Wikipedia

Talk:Trevor Hoffman/Archive 1

< Talk:Trevor Hoffman
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Untitled

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
  Resolved
 – Article has pictures now.

Someone should really add a picture to this. Hoffman is about to break the all-time saves list and he doesnt even have a picture for people to admire him. For shame... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.54.143 (talk • contribs)

you should get one that complies with the rules. it's not that easy. --CesarCossio 09:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

But you agree with me, dont you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.54.143 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 19 August 2006

i agree with you but as i said, if you add a random picture it won't be long before someone removes it, that's unless anyone find a picture that you can use (i don't know what the rule is but i know a lot of pictures are removed because of it) --CesarCossio 23:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I (palmdoc) added the "Elias Sports Bureau" reference as support of my addition of most appearances, but the associated website looks like a commercial for a $20.00 book. Not sure what to do . . .

Thanks for helping format that.

wording change

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Resolved
 – Not applicable, he's no longer the record holder.

I made a small change in wording:

He is currently the all-time Major League saves leader with 482 total saves

to

He holds the all-time Major League save record with 482 total saves.

since none of other the major MLB record holders (Hank Aaron, Pete Rose, Nolan Ryan) have the caveat "currently" attached to their records. --Myke Cuthbert 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

W-L record?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – W-L record in infobox seems to be an informal standard.

Does the W-L record have to be added as a "selected stat"? It isn't really a useful stat for closers, certainly not more than ERA and Saves. I suppose it's better than adding Hoffman's career batting average, but it doesn't seem necessary for closers. --Myke Cuthbert 03:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm just trying to help out this site and help reorganize all the players infoboxs, which I have put a ton of work into, it would just seem weird, that this players page is the only one without a Win-Loss in the infobox, plus you are the only one I have ran into that have not liked these changes on the pitchers pages. But whatever, I'm not arguing as I have far more players to work on. MetsFan153 02:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"great" vs. "greatest"

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – Article currently makes no mention of "great" or "greatest".—Bagumba (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Y2kcrazyjoker4, this seems to be going around in circles and getting nowhere, but maybe we can talk this out. What I see is that there are two notable comments judging Trevor Hoffman's career as a closer: he is frequently (almost always) listed as one of the greatest closers of all time. That is an important piece of information that allows us to see where most writers consider his career. Then a minority of writers, but writers for the most important national sports publications (incl. as the cover shows Sports Illustrated), have called him the greatest closer of all time. This is a separate statement. The first statement on its own undervalues the career. The second over values. You've engaged in a series of edits to eliminate a seeming redundancy--I'd like to have a better way of integrating these two statements also. But then again and again, no matter which statement you initially choose to remove, you end up taking away the footnoted statement that some writers think he is the greatest. Why is this? Could you point to a policy that supports your edits or a way in which your edits improve the article? Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a few reasons for that. First off, there's the issue of redundancy that you mentioned. I understand your thinking in first qualifying how good he is and then being more specific in certain titles he's been given. However, for an encyclopedia article (or at least the introduction of one), it seems like unnecessary repetition to say "he's been frequently called one of the greatest closers" and then a sentence later say "he's been called by some the greatest." I think it would be best to consolidate those statements into one that gets the pertinent point across. This brings me to my next point: saying he's been called the greatest closer is OK if there are multiple references that back up that claim. In that case, multiple people share that point of view. However, it seems as though the way it is currently written, only having one reference to that statement is confirming its validity. If we can get 3-4 references to back it up, I would have no problem with in being in the article. But as is, it needs some revising. Y2kcrazyjoker4 03:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I can work out a compromise that will work for both of us--it's late in my timezone and need to turn in before I can write it up properly, so give me half a day or a day, if you would. The basic thought is that on a player's article, being called the greatest anything on the cover of SI is notable; but maybe it's not so notable that it doesn't belong at the top of the article in the lede. How about I develop the early 1990s section of the article better and work the specific citation of the claim there? The cover was certainly one of the most notable events in the 1992 season for Hoffman.
(There are a two other reliable sources I know which have argued the same as the SI story, but neither of them are as important as an SI cover (one from Baltimore, one Colorado I believe; I looked this up months ago), so I hadn't added them to the lede).
From a practical standpoint also, without mentioning the claim that he was called the greatest, we lose the fair use justification of the SI cover, and with that the only quality photograph of Hoffman. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Developing the article and including it in there sounds like a better idea to me (and it will allow us to keep the picture). But I'm curious, how it would fit into the 1990's section, when it wasn't until 2002 when that article was published? Y2kcrazyjoker4 10:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; substitute 2002 for every instance of 1992 -- I did say it was really late where I was editing, didn't I? :) Making the move now. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Not done, but it's a start. More to come. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

  Resolved
 – Article currently makes no such claim.

I am no baseball expert, merely a casual fan at best, but the statement that there are no closers in the Baseball Hall of Fame seems to be wrong. Wasn't Bruce Sutter a closer? He's in the Hall of Fame.

GA Review

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Trevor Hoffman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 17:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll review this article. I should note that due to the size/detail of the article, the review will be over the course of a few days, probably a week. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay here. I took on a couple other reviews for classes so given the time factor I gotta get them wrapped up first. Give me another few days. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's the review finally:

  • "filling in if the designated singer or the national anthem did not show up." tweak to 'designated or national anthem singer..'
  • "Ed would often bring Hoffman to the games with him" I'd change Hoffman to his son, since in this case using a last name is odd.
  • The fire sale link is now circular, so that should be fixed.
  • "However, this is also the year during which he developed his changeup." the however doesn't add anything, so remove that.
  • I'm not convinced that the SI cover issue is a necessary non-free image, as the 99-02 paragraph sums it up quite nicely.
  • "In a 4–3 win over the Chicago Cubs on September 14, he worked a perfect ninth" I get what the second part means, but lay readers may not get what a perfect ninth is.
  • "after converting 53/54" 53 of 54
  • "Hoffman would save 56% " Hoffman saved 56% is a bit crisper; same for the two sentences after that.
  • "including one that trimmed the tip of his scapula" linking scapula would be helpful.
  • "DHL Presents the Major League Baseball Delivery Man of the Month " can probably be cut down to DHL Delivery Man of the Month.
  • "Hoffman signed a $13.5 million, two-year contract that included a club option for 2008. "It came down to me making a decision for my family and not disrupting what we have going on," said Hoffman. "This is probably the most significant signing that I've had," said then-Padres general manager Kevin Towers. "This guy is the face of our organization. I can't put into words what he means to our community."" the cite at the end goes for both quotes right/ Ideally it should come after both to be on the safe side but I won't make a stink about it.
  • "after being 10–11 " 10 for 11
  • "Hoffman won the Rolaids Relief Award for the second time in his career, and he was awarded The Sporting News NL Reliever of the Year for the third time.[79][80] and He was the runner-up for the Cy Young Award for the second time.[81]" these two sentences can be combined, with he in lowercase where it's capitalized.
  • "Hoffman was named to the NL All Star Team for the sixth time in his career." hyphenate all-star.
  • "Hoffman ended the 2008 season 3-6" make sure this dash is consistent with the other dashes in the article.
  • "making his seventh appearance, and first as a Brewer." comma not needed here, though not sure if the first as a Brewer part is necessary at all since it was his only.
  • "In April, Hoffman pitched 9 innings" nine innings
  • "which he throws with a palmball grip, from teammate Donnie Elliott in 1994. However, he did not use the pitch in a game that year" which he threw, and the note about him not using in in 1994 isn't really needed since the next sentence suffices.
  • The legacy section feels to be a bit on the long side. For example, the playoff section could probably be shortened as an example since it's basically a paragraph noting one thing.

I'm a little concerned about the tone after the career section; I know Hoffman was well-regarded but it does feel over the top in some areas.

I'll put the article on hold for these issues to be addressed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've updated per your suggestions with the following notes:
  1. "filling in if the designated singer or the national anthem did not show up." tweaked instead to "designated national anthem singer"
  2. "Ed would often bring Hoffman to the games with him": Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Family members with the same surname says to use the surname only for the subject of the article. If you still think it is confusing, I would suggest using "Trevor", but would prefer to leave as "Hoffman".
  3. "The legacy section feels to be a bit on the long side. For example, the playoff section ..." Since his playoff record is noted by many sources when recounting his career, I feel its due weight. For neutrality, explanation beyond the raw number of saves in the playoffs is needed.
  4. "I know Hoffman was well-regarded but it does feel over the top in some areas." Perhaps since his career was in San Diego and not a media-intense city, the press never dug up much dirt on him. I'm open to any suggestions on adding missing material you are aware of or changing of existing wording.
—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
My issues wasn't with the lack of criticism (besides his final year there was little), but rather with the fact that the article does push his good nature a bit too much. After reading the article again though, it's not that bad in this regard. As such if you're looking at FAC for this, I would go to PR first to get that looked at. I will pass the article since I think it's GA-worthy though. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hoffman and Rivera

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

I want to be careful how I phrase this. I understand very well that this is a Hoffman article and that it is therefore going to have positive quotes about him. But the Legacy section's implication at times that his postseason success was limited compared to Rivera's due to their team affiliations is ridiculous. Rivera's number of championships and career postseason saves are indeed due to his number of postseason appearances, which is due to his being a Yankee. But Rivera also has the lowest postseason ERA in history; the Yankees' number of appearances in the postseason makes that particular record more impressive, not less. In contrast, Hoffman has a mediocre postseason ERA. He also has one more loss in the postseason than Rivera, despite pitching in many fewer games.

It cannot be implied with any seriousness that Hoffman has been short changed as a postseason performer by circumstances or team affiliation. And for the article to say that "many" consider Rivera the best closer is an understatement. I'm not calling for radical changes, but these things should perhaps be considered. Complimenting Hoffman's legacy is fine, but with a bit more perspective.24.189.108.166 (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the point the sources were making was not that Hoffman was better than Rivera, but he that could have had just as many saves in the playoffs if their roles were reversed. Also, Hoffman has a small playoff sample size to compare relative to Rivera. Its a minority view, with only a few sentences, and his playoff failures are also documented. WP articles typically use "many" to avoid claims that opinions are unanimous. Are there any suggestion on how to better convey an opinion held by say 80% of experts compared to 98%?—Bagumba (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I have changed "many" to "most" to make it clearer where Hoffman stands relative to Rivera.—Bagumba (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
More on opportunities: Here is one article from ESPN on how the difference between Rivera and other closers might not be as big as perceived as far as save %.—Bagumba (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't doubt that Rivera's number of save opportunities is impacted by his playing for the Yankees. He might still have the postseason save record with another team, but it probably wouldn't be such a stark difference between him and competitors. But as I noted, I think the article is missing the significance of Rivera having the lowest career postseason ERA in baseball history, compared to Hoffman who doesn't have a particularly good one. No number of A-Rod or Jeter home runs can lower Rivera's earned run average, and with that far larger sample size he still has fewer losses in the postseason than Hoffman. I understand that it is a small part of the article, but it is misleading to imply that the only thing that distinguishes Mariano Rivera from Trevor is that he plays for the Yankees; it plays a part, but it is by no means the only difference.24.189.108.166 (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to give a clearer example of what I'm saying; Andy Pettitte has the most postseason wins in history, and this is clearly because he is a Yankee. But Pettitte does not have a great ERA in the postseason, and while he has a good winning percentage he has lost plenty of games. Rivera having the record lowest postseason ERA and an amazing percentage of successful saves therefore can't be attributed to his team. Hoffman suffers when looking at it in this light. Rivera is also a World Series MVP.24.189.108.166 (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern. However, the article does not state that Hoffman is the best closer ever. It stated that most believe that Rivera is. The article only implies based on expert opinions that his save total might have rivaled Rivera's if their roles were swapped. I dont know if a full head-to-head stat comparison is warranted unless the article is to attempt to establish that Hoffman is the best closer ever—which is a fringe opinion.—Bagumba (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand that the article doesn't say that. I suppose the best solution would be to simply mention that Rivera has the record for lowest postseason ERA while mentioning Hoffman's, which isn't exceptional. According to Baseball Reference it is a 3.46 ERA. I think that would be the fairest way of clarifying it, without making any big changes to the article. Thanks.24.189.108.166 (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find in articles. I'd rather not do original research and pull out arbitrary stats from stat sites to make a point. Regular season stats would be more representative, and Rivera is stronger there too.—Bagumba (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You would probably know better than I do, but it would seem to me that mentioning an all-time record in an article wouldn't be original research. Mentioning a record isn't arbitrary, and ERA isn't a minor stat; it is more relevant to this discussion than other stats, given that it is a bit less impacted by team. ERA doesn't depend on how many opportunities your team gives you; having a lower ERA with more opportunities is actually more impressive. But thanks for hearing me out.24.189.108.166 (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The following edit was made to address concerns raised.—Bagumba (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
That is horribly written. What does "other sabermetric statistics" supposed to mean? Stop adding your own analysis of the sources! 198.151.130.66 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I dont see the benefit in adding to an old large thread when the related new thread #Sabermetrics already exists.—Bagumba (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
"River is considered by most..." most what? Analysts? Fans? Let me check the sources. Hmm, wait a minute. This statement is not in the references listed! The sentence is even missing the phrase "to be"! 198.151.130.66 (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
You are certainly invited to be bold and fix it. Until now, nobody has challenged the statement nor realized it was unclear.—Bagumba (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Too much non-encyclopedic content

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Why is there so much content on hall of fame speculation and Rivera? Please clean up. 198.151.130.66 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Because it's legitimate discussion of where Hoffman ranks compared to the other great relief pitchers. It is absolutely encyclopedic. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. 198.151.130.66 (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
True, but that means that editors can't use it as a forum. It doesn't mean that there's a problem with using reliably sourced information. I do understand your point, though, as much of it can come across as speculation. The "Legacy" section is indeed long. It could perhaps be trimmed a little bit. On the other hand, that section was about the same length when this article was passed as a Good Article in December 2011. I think we can look into this. Do you have any specific ideas on where we could cut? The more specific, the better. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind trimming if something is shown to be WP:UNDUE, but a player's legacy is quite encyclopedic and puts his career into context. HOF, though it is speculation, is supported by many WP:RS and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is followed where appropriate. It's hardly a minority opinion.—Bagumba (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sabermetrics

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

This edit summary wanted all sabermetric stats that Rivera was better than Hoffman listed. The fact that the metrics say that he was better should be mentioned, but enumerating non-mainstream stats like bWAR, WARP, WXRL seems WP:UNDUE. ERA+ is mentioned, and I think that is sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The phrase is meaningless unless you specify which ones. Since the source listed several stats, the author's conclusion of Rivera being the greatest closer might be sufficient on it's own. The other source listed only has ERA and not any other sabermetrics. Neither source uses the term "sabermetrics". Both sources are primarily about Rivera, with Hoffman being only one of many being compared to Rivera, and may give undue weight to Rivera in this Hoffman article. A better source would say something about several analysts or fans in a poll ranking Hoffman and would be better than a bunch of individual opinion pieces, in order to get a better sourced collective opinion on Hoffman, instead of what the paragraph currently has. 198.151.130.66 (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a distinction between an author's subjective opinion and one based on sabermetrics. There is no claim on the credibility of sabermetrics, just stating that they were used. Sabermetrics being being a minority view (even if it is growing), it doesn't help to mention specific stats that would overwhelm even most baseball fans. As for the specific term "sabermetrics" needing to be used in a source, Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue seems applicable. What else would stats like bWAR, WARP, and WXRL be called. I'm not sure what other sources you are looking for regarding "analysts or fans in a poll", as I havent found who would argue that Hoffman is better than Rivera. There were some that claimed that the one with the most saves is the best, but Hoffman doesnt hold that record anymore. It's already mentioned that some believe he would have been just as good as Rivera if he played for the Yankees.—Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I never said anything about Hoffman being better than Rivera. I meant to look for sources state what a group thinks, rather than just the author. Something like this poll [1] except with actual statistics or a source with a statement like "our analysts rank ..." or "many experts consider". I brought this up because there used to be a statement that you added that said, "Rivera is considered by most the best closer of all-time." 198.151.130.66 (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The most comprehensive source was the book Fireman: The Evolution of the Closer in Baseball. However that was written in 2010, and the landscape has changed considerably since it was written with Hoffman dropping off and retiring and Rivera passing him. Most newspaper and web sources don't go in depth on analysis. If those sources are identified, they can be incorporated.—Bagumba (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
It is because there is no claim to the credibility of sabermetrics that you either not include them and just write the conclusion that is claimed by the source using the stats, or if you do, then you have to link it to the source and it's author's conclusions. 198.151.130.66 (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Credibility of sabermetrics is dealt with in sabermetrics. By analogy, lung cancer can mention smoking as a cause without discussing the specific lab test procedures and control groups used, which go above the heads of most readers. As we are going back and forth in generalities, it might be helpful if you could propose specific alternative text that can be copyedited. For reference, the versions history (No. 3 being current version) are:
  1. Rivera, however, broke Hoffman's career save record in 2011, and also has a better ERA in addition to a more superior ERA+ and other sabermetric statistics.
  2. Rivera, however, broke Hoffman's career save record in 2011, and also has better career averages in both ERA and ERA+
  3. Rivera, however, broke Hoffman's career save record in 2011.
No. 3 oversimplifies that Rivera is better than Hoffman based on saves only.—Bagumba (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Version 1 is ambiguous. Version 2 is not in the source because the source compares Hoffman's 1994-2003 ERA+ with any nine-year period in Rivera's career and Rivera's career ERA+ with pitchers with at least 1,000 innings pitched. Follow the sources or get different sources. 198.151.130.66 (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we differ on a basic calculation: If Hoffman's peak nine-year ERA+ is less than Rivera's career ERA+, it seemed straightforward to deduce that his career ERA+ was also below Rivera's career mark. At any rate, baseball-reference.com has Hoffman's career ERA+. Would you support revising #1 to include a footnote with the specific sabermetric stats that you requested: "Rivera, however, broke Hoffman's career save record in 2011, and also has a better ERA in addition to a more superior ERA+ and other sabermetric statistics.[a]—Bagumba (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Notes
  1. ^ Sabermetric statistics used in the comparison include bWAR (Baseball-Reference's Wins Above Replacement), WARP (Baseball Prospectus's Wins Above Replacement Player), and WXRL (a Baseball Prospectus stat for win-expectancy for relief pitchers).
You cannot deduce that. You cannot assume that the "peak" contains the best ERA+. Even if you could deduce it, it is not what the source was comparing. Using the stats from Baseball-reference would be inappropriate because the source didn't compare them. Putting them in the sentence would be synthesis of sources. You have to use the same comparisons as the source to give appropriate weight. Footnote looks ok, but the sentence is ambiguous because it doesn't mention the years that the source was comparing. You could write that the author compared Rivera's career to select 9 year peaks of Hoffman, Gossage, and Wilhelm and came to the conclusion that Rivera is the greatest closer. The source might not be the best for this article because it is primarily about Rivera and not Rivera vs Hoffman. It might also be important to note that the source ranks Hoffman 4th among relievers of all time, behind 2 others, along with Rivera. 198.151.130.66 (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This[2] source might be better for this article. 198.151.130.66 (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 157 external links on Trevor Hoffman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Trevor Hoffman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trevor_Hoffman/Archive_1&oldid=1112628767"