User talk:Soxrock/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  1. February 2006 – June 2007
  2. June 8, 2007 – June 29, 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Soxrock, 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 (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} 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)[reply]

The good... and the bad...[edit]

The good news: the Orlando Predators lost last night to the Philadelphia Soul.

The bad news: the Tampa Bay Storm lost today to the Columbus Destroyers.

I was watching the Storm/Destroyers game today, and that was a really heart-breaking loss. I thought that Tampa was gonna make that kick, but it curved left at the last second. Ouch, I'm really sorry :( That was stressful to watch. --Ksy92003(talk) 20:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I need to root for Dallas; I'm pretty confident that they'll win anyway. They didn't go 15-1, becoming the fist AFL team to do that, to lose in their first playoff game.
And you were actually at the game? Now, I'm really scared for my game on Monday since your team lost at home... but thanks for making the effort for my team. --Ksy92003(talk) 20:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I've been worried about this game since I found out we were playing them. Nice to see we are actually talking about stuff not related to your editing patterns anymore
I've got some pretty good seats, and as I said yesterday, with the people I sit with it makes it an awesome experience.
Pun intended: I hope that for the Avengers' last home game of the season, that they go out in a blaze of glory. Haha --Ksy92003(talk) 20:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the second deck, per se. It's shortly above the lower bowl. When you walk through the tunnels, you're at the top of the lower bowl (100 section); then you have to walk up abouve 6 stairs on the sides of the tunnels to get up to the 200 section. Also, 205 i behind the field, but it's just off to the side. I'll give you a little diagram: 

*
    ____________
   (            )
   |            |
   |            |
   |            |
   |            |
   |            |
   |            |
   |            |
   |            |
   |            |
   |            |
   (            )

The asterisk indicates where I sit. It's not that high away from the action, probably just around 20 feet.

As for the announcers for your game, I don't know who they were. I'm watching the Crush/Brigade game, and if they're doing that game, obviously they weren't doing your game. --Ksy92003(talk) 20:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... sound German to me. I think Hodge and Jones were doing the TB/CLB game. Their names sound familiar to me today.
Just so you know, when I downloaded Image:Gretzkystatue.jpg, I was also trying to upload a picture I took from an Avenger game so I could put that on Wikipedia, perhaps in the Los Angeles Avengers or 2007 Los Angeles Avengers season article, but I couldn't get it off my camera. If I can upload that, I'll let you know so you can see the field from where I sit. --Ksy92003(talk) 20:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'm trying to upload the picture to my computer again now. I'll send you the link on Wikipedia if I can get it up. Again, sorry Tampa Bay lost. I really was rooting for them. And thanks for rooting for LA for me. Also, since the Angels don't play on Monday, you don't have to worry about filling in for me for that on Monday. Thanks again. --Ksy92003(talk) 20:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the picture: Image:Avengerssnap1.jpg. This image doesn't show the near end-zone, which is just off-camera to my left. My seat location on the opposite side of the field is nearly in the exact seat in the section in the upper-left corner of this image. It's the section above the "Toyota" sign by the tunnel. --Ksy92003(talk) 21:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually can't re-size the image without it looking distorted and digitized. But on the article, it doesn't look like it needs to be any larger. By that, I mean the picture is of a good-enough size for the article, itself. Now, I know that on the image page itself, it's hard to see the picture, so I'll try to get a larger picture. In fact, I do have another picture that I took on June 2, also of the same thing, so later maybe I can try to upload that picture also. It's bigger because on the other one I had to shrink it to get it on my computer, but I don't have to do that with the other one; it's still on my camera. I'll try that later...
But I can't now. The one bad thing about being 16: your dad can kick you off the computer when he wants. So I'll try to upload that bigger picture later. --Ksy92003(talk) 22:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Bonds[edit]

It's okay. I thought that he had gone deep, also. I thought I had read something on the bottom line on ESPN. However, it only said:

"Chasing Aaron: Bonds: R, BB"

I was confused, as well. It's okay. --Ksy92003(talk) 14:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm curious. Why does a Canadian Yankee fan track Barry Bonds? I do because I have been a Giants fan since 1953 and loved Bobby Bonds even more than I like and support Barry. I also hate the Red Sox but for different reasons, probably, than you. Please fill me in. TrueC 23:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Give him a chance. He is more sinned against than sinning. Anyway, I am glad to overlap with you at #751. I gather you are not Canadian, but I am right about you and the Sox. Sox fans are psychotic in their obsession with beating the Yankees. It is the team's undoing. TrueC 23:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avengers vs. Blaze (10:00 ET, ESPN2)[edit]

Alright, there's about less than 3 hours before I'm leaving for tonight's game. So, are there any specific types of pictures that I should take for the project?

And don't forget: please cheer the Avengers on for me :) --Ksy92003(talk) 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before the game, I'll try to go down to the field to get pictures of the players during warm-up. This would be my only chance, since I sit too far away from the field to get a good, quality picture of any particular player. I'll try to get whatever pictures I can, and hopefully they would be good enough for Wikipedia :)
If I can't get a picture myself, is it possible for me to scan a picture of a player from the game programs they give out every day? They have some good pictures in there. I'll be sure to get the copyright information and all that stuff. But that might violate the GFDL-thing, so I'm not sure. Scratch that, I'll just try my hardest. --Ksy92003(talk) 20:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on 2007 Los Angeles Avengers season while I was gone. Obviously, the Avengers won in, what I consider, a blow-out. It was really fun, but all during the game I was seriously wondering what the ESPN announcers were saying during the game. Did they say anything really good or really bad about the Avengers during the broadcast? --Ksy92003(talk) 07:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Josh Jeffries was spectacular, especially that 35+ yard run he had. Funny watching the big guy run (260 lbs). He had 4 TD, Cumbie threw for 7 TD, and the best part is that the Avengers, in the 2nd quarter, forced 2 turnovers by getting Germaine to throw the ball off the screen, and it landed right in the hands of the Avengers' linebackers. And you look at the score, 64-42, and you'll say it was somewhat close. But Utah got a touchdown with :19 left and another off the ensuing kickoff with :16 left. That's two touchdowns in a span of less than 3 seconds when the Avengers were conserving their energy. So before those TDs, the score was a convincing 64-28. The Avengers truly dominated Utah last night. Not a bad way to win your first ever playoff game and your first ever game against the Utah Blaze!
I was also talking about this last night: as far as the playoffs go, next week I think Dallas is the only team who will easily win their game; I don't expect Columbus to pull the upset. But the others, I think an upset can happen. Philadelphia really outplayed Orlando, Colorado ended a 4-game losing streak by beating the 3rd-seeded Kansas City Brigade in what I think wasn't as close a game as the score indicated, and of course the Avengers are getting a lot of momentum from winning their first ever playoff game, the first ever game against Utah, and rebounded after a crushing loss to Utah the previous week. I think LA, Colorado, and Philadelphia can all pull upsets... I'm hoping LA and Colorado can so I can have one more playoff game; if LA beats Chicago and Colorado beats San Jose, then the American Conference Championship game will be played in Los Angeles on (I think) July 14. The reason I mention the date now is because I've got a baseball game on Friday the 13th: Angels/Rangers. So I'll need you to cover for me on those days.
Anyway, I really think those three upsets can occur. In the Nat'l Conference, I haven't heard much about Georgia all year. They haven't dominated like Dallas or San Jose, and Philadelphia shut down Orlando's offense last week. But we'll just see what happens. --Ksy92003(talk) 16:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:NYJetslogo.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:NYJetslogo.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 02:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:NYTitanslogo.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:NYTitanslogo.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 02:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bengals 5.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Bengals 5.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 04:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile[edit]

Hello Soxrock, Hydrogen Iodide has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Great work! Hydrogen Iodide 23:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Jackson[edit]

Reggie Jackson is an Oakland A. 3 World Titles (2 in NY), he played twice as many years in Oakland, and put up better stats in Oakland. And he retired with the A's. The only reason he wears a Yankee cap in the HOF is because it enables him to make more money signing autographs in Cooperstown and he was mad at the A's management for firing him as a coach in 1991.

Fair use rationale for Image:MinnesotaVikings_1000.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MinnesotaVikings_1000.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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. Videmus Omnia 00:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, how many times do you have to have problems with your image uploads? You'd think you'd take some time to understand how all that works, but it just seems like constant problems with your usage rationales.►Chris Nelson 00:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bunch of problems because he took every single professional sports logo and re-uploaded it under a different name. Then he went through all the articles and put his gigantic images on. His fair use rationale on every image was "fair use sportslogos.net" despite the logos being owned by their respective team.++aviper2k7++ 00:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:JacksonvilleJaguars 100.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:JacksonvilleJaguars 100.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. fuzzy510 05:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:CarolinaPanthers 100.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:CarolinaPanthers 100.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. fuzzy510 05:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Buccanners logo 1997-current.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Buccanners logo 1997-current.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. fuzzy510 05:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFL logos[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I re-tagged the NFL logos that I notified you about. I wasn't actually disputing the fair-use-ness (not a word, I know) of them, but just letting you know that I've replaced them with a PNG version, which is the preferred image standard for logos and the like. Thanks anyway for being so vigilant to make sure they were fair-use compliant, though. --fuzzy510 15:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Stars secondary bull logo.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Stars secondary bull logo.jpg. 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. fuzzy510 02:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:LaPorta.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:LaPorta.jpg. 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 20:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Giants secondary logo 2000-current.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Giants secondary logo 2000-current.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 21:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Al_1993_toronto_01a.png[edit]

I have tagged Image:Al_1993_toronto_01a.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 17:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Pilgrims vs. Boston Americans team name[edit]

FYI that the Boston 'Pilgrims' is a reference to a nickname. Official name was the Boston 'Americans' as listed on main Wikipedia Boston Red Sox pages, but also in other sources such as http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseason/1903_WS.shtml and http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ws/yr1903ws.shtml. Another source that dispels the myth of the name is this article: http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/boston_pilgrims_story.shtml

I'll be fixing the "seasonal" pages to reference this, and I will include references to other sources in my research. Thanks Entirelybs 17:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the SABR writer's investigation into the matter, which I think is linked from the Red Sox article. There was really no "official" nickname until 1908. "Pilgrims" was seldom used, but it kind of fit the early team, which wore dark blue as its color. Baseball Bugs 18:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the same link - [1] - which was a reprint from Nowlin, the guy who wrote the SABR article. He originally said Pilgrims "never existed". His followup research indicated it was used sometimes, but rarely - just one of many inventions of the press. Baseball Bugs 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for finishing off the season pages. Brad. Entirelybs 21:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATH for Deletion?[edit]

Thought you'd be interested in this, since i've seen you make a good amount of edits on the Around the Horn page. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Around_the_Horn Bjewiki 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Yankees GA/R[edit]

New York Yankees has been nominated for a good article review. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are delisted. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tecmobowl User:Long levi[edit]

I think the way it works is that when they block a user, they also temporarily block his IP subnet. But they can't block that forever because it would affect others. So once that block expires, he can create a new user ID. If he's subtle and has learned from his mistakes, he can get away with it. Tecmo/Levi is too self-absorbed to learn from his mistakes, and keeps giving himself away. So far. Baseball Bugs 16:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in line with your viewpoint on this. I went through his recent changes, and they seem good in general. His obsession with Fangraphs is one thing that got him into trouble, and his overall uncompromising "my way or the highway" approach is what got everyone mad at him, not just recently but over the last year. Baseball Bugs 16:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I even saw him fixing the Hall of Fame templates and commented positively on it. Another editor was alerted when he saw the "new" guy messing with the Fangraphs thing again and making various comments that practically shouted "I'm back!" He's constantly lecturing others about content and wikipedia rules. He just needs to take his own advice. Baseball Bugs 16:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He and I had bad blood, but several neutral users pleaded with him to compromise, and he wouldn't. There's only so much anyone can do. Meanwhile... "Remember the AFL"? Awesome. The AFL was like the early American League in its early years... no respect. I have an audio tape someplace of Jack Quinlan calling the final play of the Chicago Bears 1963 NFL championship victory over the New York Giants, and calling the Bears "the world's champions of football". By then the AFL was in, what, it's fourth season? Yeh, uh-huh. Oh, and there was also something then called "soccer football" that had its own world championship cup. Whatever became of soccer? :) P.S. Which color of Sox rock, Red or White? (I mean in your world, not in the current standings.) Baseball Bugs 17:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should try reading your talk page. White, obviously, as soon as I saw the Yankees references. Vikings? I've got a friend that likes to point out that the Vikings do, in fact, have one NFL championship: in 1970. They are the one NFL or AFL champion during the four-year official separation of the leagues in the Super Bowl, that never eventually won a Super Bowl after the merger into conferences. Baseball Bugs 17:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And don't let my frequent writing about Yankees and Babe Ruth fool you. I'm a fan of Babe Ruth and of Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle and Yogi Berra and Reggie Jackson, but not of the Yankees as such, if that makes any sense. I admire the great sluggers, in general. Baseball Bugs 18:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos, etc.[edit]

1903[edit]

San Diego Charger[edit]

Please drop by the discussion page and share your thoughts as well as help resolve a edit conflict currently going on thanks RMANCIL 17:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angels vs. Rangers[edit]

Hey again. Um... well, let me get to the point. Judging my the heading and a past conversation, I would assume that you would assume that I'm going to the Angels/Rangers game tonight. Well, it just so happens to turn out that... I still am :) Sorry for the drama there, just wanna have a bit of fun with you, mate. Anyway, I would greatly appreciate it if you could back me up tonight for the six divisional standings templates tonight, as well as the Angels' and Rangers' game logs. Thank you so much. Have a good day.

And praise the newest member of the Los Angeles Galaxy: DAVID BECKHAM!!! ––Ksy92003(talk) 20:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have taken notice that (at least yesterday) in the past week or so, a lot more people have stepped up and have been updating the game logs, saving us the trouble of doing them (if you had noticed, I had been updating a lot of them for a 3–5-day span). I just wanted you to know that I am gonna be gone tonight and won't be able to update anything until late at night, at least. ––Ksy92003(talk) 21:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's a trivia question: Have there been any other MLB teams with the letters "ANGE" consecutively in their names, or any other teams with that kind of oddity? Answer: I have no idea. Baseball Bugs 21:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this counts, but the Los Angeles Dodgers. In fact, no other team besides the Angels, Rangers, or Los Angeles Dodgers even have all four of those letters in their name. But there is Washington and San Francisco Giants which come the closest, with three of those letters. The Pittsburgh Pirates also have three letters (A, G, and E), but they are out of order. But that was an interesting trivia question :) ––Ksy92003(talk) 21:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline 2003[edit]

Does this look like it? It's not a book I have. Maybe I should get it?. [4] Baseball Bugs 20:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, The Baseball Chronicle. I recall seeing it in the stores, but I don't have it. Thanks for the tipoff. It might still be in print. Baseball Bugs 20:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you've created hundreds of pages on baseball seasons for several teams. Great work!! but are you certain there is enough info to make it appropriate for seperate articles?? If so great but I wouldnlt like to see them remain stubs for ever. If there is info on each of their games in that season etc this would look good ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 17:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thats cool - I thought you might have been setting the pages up first as I've seen you go through several teams. If at the end of this we have fairly good articles for each year for each team -this would be a fantastic achivement. Unfortuntately I know shamefully little about baseball -i wish it is was more of a sport in the UK -I enjoyed playing it at school but all people seem to obscess about here is soccer, rugby and cricket!!! Keep up the good work anyway. You could really do with some help. Isn't thwere a WP:Baseball or something? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 18:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey has the US finally realised who Posh and Becks are yet?? According to previous news reports many Americans still didn't know who they are. They are WAAAAYYYY!!! too over rated -particularly Victoria who has done very little but pursue a fruitless singing career and flaunting around for several years in Chanel with her lips pouting - . I hope Becks can do something for US soccer though. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 18:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but I don't like her new short bleached hair do though -she looks better with long dark hair. Good luck and all the best mate anyway ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 18:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual season articles[edit]

Wow, a lot of work is going into this. Someone would have to make a strong case before I would consider supporting deletion. It seems well organized and has a bunch of stats nicely arranged. All that's missing is extended commentary on the season, which many editors can participate in so as to flesh the verbiage out. The Jenkinson book would be one source for that, although it's Ruth-centric. But there is no shortage of commentaries on the Yankees' seasons. I'm just wondering about sources. Is Baseball-Almanac your primary source for everything? About the uniform illustrations, presumably they are from the Okkonen book. A fair use argument can be made in that they serve much better than any verbiage to describe the uniforms. I just hope Marc is not suffering financially. :) Also, you may want to be careful not to editorialze too much. They were cruising until the Babe went down, so saying they "blew" their lead is perhaps unfair. Obviously, they "lost" their lead. Also, for the few who may not know the jargon, I would say won by 4.5 games or 4 1/2 games. "Games at the Polo Grounds" should say home games at the Polo Grounds. However, it might have been called Brush Stadium that year. Another bit of minutia. But that doesn't answer your original question. I never guarantee anything, and recruiting is against wikipedia rules, but it looks good to me. I like how you've got the month-by-month compressed so you don't get that loooong page effect like on Baseball Almanac. Good work. Oh, one more question. "20th season"? That would be 1902-1921 inclusive. Is that what you intended? Baseball Bugs 22:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, mistakes can be corrected. I know someone else started individual season articles on the Twins, so presumably this has a precedent, although I'm not sure how far he got. I think it's a lot of work and may be repetitive, which is actually my main concern about it, and the point others may try to make. I would hate to have you go through all this work for 100-plus years of Yankee seasons and then have someone delete it all. It might be better to focus on a few key seasons as "models" and see what the hoi polloi have to say about it. But this does address, indirectly, the complaint that the Yankees page is getting too long. I could foresee maybe three layers, then: an overview, a more in-depth history, and then season-by-season. I wonder, is there also a writeup about individual season pennant races? If so, that would obviate the need for too much of that detail within a given club's season article. Similarly, as you've done, there's no need to dwell too long on the World Series for a given year, since all the details are in an another article. Maybe you see what I'm getting at... kind of the "outline" and "cross-linked" approach, with not too much repeated information from one to another. (That's my database training showing up.) The Texas Rangers 1985 is a stub, but it's important to keep in mind that nothing requires you to "finish" an article as soon as possible (despite what Tecmo/Levi apparently thought.) I've started many an article as a "stub" and others who had interest in it added to and improved upon it. Someone who's really into the Texas Rangers (and there must be a few of those, somewhere) could flesh the article out. Baseball Bugs 23:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing about sufficient detail of a season is that it supports or refutes "conventional wisdom" that is often stated. There has been this notion that the 1920 White Sox were cruising to another pennant and plummeted when Shoeless Joe and the other "Chicago 7" (actually 6 at that point) were suspended. However, a hard look at the end of the season reveals that (1) Jackson et al were suspended with only 3 games left for the Sox; and that (2) the Sox would have had to win all 3 games of their final series just to finish in a tie with the Indians, so the pennant was by no means "in the bag" (even if the team was - n'yuk, n'yuk)... and also the important point that the Yankees, in Ruth's first season, were right behind the both of them, poised to begin their dynasty the next year. Baseball Bugs 23:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, of course I would vote to keep these articles. ––Ksy92003(talk) 00:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tinkered with a few of the articles, along some of the lines I had discussed earlier. One thing that may still need correcting in some is the incorrect arithmetic as to the number of seasons played by the Yankees. Basically it's X-minus-2 in New York for X-overall, subtracting 1900 from whatever year the season's article happens to be, e.g. 1923 - 1900 = 23. Near as I can tell, the original editor subtracted 1901 instead, coming up short by 1 for many of the season writeups. Baseball Bugs 13:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are one busy bee. It occurs to me that you're what Tecmobowl would like to be... ambitious, bold... and possible to get along with. :) FYI, I uploaded a replacement version of the SEG isolation. Please check it out when you get a chance. It shows more detail of the right field fence and such. Baseball Bugs 14:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the photo by re-scanning a different print from a different book at a larger size. It's still not nearly as good as the one in the Ken Burns book, but that's a two-page spread and impossible to scan. Hopefully this one will suffice. So while I work on one task, you're working on hundreds. Don't burn yourself out. :) I guess I'm kind of fascinated by this business of ballparks being next door to each other. It happened twice in New York, at two different versions of the Polo Grounds. Of course Yankee Stadium was built within sight of the Polo Grounds. Also, Baker Bowl and Shibe Park were just 5 blocks away from each other on the same street in Philadelphia, and Sportsman's Park and Robison Field in St. Louis were also just a few blocks away from each other. There was also the situation of the Baltimore Federal League club and the International League club playing across the street from each other at different versions of Oriole Park. In fact, Fenway Park and Braves Field weren't very far apart either, though not such an easy walk as those others. Now, of course, they're building the new ones right next to the old ones, with the new one encroaching on the old one in some cases, especially Cincinnati. But nobody has taken it as far as the minor league Orioles of the late 1940s, who actually watched the city build Memorial Stadium around them while they continued to play on the same site as the older stadium slowly disappeared around them. Baseball Bugs 14:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the situations vary. I wonder, even though some of the old parks were close together, how often did the teams play at the same time? I don't know. I know it's rare in Chicago, or used to be, and they're on opposite sides of the city. When I lived in Illinois, there were a couple of occasions where they had games the same day and I saw both of them, as the Cubs only played in the daylight at that time. It is said that the 1880s and the 1890 New York teams often played on the same day, and that home run balls would sometimes land in the other field. That was especially possible below Coogan's bluff, even in the dead-ball days, because the fences were next to each other, or nearly so, and were reachable. It was also said some spectators, the ones sitting in the right places, could watch both games... a different kind of "doubleheader". You may have noticed that I've made a point, in some of those articles, to illustrate the proximity of those ballparks to each other. That's easy to do in New York and Philly, and Boston. I'm unaware of any aerial photo of Sportsman's Park that also shows Robison Field. In fact, I've seen very few photos of Robison Field in any case. It didn't get much attention, nor did its team, until the Cardinals moved back to Sportsman's Park, the site of the team's past and future glories at the time (1920). Oh, and let's not forget (as I pointed out in the 1912-1913 Yankees articles) that the Hilltop and the Polo Grounds were just a few blocks from each other also, albeit at significantly different altitudes. Baseball Bugs 15:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your other comments... Yes, I'm inclined to agree that there are more than enough attractions (or distractions) at ballparks. At least at Wrigley there are far fewer than at the Metrodome, where there's always some interactive nonsense going on between innings. And yes, I recall Anaheim being rebuilt in-season, and also San Francisco (what they used to call Candlestick Park); and Oakland (whatever they're calling the park nowadays) when they were constructing "Mt. Davis". This is not so unusual. The Cubs rebuilt their bleachers in-place in 1937, with a temporary inner fence and their old scoreboard behind the left field area. The Giants expanded the Polo Grounds during the season in 1923, trying to keep up with the Joneses (and the Ruths). I'm sure there are other examples. There's also the old-time parks' tendencies to keep older construction around when they turned the field 90 degrees, as they did in St. Louis and Cincinnati... though not in Detroit, where they completely rebuilt for 1912. Then there's the occasional case of tinkering with fences in-season, which is now against the rules. On and on it goes. :) Baseball Bugs 15:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries[edit]

I have no problem with your edits, but could you make it habit to enter Summaries? It makes it much easier for other editors. For example, if you look at the Ty Cobb or Honus Wagner histories, there are dozens of updates in a row with no description at all. It makes it very time consuming to figure out what changed when. Thanks. Guanxi 15:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Soxrock, I just wanted to say thanks for putting back the GFDL image of Alex Rodriguez that some troll insists on taking down. If you could keep your eye especially on this article and protect the image when you have time, I'd really appreciate it. As with all of Wikipedia, baseball articles are getting taken over by people who either don't understand what Wikipedia is about, or they don't care. I sure don't want to seet his happen. Take care, and keep up all the great work that I've seen you do. All the best, Googie man 18:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual season articles[edit]

Hey, Soxrock. This is in regard to the season articles, in which you were concerned that they might be nominated for AfD. If you want, I can use AWB to slap an {{underconstruction}} tag on all the articles that you are afraid might be nominated. Let me know if you're willing to do this, and which articles you would request have this done to. Ksy92003(talk) 21:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why some people would say if they didn't win a title, then they shouldn't have an article for that season. But then that's not fair for teams like the Devil Rays who haven't won a title. They play in the MLB also, and as an encyclopedia we need to respect that and give them fair treatment (WP:COI). But I'll go ahead and start adding the construction tags on those articles. Ksy92003(talk) 21:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it were something like 2007 Salt Lake Bees season (a minor league team of a Major League team) then that'd be a different story. But not if it's the season of a team of the highest level of that sport. And even if somebody were to nominate it for AfD, you could give the rebuttal that you are creating the article to shorten the length of the team article; instead of a "History of the..." page, you can say that you are creating an article to serve as the receiver of the information on an over-crowded main page as a branch. Ksy92003(talk) 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it barely took me any time at all. I could do all that on a pace of about 4 articles per minute, so it wasn't time consuming by any means. Are there any other articles that you would like me to do this for? I will start tagging the Angels' articles when I get the opportunity. Ksy92003(talk) 23:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't rush myself, don't worry. But here are the dates that I won't be available for the rest of the month:

Friday, July 20

  • Orange County Fair
  • Will be gone all day

Tuesday, July 24

  • Will be busy all day

Friday, July 27

  • Will be gone all evening
So don't necessarily expect me to be available on these dates. Ksy92003(talk) 23:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's Bonds' birthday also. I'm always able to remember his because I just know that it's the same as mine... but I'm some 27 years younger than him haha :) Ksy92003(talk) 23:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Texans colors[edit]

If you are going to change these in Texans' players infoboxes, stop putting the red, make the font white and use the navy color from Template:Houston Texans roster. This is the official color from the logo itself. And don't use the red because it's difficult for many people to read. I will undo any of the ones you put red on, so save yourself the trouble.►Chris Nelson 22:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

I am going to revert the links because I don't think they should be there. If all the years in a span say, 2002-2006 in an infobox, can't be presented, there's no point in linking them. They can be linked in the article itself.►Chris Nelson 22:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you win Schmoopie.►Chris Nelson 22:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrigley Field[edit]

Here's a picture I took at Wrigley on June 2nd. It's kind of a "triptych", i.e. it's a splice-together of 3 shots... taken with a cheap camera just a few rows from the back of the lower deck seating. Could be worse, I reckon. But this is Wrigley from an average spectator's viewpoint. They lost to the Atlanta Braves that day. Note the bleachers seats atop several buildings across the street. The building owners pay a royalty to the Cubs. Baseball Bugs 01:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrigley Field

They did a pretty good job with the bleacher expansion, but it wasn't really necessary, and besides which I would prefer they spend their money on better players. What I'm leading up to with this photo, if I can find it, is to compare what they did with centerfield, with when they put an awning over the bleachers to try to allow fans to sit there, in shadow, so as to produce a better background, before they gave up and just closed that section. Baseball Bugs 02:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rickey Henderson etc.[edit]

Oakland would be the most obvious colors for Rickey to have. Maybe the Yankees. Certainly not the Mets. But this all points up the flaw in having team colors on retired players. Unless a player can be strongly or almost exclusively connected with one team, the colors don't make sense. They only work well for active players, since obviously they are only playing for one team at a time. I've made this point on the project page, and nobody seems to care much, so I've left it alone. But those "two" guys you mentioned (who are suspected of being each others' sockpuppets but no action has been taken) are annoying and disruptive. Baseball Bugs 11:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC):[reply]

Aha, you've detected a trend... they hate the Yankees and love the Mets. No wonder their sanity is in question. I came close to getting slapped with a 3RR over the Casey Stengel issue, and I decided I'd had enough at that point. Stengel was connected with every New York team there was, which is not bad for a guy who started life in Kansas City. At least they've left Casey's page with Yankee black-and-white now, the last I checked anyway. Baseball Bugs 11:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up on one point, yes, Casey managed the Mets their first few years, but to nothing resembling success on the field. They famously went 40-120 their first year under him, but they weren't really much better for the remainder of his time there, "topping out" at 53-109 in 1964. He left in mid-season 1965. He wore the happy face and was good copy and made for good P.R. as always, but inside he must have thought he was back managing the Boston Braves again. The Mets didn't start showing significant improvement until Gil Hodges came along in 1968, when they finished with a fairly respectable 73-89, then of course won the whole enchilada the next year, over my Cubs, improving their regular season record by 27 wins. Baseball Bugs 11:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it was a double 3RR. I didn't want to get into that level of detail. :) I was hoping it would force the issue, which it did, as an admin semi-protected the page again and temporarily put a stop to their shenanigans. If they start up again, some action needs to be taken, but I got in so deep with the Tecmo thing I'm kind of burned out on it. I'd have to see if they're actually contributing anything, which Tecmo was, at least when he was taking his meds. You're also right that Henderson played for a whole mess of teams late in his career. He was like the ultimate hanger-on. I wondered, at one point, if his goal was to wear every major league uniform at least once. All that end-of-career stuff just delayed his entry into the Hall of Fame. It will be interesting to see which team's cap he wears. Maybe he'll have a cap with multiple logos. Baseball Bugs 11:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Short levi, yes. A little short in some areas, for sure. A few fries short of a Happy Meal, as they say. I recall the battle royal with him really started when he went nuts over the Fangraphs link while (amazingly) defending his own baseball card website, and I called him a hypocrite. There was already bad blood between us, and the gloves really came off after that. The whole thing was disgraceful, although it did serve as a learning experience (though maybe not for him). Baseball Bugs 11:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question Tecmo had something to offer. As an admin reiterated to Epeefleche and me recently, Tecmo was offered a chance to come back, if he would compromise. That's not something you see too often with banned users. He wouldn't compromise, and that's that... for now. I haven't seen any evidence of a new sockpuppet, but unless he's very subtle about it (which would go against his nature), if he does come back he'll be spotted quickly. Baseball Bugs 11:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think both Aaron and the Atlanta Braves are on my watch list, so I'll be keeping an eye out for anything weird. Speaking of Atlanta, I find it fascinating that their roots are with the original Cincinnati Red Stockings, and that they still wear red trim to this day. It gives a sense of connection to the very early days of professional baseball, even if they are three cities removed since then. Little did they know how it would all turn out... but I have a hunch the "Wright brothers" would have approved of what their little experiment hath wrought. Baseball Bugs 12:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston, Baltimore, etc.[edit]

I think I wrote that "lives on in three ways" segment. I never know whether my writing style qualifies as "encyclopedic", but nobody has challenged that phraseology, so I guess it's good. For now. :) I like making connections with the past, when it's possible to show there's a continuum to the present and that it's not some isolated antiquity. The Cubs and the Braves have connections to the original National League of 1876, the other original 6 having folded. They also connect with the "not-quite-major" (which I dispute) National Assocation, of which the Braves are an uninterrupted charter member. The South End Grounds over which I've been obsessing a bit (I added another photo overnight) is significant in that famous photo because it unwittingly shows the past and the future. That's where the Red Stockings played when they arrived in 1871, when they became the toast of baseball, and it's where they still were in 1903, when the Red Sox were ready to take over as Boston's favorite team and ultimately drive the Braves out of town, albeit 50 years later.

Then there's the Federal League, which lives on "silently" (in the words of Marc Okkonen) emboddied in Wrigley Field... and the Players' League, whose last remnant was the Polo Grounds, which met its demise nearly 75 years after the PL was dead. And back to the Fed, it's a piece in the meandering saga of baseball in Baltimore, which has had an extraordinary impact on the game at various times, despite its frequent rebuff by the big leagues. There was the 1890s team, which set the standard for the dead-ball era style of play that its Hall of Fame disciples, such as McGraw, Jennings and Robinson brought to the new century. There was the way the Brooklyn Dodgers stripped that team down in 1899, similar to what happened to a worse degree to Cleveland, which led to the contraction of the NL and immediately to the rise of the AL. There was the 1901-1902 Baltimore AL team that was moved to New York, thus opening the way for the minor league Orioles, and providing a place for local boy Babe Ruth to demonstrate his many talents, before moving on to New York himself (with a stop in Boston first, helping to establish the Red Sox as Boston's favored team).

There was the major impact of the two years of the Federal League, 1914-15, which saw the minor league Orioles competing with the "big league" Terrapins, and surviving despite selling young star Ruth to the Red Sox in 1914. Baltimore's yet-again rebuff by the majors and their suit against the majors led to the famous exemption of baseball from the antitrust laws. The Orioles' relocation across the street into the abandoned, wooden Fed park unknowingly led to a day with destiny, as the park burned in mid-season 1944. Maybe that fire wouldn't have happened if the Fed had built it in steel and concrete, as they did with Wrigley Field (although I suspect Charlie Weeghman had some foresight there). Those Orioles rose like the phoenix and went on to win the minor league world series that year, drawing huge crowds at their temporary home, a football stadium which was later rebuilt as Memorial Stadium... and caught the attention of the major leagues, leading to Baltimore finally earning a spot back in the majors. Ironically, the Orioles got so good that they drove the Senators away from the D.C. area, and some think that situation invited the scrutiny and re-thinking of baseball's exemption, though it's still there. OK, end of lecture. Much of what I've just mentioned, I have added in the various articles at appropriate places, FYI. :) Baseball Bugs

Senators[edit]

I only use one account at a time, otherwise I get too confused. :) Baseball was faced with a dilemma in 1961. They wanted to expand, to head off the Continental League. Minneapolis was, I think, one of the CL's target cities. However, the Senators had concluded that D.C. was a graveyard, and wanted to get out, so they set their sights on Minneapolis, a city that I think the Giants had earlier looked at before they decided on joining O'Malley in the west coast move (Minny had been the Giants' top farm team). So the Senators left a void in D.C., and baseball was paranoid about its antitrust situation, so they put an expansion team in D.C. to mollify the "real" Senators, i.e. the ones on Capitol Hill. They even pretended, for awhile, a la the current Cleveland Browns, that the Twins were the "expansion" team. Keep in mind that at that time, the Orioles were little more than the Browns in a Baltimore uniform. However, the O's started to get good in the early 60s, and the Senators didn't, and although the Senators enjoyed some resurgence under Gil Hodges and then Ted Williams, they weren't doing all that well, and owner Bob Short basically said, "I'm moving to Texas and you can't stop me." Which he did. But by then, the Orioles were a powerhouse team, becoming very popular in the D.C. area, so the loss of the Senators wasn't such a concern as it had been ten years earlier. Fast-forward to 2005, with the orphaned Expos looking for someplace to move, and with the Orioles no longer necessarily being the toast of the D.C. area, and the time seemed ripe (to some advocates, anyway) to re-install baseball in D.C. OK, another long answer to a short question. :) Baseball Bugs 13:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sizable, and angry, crowd turned up for the Senators-to-be-Rangers final game in D.C. The Nats led 7-5 in the top of the ninth, one out away from finishing the season with a win against the Yankees, and the unruly fans started running onto the field. The game was forfeited to the visiting team, a rare occurrence in modern baseball. Baseball Bugs 13:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typos[edit]

For some strange reason, a user I never heard of called User talk:Barliner corrected one typo you made on my talk page, while leaving another. I commented to him about it. We'll just have to see what that's about. Baseball Bugs 11:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He indicated he was running an automated spell-check and that he was not intending it to be running against talk pages. No hay problema. Baseball Bugs 12:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Torres[edit]

Now that is what I call an awesome bit of trivia... a guy who, through no fault of his own, was on the scene for several famous events, in this case three different infamous forfeitures... Kind of like baseball's answer to Forrest Gump. Baseball Bugs 14:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat more humorous than Robert Todd Lincoln's inadvertent connection to three different Presidential assassinations. Baseball Bugs 14:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking seasons[edit]

yankees[edit]

I was wondering if you needed another editor for the yankees? im off for the rest of the day...but if you respond ill respond when i get back on.Vandalfighter101 19:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Soxrock/Archive_3&oldid=1144724351"