User talk:JustSomeRandomGuy32/Archive 2

Bueno

My fault on removing Bueno's name. I didn't do my homework on that one and had a case of cerebral flatulence.Atlantabravz (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

numbers

You think it is better for the number to be blank than to be their minor league number? Would you like it better if I created a minor league infobox and added it to every MLB player's article and listed their number if they are in the minors and leave it blank if they are in the majors now? Jackal4 (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes its better to be blank - that # belongs to someone else on the major league team. Otherwise, you are making it confusing. It is NOT a minor league infobox. Infoboxes are not normally made for minor league players. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If the player's article has the team's roster at the bottom of the page, then it shows their number and it is clear that they are on the major league team. If there isn't, then it seems pretty clear that it is a minor league number. Jackal4 (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's very simple. No minor league info goes into the infobox. Period. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I should mention that I think there should be one more optional box in the infobox for current minor league team for players like that - it would have the minor league team and i guess #... mainly for 40-man roster players and players who have been in the majors but are now in the minors - hasn't happened yet, sine the infobox is locked, and the conversation i started on the project talk page didn't get very far. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

closer template for tampa rays

i put it as unknown possibily by committe cause who is the closer of the rays troy percival is on the dl i put it as unknown possibily by committe until it is known who it is.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbondfan (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I know what you were trying to do - too long - doesn't fit in the template. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Bowden

Where are you hearing #64? http://mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=476601 says 79. 76.19.49.32 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't updated yet (that was his issued # in spring training). See [1]. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha. And yeah, TV confirms it. 76.19.49.32 (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Rich Hill

On the Cubs roster template, can you make it so Hill is on the DL. I can't change it cause it is still blocked. --OaklandAthleticsfan (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Casey McGehee

Could you also fix him? He is now wearing #27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by OaklandAthleticsfan (talk • contribs) 00:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh

thanks. Its those little things that f*** me up all the time. I hate formatting :-) Keeper ǀ 76 20:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

October Baseball WikiProject Newsletter

The Baseball WikiProject Newsletter Issue III – October 2008

"If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving a baby's life... she'll save the baby without even considering how many men are on base!" — Stephen King (The Dark Tower) News and announcements The Baseball Project promoted 13 lists to Featured status in August and 8 more in September. Amazing job! A combined eleven articles were promoted to Good Article status in August and September. Featured content In September, WikiProject Baseball has had the following articles promoted to: Featured Article status: Nashville Sounds Featured List status: List of New York Mets Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Colorado Rockies Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Florida Marlins Opening Day starting pitchers, Nashville Sounds seasons, List of Tampa Bay Rays Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Boston Red Sox Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Arizona Diamondbacks Opening Day starting pitchers, New York Yankees seasons Good Articles of August and September: All the Way (Eddie Vedder song), Cy Young, Dan Brouthers, Harmon Killebrew, Rickey Henderson, Billy Pierce, Kinston Indians, Three Rivers Stadium, Bill Lange, Calgary Cannons, Hugh Daily, Homer at the Bat This month's newsletter was designed and written by Wizardman, jj137, and Blackngold29. If you would like to contribute to future newsletters, please contact the Baseball WP outreach dept.

News from the diamond The 2008 opening round playoff matchups with be: Boston Red Sox vs. Los Angeles Angels Milwaukee Brewers vs. Philadelphia Phillies Los Angeles Dodgers vs. Chicago Cubs Chicago White Sox vs. Tampa Bay Rays Help to keep the articles of the postseason updated From the Editors We apologize for not sending out our August newsletter, we have tried to cover some events of the month in this issue. The playoffs have started! The Dodgers and Phillies have won their respective Division Series and will face off in the NL Championship Series. Both series in the American League have yet to be finished. Show your support for your favorite teams by keeping up with their season pages!

--  jj137 (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Free Agents

Do players who file for free agency become free agents the day they file or after the filing period ends? Jackal4 (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... today was day 1.... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Orlando Cabrera

thanks for fixing cabrera's page ... someone is holding out hope that he resigns with the sox, but all the articles say otherwise ... thats why i found them

Scrubs

In the discussion about the Janitor's name you mentioned that "Josh" could stand for "Janitor Of Sacred Heart".

How on earth did you come up with that? Its good.

Cs302b (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I watch the show too much...... Connected the 'J' and went from there.... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

AL OF Gold Glove Award

Nice template, I was wondering when someone was going to create it--Yankees10 04:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I figured out why the ones who did the others didn't do the OF templates..... takes too looooooong.... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I can tell, I'll be happy to help you if you need--Yankees10 04:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hey, I thought you might want some input in this, since you're so good at keeping the Phillies' roster template updated. I was reading through WP:DASH this morning, and I realized that it specified never to use the double-hyphen (--). I know it's supposed to represent two blank numbers, but do you think it would be better to use an em-dash (a la List of Philadelphia Phillies managers) in place of the double hyphen per the above policy? Let me know on my talk. Thanks! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why Can't People Read

Umm..why don't you go on MLb.com, ESPN.com, or watch ESPN. There was a reference on there. Make sure you read the reference before you undo editing. It doesn't get more official than that. Thanks. Rwhollywoodfan (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes... it does get 'more official' than that... when it gets announced by a team. And not by a news report 'source' which cant even officially name all participants. And since none of these trades will be made official for 24-48 hours, it falls under the Crystal Ball wikipedia policy. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's on both team's sites. It's official. I've seen players edited very shortly after a trade. It's official. I don't know what else you want them to say. It is on BOTH teams sites. Rwhollywoodfan (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's on their sites as "sources say".... its not a team release, its an mlb.com report - not affiliated with the team itself. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well whatever you think. Have fun counting down to when the team officially comes out and reports it. Rwhollywoodfan (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies on Kenny Rogers. The article was from earlier today. My apologies. Rwhollywoodfan (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Emilio Bonifacio. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Phillies navbox

Why remove catching instructor from the navbox? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a standard coaching position and is unlikely to be reassigned. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Understood. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Francisco Rodriguez

On this edit you made here: [2], you removed the source from the article in regards to the Cy Young voting. Please be more careful next time to only edit the parts you wish to edit and not remove valid sources from remaining items since Wiki is all about sourcing whenever possible. Also, I hid the free agency information inside the article for when he does sign with another team to give some background information. Thanks. Atlantabravz (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I like your recent edits to the article. It definitely improves readability. I do have a tendency to get into the weeds of the details. Atlantabravz (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about removing that reference - I think at the time i thought it referred to his declaring free agency and not the Cy Young vote. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Coco Crisp

Greetings, Noticed you reverted an IP's edits to Coco Crisp as vandalism. Just FYI what the IP inserted is being reported by ESPN radio in KC. Of course we need a hard source before it should be in there, but in case it shows up again, IMHO it's more of a too early issue than malicious vandalism.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

People do it all the time... and there is absolutely no news/rumors connecting Crisp to KC online recently... But even if there were rumors... obviously it shouldn't be changed until it was official - which it obviously isn't at the moment.JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be in there till it's official, but if you're interested here's the rumor from the Boston Globes website.[3]--Cube lurker (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unlinking dates

As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, I would suggest the better course is to desist in unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors attempting to force through disputed changes on a massive scale as some editors are doing. SeeWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli, states:

{{"|Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Please therefore stop unlinking dates, and instead if you like participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Um.. you are complaining about the picture and undoing everything. You did not once mention your reverts were sue to unlinkning dates - which I have nothing to do with. Pay more attention to what's going on. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What am I missing? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Newhan&diff=prev&oldid=252915474 It appeared to me that unlinking dates is exactly what you did.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude... I could care less about the date edit war.... I just saw you mass reverting another users edits and only mentioned the photos..... Do whatever you want with the dates.. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Western League and franchises' founding years in MLB

Hi, when I look at both the encyclopedia and discussion pages of Western League, I just get thoroughly confused about which franchises were true ancestors of current AL franchises. I'm all for giving a team's true founding date at Major League Baseball#Current Major League franchises when it antedates the American League's founding in 1901 (after all we give pre-1876 dates for some NL teams), and in fact reverted user:No Guru's attempt to make every starting date of the original eight 1901.

But apart from the Detroit Tigers in 1894 and the Chicago White Sox in 1900 (according to their Wikipedia articles), the ancestry just seems very murky to me. Heaven knows that Talk:Major League Baseball is tangled enough, but is it possible to discuss the question there, either to establish the right dates against future challenges, or to work out exactly which ones are the most appropriate?

(I'm certainly no baseball scholar or even a knowledgeable fan, although I've put a little work into MLB, two World Series articles and two Yankee Stadium articles.) —— Shakescene (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going by the Western League article that shows the 5 teams that originated in 1894. The other 3 were created when the folded 3 others after the 1900 season. Some (like Chicago) moved during that time (they only got to Chicago in 1900, but existed beforehand elsewhere). JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

bloody hell

LIGHTEN UP. If it is a source the teams website (by the way MLB.com runs all of the team's websites) or something like the AP it is RELIABLE and TRUE. See what happened. Santana passed his physical and went to the Mets. Mussina retired. Stop being so frickin protective about these "unofficial" trades. Makes you look like an idiot in the end. And don't come out with the WP:CRYSTAL crap. HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 23:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is Wikipedia policy. Not mine. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Also - it's a very simple fact... people fail physicals.... people 'reported' in trades are often not involved when the actual trade is announced. It's not rocket science. Each page is supposed to be accurate at that moment... saying someone has signed or has been traded when it actually hasn't happened yet is factually incorrect. I couldn't care less if you disagree... because there is no 'opinion' on this. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Think I give a shit? We knew he was going to retire you don't need to be an edit whore and keep spamming WP:CRYSTALWP:CRYSTALWP:CRYSTALWP:CRYSTALWP:CRYSTALWP:CRYSTALWP:CRYSTALWP:CRYSTALWP:CRYSTALWP:CRYSTALWP:CRYSTALWP:CRYSTAL everywhere. It makes you seem retarded, which you are. BTW people like Santana ARE NOT going to fail physicals. HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 04:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Pitch Arsenal Content

Why did you delete the pitch arsenal scouting report info added to Nate Robertson? I helped contribute to the pitcher database and this is exactly the kind of info that people seek when they go onto Wikipedia. --Dreslough (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem. It's your own site. I already explained on your talk page. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's actually not my site although I did do some of the research for it so I understand the perceived bias. Which of the 17 "Links normally to be avoided" are being violated? --Dreslough (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I assumed you were involved with the site because you created its wiki page Sports Mogul. And since you do have some involvement with the site - it can only be assumed that you would be violating #4 on the WP:ELNO list (in combination with WP:COI). JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tom Mastny

If how you explained it is generally how it is handled within the project, then that's fine. I will leave it be. I wasn't around last off-season to see how it was done. -Dewelar (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't impossible to consistently maintain... I'd be on your side. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to consistently maintain either way, I'd say, especially in September. Besides, there's just something wrong about saying someone played for a team in 2009 when it's still 2008 :-D . -Dewelar (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I agree with you that while players do fail physicals like John McCargo did this year which voided his trade to the Colts, it doesn't happen that often and if they do fail a physical then it can be just as easily changed back. But when sources like ESPN and other top-notch sources report that a player signed then go with it. Thanks!--Iamawesome800 01:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But you've missed the point - none of them ever report (accurately) that they have actually signed. Only that they have agreed. No signing becomes official until all 'hurdles' are clear (such as a physical). It's 100% inaccurate to say a player is a member of an organization or a trade has taken place when it hasn't - no matte who reports it will (WP:CRYSTAL). JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at ESPNNEWS, K-Rod just agreed to a 3 year, 37 Million deal.--Iamawesome800 20:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Sources say".. "agreed"... an agreement is not the same as a signing... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I get it says agreed, but come on that without the physical means he's a Met. It's reported so it's true.--Iamawesome800 20:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"It's reported so it's true." Seriously? That's how you're going to respond? Look... I didn't make the rules... so don't complain to me. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY is a wikipedia policy that says, content needs a source so WP:CRYSTAL doesn't really come into play because I'm NOT PREDICTING SOMETHING!--Iamawesome800 20:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It is valid to say he is reportedly going to sign thanks to WP:VERIFY. It is factually incorrect to say he is a Met right now. Follow the difference?JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah okay, I'm not gonna win here so I'll let it go. And by the way on the K-Rod page you've broken WP:3RR with so far about 5 reverts.--Iamawesome800 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Same deal with Template:New York Mets roster, you've passed 3 reverts.--Iamawesome800 20:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR notice

You are in violation of the three-revert rule. Stop edit-warring or you may be blocked.--Iamawesome800 22:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's for your edits and Francisco Rodriguez and the New York Mets roster template.--Iamawesome800 22:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop making incorrect edits. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I did, but you are still in violation, my taking it from an ESPN report is not an incorrect edit, it's a misunderstood edit.--Iamawesome800 22:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Francisco Rodriguez

He is officially a met, you know that right. He signed a 3 year 37 million dollar contract. 76.120.0.210 (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware it was made official at 5:30 this evening - when made edits on his page to indicate that. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

JJ Putz move

Hi. Can you point me to the specific rule in WP:NC on which you base the page move? Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This happened months ago. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What happened a few months ago?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Check the history. This happened with lots of articles at the time. I know there was a section somewhere in a wiki policy page that stated that initials should have a space between them, but I can't find it now. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked the log. It was originally J.J. and was unilaterally moved to J. J. with an unsubstantiated naming convention claim by an editor who was blocked some 20-odd times. Indeed, the space doesn't make sense. There is no space in newspaper articles. I am going to move it again. Please don't revert until you find the related discussion in which there was an agreement to move or the MOS policy link. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second - that doesn't make things right. Every single player page with initials has been kept with a space for a long time. You're just suddenly deciding to get rid of the space because you want to. This sort of thing needs to be discussed first. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

For example? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A. J. Burnett, CC Sabathia (before the common name change), J. R. Towles, J. R. House... to name a few. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I started a conversation here to get more opinions. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Raul Ibanez

If the Ibanez deal is not done yet then how come Yahoo Sports, ESPN, MLB.com, and even Phillies.com have confirmed the story. The deal is 3 years worth 31.5 million.

Here are the links to all of those stories http://philadelphia.phillies.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081212&content_id=3715027&vkey=news_phi&fext=.jsp&c_id=phi http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=As1EpiLBRvpTZkOL5Lw7Xf8RvLYF?slug=ap-phillies-ibanez&prov=ap&type=lgns http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3764268 http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081212&content_id=3715027&vkey=hotstove2008&fext=.jsp

As it has been pointed out already... read the articles - notice that the responsible ones say things like "reported" and unconfirmed"? This is from the mlb.com article: "A Phillies spokesman told MLB.com that discussions with Ibanez are ongoing, but nothing is finalized." Because of things like this, it is policy to not update a player's status until a signing/trade is official.JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is me talking here.. then why would they put it up on the Phillies official website if the deal isn't done? It is done. Otherwise it makes no sense to have it up there Just because they say that doesn't mean that the deal isn't done. They're being good PR people by saying that. Just because a team says they aren't talking to people out there doesn't mean that they aren't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metfan722 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

MLB.com itself is no different that espn.com. it has its own reporters that dont report to the teams. Notice the disclaimer at the bottom of that mlb.com article: "Marty Noble is a reporter for MLB.com. Barry M. Bloom contributed. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs" - and as i said, it even says IN THE ARTICLE that the deal is not done. "Strong rumors" show up on mlb.com all the time, and often nothign happens from them. For example, a trade of Melky Cabrera for Mike Cameron was 'reportedly' a 'done deal' Thursday morning everywhere... and now nothing has come of it. This is why WP:CRYSTAL exists. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A fair point however I feel as though PR people are keeping this under wraps until the physical passed. Which is 99.999999999% likely that he will. So why not just post it. You can say in the article that the deal is not 100% done. Are you waiting for them to hold a press conference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metfan722 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not for us to decide. Until the team announces the signing - he's not on the team. This is an online encyclopedia - not a collection of fan pages.JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, you aren't exactly the first person to try to 'argue' this. This is going on for every single free agent page right now that is rumored to have agreed to a deal but hasn't signed yet (notably CC Sabathia and A. J. Burnett. I don't make the decisions. I'm just following the policy. Notice that the pages ahve been protected because random people don't listen? JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Burnett just "signed" today as did Ibanez so I get your point. But what is policy? Not to add things until there's a press release? Sabathia on MLB.com isn't listed on the Yankees site nor the Brewers however he is "dressed" in Yankee attire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metfan722 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

When there is team/player acknowledgment (as opposed to 'reported inside unconfirmed' source). JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Iamawesome800 is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Rafael Furcal

Hello I just wanted to know why you always change back Rafael Furcal. He is with the dodgers stop reverting it and saying he is a free agent. I have many sources I can show you if you still don't believe me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike540 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Show me a source where the Dodgers confirm the signing. Anything else is just an unconfirmed report. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Randy Johnson

Is his deal with the Giants official? Cause all I saw was agreed to a deal.--Iamawesome800 03:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just look at the official press release on the Giants web site that I added as a reference. (the Associated Press is getting worse and worse....)JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello

If you're feeling stressed out by editing, I'd recommend a wiki-break to cool down.

I remember being fed up with of my admin work a few months ago and took a few steps back from the site. Some time away makes you appreciate the site better when you do return.

Cheers --Madchester (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What Madchester said--take some time but I hope to see you around again. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

DeRosa

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3802342

Done deal. --71.194.140.107 (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No - thats not a done deal - its a 'report' from 'sources' - until the teams announce it - it hasn't happened yet. This is the policy here at Wikipedia. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Mlb.com good enough for you? --71.194.140.107 (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's official now -it wasn't when you started editing. (and mlb.com isn't always good on its own - they do 'reports' as well. You have to read the article JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Fuentes

Per the MLB.com story, which I assume you read, he has only Agreed to terms and has not officially been signed yet. But I have to say I'm surprised that you made this error, may I suggest like previously said a WikiBreak to clear your head. Thanks.--Iamawesome800 19:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Team announced it. That's all you need. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Jason Marquis

A WP article about a baseball player is not just a list of teams he played for. It's a biography, which means it's his life story. Thus, rumors that he might be traded is as much his life story as actually being traded. Agreed that rumors are not the most notable aspects of a person's career and they shouldn't be given lots of prominence in articles, but if the rumors are reliably sourced you can't just remove them, claiming "please stay from rumors". Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there is no such thing a 'reliable source' for a rumor. Second, claiming he is close to signing 100% falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Hence... Wikipedia is not a rumor board. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no such thing as a reliable source for a rumor? Are you suggesting that reliable sources make up rumors? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question? JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No, honestly. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me try to explain it a different way. Take Year 2000 problem. The article deals with all the rumors and worries that were going in prior to 2000. Just because something is a rumor doesn't mean that isn't encyclopedia worthy. IT doesn't make a difference if the rumor pans out or the rumor doesn't pan out. If there was a sourced rumor that he was traded it is part of his life story just like an actual trade. We are not saying that he will change teams or that he even might change teams. We are only saying that at one point of his life there was rumors the he would change teams. Nothing is being predicted. We are not Crystallizing. We are not talking about his future statue. We are talking about his current status, and his current status involves rumors circeling around him. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:N JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Exacltly. Read the "nutshell" at the top of the page.

“ If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. ”

--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We obviously have different definitions of the word 'significant'. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:N is really about the notability of creating new articles. The notability threshold for content within articles is far lower. But what I do take from this is that you admit that rumors that have received significant coverage in reliable sources are notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:NNC. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)