or was that another "grammar" mistake?) What the IP above is basically saying is that if a player fights 65% of his fights in the second or third period, it needs to be added to an encyclopedia article on that player - especially if he's one of your favorite players and the article is currently a stub; rather than actually doing some research and writing something that is sourced reliably. What a joke. There shouldn't even be a debate - the material should be removed as being not notable. Yankees76 05:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
-
I dont care to read those essays, but the box scores are from NHL.com and the AP, but k. Good try?75.28.91.93 05:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Oh and Yankees, learn to read, "In fact in his AHL season last year almost half of his fights were in the first period alone (7 out of 15), with an 8th taking place in 4:03 of the second."
I said before we're talking NHL fights, nobody cares about his AHL fights. Jeeezus. You guys just prove my point wikipedia admins are idiots. 75.28.91.93 05:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Seed 2.0 - Hence, if I a claim of regular behavior (such as getting into fights) is made, I think, it should be backed up by sources that establish a pattern. It doesn't have to be an article that explicitly says "x is true".
EXACTLY. LET IT BE. YOU GUYS HAVE A PERSONAL BIAS AGAINST ME!!!!! 75.28.91.93 05:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh I'm sorry, where does it say "NHL and not AHL" in the article? I must have missed that distinction in the article - probably because it's not there. And you haven't established a pattern - as I've clearly disproved above. And personal bias? Don't flatter yourself. Yankees76 05:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Umm, perhaps the fact hes an NHL player? Perhaps the fact this article SAYS NOTHING about him playing in the AHL besides on the right? And you do have a bias, take a look at your last 50 edits, playboy. 75.28.91.93 05:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- He's played more seasons in the minors than the NHL, strawman - if you're going to claim someone is known for something, you can't turn around later and whine that it was only for a handful of games - especially if it's sourced as poorly as that was. And yes, those are 50 edits wasted on something that should have been resolved in 5 minutes. Yankees76 05:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stop Edit Stalking Me
You guys only have a problem with this because I made it. Take a look at Cam Janssen's page.
"Known for his aggressive hits and for finishing strong in most his fights, Janssen has quickly become a fan favorite in New Jersey." DOESNT EVEN HAVE A CITATION NEEDED TAG. "Janssen's first job was moving cars at a local car dealership." No source tag. GET OFF MY BACK! My sources were at least better than nothing, at least mine has backing, this has nothing, and you're only editing it because I edited it. You guys are incredible. Freaking Incredible. 75.28.91.93 05:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- So fix it - try making some constructive edits for a change. Yankees76 05:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
If I delete it, you revert it back for vandalism. 75.28.91.93 06:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Also, I can't edit it, I don't have an account. Common sense, oh feeble minded one. 75.28.91.93 06:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Guess you should have thought of that before you got yourself blocked. And if you were really interested in getting a legit account you'd stop attacking other editors when you don't get your way. Quartet 07:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, the Cam Janssen page has been tagged for sources since January 2007. See the top of the page. When an article has too much unsourced material, a large tag is placed at the top - there's no need to go through the article and tag every instance in a case like that. Quartet 07:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stop Messing with his height and weight
ACCORDING TO HIS TEAMS WEBSITE, hes 6'0" 185, I think his OWN TEAM would be the BEST source for this, not an outside article... 75.28.91.93 06:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- See NHL.com. [2]. You're such a big fan yet you completely overlooked that his height and weight was wrong. Quartet 06:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I trust his own teams website over NHL.com, and he doesn't look 6'2".... 75.28.91.93 06:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, the Blues are his team, theres an external link to his profile on the Blues site, so you changing it because ONE website said differently had to violate some sorta wikipedia rule. Now you have two sources, but still his own teams profile holds more value. Why would his own team get it wrong? 75.28.91.93 06:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's 2 websites, one the official site of the NHL, the other the official site of the Players Association saying he's 6'2". Obviously the Blues site is in error if two official NHL sites say otherwise. Also, even your favorite website to source and use to attack other editors (hockeyfights.com) says he's 6'2". You can't have it both ways Quartet 06:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Since you're such a girl, I'll make an edit to solve it. I love how you like to edit war instead of talk it over. 75.28.91.93 06:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- You think you can intimidate me with cheesy name calling? Sorry, but I'm not one of your 12 year old friends. Even his old team the Rivermen list him at 6'2".[4] It looks like the Blues have the same quality control problems on their website as they do on the ice. Quartet 06:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, this is the best source, yet, the Blues own website - [5] - read this press release and tell me how tall he is and how much he weighs. No wonder this organization can't make the playoffs - they don't even know the size of their own players. There's nothing to discuss. Quartet 06:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The team couldn't make the playoffs because of poor coaching early on, we got a new coach and had one of the best records in the league. Talk to me when your favourite team makes the playoffs 25 years in a row. And what has that have to do with the article? Nothing, so please follow Wikipedia Guidelines. Please respect other editors. :) 75.28.91.93 06:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's evidence that if they can't even get the height and weight of their players correct - then they have to be questioned as a reliable source - especially if you're using that source to edit war when you are clearly wrong and just edit warring to be a nuisance. Quartet 06:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Now my guess is you're going to blank the page because you've lost yet another argument. 75.28.91.93 06:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- See above. And I'd also like to add, that as a fan of the Blues, you didn't think it was a bit strange that their "enforcer" only weighed 185 pounds? Who's he going to fight at that weight? Kyle Wellwood? You talk about losing arguments, and spend time calling names and arguing over 2nd and 3rd period fights, when the whole time the page you're trying so hard to keep others from editing shows DJ King standing 6'0" and weighting a buck eighty-five. That's just too funny. Quartet 07:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Jordin Tootoo is 5'8" 185 and considered by many to be an enforcer, he also got into a fight with Reed Low. Even though, I hate Tootoo, and think hes a pest (hockey), hes still a good example. Dan Hinote 6'0" 180-90, hes an enforcer. Barret Jackman is only 6'0", and an enforcer. Theres ultimate fighters, (Phil Baroni) That are 5'9" 184, [6] and could handle Zdeno Chara. I was keeping the page to fit wikipedia realible sources, when people change the height and weight without reason, I revert it. I checked his St. Louis Blues page, and looked at the height there, didn't think twice that theres COULD be wrong. 75.28.91.93 07:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Guys...relax. We all realize we are contesting the height and weight of an NHL player, right? It doesn't matter what kind of hockey player you think Tootoo is. It doesn't matter if a small guy can beat up a big guy. If you can find several reliable sources calling him a "goon" or "thug" or "enforcer," please feel free to add that into the article with quotes around it and <ref> tags linking the information (see WP:CITE). Please don't make me submit this to lamest edit wars. Let's focus on what matters here: find several reliable sources, see what they say, discuss what they say in a civilized manner, come to a consensus. 75.28.91.93, life would be a lot easier on all of us if you got a user account. JHMM13 07:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I've had several user accounts, and get banned for making constructive edits and reverted vandalism, and people like Quartet, when they revert my constructive edits without even saying why, like he did here, I fly off the handle. 75.28.91.93 07:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is a logical flaw in your reasoning. Getting blocked is no minor offense on Wikipedia as it means you are a multiple repeat offender of some violation of our policy. Perhaps Quartet tried in the past to be reasonable with you...I don't know, and it doesn't really matter. Can you two please put aside your differences now and focus on actually being constructive? If both of you hold different and conflicting points of view, but both of you claim to be right, why don't you find a third solution to this problem that doesn't involve months and months of edit warring that will simply waste everyone's time? Find a consensus and find it here. If you are unwilling to be civil now, you cannot complain about being unfairly treated in the future. That's the most I can tell you. JHMM13 07:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- As you can tell by my edits, I've compromised SEVERAL times, and Yankees76 and Quartet stalk my edits, daily. This page isn't that bad, compared to the biased and POV on Cam Janssen's page, nor the height weight being wrong on Phil Baroni's page (I've since changed it), and pages like Enforcer (hockey) having a list, but if you try to add a well known enforcer to it, you better have a source or else its gone! Even though its pretty much impossible to find a source on the internet for every piece of factual information. Look at Quartets last 100 edits, most are directed at me. His user page should say "Quartet is known for usually stalking the edits of Wikipedia members who know more than him." I find it funny how admins can tell you what to do, yet in turn don't follow the policy themselves. They only prove the point that power hungry admins will be the end of Wikipedia. 75.28.91.93 08:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is not difficult to find sources for pieces of factual information. You can simply have a footnote indicating that several sources say different things, if that is indeed the case. Go to NHL.com, stlouisblues.com, espn.com, and whatever other ones you can find and figure it out from there. Unless one of you personally measures him, writes an essay on it, and gets it published in a reliable source, this is as good as it's going to be. "User stalking," as you call it, is not against Wikipedia policy and, in my opinion, not a wholly horrible thing. I would love it if two or three people covered every one of my edits to double-check what I wrote. I wish I could adequately explain to you the logical fallacy in saying something like "well-known" and passing it off for fact. This project is about using reliable sources in discussions to build consensus professionally. It is not so ridiculous to demand a source for information, and before adding to an already over-long list, maybe you should think about restructuring that list or if that list is even worthwhile in the first place. The admins are not power hungry and they are held to a much higher standard than everyone else. If an admin were to make a single edit to this page like any of the many you have, they would already be in front of the arbitration committee. If you have a problem with any single admin, please bring that issue up with another admin. There are channels for complaints for a reason, and all the bureaucracy is there for a reason. Just calm down and realize that 99% of this project is compromise, hard work, and being civil. You should also realize that by simply being alive, you are not necessarily entitled to edit or use Wikipedia. It is a private website that is allowing you to edit trusting that you and everyone else can get along and make a decent encyclopedia. If they feel that you have been hurtful in this process, they deny you access, but not before endless warnings, partial blocks, etc. etc. Please try to remember all this before you attack people who aren't getting paid to respond to exaggerated claims. JHMM13 08:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- As you can tell by my edits, I've compromised SEVERAL times, and Yankees76 and Quartet stalk my edits, daily. This page isn't that bad, compared to the biased and POV on Cam Janssen's page, nor the height weight being wrong on Phil Baroni's page (I've since changed it), and pages like Enforcer (hockey) having a list, but if you try to add a well known enforcer to it, you better have a source or else its gone! Even though its pretty much impossible to find a source on the internet for every piece of factual information. Look at Quartets last 100 edits, most are directed at me. His user page should say "Quartet is known for usually stalking the edits of Wikipedia members who know more than him." I find it funny how admins can tell you what to do, yet in turn don't follow the policy themselves. They only prove the point that power hungry admins will be the end of Wikipedia. 75.28.91.93 08:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah speaking of that, I maybe got two warnings, and then was blocked for a day, then that same day, while waiting out the block, that day turned into a month. I love seeing these other users talk pages with about 100 warnings on it, and they never get blocked, yet I did, so cute :) 75.40.63.139 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
