User talk:Spanneraol/Archive2

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nl 1958 losangeles.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Nl 1958 losangeles.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 17:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:LSH Cv37.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:LSH Cv37.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 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Really confused
Manny signed with the dodgers today so I updated it and you went ahead and deleted it. Why does this site say users can edit the pages but you just go ahead and delete whatever is written? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.209.47.109 (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

So true from this guy, I just started here and have quality references and this guy still deletes it.--Justhangin (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Las Vegas 51s
Hi. I noticed you updated the 51s' season-by-season record with this year's final results. However, you didn't update their total record (franchise wins/losses, etc). I would have done it myself, but I couldn't tell if you were keeping a running total. Thought you might like to know so you could make the correction. :) -NatureBoyMD 21:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Pirates
Thank you for fixing the infoboxes for the Pirates seasons. I created a few of them but had no clue where to find the details for local TV or radio. It adds a touch of class to the articles. Nice work!!! Maple Leaf 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Cincinnati Reds
Great job with the infoboxes on the Reds season articles. I've been so addicted to the Baseball-Reference Bullpen the past few weeks I've barely edited at Wikipedia. Fantastic work! jj137 ( Talk ) 22:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Years in baseball categories
Hi

I'm sure it was a good idea to create Category:1880 Major League Baseball season, Category:1881 Major League Baseball season, etc, which you did last week, but please don't forget to categorise the category. I found several of these categories in Special:Uncategorizedcategories and have added them to Category:Major League Baseball seasons the appropriate subcategories of Category:Years in baseball, because otherwise they would have been inaccessible to readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Milestone home runs
You may have an opinion on Featured list candidates/Milestone home runs by Barry Bonds.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

1942 Philadelphia Phillies season
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 1942 Philadelphia Phillies season, and it appears to be a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 19:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Loney
On Loney, you indicate that you deleted a reference because "recieving [sic] one vote for rookie of the year and finishing sixth is not notable.. If he had finished second or third or got a sizeable amount [sic] of votes then it would be ok."

Where do you find, other than in your POV, that finishing third is notable but sixth is not?

--Epeefleche 22:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say that finishing third is by itself not notable.. but getting just one vote? If we listed every person who got one vote for every award it would really clutter up a lot of pages with unnecessary trivia. Spanneraol 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think however one decides this must be POV. But look at http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/loneyja01.shtml. They think that it is notable enought to put on his baseball reference page. And we list top 10 in lots of other things in baseball, no?--Epeefleche 00:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Took me quite awhile to find that one note on his baseball reference page which just linked to a list of the award. Seems like an awfully trivial note to include. If his finishing sixth isn't notable enough to include on the The Sporting News Rookie of the Year Award page, why would it belong on his page?Spanneraol 00:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Odd litmus test. So you would pull mention of Tulo as well?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just Saying Hi
Hiya. Just wanted to post a note to thank you for starting stubs for Jack Cronin and George Sharrott. I noticed because i had "red links" to them when i wrote the stub for "Brewery Jack" Taylor, who grew up with those players on Staten Island. The researcher i'm assisting is very interested in early players from that area of NYC, and may have some additional info i can add to your stubs for those early Brooklyn players. I'll see what i can add.

Anyways, just wanted to say hi and thanks. Take care!

An Earthshine (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Stu Pederson
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Stu Pederson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ed McLane
I have nominated Ed McLane, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Ed McLane. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ukexpat (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Bob Fisher (baseball), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Article not needed. Very Short!

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SimpsonsFan08 (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Bob Fisher (baseball), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Article not needed. Very Short!

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SimpsonsFan08 (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

JUSTIN ORENDUFF / BLAKE DeWITT
If you must be anal retentive so be it. JUSTIN ORENDUFF is NOT in major league camp (optioned) and no longer has #62. BLAKE DeWITT is in camp and at present has #62 and may make the team w/ other Dodgers 3rd Baseman injured. Put your head back in the sand! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.43.74 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Orenduff is still on the 40 man roster and still has his number. DeWitt is not currently on the roster. IF he makes the team he will most likely be assigned a new number. We really have to go by the official sources here. The season starts in a few days. Also, being hostile does not help your point mr. anonymous IP. Spanneraol (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nebraska State League
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Nebraska State League, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Nebraska_State_League. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Dorothy Ruth
I wrote the following at the AfD for Dorothy Ruth: Worldcat says the book is in at least 200 libraries in the United States. That probably makes it notable. See Notability (people), which includes the criterion "... had works in many significant libraries." --Eastmain (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Octavio Martinez
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Octavio Martinez, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Wizardman 02:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to Talk:1983 Seattle Mariners season has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Fattyjwoods ( Push my button  ) 23:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BB post.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BB post.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Clayton Kershaw
Fair enough, but that seems like a pretty good way to discourage a new contributor. I've got a lot of information to offer in the world of baseball prospects, but I'm not going to bother if it's going to be taken down 5 minutes later because you don't think it's newsworthy. The source leading to an MLB.com headline would seem to indicate otherwise. Cberejik (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alvis Ojeda
I have nominated Alvis Ojeda, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Alvis Ojeda. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:DSL Dodgers roster
A tag has been placed on Template:DSL Dodgers roster, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. AEMoreira042281 (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:GCL Dodgers roster
A tag has been placed on Template:GCL Dodgers roster, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. AEMoreira042281 (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Switcheroo?
I just noticed something and got confused. You mention in Articles for deletion/Damon Sublett that you want to keep that article based on the arguments at Articles for deletion/Brad Chalk. But you voted to delete Brad Chalk! Chalk was at least a 2nd-round pick - Sublett was a 7th-rounder. I'm puzzled. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I was out voted at Chalk so I figured that a new precedent had been set so I decided to reluctantly vote to keep Sublett on those grounds... I put it as "soft keep" though cause on the whole I don't think either of them should have articles... but I'm trying to follow consensous I guess... yea, I confuse myself sometimes too... Spanneraol (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, take a look at WP:POKEMON. A consensus at one AFD does not mean a precedent of some kind has been set.  Things change, different people see different AFDs, etc.  —Wknight94 (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball Newsletter
--  jj137   ( talk )  03:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Woops
Got called off to a meeting before I could alert you about the three AFDs, but I see you found them already. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, you are really on an afd kick these days huh? Trying to fill up your quota? Spanneraol (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What quota? It was raised on WT:MLB that this trend was getting a bit out of control so I'm trying to do something about it.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Miracle
Someone deleted my Miracle entries. He ignored the entire debate that had ensued in favor of saving individual ballplayers, and just deleted them all. This is absolute BS!--Johnny Spasm (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy Votestacking!
Spanneraol, would you please go to the delete voters on the various AFDs and let them know about the discussion as well? Otherwise, this and this are an egregious violation of Votestacking. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weren't YOU going to let people know that you were starting a debate? I just happened to stumble upon it so I let a few others know about the debate.. I don't have time to write notes to everyone who participated in the conversations, maybe you have more time than me. Spanneraol (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was not planning on going to each and every person individually, no. (I went to WP:RFC and the various notability guideline talk pages, and WP:VPP instead).  However, had I gone to each person on both "sides" of the debate individually, that would have been allowed.  What you've done, i.e. inform only the people whose POV agrees with your own, is very much discouraged as I stated/linked.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Discouraged maybe... but not disallowed.. what... you can't handle the debate or something? Not all of us are as versed in every obscure guideline on here.. but i'm sure sending hostile notes to my talk page migt be a tad discouraged as well..Spanneraol (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing hostile here that isn't warranted. I've seen plenty of people blocked for doing exactly what you did (on a larger scale anyway).  Highly bad mojo - and a classic tactic of someone who "can't handle the debate".  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What? I can't send messages to people? Are we outlawing free speech as well on Wikipedia? Spanneraol (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh come on - now you're messing with me. Seriously, you should want what's best for Wikipedia as well as I do, so you should want as much participation as possible from the community in general, not just people who agree with you!  How about this?  Just drop a note on a couple of the delete voters' talk pages - and not ones who have already participated - and we can call it even.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I have now notified everyone who participated in the recent afds of the ongoing discussion. I noticed most of the "delete" people were already participating but I notified those that had not yet participated. Spanneraol (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review
I'm working on getting the deletion on the Fort Myers Miracle entries I did overturned WP:DRV. I'd like your support, please.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Miracle Returns
I saw that I got a bunch of them back. I'm really happy right now.

As far as my sources go, the only 2 I used were MiLB.com and the Miracle website, and I noted them both on every entry I did. Both of which are pretty credible sources. What do they want me to do?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Dodgers seasons
Hi there! I just wanted to mention to you that I love the work you are doing on the Dodgers seasons. The seasons have a clean, uniform look that is consistent. My favourite aspect of the seasons are the Farm Teams. You have done an outstanding job listing the farm teams for every season. Well done Maple Leaf (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On this topic, is there some reason you're undoing my changes to these pages? As far as I know, I removed no information (and in fact added some that has now been taken away), but only changed the layout so that they are now standardized to the format of the team-season pages of other teams. I've been slowly working on standardizing all such pages per some discussion over at the baseball project page, so if there's something you find wrong or improper about my changes I'd welcome your input. -Dewelar (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I already had a transactions list at the bottom of the article and don't see the need to break up the transactions the way you did... I don't get the need to change the stats tables the way you are doing either... what is an "other" pitcher? They are either starters or relivers... no one is an "other"...? Spanneraol (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the transactions list, most articles I've seen have them broken up. If there's going to be standardization, that means either changing your articles to fit the other articles, or changing all the other ones to fit yours, so I've been taking the path of least resistance and changing yours. I don't care which one wins out, I just would like to see one format.
 * Regarding "Other pitchers", that would be pitchers who were used substantially (or at all, in the case of pitchers with minimal usage) as both starter and reliever during the season, thus making it difficult to slot them in as one or the other. Perhaps "swingmen" might be a better term, but not necessarily a meaningful one to a casual reader.
 * In both cases, the "need" as I see it is for general standardization of this type of article where possible. As a concept, everyone who's expressed an opinion on the matter has agreed it's a good idea, but the number of people who have expressed such an opinion is in the single digits. I'd be more than happy to have your input over on the project talk page, or the Standardization task force page, if there's ever anyone checking it these days. -Dewelar (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Old-time rosters
I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to add rosters to a bunch of 19th century team-season pages over the last few days. Much appreciated! -Dewelar (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've been meaning to work on these for awhile since I finished all the Dodgers pages but have been too busy to start.. Have a bit of down time now so can get some of them done. One thing I'm doing different from what you've started on is that I'm taking the flags off the players... there was a decision a few years ago that they shouldn't be on the rosters and they aren't on any of the current rosters.. May take awhile to update all the existing historical rosters that still have them.. Its the MLBplayer template rather than the player one... Good job of catching a couple of goofs I made by the way..Spanneraol (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't know there was consensus for no flags. I figured since there are flags on current rosters I should be putting them on all of them, but I will cease and desist on that one. You're right that pretty much every one that's been worked on has them (a lot of it my doing, I'm afraid). Anyway, I'll continue my work on the layout standardization, hopefully continuing to knock out one year's worth every couple of days. -Dewelar (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ausmus
Agreed. Cheers. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories
Category:Arizona Mariners players already exists as Category:Arizona League Mariners players and Category:Arizona Padres players should be moved to Category:Arizona League Padres players to match the Angels, Athletics, Brewers, Cubs, Diamondbacks, Giants, Mariners, and Rangers AZL teams. Jackal4 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Jackal4
Jackal4 has run amok on a number of baseball pages. Pls take a look at my comments on his discussion page -- perhaps you can talk sense into him. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Team-season pages
Is it possible that you could take a bit more care to ensure you're getting the links on the rosters correct? I'm regularly having to disambiguate half a dozen or more links on these pages after you fill the rosters in. -Dewelar (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the encouragement with the article I created List of countries with their first Major League Baseball player. I'm proud to say that the article did survive. Unfortunately my usernames(diarrheachacha and Passedflatus) were deemed offensive, and I lost that arguement. I thought they were pretty funny.Racingstripes (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Closers
I have no argument with closers being identified as a general rule. My issue is that "closer" is kind of a shakily-defined role until about the 1970s, and even then not every team had one. It's not easily identifiable in the way that positional starters are (unless we want to automatically deem that the guy with the most saves or the most games finished is the closer, which can be misleading). Also, in the early days of relief pitching, the guys who were the closest thing to closers also got a lot of starts (Marberry comes to mind immediately), and thus will wind up being in "Other pitchers" rather than "Relief pitchers". 1943 Les Webber, though...I'm not sure someone with less than half his team's saves qualifies. Why does he get a "CL" and not 1942 Hugh Casey, who was as close to a prototypical closer as you get in the 1940s?

As far as how to identify the closer within the standardized pages, I'm thinking that a closer, when there is one, should probably be identified in the stats section in the same way the starting position players are rather than on the roster. It's more consistent that way. Any objection to that? -Dewelar (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Baseball reference had Weber listed as the closer on their page for that season, thats why I identified him thus. If you can find a way to identify them in the stats pages thats fine... would you add a line in your relief pitchers section or put them on a separate box? Spanneraol (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd identify a closer as someone who had at least 10 saves, and who had at least half their team's saves. My preference would be to do it the same way you do, which is to put the (CL) right after the player's name, but just in the stats instead of the roster box. I don't think we want a whole other box for just one player. -Dewelar (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Jones
Yahoo sports had a breaking news thing saying he had been released, but they removed it, so the deadline has been extended.(Planecrash111 (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

Manny Ramirez
It is a notable injury if it keeps him out for 14 days. Keep it there and I'm getting a response from an admin soon if this is a an appropriate edit.(Planecrash111 (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

Yes it is notable and about the article being too large...I'm starting a complete makeover of the page and will be removing any unnecessary information.(Planecrash111 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

Yes it is. I have done over 10,000 edits of this kind on here and I will be doing it today.(Planecrash111 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Take a good look. I'm not adding every game result to Wikipedia. I know it would make the articles unmanageable, but that would be if you add what happens every time he goes to the game, which I'm not. I'm just adding notable injuries and home runs.

Just back off.(Planecrash111 (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

No. The people wanted the article to contain less space and I fixed it.(Planecrash111 (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC))