User talk:Frank Anchor/Archive2

WikiProject College football January 2009 Newsletter
The January 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Ohio!
 Hi, and welcome to the WikiProject Ohio! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Ohio.

A few features of the project that you might find helpful:


 * The open task box is updated frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including Ohiotasks on your user page.
 * All important discussions take place on our project's main discussion page; you can also [ watch] this page to keep up with discussions.
 * The project has some departments, which handle article quality assessment, newsletter writing, and new page patrolling.
 * We also have a taskforce on our over 1,000 townships at which can be found at WP:OHTWP.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me or any other member of the project, we'll be happy to help you. Sorry for the spam, thanks for signing up! §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  01:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dynasty (sports)
I have no problem with listing the Buffalo Bills of the 1990s as a "dynasty in question" provided that a reliable source is cited as saying that they weren't a dynasty. As for the Buffalo Bills of the 1960s, the Sports Illustrated article cited says, "If victories are required, may we suggest the '64-66 Bills, who reached the AFL title game all three years, winning twice." Although not a great citation, I thought that was enough to leave them in. cmadler (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I must have missed the 1960s Bills part in when reading the source (and thinking of it from strictly an NFL point of view), my mistake. Although I see your point with the 1990s team, I will look for a reliable source that does show this.  It is hard to make edits to a page like that where much of it is opinionated and POV.  Frank Anchor Talk 16:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, I've been trying to gradually add the needed citations, but I'm not familiar with a lot of the teams listed. And, honestly, I'd like to see this become more of an article and less of a list (and/or move it to a "List of sports dynasties"). cmadler (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The NCAA football section has a similar problem, with teams moving between divisions, and also with seasons predating the divisional structure (and even predating the NCAA). cmadler (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You might consider using a citation template (I usually use either cite web or cite depending on whether there is or isn't a URL), it makes creating a full citation very easy. cmadler (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If have questions about how to use them, let me know. cmadler (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I do know how to use them and I added a fact tag with an embedded comment because i put it right after another source. Frank Anchor Talk 18:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I removed it because of your comment on the article's talk page. The source there shows both points of view.  Frank Anchor Talk 18:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent)The templates I was referring to help with the formatting of references. It formats the URL, article title, publisher, author, publication date, etc. with easy inputs. cmadler (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * O alright, I was thinking of something different Frank Anchor Talk 19:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2009 Newsletter
The February 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Fisher
Thanks for the Houston Oilers catch -- I was working way too quickly and made some mistakes. J. Matthew Bailey (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I am glad to help Frank Anchor Talk 21:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Browns 2009 draft table
Thanks for incorporating some of my ideas into the table. I realize now my first edit had way too much info in it, but I'm glad you used some of the elements I added. Wlmaltby3 (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I didn't like it at first, but I liked a lot of aspects of the table.  I didn't know you could make it so that the holding the mouse over text could make hidden text appear.  I think that could be a useful tool.  Go Browns!  Frank Anchor Talk 01:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Cleveland Browns season
I removed FS Adams, FB Ali, and WR Steptoe from the signings table, simply because they're already accounted for in the free agents table. There's no need to have them in two places. If we're going to have the tables split into two like you've got them, we should keep the free agents table for free agents who didn't play for the Browns before the Browns signed them. Sound fair? Wlmaltby3 (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I meant, let's keep the signings table for players who didn't play for the Browns before the Browns signed them. Wlmaltby3 (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I like the big table you had but I see too much confusion with players going to the Browns and players coming from the Browns in no particular order (besides alphabetical by player name).  Keeping it like you have it now is fine with me.  I'm glad you are contributing to the page, too.  It makes it a lot easier for me when there is another user making useful contributions especially when there is a lot of movement going on with the team (undrafted free agents, etc.)  For a while I had to do just about everything on the page and it could be hard at times heeping up with all the free agents and what not.  Frank Anchor Talk 02:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. That was the case with me when I was working on the 2007 page. I did a lot of it myself and it got to the point where I didn't work on the 2008 page at all. Hopefully we can stay on the same page with each other on the 2009 page, then. That'd save us a lot of headaches. :) Wlmaltby3 (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits to KFC
Thank you for your contribution, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox to get started. Thank you.  R ad io pa th y  •talk• 00:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Looking back on that edit, I will admit it was probably inappropriate and somewhat childish of me.   Frank Anchor Talk 01:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Due to the fact that I am bored
Hey self! Frank Anchor Talk 14:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Who are you and what have you done with Frank Anchor?
I exagerate, of course, but I must say, Frank, that I found this edit summary to not be very characteristic of what I've seen of you in the past. It almost appears like that anon IP got under your skin. Oh sure, your actual wording is very mild, but you've always struck me as a calm, stoic type, so it just took me by surprise. Just letting you know, I'm an admirer, and as such, I have high expectations for you! Keep up the good fight (but smile when you punch those vandals)! Un sch  ool  05:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the admiration, I was just a little irritated with vandals that day.  Frank Anchor Talk 03:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. Just want to avoid getting mud on the good guys' white suits.  Cheers!   Un  sch  ool  15:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Why the BSA was "missing" from Boy Scouts
The short answer: there are to many Scouting organisations or sections within Scouting organisations with Boy Scout in their name. --Egel Reaction? 17:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds fair enough Frank Anchor Talk 23:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

NFL season articles
Hey, you took my idea of fixing up the seasons :P But I like the your format, the only thing I recommend is changing the @ to literally at because its no reason to use a symbol for a two letter word. In addition, just in case some articles have overlinking, it needs to be cut down. -- T ru  c o  503  16:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the criticism. I am glad that other users are interested in fixing the articles also.  Frank Anchor Talk 03:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Boomhauer
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a different title by copying its content and pasting it into. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. —David Levy 01:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Soulja Man
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — ξ xplicit  21:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Citations on BCS Support
Although some are common sense (e.g. one loss will/can hurt a shot at a national championship) can you help find citations. I feel these sections are important to the articles. Bcspro (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree its an important part of the article. I'll look fore some  Frank Anchor Talk 03:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Bye week
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't NFL.com the official website of the NFL? Well, they indicate a clinched bye week with the letter z. Nowhere do they reduntantly indicate clinched first seed and clinched homefield advantage throughout the playoffs. Seeds 2-5 also have unique homefield advantages, none of which are ever mentioned. It's not at all clear that homefield advantage throughout the playoffs is particularly noteworthy, and it would be easy to demonstrate that the difference in average Super Bowl championship frequency is greater between the bye week class and the seeds 3-4 class than it is between the seed 1 class and the seeds 2-4 class. This is related to the obvious fact that it is impossible to lose a game one doesn't play and the less obvious fact that homefield advantage is generally overrated. At any rate, obviously only multi-seed sets like clinched playoff berth, clinched division, and clinched bye week are informative in addition to seed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomblikebomb (talk • contribs) 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually NFL.com does not mark first round byes (nor do most other standings sheets out there). On NFL.com, it is x=clinched playoff spot; y=clinched wild card (i.e. can not win their division) z=clinched division, and *=clinched home advantage.  The belief that it is "noteworthy" is irrelevant.  It is obvious that a bye week is important, but if the NFL does not see it as being important enough to note in its standings sheet (which it doesn't as shown earlier in my post), then it is not up to us Wikipedians to decide that it is.  Also, please sign your posts in the future.  Frank Anchor Talk 21:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you really believe that, why didn't you change y and z accordingly and use * for homefield advantage? Shouldn't it be irrelevant that you don't find clinched wild card noteworthy? Tomblikebomb (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 NFL Draft
Really nice work. Thanks a lot!173.8.220.209 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. I will probably add the tables for rounds 4-7, although I can't put in exact numbers yet, due to compensatory picks.  I can at least put in the order  Frank Anchor Talk 20:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Super Bowl C listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Super Bowl C. Since you had some involvement with the Super Bowl C redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ohio State vs The Ohio State
I understand your connection to OSU. But no one outside of Ohio State calls it "The Ohio State University." Therefore, it is an inside bias. Michigan State University is not called The Michigan State University, nor is Arizona State University called The Arizona State University. Is there another Ohio State University of which the public isn't aware? Because if there was, then you'd have reason to make such a claim that it has to be "The Ohio State" and not just "Ohio State." Please keep Wikipedia neutral. It is not a fan site.

The school's website calling it "The Ohio State University" is done only to encourage fan support, not because it is OFFICIALLY called The Ohio State University. Again, please keep Wikipedia neutral. The public sees OSU as "Ohio State University." This is why I made the "commonly referred to as The Ohio State University" because it is an inside reference, not a public one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey S (talk • contribs) 04:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually it is officially called THE Ohio State University. It is not an inside bias, everything you are saying is wrong. Please sign your posts in the future.   Frank Anchor Talk 17:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

College Football Project request
Hello! You are listed as an active member of the College Football Project! We have a large number of unreferenced biographies of living persons, but it works out to be just two or three articles per active participant. I've divided up the articles that need help and put them in a table on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Unreferenced BLPs. Please assist the project by researching and sourcing the articles that have been "assigned" (so to speak) to you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:NCL locations2011.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:NCL locations2011.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 21:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello...
(I bleed Scarlet & Gray... and we could absolutely, positively, really, really use your help! Go Bucks!) Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invite, I would like to help with WP:Cleveland wherever I can Frank Anchor Talk 16:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Soundbites featured on The Jim Rome Show for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Soundbites featured on The Jim Rome Show, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Soundbites featured on The Jim Rome Show until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TN X Man 01:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2008 Cleveland Indians season game log
Template:2008 Cleveland Indians season game log has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)