User talk:Soxrock/Archive 4



Archives

  Leave a new message. Welcome!
 * 1) February 2006 – June 2007
 * 2) June 8, 2007 – June 29, 2007
 * 3) June 30, 2007 – July 18, 2007

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Dates
Hi. I have no quibble with your date changes. But just saw your reference to wp:date, and was not sure what within it you were referencing. tx.--Epeefleche 01:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I once got sucked into a revert war over the stupid issue of the "spoiler" tag. I got so mad at the obtuseness of the editors involved that I asked for permanent self-block after they slapped me with a 3RR. Then I decided to come back and stop watching so many pages on so many subjects. However, I nearly got pulled into it again, just within baseball, thanks (1) to Tecmo; and (2) to the idiot that kept trying to put Mets colors on Casey Stengel. The fact is, regarding dates, there is no clear "practical" policy, no consensus, regardless of what the supposed "official" policy is. It's also not important, and for some policy-pedants to get into revert wars over it indicates they have too much time on their hands. As for me, I seldom link dates at all. I leave linking of dates to those who want to tangle with that issue. :) Baseball Bugs 02:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I left word on the issue at the page where the issue was discussed. You may wish to do the same, for whatever it is worth.  I though the postion taken by others on the substance of the issue was lacking in wisdom.--Epeefleche 02:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What I learned from the "spoiler" issue is that those characters are fanatics who won't change their minds no matter how much logic you try to use in explaining it. Baseball Bugs 03:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That may be true. Still ... no reason not to let them (and others who read the page) know that BB is not alone in his view that his approach was reasonable.  No?--Epeefleche 04:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Pascack and JoeIdaho
Excellent. Another two bite the dust. Peace at last. Until the next one. Baseball Bugs 17:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wknight94 is wondering if that new user is Tecmo. At the moment, I don't think so, but he does have an interest in baseball cards. It bears watching. Baseball Bugs 17:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to suspect Gmh224 and Jjj222 are the same user... Pascack. Two user names created today, after Pascack's 192.*.*.* IP was unblocked - taking on his anti-Yankees/pro-Mets agenda, starting with Joe Girardi this morning. Mghabmw 22:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Socks
Be careful of accusations. Unless the evidence is strong (which I'm not so sure of here), you can get in deep water. That's why I kind of dance around the issue unless I'm certain. However, that guy User:Ragefd came on for a short stretch 3 days ago and did nothing but baseball cards, so it's hard to tell what's up. Baseball Bugs 18:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The short-lived, apparent Tecmo/Levi IP address sock was this one. Anytime I find one, I'm including them in a category of "suspected sock puppets of Tecmobowl" which you can also get to by going to the User:Tecmobowl page, et al. I found it funny that this short-lived sock made a stop at Louis SOCK-alexis. That Tecmo/Levi is a barrel of laughs. Baseball Bugs 03:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

According to discussion on the notice board as per User:Wknight94 and User:Theresa knott, edits by banned users are fair game for reversion. However, if you think his edits were an improvement, you may apply those edits at your discretion. :) Baseball Bugs 14:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Len Dykstra
Just wondering - but why did you change the Len Dykstra colors from Mets to Phillies? He was one of my favorite players of the 1980's Mets and although he played a couple more years in Philly, I think more people remember him now as a member of those dominant Mets teams in the 80's. In either case, I think he should be shown a Met because he has served as a special instructor for the Mets the last few years in spring training, whereas he is no longer affiliated with the Phillies. In either case, I thought I'd ask because I noticed your change while I was making an edit to Dykstra's page. Thanks. Gmh224 19:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's a matter of geography. I live in New Jersey about half way between New York and Philadelphia (Toms River to be exact) and I think more people identify with Dykstra as a Met because of the popularity of that 1986 team.  The Dykstra trade was probably one of the worst trades the team ever made.  Anyway, I think Dykstra works with the Mets organization now, but I thought I'd ask because I didn't want to revert your change. Gmh224 19:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He's a Phillie. And I grew up in the NY metro. Mghabmw 23:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But he is currently affiliated with the Mets as a special instructor. He seems to associate himself more with the Mets in his retirement.  I think that has to be considered a tie breaker. Gmh224 14:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is why it's probably a good idea to remove the colors altogether. I'm not sure I'd even include HoF colors - Gary Carter and I agree that he's a Met but the HoF disagrees (and now I notice that he indeed has colors contrary to the HoF).  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's basically a decoration. In theory, everything in wikipedia has to be verifiable. It's easy to verify (1) what team a current player is with and (2) what that team's colors are. It's not so easy to verify what a retired player's colors "should" be. Therein lies the problem... or should I say the trap. It's similar to the problem of which flag to assign to a player who was born in Germany because his parents were in the military but he's as American as baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet. It gets back to the question what is the purpose, or the point of the colors and the flags? The answer to those questions should drive the answer to what colors and flags to post. Baseball Bugs 15:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yankees10
No, I'm not. I don't know where that came from. Mghabmw 23:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Evil Sultan reported me for sockpuppetry, which makes no sense. Bucs10 and Yankees10 had it noted that they were the same guy and they haven't edited in weeks, so why would I be a sock puppet? I got into a stupid editing war with Pascack for standing my ground on Reggie and the opinions of everyone else who discussed it with the exception on me and his sockpuppets, but at least there's a picture there now. Mghabmw 23:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement by reverting edits
Hi, you just RVd edits that I made to Longlevi (the sock of a banned user) edits, per WP:BAN, which provides: "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users."--Epeefleche 15:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You can blame me for that. He said he thought the edits looked like an improvement. I said if they look like an improvement, to go ahead and reinstate them (see my comment under "Socks", above). In truth, I had thought so too, but it's a touchy area. While Tecmo/Levi's edits since banning have no standing as such, it's possible the content of those edits have some value. I would say that once someone else puts them back in there, they "own" them (the edits they made, not the article they put them into) and must answer for them, as with any other edits. Baseball Bugs 15:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I talked to Baseball Bugs regarding the issue. He says that I could revert to his edit. I think his does have better information, albeit a banned user. So I think that my edit is fine. Sorry if it bothers anyone, but I'm trying to improve all these articles currently. And Tecmo's did improve it. Soxrock 15:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(I moved the preceding comment back here from my talk page, to keep discussion in one place --Epeefleche 17:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC))


 * My suggestion is to incorporate any information that you think is better. First, there are ways in which it is inferior, for example the version you RVd accorded with wp:bio where this version does not.  Second, I believe that it is appropriate to have sensitivity towards the admonition in wp:ban that "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users." If there is anything in the banned user's comments that you think necessary, pls incorporate it if you like, but I think the blind RV was not the better move for both of these reasons.  I would take the non-banned-user version, see what is missing that should be in there, and work from there.--Epeefleche 17:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I see. Thanks for your opinions Soxrock 17:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A pleasure communicating with you, as always.--Epeefleche 19:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Me Leaving
Thanks for your concern about me leaving, I was just taking a long break, I will still be editing Wikipedia, just not as much as I used to, and I am sorry for taking so long to respond--Yankees10 16:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Seasons
The best thing to do is to merge the seasons articles to the respected page, there were several WP:AFD concensus for that. I reverted your edits. Jaranda wat's sup 23:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. They are notable Soxrock 23:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS
Please read the that link. I have no interest in these articles and your request for help from me, an unrelated Wikipedian, constitutes canvassing. I do not wish to receive any further notices about this. As an aside, using your alternate account for canvassing is even less appealing.  Leebo  T / C  00:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Going around finding people to support your cause is exactly what WP:CANVASS describes as disallowed. At most, it's acceptable to notify a few related participants of a discussion, rather than going around asking everyone for help.  Leebo  T / C  00:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Same opinion here. --Michael Greiner 00:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have fixed it. Sorry for canvassing. Soxrock 00:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted your canvassing, as that isn't allowed. Jaranda wat's sup 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

2006 Royals
What do you mean by other batters? And do you want me to put pitchers batting stats? There's quite a few that batted but it seems so... insignificant. Mghabmw 00:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow the Royals, so I'm not so sure of their lineup. I'm going to take the judgement and use a min of 100 AB. Mghabmw 00:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have seen that you have left the same notice that you left me on other user's talk pages. However, didn't like that and removed all your comments that you left on their pages. I warned him, but I thought I should tell you. Jaranda has taken it upon himself to do this, and it isn't right of him. He had no right to remove your comments. Ksy92003 (talk)  00:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Jaranda didn't take it upon himself, several other Wikipedians (the ones that Soxrock is spamming, including myself) have asked him to stop.  Leebo  T / C  00:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know why he's being like that, but it isn't right of him. He had no right to redirect those pages.  And if any more problems with him arise, then we will have to do something about him.  He can't re-direct them just because they're, in his opinion "not notable" when it's a huge project that many many users have worked on.  If he does it again, then I'll calmly talk to him.  Ksy92003  (talk)  00:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know who is more right in this situation, to be honest. Jaranda shouldn't have removed your comments.  But right now, it's not gonna help if you keep saying that it wasn't.  Just don't worry about him.  Just work on the articles, and revert him if he re-directs it again.  Ksy92003  (talk)  00:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont understand why he is doing that either--Yankees10 01:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Yankees10


 * I did most of the Royals. I stopped on Relief Pitching. All batters and starting pitchers is complete. Mghabmw 02:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether or not canvassing has taken place (it hasn't, for example, in the note Soxrock left on my page), Jaranda has absolutely no right to delete comments on others' talk pages. I have discussed this in greater detail at [.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] 04:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not canvassing has taken place (it hasn't, for example, in the note Soxrock left on my page) - It's not really a question, everyone who got the message was canvassed. You may not consider it spam if you cared about the issue, but it was canvassing, which is why other editors would take interest in edits on others' talk pages. Jaranda probably shouldn't have removed it, though, given his implication in the note. I've settled the matter with Soxrock on my talk page, and consider it concluded. The baseball projects don't own the baseball articles, and Jaranda probably should have discussed it more. Everyone needs to take a step back.  Leebo  T / C  04:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1)He changed his message on being alerted, so that it was not canvassing -- at least on my page. 2) Canvassing (spamming or not) does not empower Jaranda to delete entries of others on my talk page. There is no "probably" here.  It is manifest.  And given he is an admin, he should know better. 3) Jaranda should clean up his mess.  4) This has nothing to do with whether baseball project owns the baseball articles.  I'm not even a member of the project. That comment is not responsive to my comments, and not relevant to the issue of Jaranda's actions. As Jaranda takes a step back, he should restore the comments he deleted ... people can delete them from their talk pages if they like.  But he has no right to.--Epeefleche 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you said, so I'll only dispute your first point. Even though Soxrock removed the "say yes please" part of the message, it still had biased wording like "Jaranda has taken it upon himself to..." and "he's going with the non-notable card". The message still requested you take action on it, so it was canvassing. The only reason I'm trying to clarify this is so that everyone realizes that no part of it was okay. An "alert" might have been phrased "As a Wikipedian who may have interest in baseball topics, you may be interested in discussing the status of individual team season articles. All input is welcome. The discussion is taking place wherever." Something like that.  Leebo  T / C  12:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In short, you have to be kind of a weasel about it. Instead of giving your side, you just notify the ones you think will support you, with neutral-sounding wording, and let them draw their own conclusions. Baseball Bugs 14:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, only notifying those who agree with you (if you know of others who don't) is still disallowed. Don't try to twist what I said into something different, please.  Leebo  T / C  15:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not twisting what you said. I'm just explaining how a weasel could get around the rule by appearing to be rule-compliant, as opposed to openly demonstrating bias and getting smacked for it. :) Baseball Bugs 15:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Pirates Template
Thanks for putting those season links back to the Pirates Template. Some guy (y2kjoker i think his name is?) keeps insisting that they be removed, but I am quite intent on expanding upon those links, and I'm glad to see you think the red links are necessary too. Thanks! ThirdPoliceman 03:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you might want to weigh in at --Epeefleche 04:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
Maybe instead of making a large number of contextless pages for MLB team seasons by year, you should focus on creating whole articles with content one at a time... As it stands, if these showed up on WP:CSD I'd be inclined to delete them as having no content other than headers and a short intro blurb. Mind you, I'm not planning on going through and tagging these, but it appears you've created more of these then you will reasonably be able to get up to article status in short order leaving them open to someone else tagging them. You might want to consider using your sandbox to create whole articles before dumping them into the mainspace.--Isotope23 talk 13:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I hope that came off as it was intended... as a suggestion that you can take or ignore as you see fit. I have no interest in tagging these, but I imagine it would be monstrously frustrating for you (or anyone for that matter) to log in one day and see these all redlinked because someone came along and tagged them and then they were deleted... Perhaps the baseball wiki project can help you complete them.  I'm not all that knowledgeable about Baseball other than the general rules.  I'm more of a football fan in both the American and Association sense of the word.--Isotope23 talk 13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Half-barnstar
I'm guessing he deducted points for making fun of his typing. Taking it to "medication"? "Conflect of inflect"? :) Baseball Bugs 15:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Stats
I said that the people who say that we "stole" their format for making the stats that they should suggest a better way of organizing the statistics. There isn't any other real way to do it.

Also, look at Jaranda's talk page. I just left him another comment. It's self-explanatory. Ksy92003 (talk)  17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I know, that's what I told him. We aren't claiming them as our own; we're attributing those stats to ESPN and B-R.


 * It's also weird how this dispute started because of the notability, now it's the stats. Jaranda is looking for any reason to dispute for the sake of dispute.  His reasons aren't static; they change again and again.  That's the main problem with him.  When he has one argument, somebody gives a reason, then he comes up with an even less sensible argument.  Ksy92003  (talk)  17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tomorrow
I don't know exactly when I'm gonna be leaving tomorrow. I suspect around 4:00, but as early as 3:30. Remember, not only is it my birthday tomorrow but it is my parent's anniversary, as well, so they might want to do something special tomorrow afternoon to celebrate their 31st anniversary. So I suspect to be out at least by 4:00, but I might be gone earlier.

Also, don't expect me to be able to edit between 2:30 to 4:30. I'm sorry, but I've got to go to my school for my senior picture (it's at 3:28). The school is only 4 miles away from my house, so it won't take that long. But I won't be able to edit for a short time today. And of course, I probably won't be on my computer during the Angels/A's game today, which I'll be watching carefully. Ksy92003 (talk)  19:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm taking a while to reply... I'm preparing my parent's anniversary gift... a pineapple (long story). Anyway, my dad still says the 11.5 GB Athletics scare him more than the 2 GB Mariners.  But the M's scare me so much now.


 * Good luck with the Baseball-reference chat. I don't have a doubt in my mind that this will all be solved soon and we will be allowed to carry on with our business with the projects.  I'll try to help you as much as I possibly can.  Later tonight or tomorrow morning/afternoon, I will try my absolute hardest to get up all the stats for the Angels I possibly can.  Ksy92003  (talk)  20:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's because they threw away Barry Zito. I don't know how you can let go your ace, especially to your cross-bay rival.  Dan Haren is a young talent, and he's gonna be the team's ace for years if he stays with the team.  But I don't understand why they let Zito go last offseason.  But it was only a matter of time.  In 2002, they were the best team with the best rotation of Mulder, Hudson, and Zito.  But after 2004, they gave away Hudson to Atlanta, after 2005 they gave away Mulder to St. Louis, and now Zito.  Ever since 2004, when the Anaheim Angels won their first AL West title since '86, they've been selling and selling, giving away pieces of a potential World Series contender.  Personally, I never liked Jason Kendall.  His physical appearance really creeps me out, and I lost respect for him ever since he charged John Lackey last season.  He has a habit of leaning over the plate to force pitchers to throw away, off the plate, allowing him to get better pitches to hit or more balls.  I'm glad he was finally traded away, now to a team the Angels aren't gonna see until 2010 (except for Spring Training; they are both in the Cactus League).


 * As far as the pineapple, it's not really a long story... the short version is in 1972, they met when they both went for the same pineapple stick at Long Beach Polytechnic High School. So I'm getting them a pineapple just for laughs, since that's how they met.  My mom bought the pineapple, but she doesn't know what for.  She doesn't suspect a thing :)  Ksy92003  (talk)  20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I could never be happier with a GM's decisions. It's nice to not have to worry about the Athletics for a year.  Now, hopefully we can outplay the Mariners.  By the way, the Tigers, Red Sox, Indians, Angels, and Mariners have the best records in the American League.  They're also the best records in all of baseball.  Tied for 6th place are the New York Mets and Milwaukee Brewers, who both lead the NL.  Ksy92003  (talk)  20:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I just hope that everything all works out. I don't see why we need to get permission to use numbers that can be found anywhere.  The newspapers don't say where they get their stats from, and at least we're linking our articles to ESPN.com and Baseball-reference.com, so how is it more a problem for us who source the stats than newspapers who don't say where they get their stats from?  I don't get that.  Ksy92003  (talk)  20:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. I knew you would be able to do it. Now that we have that solved, hopefully now we can continue with our work. I'll start working on the Angels' articles in a short time. Ksy92003 (talk)  23:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand the issue now, as well. Either way, I haven't anything to do now, so would it do any harm editing the articles to add the stats now?  At least as long as I can before they are potentially removed?  Mr. Forman had said that it was alright, so as of right now there really shouldn't be any problems with me doing the stats now, right?  Ksy92003  (talk)  23:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Devil Rays
You made some odd edits to the Devil Rays roster. Please make sure to do everything full if you're going to update transactions.► Chris Nelson  22:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Stats
Please look at 1961 Los Angeles Angels season and 1962 Los Angeles Angels season to see the way that I propose doing the stats. This would be better because we give the important stats and we don't use Wikipedia as a substitute for a site like Baseball-reference. Ksy92003 (talk)  05:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My work tonight...
Hey there. I just wanted you to know that after I got back tonight, I started working on the articles. I added the stats for 1967 California Angels season, then started my major work. I created the template Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and added that template to all 47 season articles for the Angels and the primary article, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, using AWB. I also created articles for a couple players, specifically Eli Grba, Felix Torres, and Marcelino Lopez, as well as the other articles I've created recently: Terry Evans and Matthew Brown. I should be able to get a lot more done later today. Ksy92003 (talk)  08:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I added some real content to 1961 Los Angeles Angels season about the team's offense and pitching. Feel free to add to that if you wish.  Ksy92003  (talk)  01:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:NYYLogos PrintNY1908.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:NYYLogos PrintNY1908.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

under construction
The under construction template is really only meant to be used when you're actively editing an article to avoid edit conflicts. You shouldn't leave the template up on numerous pages for days at a time as it discourages other people from editing. --Bachrach44 19:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, you're referring to the inuse template. The under construction template is used to show other users that a page will be greatly expanded in a short time.  The under construction tag is there so people don't delete articles for not having any information on them, and the template itself says that anybody can assist in expanding the article.  The "in use" template, the one you're talking about, is the one that discourages other users from making edits for fear of edit conflicts, and it isn't on any of the articles.  Ksy92003  (talk)  19:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct and I apologize for the mistake - I didn't realize the difference between the two templates. As long as you don't leave the construction template on there indefinitely it's fine. Also, please do not think I am disparaging your work in any way. You are making some great additions to some articles which would otherwise be languishing as redirects or almost empty stubs. Please keep up the good work. --Bachrach44 23:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

New infobox colors
First, let me explain about the Bucs' colors. User:Pats1 and I felt that that tan color that was being passed off as "pewter" was just awful. I think you'd agree with us there. Unfortunately, some NFL color schemes are not conducive to the font/background color kind of thing, in which case we kind of have to tweak things. We were previously using the official red (gotten from the Bucs' logo) and black, which is also found in their uniforms and logos, but I felt this too was a little hard on the eyes. So I changed it to white. I think the Cardinals' red is dark enough that there's a big enough gap. Probably a bigger gap than the colors we use for the Buffalo Bills and Indianapolis Colts, I'd say. I hope this is cool with you.

On to the template now. Someone was able to set it up so that the colors are automatically placed in the template when you fill in the Current Team parameter. At the time you made the Stevens infobox, black was still the font color of the Bucs' so actually it wasn't Atlanta's colors. I have no changed it to white, and you should see a change there. In case you're curious, the colors used automatically come from here: Template:NFLPrimaryColor and Template:NFLSecondaryColor.► Chris Nelson  22:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey if you don't mind, can you try to remember to do these things some of us have been doing, so that all infoboxes are consistent? Some of these you haven't done incorrectly, I'm just letting you know because they are things I feel people might do differently on their own.


 * Don't capitalize the second word in a position (ex. Tight End). In your Stevens' template, it didn't link to the position article.
 * NFL Debuts should be the first time they played in the regular season game. If their NFL.com page has a game listed for them in a year, then put that year as the debut. Even if they don't have stats, a game in the NFL.com stats means they were active.
 * For how to do career highlights and awards, take a look at some of the Miami Dolphins player articles. I've done all the way from Quarterbacks to Linebackers on Template:Miami Dolphins roster. When a list of awards becomes to big, I've just been creating sub-sections in the articles and linking to those from the infobox (ex. Ted Ginn, Jr.).
 * Also, if you are listing awards and stuff, please do them from earliest to latest, as I think it should be considered somewhat of a timeline.
 * Please be as specific as you can be when linking the college. But this I mean, link to the article USC Trojans football rather than the main USC article (obviously still re-name the link to just the college). If a school does not have a football team article, link to the most specific thing there is. (Ex: for Marty Booker, I linked to University_of_Louisiana_at_Monroe.)
 * For the teams section, if a player has had multiple stints with a team please list then out and keep it all in chronological order. (See: Az-Zahir Hakim). I also feel this should be like a timeline.

Are you cool with these? Obviously they aren't rules but I'm trying to keep things consistent. If you want to discuss any of them we can always do so on the infobox's talk page.► Chris Nelson  22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool. Yeah I don't like when the teams are done that way either. Kenny Lofton is a perfect example of what that's no good, and based on a quick look at that article's history I'm guessing you're the one that made things better in this regard. Especially if a player's CURRENT team is not his first stint with such a team, it looks odd. I don't things being in "almost" chronological order, then his current team and the accompanying (2007-present) is way up in the middle of the list.► Chris Nelson  22:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Mel Ott
I tried leaving a message a few minutes ago, but it didn't "take". Just briefly, the Giants wore red-and-blue trim for nearly all of Mel Ott's career. The Jints experimented with orange and black in the early 30s, but went back to red-and-blue and didn't go permanently to orange-and-black until 1949, the year after Ott retired as manager. I wonder if the NFL Giants took their red-and-blue from the baseball Giants? Unfortunately, I don't have a book on NFL uniforms, just on baseball. Baseball Bugs 22:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They probably wear the colorful ones on TV just to boost uniform sales, as well as to look "prettier", so to speak. My source for this info is Baseball Uniforms of the 20th Century, by Marc Okkonen. It's an authoritative source, endorsed by the major leagues; it even has the MLB logo on it. I don't know if it's still in print or not. In any case, it has illustrations of every team's uniforms every year from 1901 to the publication date, mid or late 1990s. Baseball Bugs 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

NFL infobox teams idea
Hey I saw you edited Darwin Walker's page and I'm guessing you added the new infobox. If so, I'm guessing you put the asterisk next to Buffalo Bills in the team list, and I must say I like it. I have always been in favor of listing all NFL team memberships for a player, regular season or not. But some distinction between the two is good. That's why I added to your idea with a little note. See Cleo Lemon or Gibran Hamdan and tell me what you think.► Chris Nelson  23:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So are you cool with what the note says and everything? I struggled with how to word it, that's what I came up with but if you have other ideas I'm open to suggestions.► Chris Nelson  00:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the and/or does cover everything, it's not saying a guy was necessarily on a team in both ways. I'm not sure we need to get more specific than this anyway, not to mention getting deeper than this might bring on multiple asterisks and stuff like that (as in one for offseason, one for practice squad) if a guy had experienced both with different teams. I just don't want to overload the section, just distinguish whether they were on the regular season roster or not. That's my main goal with this, not to get into the specifics of their tenure. Know what I mean?► Chris Nelson  00:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay cool. Hey a couple more things regarding the infobox so we can keep things consistent:


 * I've been using CBS Sportsline as stat of choice. PFR is incomplete at times and does not seem to do offensive linemen anymore. NFL.com meanwhile makes stats disappear when a player is out of the league for a while. Look up Olandis Gary for example.) In case you don't know how to add CBS, just replace the pfr in the template with cbs and put the appropriate number like always.
 * Note that there are new optional stats for height, heightft and heightin. Please use these INSTEAD of the height one (just replace it completely). This new way does the conversions better.

I feel like there was one more thing but it slipped my mind. Are you cool with this stuff?► Chris Nelson  00:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to the height and weight, just put fields that say |heightft= and |heightin= instead of the height one.► Chris Nelson  01:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Scott Boras
Please do not delete Category:Scott Boras clients from pages. Yes, the category is up for deletion, but it hasn't been deleted yet. Indeed, the template itself says not to empty the category. I've undone a few, and may do more, but hope you can take care of most. Matchups 19:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing...
Sorry I haven't been able to do many edits recently, especially on those Angels' season articles. I have had technical difficulties. Please remain patient, and hopefully within a couple hours or so I may begin to resume my editing. Ksy92003 (talk)  23:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna soon start beginning my trend of adding stats to the Angels' season articles, and sequentially creating articles for players who don't have one yet. You can see my user page for the list of players whose articles I have created so far, and add any information to those articles, if you so wish.  If I can't get my laptop working (the reason why I haven't been making any edits so far; I'm using my slower computer now), then I'll let you know that I won't be able to start my editing yet.  Ksy92003  (talk)  23:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

World Series, Babe Ruth, etc.
Excellent! Whether a collection of World Series moments is "great" or not depends on who you're rooting for. The Yankees tried their best in 2001, when for once everyone was pulling for them, but Cinderella turned into a pumpkin for them. Shades of 1926, as Randy Johnson trudged out of the bullpen (a la Pete Alexander) and held the Yankees in check; and then two of my former Cubs favorites, Mark Grace and Luis Gonzalez, did what they had to do and beat the Yanks with "small ball"... in an ending eerily similar to the ninth inning of Game 4 in the 2004 ALCS. Baseball Bugs 23:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've forgotten who you root for. Obviously, it must be the other Sox. I'm not a Yankees fan as such, but I'm an "admirer" of the old-time Yankees, because they did what it took to win. Contrast that with Connie Mack's Athletics, for example, whose great teams were twice broken up because Mack decided fans wouldn't support a winner. He should have sold the team to someone who cared about winning, but instead "sold out" the city of Philadelphia. I've become a great admirer of Babe Ruth, at least as far as his on-field accomplishments and his P.R. value are concerned. I wouldn't exactly recommend his lifestyle, though. Baseball Bugs 23:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. If all else fails, look at the user page! The antipathy between the Yanks and Red Sox has become what the old Dodgers and Giants rivalry used to be. And of course, these rivalries are absolutely great for the sport. You probably know that there's a strong rivalry between the Cubs and Sox that goes back 101 years at least. When the Sox held their victory parade in 2005 (and by the way, I was rooting for them) they took it through various south side neighborhoods, and stopped in the downtown. When or if the Cubs ever win, they'll probably do likewise... a trek through the north side, stopping at the downtown. Regarding the Bambino, I hope I'm not getting into reruns here, but if you want to learn more about Ruth, look for a book called The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs, by Bill Jenkinson. Yankee Stadium took away quite a few homers from Ruth due to the insanely deep center and left center areas of the Stadium at that time. Also, Ruth lost at least 50 in his career due to the rule of "fair when last seen" that wasn't revised until 1931, when the Babe was in his final years. The author's argument boils down to the concept that if Ruth played in modern conditions, his home run totals would be so far out of reach that no amount of steroids could touch them. Baseball Bugs 00:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And I concur that Mack stayed well past his time. But he was the owner, so what could anyone do? But he finally had to face reality and sell the team. If he had kept the team competitive, I have little doubt that the once-proud A's would have stayed and the never-proud Phillies would have split town. According to Bruce Kuklick's To Every Thing a Season, the Shibe Park "spite fence" accelerated the ruin of both the team and the neighborhood. The Cubs took an interesting view of their situation. Their predecessors had built a huge spite fence at West Side Park and effectively ruined it. One year recently the Cubs put up something like a spite fence for awhile, basically telling the neighbors, "We can do this if we want to", and then they negotiated a deal and everybody's happy. Baseball Bugs 00:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Theoretically the talk pages are supposed to be about articles. I think that friendly banter leads to improvements in articles. I enjoy talking to guys like you and Ksy92003 also, in part because of our common interest in sports, and also because of my sense that you are both quite young, yet are up on your history, which is always encouraging. I want to mention, before I forget it, in the context of the 2001 Series, that I assume 9/11/01 is the most shocking event within the bounds of your lifespan. I recall the JFK assassination, and I would say the feeling in America was about the same on 11/22/63 as it was on 9/11/01, if that helps put it into some perspective. I'm guessing the way that Series ended had to be heartbreaking for the New York fans. Sports, like real life, doesn't always follow the script (unless you're a rogue NBA official). As far as popularity of sports, NASCAR probably outstrips them all, whereas soccer is way down the list for Americans. I think that won't be the case in another generation or so, but America's sports are still the best, in my humble red-white-and-blue opinion. :) Yes, it's funny, isn't it, that Ruth hit more homers on the road than at home in 1927. Arguably, many of those ballparks were softer touches than the Stadium. When Charlie Finley tried to build his "pennant porch" at K.C. in the 1960s, I thought that that would be fair, provided he also extended left-center field about 75 feet. Oops! Never mind! I've read enough about Ruth that I could talk all day about him. I think there are several recent books on the Big Guy. People who know nothing about baseball have heard the name Babe Ruth, and he's been dead almost 60 years now. I think of Ruth as the "real life" Roy Hobbs: a great pitcher, a great hitter, an excellent fielder (according to Jenkinson) and a good if overly daring baserunner who, above all else, was going all-out to try to win. I said to someone the other day, as great as Willie Mays was, probably the greatest player in my lifetime... put the ball in his hand and tell him to pitch 29 consecutive scoreless innings in the World Series. Then we can start talking about greatness. d:) Baseball Bugs 00:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thing worth mentioning, and again I apologize if I'm repeating myself. I usually remember saying stuff, I just don't always remember to whom. I'm sure there's a multi-syllable name for whatever kind of syndrome that is. Anyway, a lot of folks might say, Why didn't they just walk Ruth all the time? Well, they tried to, but he had the same philosophy of Yogi Berra, that if he could reach it, then it was a good pitch. I think that accounts for why so many Ruthian long balls were to center and left-center. He also did walk a lot, although probably less so once Lou Gehrig came along. Gehrig was in Ruth's shadow, but if he were on another team he would have been the hands-down star of the team. He was nearly as dangerous a hitter as Ruth was. Just imagine that one-two punch of Ruth and Gehrig. It's awe-inspiring. Gehrig got "only" 493 homers in his career. But he played 5 fewer years than Ruth. If he had not become ill, I'm sure he would have been the second guy to hit 600 homers in his career. Baseball Bugs 00:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the article, Ben Shibe died in 1922. He was half-owner of the A's, with Connie Mack, and at that point the Mack family took over. I recommend you read the Arnold Johnson article, as it provides a lot of info on what happened to the Macks, how their internal feuding opened the door to an outside purchaser (similar to what happened to the Sox a few years later, allowing Veeck and Greenberg to buy in); and how his cozy relationship with the Yankees owners led to funneling talent to the Yanks, much as Harry Frazee's beholdenness (if that's a word) to Huston and Ruppert contributed to building up the 1920s Yankees. Steinbrenner hasn't had any major league farm teams to help him, but he's got lots of bucks, and the free agent era came along at just the right time for George. That was also Ruth's name, of course. If the old Yankee Stadium was the house that George R. built, then the new one is the one that George S. built, or got others to build for him. :) Baseball Bugs 00:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mack was called "The Grand Old Man of Baseball", but the game passed him by. Maybe he hung on just to try to keep peace in the family. Mack acquiesced to Arnold Johnson, and I'm thinking he had simply had enough of the internal battles. If I recall correctly, the elder Mack sons were club executives for awhile in K.C. before retiring. It's ironic that one of Mack's descendants, also name Connie Mack, was a Florida Senator for awhile, and was on the committee looking into revoking baseball's antitrust exemption (I'm sure old man Mack was turning over in his grave about that). When Casey Stengel got into his 80s, he was being called the "Grand Old Man". I'm not sure who would qualify now. Maybe Roger Clemens, who, according to Sports Illustrated, is older than several former Yankees who appeared at Old Timers Day at the Stadium this year. Baseball Bugs 01:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is something missing on the Yankees, and I don't just mean recent World Series wins. That's just the end result. The something that's missing, the intangible, is what once made the Yankees considered a cut above the rest... the sense that putting on the pin stripes brought the best out in a player, because he was proud to be a Yankee. OK, maybe that's old-fashioned and naive thinking. But there's no question they had something extra. It was often said that the Brooklyn Dodgers were the better team on paper during the early 50s, but they only managed to be beat the Yankees once, and just barely at that. But whatever the Yanks had in 1996-98-99-2000, they lost a bit in 2001 and have not got it back. There's a school of thought that Paul O'Neill's retirement was a bad omen. However, consider this: they also haven't won since Don Zimmer retired. Don't overlook the "Popeye Factor". ;) Baseball Bugs 02:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to call this to your attention before they (justifiably) delete it as a fair-use violation. I made this series of captures from the 100 Years of the World Series DVD for the purpose of studying Ruth's swing. Notice that he crowds the plate and is so eager to jump on the ball that he's nearly out of the box toward the front. How weird it would have been if his greatest moment had been nullified by stepping out of the box. But I think he was within the letter of the rules. The other thing is that he starts his swing and appears to have already planted his front foot before he makes contact. It is said that Root threw him a curve ball. Ruth, the great athlete, appears to have made a last-second adjustment for the curve, and still smacked it close to 500 feet. A fair piece o' hittin'. One other thing: They talk about how fat Ruth was. I've seen players in my lifetime as big or bigger than Ruth. Greg Luzinski, Cecil Fielder, John Kruk, David Wells, Rick Reuschel all come to mind. Granted, he'sd not small here, and he was fairly porky by the time of the 1933 All-Star Game. But if you watch that MLB clip of this play, and Ruth running the bases, he was still fairly light on his feet for a big guy. As for doing it against my Cubs... well, I got over that long ago, and keep in mind they were taunting him, so they basically asked for it. Baseball Bugs 11:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Image:BabeRuth19321001.JPG|thumb|left|800px|Ruth 1932 "called shot" homer


 * If I read you right, you went ahead and downloaded the above. Good idea. I did try to make a fair-use claim of sorts, although I'm not convinced the fair use queens will buy it (especially with comments like that). But I've clashed with them before, so that's nothing new. Tell ya what... I'll delete it from here so they can't complain about fair-use showing up in a talk page, and I'll add it to the home run page. Then we'll see what happens. The Cubs and the Yanks in this year's Series? Well, let's just say it's mathematically possible. I thought the Cubs' best shot was in 2003, as they had taken 2 of 3 from the Yanks, at Wrigley yet, and I thought they would have had a chance against them had they got past the Marlins. C'est la vie. I find that I root for individuals about as much as for teams. I'm sure you can't stand David Ortiz, but I've been rooting for him ever since the Twins let him go... not through a trade, but through an unconditional release... surely one of the most ill-advised acts of a general manager since Brock for Broglio. And I don't like efforts to show up the other team. I was at the Twins final game of the 2004 regular season. They were playing against Cleveland. They showed a clip on the board of Corey Koskie hitting a home run in August that stymied Cleveland's attempt to catch the division-leading Twins. I couldn't believe they did that. I was really angry at the Twins for doing that. And soon after, Ben Broussard launched one into the upper deck that put the Indians ahead to stay, beating the Twins in a game that, had they won, would have given them home field edge in the ALDS. They lost the game and that edge, and the Yanks took them 3 games to 1. I guess that's at least twice I've gotten mad at the Twins for doing something stupid. So it goes. Baseball Bugs 11:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to put a fair-use claim on the photo. We'll see if that holds up. Your expansion of the photo in the home run article forces a scrollbar on my screen. That's the least of our worries where that image is concerned. If you want to know what my vantage point for the 2004 ALDS was, look no further. This was from a $20 cheap-seat, probably one of the better angles from the upper deck, as I could see most of right and center field. Since your team won anyway, it's fair to mention this: You've heard the chant, "LET's go, YANKE-ees!" (clap, clap, clap-clap-clap). Before the game a group of Twins fans was walking around the concourse, presumably parroting the Red Sox fans' battle cry: "YANK-ees SU-uck!" (clap, clap, clap-clap-clap). The results of the game speak to which team "sucked" that day. As far as the Metrodome goes, I am a lone voice in the wilderness that thinks the Twins and Vikings should stay. Maybe it's not the greatest design. But the outdoors game in Minnesota, during April and October, is not my idea of fun. But they are bound and determined to spend gazillions of tax dollars to build an outdoor stadium for the benefit of an owner (Carl Pohlad) who probably has more money than George Steinbrenner does. As for the Cubs "curse", I have a theory on that, which I'll get back to you on. Baseball Bugs 12:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)



I fixed it and shrunk it back down to where I had it, putting a "clear" statement after it (as I did just below) to prevent the problem you described. As a facility, there's really nothing wrong with the Metrodome. I can hear the sound system just fine. It's still in good shape for being 25 years old and getting a lot of usage: the Twins, the Vikings, Gophers baseball and football, even some NCAA tournaments. They did have to replace the carpet a few years ago, and that helped quite a bit. But if you want to see an ugly arena, there's the Target Center. I've said that if Target sold arenas, the Target Center is the quality of arena they would sell. The upper tier is a mile from the court, and the "club level" consists of a flat deck with folding chairs. Baseball Bugs 12:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Curses
OK, as a fan, it's fun to talk about teams being "cursed", as if some outside source were to blame, but the hard reality is that winning or losing is always a combination of talent, opportunism, and some degree of "luck", although as Branch Rickey said, "Luck is the residue of design", and he knew what he was talking about, having laid the groundwork for three successful clubs at different times: The Cardinals, the Dodgers and the Pirates. Most of the so-called "curses" are, in fact, self-inflicted. I have work to do today, so here's a quick rundown of largely "original research" on some baseball "curses":
 * 1908 - The curse of Fred Merkle. The Cubs won the pennant through underhanded means, some would argue, and the baseball gods let them win the Series then, but not since. It's unfair to blame Merkle. It could be called the curse of Johnny Evers, although it's also unfair to blame him just for being a stickler for the rules. The blame really belongs on the umps for their inconistent enforcement of the rule.
 * 1918 - The Curse of the Bambino. As if Ruth had any say in the matter. It should be called "The curse of Harry Frazee", as he sold his financial soul to the Yankees owners and began funneling talent to them, of which Ruth was only the first and the most obvious.
 * 1919 - The Curse of the Black Sox. As real a curse as there ever was. It haunted the Sox and the Comiskey family for 40 years, and Charles Comiskey bears a large share of the blame, first for being such a jerk of an owner, and second for his decision to sink the Sox with just 3 days to go in 1920 (although that could also be seen as an act of courage).
 * 1937 - The curse of Wrigley Field. When they extended the bleachers into the left-center field alley, they created a home run haven both for themselves and, too often, for opposing hitters. That factor directly helped to defeat them in their last two Series to date, 1938 and 1945.
 * 1945 - The curse of the Billy Goat. A lame excuse for P.K. Wrigley's laizzes-faire (sp?) management of the perennially-contending team he inherited from his father.
 * 2001 - The curse of Paul O'Neill. As you indicated, O'Neill's departure took an emotional element away, that "something extra" that may be needed in order to win. Maybe I should call it the curse of the retirement of Paul O'Neill.
 * 2003 - The Steve Bartman incident. Bartman got unfairly blamed for something the Cubs did to themselves. Moises Alou overreacted to a ball that was in the stands, and it broke the team's concentration. As I saw that play unfold, I said to my lovin' wife, "This is trouble!" and indeed it was. The batter walked, and then Alex Gonzalez booted a routine ground ball which opened the floodgates. The blame belongs on Alou and Gonzalez, not on a fan. The entire reaction to that by fans and players was shameful. And the baseball gods punished the Cubs again, as in 1908, for their arrogance.

I also subscribe, somewhat facetiously though not entirely so, to the "Team of Destiny" theory. Willard Mullin postulated that in one of his 1940s cartoons about the Yankees. I was surprised when the Marlins beat the Giants in 2003. I was stunned when they beat the Cubs. And I was not much surprised at all when they shut down the Yankees. The Marlins of 2003 had "Team of Destiny" written all over them. It's just that you can't always tell that while it's happening. Often it's in retrospect. Baseball Bugs 12:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Willie Mays, Sandy Amorós, etc.
What to talk about? Well, there's always a catch. In this case The Catch (baseball). Someone posted a study by a U of I professor who, in my opinion, has probably never actually watched the film footage of Mays' famous 1954 catch, claiming that a couple of degrees warmer and Mays wouldn't have caught the ball because a ball flies farther in warmer air. Hi sunderlying assumption, apparently, is that Mays just barely caught the ball at his fingertips. That's not quite the case. Truth is often less glamorous than legend, and something didn't ring true about that prof's claim. So I watched the segment from the 100 Years of the World Series DVD just a bit ago, and posted my conclusions. Now we'll see whether someone claims "original research". However, it's verifiable from watching the film clip, and Arnold Hano, an eyewitness, confirmed it. Mays is watching the ball coming down. He's running hard, but not necessarily full-tilt, but that's a value judgment, so I didn't say that in the article. He veers just a tad to his right and apparently almost mis-judges it, as he then stretches out to his left to catch it (accounting for the still photo looking like he "just barely" caught it), but that could also be a value judgment, as he may have done that on purpose to be at a better angle for making the throw. He did a lot on the field "by instinct", so that last-second course correction seems entirely within his capability. The film was shot from the third base side a bit. The photos were typically taken either from straight behind the plate for a little to the first base side... and the photos are only at the very end of the play, so you don't see the maneuvering and watching he was doing during his run. In my opinion, he had it all the way, no problem... and I think he himself used to say that. Then there's the issue of the actual flight distance. It was much less than the 460 that Jack Brickhouse breathlessly stated. The angle and the perspective make the distance from the front wall to the clubhouse wall seem a lot shorter than it really was. Wher Mays caught the ball it was more like 410 or 420 from home plate. But I do not mean to belittle The Catch. It was a game-saver, no question. I can't do a screen capture adequately, because the image is too small for individual frames to really show what's going on. But watching the film in toto, it's clear what's going on. Baseball Bugs 02:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, the Sandy Amorós catch in the 6th inning of Game 7 was a game-saver and a Series-saver for the Brooklyn Dodgers. It gets played every time there are clips about the 1955 Series, but it was seemingly not such a spectacular play, and of course did not bring a huge roar from the hostile Stadium crowd as Mays' catch did from the home-team Polo Grounds crowd. But Amoros was able to get the ball back to the infield for a stifling double play. And commentators have pointed out that his placement in the field in the last of the sixth, for defensive purposes late in the game, was just in time to save the game, especially because it took a left-hander to catch that ball. Amoros eventually died in poverty, as I recall. I know there were some bitter comments about that from critics. This is a good topic. I'll look into it more tonight. There is a whole story behind this. Baseball Bugs 12:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You mentioned Sandy Koufax at the Old Met in 1965, but if you're talking about catches, you're probably referring to Bob Allison's spectacular catch. That was a good Series, which went the Dodgers' way. The Dodgers had just stifling pitching in those days. Koufax was one of those pitchers who, if you needed a win, he was The Man. He threw a complete game, 3-hit shutout against the powerful-hitting Twins in Game 7 at the Met... the only home World Series game the Minnesota Twins have ever lost. Josh Beckett's performance in Game 6 in 2003 reminded me of that. (Much to your chagrin, I'm sure.) Baseball Bugs 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Allison play is of interest mostly to Twins fans, because it ultimately didn't matter... just as the catch in Game 7 of the NLCS last year ultimately didn't matter... because the team ultimately lost, and winning is what it's about. :) Baseball Bugs 13:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

AWB?
I have seen your recent contributions, specifically adding a link to the Mtl. Expos all-time roster on all Expos players. I come to suggest that you put forth a request in allowing you to use AWB (AutoWikiBrowser), which would make those extremely tedious edits you usually make a heck of a lot easier for you. You could really do a lot more if you use AWB. Ksy92003 (talk)  03:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, normally AWB is faster because you can just scroll down on the edit box and make the edits you want to, in your case simply adding a link, to all the articles you want to edit and simply click "Save." With AWB, you don't have to worry about clicking on "Save page" and still have to worry about the page loading and then going to the new page.  With AWB, you can make a list of all the articles you wish to make the edits to so you don't have to go to each page individually.  You just click "Save" after you're done making the edits to one article and then it instantly loads the edit box for the next page on the list.  Now, I'm not sure if this would be faster for you, since you tend to make those edits pretty quickly as it is, but normally for all users AWB allows them to make the edits much faster, but most importantly it's a lot easier to make the edits because you don't have to worry about each page taking a long time to load.  It's entirely your decision and I don't know if you want to improve on the way you currently make those edits (if you possibly could improve at all) but it's entirely your decision.  Ksy92003  (talk)  16:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Home runs, etc.
This is why they've been calling them the "Bronx Bombers" for generations. The craziest game I ever witnessed at the ballpark was the Cubs and Phillies on April 17, 1976. Go check out the details of that one, and then look for a couple of others: a 26-23 Phillies game in Wrigley, in 1922 or so; and a 23-22 Phillies game at Wrigley, in 1979 or so. Baseball Bugs 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * When the wind is blowing out at Wrigley Field, you get those crazy games. When the wind is blowing in, you can get no-hitters. The north wind literally saved the game for Ken Holtzman in 1969. I think the game description is in his article. Check it out. Baseball Bugs 13:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the one. That's from a record the Cubs issued around 1971 or so. I also have a VHS videotape of Chicago Sports Great Moments, which has the TV version, and the sparer description by Jack Brickhouse: (crack of the bat) "There's a long drive by Aaron... and there, I believe, goes the no-hitter ... (silence, as you see Billy Williams positioning himself, with one against against the ivy, to jump and make the catch) ... CAUGHT! Caught by Williams!" d:) Baseball Bugs 14:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the first part of that, "a long drive by Aaron", may not be correct, it's just vaguely the way I recall it. But I do recall the comment, "There, I believe, goes the no-hitter," followed by a pause as Brickhouse let the picture tell the story. You had to see this to believe it. Aaron really tagged that ball. On a normal day, it was in the street, but the north wind, unusually strong for August, knocked it down. Williams had his eye on it the whole way. He was back in the "well" in left field, where the bleacher wall makes its little graceful curve. He put his right hand against the ivy, feeling exactly where the wall was, and timed his jump to catch the ball. Nowadays, that hit likely would have been in the "basket" for a homer. That feature was added later as a way to keep unruly bleacher fans in check, but it also made Wrigley even more of a home run haven. Baseball Bugs 16:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your interest in the history of the Grand Old Game. That helps keep me going on augmenting these pages. There's so much material out there, for anyone eager to find it or read about it. Baseball Bugs 16:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I should mention that I was actually at Wrigley on that day in April, 1976, when there was an unusual (for April) warm southerly breeze that carried the ball out, just the opposite of the Holtzman no-hitter. I have also seen low-hit games there when the wind was blowing in. There is no overstating the wind factor at Wrigley. Baseball Bugs 16:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We (i.e. everyone at Wrigley) were very irritated at what happened that day in April, 1976. The Cubs led 13-2 at one point, but the Phillies caught up and it was 15-15 after 9. The Phillies outscored the Cubs 3-2 in extra innings. Just a crazy day all around. If nothing else, we got to see a couple of records tied: largest comeback, and 4 homers in a game by one batter (Mike Schmidt). Schmidt's long-ball would haunt the Cubs throughout his career. I think he had more homers against the Cubs than any other team. And his chop-swing was ideal for Wrigley. If he had played his career with the Cubs, Bonds might be chasing him instead of Aaron. So it goes. Baseball Bugs 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cubs fans used to boo Ron Santo also, later in his career, scapegoating him somewhat for 1969, which was totally unfair. The Phillies fans really take the cake, though. I guess rooting for a team with 10,000 losses to its "credit" kind of affects one's sense of perspective. And the Phils fans didn't have a Wrigley Field (well, they did, but they tore it down). So the ambience of Veterans Stadium didn't help their attitude much either. A recent Sports Illustrated had an article about "highlights" of the 10,000 losses. I can't find it just now, but I think they said one of the current Phillies' pitchers is a descendant of the pitcher in the very first Phillies' loss in 1883. When asked what his ancestor might have said that day, the guy said, "I hope this doesn't start a trend!" Baseball Bugs 17:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just any old player, it was Jamie Moyer (also an ex-Cub, naturally), in this article with this quote: "'I hope this doesn't start a trend.' -- Jamie Moyer, lefthanded pitcher and current Phillie, when asked what his forebear John Coleman might have said after the franchise, then named the Quakers, dropped its inaugural game 4-3 to the Providence Grays. Coleman lost that game and 47 others in '83, and the team finished 17-81." Baseball Bugs 17:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. Moyer was born 40 years after Coleman died, which isn't too long a stretch, given that Moyer turns 45 himself this fall. He's never been considered a Roger Clemens, but he has managed to carve out a pretty nice career for himself. As far as winning and losing, anybody who thinks New York is the haven of winners hasn't paid much attention to the New York Rangers. What, one Stanley Cup in the last 60-plus years? One thing that following sports has taught me, is to cherish victory, because "all glory is fleeting". Look at how far the White Sox have fallen since 2005. It takes a lot of things coming together, to win. Winning is hard. Losing is easy. Baseball Bugs 17:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Zeppo Alou". That's a good one. Keep in mind that sometimes things worked out. The Phils had Ed Delahanty instead of one of his lesser brothers. If you want to talk about curses, the Phillies have been largely cursed for their entire history. The Cubs and Red Sox had some glory years, some past dynasties. The closest thing the Phils ever had to a dynasty was the late-70s to early 90s, not a bad stretch, with division titles, league champions and a World Champion thrown in there. When Eddie Murray hit that homer off his own name on the scoreboard in 1983, that was not a good sign for that franchise. It's like the baseball gods in 1980 said, "OK, Phillies, here's your trophy. Enjoy it for the next hundred years." Baseball Bugs 17:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've followed the Sox-Twins-Indians (and lately Tigers) annual grappling for years now, and except for 2005, the White Sox seemed to come up short. They clinched the division at the Metrodome in 2000, which rankled a few Twins players. In showdown contests in 2002 and 2003, the Twins shut them down. Only in 2005 did the Sox manage to overcome their seeming tendency to "choke" and put it all together... making it seem incredibly easy in the process, as things will often seem when they're breaking right. I wondered if trading Aaron Rowand almost as soon as the Series was over was the start of a bad trend. Yet I really thought they would soar in 2006, with one of my favorites, Jim Thome, on the team. And they did, for awhile, but just somehow faded as the Tigers just surprised everyone (except the Twins). Baseball Bugs 17:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reds seasons
Hi there! I'm willing to help you out on this, but I ask you this; Do you plan on only doing the Reds? I ask because I've noticed that your a Reds fan (most likely), thanks! Soxrock 16:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I will do any team. That's just the team I'm working on right now. I've been trying to add anything I can in Baseball, but some stuff you have beat me to it :) jj137 16:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, forgot, feel free to help!
 * Yeah, I can help with those things if you want. Let me know if you would like my help with those "Laundry list" things. jj137 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NYYLogos PrintNY1908.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:NYYLogos PrintNY1908.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. After Midnight 0001 03:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:NYYLogos PrintNY1907.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:NYYLogos PrintNY1907.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Angelo Coniglio.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Angelo Coniglio.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

AL standings
It seems at some point you moved a lot of templates from YEAR AL standings to YEAR American League standings, which left a lot of redirect pages. Would you have any objection to me deleting those redirect pages (listed below)? Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Template:1924 AL standings
 * 2) Template:1925 AL standings
 * 3) Template:1926 AL standings
 * 4) Template:1927 AL standings
 * 5) Template:1928 AL standings
 * 6) Template:1929 AL standings
 * 7) Template:1930 AL standings
 * 8) Template:1931 AL standings
 * 9) Template:1932 AL standings
 * 10) Template:1933 AL standings
 * 11) Template:1934 AL standings
 * 12) Template:1935 AL standings
 * 13) Template:1936 AL standings
 * 14) Template:1937 AL standings
 * 15) Template:1939 AL standings


 * I'll answer for Soxrock, since I don't know when he will return. I don't think there would be a problem in deleting those re-directs if they aren't transcluded already.  If that's the case, the you'd have to go to all those articles and add the direct link to the template before deleting these re-directs to avoid getting a hand-full of broken links.  Does that make sense to you, MZMcBride?  Ksy92003  (talk)  19:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah that makes sense. None of them have any outside links or transclusions; nothing should be affected. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If none of them are linked/transcluded to any other article, then there won't be any problem with deleting them. Have fun deleting :)  Ksy92003  (talk)  19:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Images listed for deletion
Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them. Thank you. cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jamal Anderson.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Jamal Anderson.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Abcsports2001.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Abcsports2001.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lions2000.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lions2000.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MontrealExpos 1000.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:MontrealExpos 1000.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Tampa Bay Storm 2007 season page
The formating for the charts is different from articles. The articles have to stay consistant. Do you want me to fix it? -- ROASTY TOAST  19:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)