User talk:Frank Anchor/Archive 7

Cowboys-Washington page
Hi again Frank! Just wanted to run something by you; The Cowboys-Washington rivalry page seems a little long (thank you for removing some of the fluff.) I wanted your opinion on whether the decades of the rivalries may be able to be broken up into separate articles perhaps? I know that's generally not something WP approves of, but with a rivalry this notable, I thought maybe that would be possible. Let me know what you think. You're much more experienced than I am, so your opinion carries more weight than mine. Thank you again!! Spf121188 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That may be a good idea for some of the longer lasting rivalries (Bears-Packers comes to my mind). Perhaps something you could bring up at Wikiproject NFL.  Frank  Anchor  20:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice regarding American politcs
-- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 22:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Userboxes
Hello. I just came here to ask if you knew any users who could help me with moving userboxes to another part of my userpage. Thanks. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Super Bowl LVI
Giving credit on behalf of the posting admin. PCN02WPS ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Super Bowl LVI
Hi, I appreciate much of your work on Super Bowl LVI. I do want to bring up one point, though. In reverting the scheduled kickoff time, you mentioned WP:NOTTVGUIDE. After looking at that guideline, it appears that it is only talking about articles on "broadcasters" (even then it goes on to allow for mention of major events). The point is of course moot for this year as the game is over. >>> Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. <<<

Good catch on the top-pick dueling QBs, looks like an NFL writer had it wrong. ...Oh I see the article has been updated.

Cheers and thanks for your dedication, Facts707 (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Facts707. Thank you for your continued work on this article as well. Unfortunately, when an article on a popular event comes up, there are many editors who want to have their input on this page, including conflicting opinions regarding Wikipedia guidelines.  Frank   Anchor  15:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Kammyboi
How are these edits unconstructive? They make the article makes sense and also give ppl more info about the game. - Kammyboi KammyboitheHawksfan (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of information. Most of the edits that have been made today provide unnecessary detail on an article that will become very long anyway. There is a general template for content in Super Bowl articles that has generally been kept in Super Bowl articles. For further discussion, feel free to consult the NFL Wikiproject  Frank   Anchor  14:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Giants Vs Packers And Vikings Vs Saints
I accidentally in "London" they got Both remove by PeeJay and Me instead is not a Trivia Cheese. Andrei Kenshin (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * huh?  Frank  Anchor  21:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Is Not A Trivia Instead They Say "No Need" Andrei Kenshin (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct, locations of upcoming games are generally not posted in the info box. Just the date is sufficient.  Frank   Anchor  13:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay Andrei Kenshin (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Tampa Bay Buccaneers consecutive seasons with playoff wins
I noticed that in the NFL playoffs article that it still indicated that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers had not one playoff games in consecutive seasons, which is no longer true. I changed it there, but I have no idea of how to add it to the table. Can you do so? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi ChessEric, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Unfortunately I am not familiar with the formatting of this table either.  It was "inherited" from the article "List of current National Football League consecutive playoff appearances" which was merged into the NFL Playoffs article in December 2021.  I am not sure who maintained these charts on their former article.  Frank   Anchor  12:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. &#x200B;

Best regards, Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Baker Mayfield
I noticed you removed the Baker Mayfield trade from the 2022 NFL season article. What exactly constitutes a "notable trade"? I feel as if many would deem this notable considering this was a former first round pick who has had some success in the NFL. Jimania16 (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the objective criteria explicitly listed in a comment under the "trades" section, a trade is "notable" if "1. Actual players (i.e. not draft picks) are included on both sides of the trade OR 2. At least one draft pick involved in the trade is 4th-round or earlier OR 3. At least one player involved in the trade has been selected to a Pro Bowl." None of these criteria apply to the Mayfield trade.  (Criterion 2 will apply if the draft pick from CAR to CLE becomes a 4th-round pick, and only at that point would the trade qualify for this list).  These criteria have been used over the past several seasons since being briefly discussed at Talk:2019_NFL_season. It is clear that Mayfield has not had a enough success in the NFL as he only netted a 5th-round pick back, even despite his team-unfriendly contract.  Frank   Anchor  16:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 September 17. Thank you. Modernponderer (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I find it very difficult to assume good faith for a user striking the comments of another user in good standing for any reason other than removing a personal attack. Simultaneously endorsing deletion of a page while allowing temporary un-deletion is acceptable. It allows non-admin access to the pages so others can make more informed statements of endorsement or disagreement with a delete close.  Frank   Anchor  01:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This has nothing at all to do with temporary undeletion – they changed their !vote to "overturn" without striking out their initial "endorse" !vote. That is a crystal-clear violation of policy, which may be corrected by any other editor for the very reason that I stated in my full disclosure (where I also pinged the user in question): to make sure that the closer is not confused into giving weight to an extra, policy-violating !vote.


 * The irony is that your action is precisely an example of why I struck out their !vote. You didn't read everything they wrote in the discussion, only the initially bolded text – exactly what I was concerned about the closer doing! Modernponderer (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * My mistake. The real irony is you ask me to assume good faith but you don’t assume my good faith behavior either, instead calling out my misguided edit on my talk page. The correct response would have been reverting my edit with a sufficient edit summary and then dropping it.  Frank   Anchor  11:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It's mostly moot now that the discussion is closed, but I would like to state for the record that I didn't realize you were referring to the temporary undeletion until you pointed it out here, as you didn't mention it in your edit summary. So I thought the accusation referred to the main !vote, and I did not want to get into an edit war over it (especially after an administrator had opined that it was irrelevant). Modernponderer (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. It was a misunderstanding on my part.  Thanks for clarifying!  Frank   Anchor  16:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Game winning drives
Hey, I noticed you edit warring on the 2022 nfl season page regarding a notable Tom Brady stat. Obviously, Tom gets a lot of biased disdain so I'm not sure if that's why you keep reverting a notable milestone that he has accomplished but you can't do that. Whether you personally don't comprehend what a GWD is is not indicative of the populous writ-large. It is a legitimate stat, it is broadcast, the commentators announce it, it is historic. I honestly don't know what your gripe is with this stat that seemingly everyone else is fine with. If you legitimately have a problem with it then you need to take your problem up on the talk page. Edit warring is continual reverting of edits to make wiki look like how *you* want it. Wikipedia is not a personal diary. 166.205.222.36 (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with the game winning drives post is (a) game winning drives are not an official NFL stat, and for that reason it is unclear what is meant by that; and (b) the posted source does NOTHING to explain what a “game winning drive” is. I added in a clarification needed tag because more clarification is needed for what a “GWD” specifically means.  This tag must stay until sourced clarification is added.  You can’t post ambiguous stuff just because *you* want it.  Wikipedia is not a personal diary for you either.  Frank   Anchor  01:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 Cleveland Browns season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clay Matthews.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The American Football Barnstar

 * Much appreciated, thank you!  Frank  Anchor  13:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!
 Wishing Frank Anchor a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee!   Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary callouts
Hi!

I noticed you recently removed some of my edits (and others') on the page 2022 NFL season. You cited it as an "arbitrary callout", and I was just wondering what criteria you used to determine that. Why was one of my additions (five consecutive games of 225+ rushing yards) arbitrary but another with more qualifications (2+ rushing and passing tds and 100+ rushing yards in the same game) not? Is it because one is by a player while the other is by a team? Last year's milestone section includes milestones done by teams and the league in general, so I was just curious about that. Let me know what you've used to gauge arbitrariness. Debartolo2917 (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If stats where every time a player or team gets 140, 160, 225 yards, etc. in a certain way, the already very long section would be seemingly endless. That’s why for yards-related stats only intervals of 50 have been used for the past several seasons.  Perhaps the two 60-yard TDS stat (and only that one) was an overreaction on my part. As it talks about specific plays rather than yards in general.  Frank   Anchor  11:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That particular stat is completely incorrectly stated though. It currently says "Fields also became the first player in the Super Bowl era to have multiple rushing touchdowns of over 60 yards", which is obviously false.
 * The true stat quoted from the article cited reads "Fields also became the first quarterback in NFL history to rush for touchdowns of at least 60 yards in back-to-back games and the first to run for at least 140 yards in consecutive contests." This to me sounds like it does fall in the arbitrary category.
 * In any case, it needs to be either fixed or removed (I will remove for now). 86.93.171.228 (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarification. In that case it should simply be removed altogether.  Frank   Anchor  02:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry
Obviously we disagree regarding how to format the lede, but I have a different problem that I want addressed first. What is going on with the archive? Why is there an Archive 3 and an Archive 4, but not an Archive 1 or 2? And why does the archive started after the month the talk page was started? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure why the archives were set up that way. However, I moved them to Archives 1 and 2.  My only guess is that a Michigan grad who thought "3" was the first number set it up this way.  Frank   Anchor  13:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there was at least one thread moved from another article, so I was a bit worried that maybe an archive got deleted prior to your 2009 moves. However, I think that part of the problem is that someone mislabeled the archives on the talk page and I took them as fact.  --Super Goku V (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed the mislabeling issue. Additionally, with everything that you and Liz did to fix the problem, I decided to also archive threads to a new Archive 3 since it hadn't been done since MiszaBot I did back in 2009.  (Which, did eventually lead me to the answer to my question.  Apparently, MiszaBot I decided to create Archive 3 and Archive 4.  I looked back into the talk page for the bot and found a thread where the same problem had happened due to a user inputting the wrong number for a parameter.  And the edit prior to MiszaBot I's edit, set it up so that MistaBot I would start on Archive 3.  So just a minor problem.)  Back on track, the archiving went well.  The only thing that might need to be figured out is what to do about these two redirects that a bot seems to have created, which is a minor problem.  --Super Goku V (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of this!  Frank  Anchor  13:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem and thank you for your help in this and with the lede. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Anonymousorange?
I'm not sure who that guy is, but it definitely looks like they're trying to set me up. I'm sure a checkuser would prove it, but take my word for it, that's not me. – PeeJay 21:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood, and I believe you. Sorry for the accusative edit summary in the last post. I should have assumed your good faith.  Frank  Anchor  21:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's all good, I can see why you would think it was me. – PeeJay 22:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 NFL season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frankfort.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Football League career interceptions leaders
FYI - just a good faith heads up, not sure why, but your close misplaced the title, I fixed it. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops, thank you for catching and fixing that.  Frank  Anchor  14:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

My sincere apology for irrational AfD
I just wanted to write this to tell my deepest apology for a two-week gap within both AfDs involving Speaker Knockerz (noms. #2 and 3). It was just that the second nomination was ineligible due to a speedy delete without consensus. It seems why I have to nominate it again for the third time without reviewing the last votes. I hope you understand. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 20:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Pronouns
You may want to adjust this. I believe they use they/them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and did it and was going to comment here asking if it was ok in line with WP:IAR. Seems like a simple mistake, so I don't think that this will cause any issues. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 23:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Thanks for taking care of this honest mistake on my part.  Frank   Anchor  23:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

NBIO
I'm very happy you referenced WP:NBIO  If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. For some reason, I lost track of where that guideline was, and had given up searching for it months ago! (hiding in plain site). I'm stealing it! Nfitz (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Its a useful guideline. The key is the coverage being more than a trivial mention. I probably "stole" it from another user as well, so I'm glad to be able to pass it forward!  Frank   Anchor  13:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

dxt y5af a poco se pueda
café ilnf y para que 117.20.112.98 (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion
There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place
Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Where can I find notability criteria?
Earlier today, you reverted my edit to 2023 NFL season. Your edit summary was "Not notable per established objective criteria". I looked around various places and could not find the criteria you are referring to. If it is not too troublesome, could you post a link to the aforementioned criteria? Thank you. Bluemarsman (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The criteria is listed in a comment in the top of the trades section. It says Only include trades here if: 1. Actual players (i.e. not draft picks) are included on both sides of the trade OR 2. At least one draft pick involved in the trade is 4th-round or earlier (conditional picks do not qualify unless condition ends up being met) OR 3. At least one player involved in the trade has been selected to a Pro Bowl. These were discussed on a prior NFL season talk page.  I think 2018 or 2019 but could be mistaken.   Frank   Anchor  22:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

 * Thank you for the birthday wishes.  Frank  Anchor  04:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

No hard feelings :)
re the revert in OSU-UM, understood and no prob. Thanks for the explanation. You no doubt saw that I made many edits in that article, so if this is the only revert, I'm thrilled. I'm still a relative newcomer to WP and I'm still feeling my way around on stuff like this, so I appreciate the explanation. Thanks again and best wishes. Yesthatbruce (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gaby Jallo
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gaby Jallo. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GiantSnowman 12:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023
Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2023 Cleveland Browns season, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Dont remove a source. It makes the info unverifiable. Browns2023forever (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I did not add content without providing a source. Any passerby should note that this template was put on my page solely as retaliation for my warning Browns2023forever that one of his/her edits could be considered vandalism.  Frank   Anchor  19:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that a source wasn't needed there, but I can't imagine how it could be considered vandalism. The level 2 warning you gave the IP was aggressive. --Onorem (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern. Perhaps this basic vandalism warning was a bit aggressive.  I will be more considerate in the future.  Frank   Anchor  19:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)