User talk:Baseball Bugs/Snapshot100130

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article nor the talk page for an encyclopedia article. Be aware that if you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mindless parrot. Be aware that the page may be inundated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself, if that. Be aware that this user likes to say "Be aware that..." Be aware that the original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Baseball_Bugs/Snapshot100130.

Ark-Hives

---

• User talk:Wahkeenah
• User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive001
• User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive002
• User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive003
• User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive004
• User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive005
• User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive006
• User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive007

Useful warnings

Caution to vandals on WP:ANI: Don't get Plaxicoed.

Vandalism warnings

Matthew 7:6 - "Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you." (Revised Standard Version)

Your proposition may be good / But let's have one thing understood / Whatever it is, I'm against it / And even when you've changed it or condensed it / I'm against it.

Proposed change to warning boxes inspired by another editor [1]

a compliant has been opended regarding youse behavieurs on WP:ANI. Please refrain from subtle vnadlaism.
No matter how subltel you think youa rebing you can e suiqt secertian that you are still commiting an act of vandlaism.
if you merely need an d outlet to practice editing please see WP:SANDBOX DINTRSTEAD of mutiliating articles on the mainspace ot violating articles here on wikipedia.
I hope you will return to make many mroe sponstructive edits in the future.
IF you require a sponsor, please see WP:SPONSOR to assit you in making many better editors into the near future.

Now, who can argue with that?
Not only is it authentic internet gibberish, but it expresses a courage that is little seen in this day and age.

Letters from fans

BASEBALLS BUGS IS AN UGLY IGNORANT FOOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.166.166 (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're stupid. Mayallld (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How about that obviously immature Basebuggs? Tanninglamp 20:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hehhehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe! ROFLMFAO! @ Baseball Bugs. That guy makes the dumbest jokes. You gotta love him for trying though. LMFAO! HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA! =D Cheers! Cheers dude 05:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hehehehehehehe! Baseball Bugs is a cutie. 65.31.103.28 05:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What is your problem? Why are you being a jerk? 69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: AN/I and your latest "fan"

Hi Bugs, hoping to slip under the radar since you've been "reported" and I don't want to be seen to be associated with you in case the "moderators" link me with you...

Doctor Who is a time traveller; it looked to me like the anon IP thought they could travel through time and edit their previous comment to justify their "What are you talking about?"-comment. Now I come to think of it, 1984's "memory hole" might have been a better analogy.

This IP is funnee!

Cheers (and good luck evading those "moderators" now you've "been reported"!), This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrators make me nervous. But moderators really scare me. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's those scooters they ride. Terrifying. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fourth warning

And reported again. Its truly amazing that you actually think that you cannot be reported for threatening and insulting users outside of an articles dicussion page, really. We are all happy you've ended your ignorant, racist revert war, but im more than happy to see you blocked for this continued harrassment. :) 121.221.33.231 (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

Not that I'm sure you care, but this IP has now been blocked Fritzpoll (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping he might give me enough info that I could find the previous, similar message on this subject. But the block should slap that mosquito down for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

List of United States Presidential names

Might you take a look over there? I inherited criteria from Cumulus Clouds (I know - amazing) but the new criterion being offered seems to be "if I can find it in Google, it belongs, no matter how pejorative" or the like. Merci! Collect (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been seeing that, and biden' my time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. One of the few things CC and I agreed on, I fear. I can find several hundred pejorative nicknames to add if that is how the consensus moves <eg>. (and "biden" <g>) Collect (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Biased removal"

"Biased removal" I think you have miscontrued a later talk page comment from me about not supporting the miracle angle, as being the reason for this removal which pre-dated it. On the contrary, I merely removed it because a bunch of news links had been removed previously, and this new one stood out like a sore thumb. I don't care either way, its not like EL sections are hard to manage. But your edit summary confused me is all. MickMacNee (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Roger. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

hi

hope you have a great day DegenFarang (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Back at ya. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama

I noticed, there actually were editors suggesting Obama's assumed office date shoul be January 21, 2009 (due to the re-swearing in). Were those folks, serious? GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously ignorant, at least. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I was amazed -- in CT at least, al that counts is the "intent" to take an oath for it to be binding. I suspect this is true elsewhere as well (example abound wjere people goof on wedding vows etc.). Collect (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Baseball articles

You have been interested in vandalism on baseball pages in the past. Just a note to let you know that I have found Jackal4 to be disruptive of late on such pages.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear to me what the dispute is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside the park home runs

Hi. Is it correct that if runners fail to touch a base or one overtakes another then they can be out on appeal in all games of baseball? If so, surely this is a rule of the game as a whole rather than a rule of MLB? Dancarney (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a baseball rule. It's a fundamental of the game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ow, the puns... they hurt

I hope you don't mind that I want to appropriate some of the userboxes you have... and thank you for all of the humor on your page. If you ask me, the fourth pillar of Wikipedia should be "Remember to laugh." ("Memento ridere," in homage to the Roman version of the saying.)
Separately, I see you just peeked in at SPLC - thank you for that as well. arimareiji (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Try also "Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuavabit." Collect (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish you knew how apt that is for me these days. Thanks for the reminder. ^_^ arimareiji (talk)

I don't know how to proceed and could use the advice of someone more experienced, --if-- it's not unduly burdensome. If you'd rather not risk entanglement, I'd completely understand. But if you're feeling brave... Out of curiosity, I started digging around in SPLC. (I should have done so before saying anything at AN/I, but I try to burn my bridges while I'm crossing them.) When I did so:

---

• Dooteyr's very first six edits were to jump into SPLC Talk with a long commentary on why a source is inappropriate. I partially agree with him, and change it so that it's attributed it as opinion and not fact. He later removes the source entirely. I revert and explain on Talk.
• Spotfixer's first edit at SPLC is to restore Dooteyr's edit and say in the edit summary that he agrees. I revert and explain on Talk.
• Tom/North_Shoreman jumps in right after and restores Spotfixer's reversion, claiming "see discussion page where it appears to be one editor versus everybody else". It was his first edit at SPLC in quite a while, but it's entirely plausible this was opportunistic rather than coordinated.
• BBiiis08 adds edits primarily to agree with the others or join in removing criticism; one being to simply echo Tom/NS's wording on the abovesaid source.

---

• Dooteyr, created last week, demonstrates advanced knowledge of policies and tools almost immediately. After 21 edits on SPLC and a creationist's page over two days, he disappears.
• Spotfixer, created not quite three months ago, demonstrated advanced knowledge of tools with his first edit. He edits heavily in creation/evolution, gay rights, and abortion.
• BBiiis08, created a little over three months ago, demonstrated advanced knowledge of tools with his first edit. He edits heavily on creation/evolution and creationists, SPLC / Morris Dees, and televangelists.
• Tom/North_Shoreman dates back to 2006, almost all of it in the Civil War and none in religious issues that I found, though the huge number of edits he's made may have obscured it. To me that makes it seem much less likely he's directly tied in, but I'm not sure.
• My actual guess as to the original sock farmer would be Ramdrake, even though he didn't weigh in until later (with the Westboro Baptist Church edit you saw). He was editing heavily in creation/evolution near his start in 2006 and has spent some time on religious issues, but of late spends almost all his time on race. He got dinged twice in late 2006 for 3RR; my nastily cynical mind speculates that he "learned" how to get around it. In an equally nastily-cynical vein, he's made several tweaks to WP:Tag team. Some were to soften criticism of tag-teamers and make it harder to assert tag-teaming, like this and this.

---

Any suggestions? Is it more likely that I'm being overimaginative, or does this merit bringing up at SPI despite the fact that it comes across as forum-shopping? arimareiji (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This would take some time to research. Have you raised this question with a trusted admin? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I can; I was just looking for a reality check first. arimareiji (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my having used you as a sounding board; my apologies if so. I wound up bringing it back up at AN/I, for better or for worse. arimareiji (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just Curious

hey bugs, I'm just curious .. how come you're not an admin? I know you have a sense of humor and all, but you've been around for a long time, and you clearly know right from wrong. just wondered. Ched (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I'm not that interested in the job, and even if I were, others have made it clear they would torpedo any such nomination. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The more time I spend on Wikipedia, the more I'm reminded of my college's drama department. (If I elaborated on why, I would just be stirring up trouble - so I'll just hope that your college's drama department was similar enough to clarify.)

I can't say I blame you, but it's a shame. arimareiji (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know from drama departments, as I was in the sciences. But I get the point. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto; chemistry/biochem. If I were to compare to the sciences, I would compare to PhD's serving on grant boards and reviewing postgrad work, while competing for grants with the same MS's and BS's. arimareiji (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

update

i changed the wording of my last entry to jgr talk so your 'yes it is' does not make sense, as i did not end with the same statement. as i said i did this as you wrote yours, it was not in response to your comment. DegenFarang (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Markosjal thinks you're my sock

Ridiculous with a capital R. Willking1979 (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama's birth, Peabody and Sherman

ROFLMAO. Sarcasm, written at the educational level of intended target, is perfect.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris Wallace & Katie Couric

Hiya Bugs. Concerning their remarks on Obama's Inauguraton. Don't it just drive one fire breathing mad, when those TV personalities, don't do their research? It's bad enough CNN people, kept saying Clinton's Senate seat was vacant, way before Clinton resigned it. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would sooner trust the legal advice I might get from Mr. Peabody. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, apparently the Governor of Illinois styles himself, in the mold of Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela & Martin Luther King, Jr.. Luv the Blago show. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Things will be mighty dull once Quinn becomes Governor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to canvass but...

...I can't let rants like this go without addressing them. I let WLU know but he may deffer because of COI. I don't see why, the need to block this guy is pretty blatant. Or should I just take it to AN/I? Padillah (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The dog got it

You didn't listen, Wikipedia, and now I'm completely stuffed

Hee-hee! Enjoyed your comment at ANI. Bencherlite^Talk 01:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, hadn't spotted that... Nightmares await! Bencherlite^Talk 02:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by 74.72.196.226

Well, that was fun. First Talk:Barack Obama, then your page, then mine. I am worn out with all the reverting. Newguy34 (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We get a 3-hour break from that yokel. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hurray. I'll head to bed now and maybe when I wake up I'll realize it was all a bad dream. Newguy34 (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hooray.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"A dream, to some... A NIGHTMARE TO OTHERS!" >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Crackthewhip775

Hello, Sir. I wonder how you are feeling during what is likely to be your last few months editing Wikipedia. I would like to have been a fly on the wall during one of your sessions with your priest regarding your contemplated retirement! I will remember you as one of the most engaging figures I have encountered on Wikipedia. Are you a member of SABR - the baseball study group you mention from time to time? I plan to join the organization when I get older and bigger. Do you have any comments - pro or con - about SABR? Happy New Year and Best Wishes. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I'm Jewish, and I don't belong to SABR. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Superbowl

Hey there Mr. Bugs, how you doin? Just to avoid the obvious humor, yes I do know there's a difference between baseball and football, but I thought you might enjoy other sports too so -- being from Pittsburgh (yep, I remember being at Forbes Field when I was young), I had to ask - do you have any picks or predictions for the Superbowl this year? Ched (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope the Cardinals win, as they are the Cinderella team - but I suspect the Steelers will win, simply because they are the better team. It is kind of funny that the Cardinals will have finished their season against the two teams with which they were merged for awhile during WWII. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that! I was born in 57, but do remember reading about the Steagles or something like that though. ;) Ched (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I forgot, it was the Steelers that did the double merger - the Phil-Pitt "Steagles" one year, and "Card-Pitt" (a.k.a. "Carpets") another year. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter Falk

(O/D)re: Falk ... Are you fishing for verifiable "facts" that can be cited, sourced, and meet policy guidelines again Bugs? ;) Ched (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, trying again to follow the rules. Shameful, ain't it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Flies right in the face of IAR - but then again, my feeble mind might not grasp the difference between the "spirit and intent" of a law, and the "letter" of the law. Ched (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I follow the letter of the spirit and intent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Peter Falk (and Columbo (TV series)), the theme of the NBC Mystery Movie is so ingrained in my head from my youth that every time I'm carrying a flashlight somewhere, I have to whistle the theme song of that show. Every time. And reading this thread reminded me of that theme, so I just had to pull it up again. Curse you, NBC Mystery Movie! --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Memories. [2] :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Excuse me, Sir" GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

this is why

Some administrator was picking on me so I had to leave Wikipedia. My mother asked me to review edits with her to prevent trouble. I think I should not have brought it up because administrators back each other up and start attacking others, like me. Ipromise (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Roger. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditions of the Church

If you want to restore the Catholic Church to traditional values, finding a way to keep child molestors out of the priesthood would be a good start. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The ugly truth is that a HUGE percentage of molestors are also gay. Therefore we have got a BAN on all gay seminarians, see for example Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders. If you had a similar rule for teachers, lawyers and doctors, I suppose it would have the same kind of impact. ADM (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This public service announcement was brought to you by Archer Daniels Midland. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Republican view would be that if someone's living in a shack, it's by choice.

In the U.S., that is the viewpoint, not for the rest of the world. If I had not gone to college there is a 90% chance I would be living in a trailer and not a house. Yes, it is by choice. You choose to go to college or not to go. You choose to work or not to work. You choose to look for work or not look for work. I have worked jobs from the menial(tobacco fields, Kroger, etc.) to the not so menial(military and teaching). They were all my choice, not someone elses, not some hand of some higher power that placed me there. I got to the teaching job by a set of choices I made, not by luck. Am I rich? No. Is it anyone's fault? No. I made the career choice. That choice places me above "shack" living and well below rich and evil. The only things you are guaranteed are life, liberty, and the ==pursuit== of happiness. Note pursuit. If I lose my job due to poor output is that your fault? No, it is mine? If I lose my job to the economy that is every single American's who has contributed to this situation fault from the poor to the rich. Does that mean I sit on my ass and draw off of the gov? No. I will utilize the opportunity I have in the country to look for a job, even if it means going back to the fields.76.177.225.127 (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. If you're living in a shack, it's by choice. That's the Republican view. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I am not a Repub, Dem either. I have a strong belief that my life is shaped by my individual actions and choices, not the collective herd or government.76.177.225.127 (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We all like to think that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

PCH

You're wrong: I value your efforts to counter this incredibly persistent vandal. —EncMstr (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Me too. It takes some level of involvement to keep guys like this from getting their way. tedder (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Things should be OK as long as the page stays protected. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I appreciate that you are trying to help, but I think the back-and-forth is useless. The idea is to induce boredom. It's attention he wants. He's no dummy. I think we need to be dispassionate, and not goad him on by replying to his every asinine comment. Oh well, I tried. I'll take it off my watchlist instead. Report him at WP:WQA if he gets personal again. Katr67 (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You're not wrong. And actually I'm not yet totally convinced it's the same guy. But we'll see, eventually. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

taking discussion back here- getting confused with it being in 12 places. My point on my talk page was a level of interest is necessary to keep problems at bay. I mean, if I find vandalism I'll check contribs and revert other pages. Reporting problems to AIV, or checkuser, or anywhere else, is necessary. Now that needs to be tempered with WP:RBI, and cases like this get tricky. And the lock on PSQ makes it almost impossible to entirely ignore a case like this, since WP:AGF should be assumed with new users, right? (I'm a little testy, I'm dealing with other oregon-related bureaucracy right now too!) tedder (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Super Bowl Edition

It doesn't matter now, 'cause they lost, but I thought you might have lamented the fact, as I did, that there was not enough said about the Cardinals' existence as the Chicago Cardinals and Comiskey Park. Or "Card-Pitt" or "Phil-Pitt." Also--in reading a biography of Pete Rozelle I recently came across the fact that when the old American Football League in 1960 put player names on the backs of jerseys it took the idea directly from Bill Veeck, who was the first sports owner to do so (1960 season). Or so it says. My memory goes as far back as, I think, '67 or '68, and the Sox had names on the jerseys (Joel Horlen, Walt Williams, et al). Lantana11 (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

All ancient history, I suppose. Last week's Sports Illustrated had a pretty good overview of the franchise. The Sox were the first to use names on a permanent basis, I think. I would have to check the Okkonen book to be sure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Okkonen book is one of those things that occasionally make me wonder "Am I taking this stuff a little too seriously?" The answer is usually "no." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lantana11 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That is right. If in fact the commissioner's directive is to do what is "in the best interests of the game," then ours is to do what is in the best interests of our love of the game! Of course jerseys without names are usually considered "cooler"--with the possible exception of the Cardinals' and Tigers', which with the Sox carried players' names in the 1960s. Lantana11 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You almost have to wonder if there are not those who might be pondering related ideas. As for me, baseball telecasts offering exploding stat-line graphics set to booming Fox Sports music are quite enough (what was so insufficient about, say, a simple "Bud Harrelson/1 for 3" in unobtrusive type at the bottom of the screen?). I don't know to what extent keeping score at the ball game (with the scorecard and a pencil) is losing popularity, but it is a historically good way of keeping track of who is on the field; I confess to have occasionally considered myself to be showing off at the ball park by diligently scoring the game--fool that I am. As for Manny, he gave Dodger fans a hell of a lot of fun for two and a half months, and who wouldn't want his big bat in their lineup? But I started the task of learning to shrug off my favorite team's losing players to free agency when Peter Seitz deeded Andy Messersmith to the Braves. Lantana11 (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Baseball Statistics.com, Dodger Stadium saw one rainout (April 1967) from its 1962 opening until 1976. Then there were no rainouts betwen 1988 and 1999 (a record 856 straight games). I have sat through a couple of drizzly football afternoons at the Coliseum, though. I wonder--does the Twins' unflamboyant, corporate-mold style still stem from Calvin Griffith? I remember some very bitter statements from Rod Carew about Griffith, and perhaps some vestiges remain today. Lantana11 (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Twins are as much of an old-fashioned, old-style sports franchise as exists today; that is, a long-time owner quite devoted to the team who not only is not given to impatience and to turning the organization upside-down in the wake of some rough seasons, but exerts some influence on the team's character for better or for worse. Like, I imagine, the football Cardinals' Bidwell family, for all the flaws, intransigence and idiosyncracies, there is a consistency there that is somewhat admirable. Owners like this are kind of a throwback to earlier times when men did not own sports franchises as a trophy or a showpiece, or to exert a bullying influence on the league and game itself (although such as George Halas was pretty much a co-commissioner), but regarded them as prized possessions, as family heirlooms. God knows the difference between what the O'Malley Dodgers were and with what has followed in a dozen years. And who knows what the Cubs will look like under whoever turns out to be the highest bidder. It seems to me just now that the Twins, which are not one of baseball's "beloved" teams (Red Sox, Cubs, etc) don't get their due for the success they have had over the years--many more celebrated franchises can only dream of their achievements. Much like the Athletics and Giants; as a northern California resident for a time it seemed absurd how the tremendous history of the Oakland A's--definitely not beloved--is generally passed over in favor of the Giants' mostly star-crossed time in SF. Lantana11 (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Did I write "Bidwell?"...of course I meant "Bidwill." And no, I don't think the Phillies were baseball's best team either. Like the '88 Dodgers and '03 Marlins, they simply started doing everything right at the perfect time. At any rate, to finish with the Twins it seems, (though I've never lived in the area) that much of what they've done, since 1965 probably, has taken a lot of fans somewhat by surprise. Kind of like a "who knew" attitude, in which those who didn't know weren't paying close enough attention. Like the Athletics; in the Bay Area, when the team chalks up another division title or playoff spot, people say "hey, they've got a pretty good little team." When the Giants finish under .500 they ask "What went wrong?" And you are absolutely right about the Chicago baseball; the Sox' ending an eighty-eight year span between world titles (and winning a pennant for the first time since '59) wasn't that much less notable than what the Cubs would do if they won a championship. But of course every season begins with the question "Is this the year for the Cubs?" One more rambling rumination--as an LA-area fan of certain vintage I remember when Rams owner Dan Reeves once said that it was more fun losing with coach Harland Svare (1962-65) than winning with successor George Allen ('66-'70). Try getting that kind of philosophical attitude from today's sports owners. Lantana11 (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

This is to invite you to add your views regarding my proposal at the MOS - capital letters talk page. That MOS should be changed to reflect standard English, rather than The Chicago Manual of Style. SMP0328. (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Roosevelt Name Pronunciation

That's a good question. It's pronounced ROZE-uh-velt by both Tweed Roosevelt and everyone else in the know. In my case, (unfortunately for me), I grew up pronouncing it ROOS-uh-velt from my dad who was a real Franklin fan, so it was a "little" (actually a lot) humiliating at a 2006 symposium on TR at Dickinson State University (See http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.com/Symposia_2006.asp#Speakers ) when the moderator, Clay Jenkinson, during the first break in a 3 day event, told me, "Well Keith, if your gonna become a TR fan or eventually a scholar, the FIRST thing you gotta do is get the pronunciation of that last name right. It's NOT ROOS-uh-velt. It's ROZE-uh-velt." My red-faced reply, "OK, got it." was about all I could blurb out. Since then, it's a funny thing, I NEVER say it incorrectly! Doh/Doy! SimonATL (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There are 2 audio recordings of TR pronouncing his last name. One is of him commenting on Cavalry Bugle Calls. My old Alma Mater, Michigan State University has it at the following URL: http://vvl.lib.msu.edu/record.cfm?recordid=509 This recording is about 33% too fast and it can be slowed down by downloading a great video-audio player called KPM Player which can be downloaded at http://www.filehippo.com/download_kmplayer/ and the other one is an incredible 10 min 1912 audio recording of TR at his political best defending the Progressive Party against US political power brokers. Stand patters were those totally opposed to change. The Abyssinian Treatment refers to his unwillingness to treat with any special interest while President. To easily download this speech, go to the Yahoo Theodore Roosevelt Group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tr-m/ and ask to join. Once you join, you should be able to go to the files section at download the recording at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tr-m/files/ but you won't be able to download that file from the Yahoo site until you join the group.

Also - Tweed Roosevelt pronounces it "ROZE-uh-velt."

Some more support for that pronuciation: According to the Roosevelt Cylopedia, in a letter written to Rev. William W. Moir on October 10, 1898.) Roosevelt indicated, "As for my name, it is pronounced as if it was spelled 'Rosavelt,' That is in three syllables. The first syllable as if it was "Rose." See http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/TR%20Web%20Book/TR_CD_to_HTML571.html SimonATL (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ani#User:_Honeymane

Poster child indeed. The Fife visual had me laughing out loud. Toddst1 (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw your comment. Heh. AnyPerson (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

New Baseball Article

Hey Bugs, I was patrolling new pages and came across 1949 Major League Baseball All-Star Game. Didn't know if it was anything you'd be interested in working on or not. — Ched (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and check out this edit summary. Oh well, in for a penny, in for a pound I guess. — Ched (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC) (by the way, if you think I'm wrong - Please feel free to tell me - I do value your opinion)

There is no shortage of helpful advice out there, ja? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bugs ..... Just ..... Thanks - LMAO ;) I just may be headed to the principles office before it's all said and done, you wouldn't happen to have any more Fife to Gomer quotes I could use would ya? — Ched (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Rabbit Transit

You said the cartoon is its own source. The cartoon named "Rabbit Transit" came decades before York's public transportation took on that name, so it is impossible for the cartoon to mention York's buses. Do you have an actual reference that York's transit is named after the cartoon? Sebwite (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I said it was coincidental. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

PCS

I knew about the on-going additions. As for the block, I was confused, since the admin tab still said "unprotect" I assumed it was already semi-protected and that the user was autoconfirmed but unused. Either way, it was more appropriate to do a 3RR block, since it wasn't technically vandalism (or at least your wouldn't think so if you randomly showed up or checked the block log). I'll reprotect the article forthwith so when the block expires it'll still be safe. Steven Walling (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama's Cabinet

Hiya Bugs. I noticed in Obama cabinet at Presidency of Barack Obama, we've got Gates as Secy of Defense (2006- present). It should be (2009- present), a pratice we (and other encyclopedias) have done on other Prez cabinets. Example: William Seward in Andrew Johnson's cabinet is not listed as Secy of State (1861-69), or Dean Rusk in Lyndon Johnson's cabinet as Secy of State (1961-69). GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)