User talk:Frank Lofaro Jr.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Frank Lofaro Jr., and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --D-Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NTP

Regarding your edit to NTP: You're probably not aware of this, but the formatting rules for "disambiguation" pages are different than for ordinary articles. These special pages are intended as navigation aids to allow someone to quickly choose the correct article from a list of possible choices. To make that easier, the Wikipedia Manual of Style prescribes that the only links on a disambiguation page should be the links to the various meanings of the ambiguous term. There are other style rules for disambiguation pages. They're all in the manual, if you're curious. --Srleffler 00:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Its okay

It is okay you made that mistake. Alot of times it happens. Welcome to Wikipedia btw. Keep up the work in good faith. --OrbitOne 20:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: last warnings

Yeah... apparently there's a 48-hour "grace period"-like stance for last warnings. So if someone doesn't vandalize for 48 hours after their previous "last warning," then they're still fine. I don't like it either, but that's the case, normally -- admins won't block the user if the previous "last warning" is more than 48 hours old. Buchanan-Hermitâ„¢..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 08:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coeliac stats

There wasn't a great deal wrong with the soundbytewise description of sensitivity and specificity in coeliac disease. Why did you change it? JFW | T@lk 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it was inaccurate. High specificity does NOT mean a negative result reliably rules something out. In fact, it means a positive result reliabily rules something in. Frank Lofaro Jr. 00:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, but that does not explain why you deleted it. It would have been more helpful if you'd corrected it. JFW | T@lk 11:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page censorship of Encyclopedia Dramatica is wrong

What are you hoping to accomplish by creating this page? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to censorship. Locking a talk page is wrong. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The page was being used to make personal attacks on other people, and despite repeated attempts at cleanup, the attacks continued. If you have difficulties with the idea of being made to be responsible for your edits and comments, you may want to take it up with the Arbitration Committee. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is so worried about spammers it will hurt Google and legitimate sites it links to by using nofollow to prevent sites from gaining Page Rank

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Wikipedia is so worried about spammers it will hurt Google and legitimate sites it links to by using nofollow to prevent sites from gaining Page Rank, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A question: why, pray tell, do "legitimate sites" need Wikipedia to gain Page Rank? If they are, in fact, legitimate, Wikipedia won't make a difference -- indeed, shouldn't make a difference. --Calton | Talk 23:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Legitimate, useful, but currently obscure sites could very well benefit. Example: http://theworld.com/~sweetser/java/qcalc/qcalc.html. This is a quaternion calculator in Java, really useful for those that need such a tool, but I doubt it even has Page Rank 3. Raising its Page Rank will help everyone.

Also, a last warning for "vandalism" is ridiculous. At worst, civil disobedience, since community consensus is against nofollow. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 17:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial edits

I've made some controversial edits lately. If I'm blocked and this page is protected, you may know why (unless the edits and/or this message are "disappeared"). --Frank Lofaro Jr. 22:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You keep vandalizing the Genetic Code article with non-science (as ruled in court cases). You have been reprimanded by others as I see here, so this is a pattern. I have politely just removed your comments. Your attitude towards following the rules is "it is ridiculous". That is not welcome at this Wiki and further substantiates you are just POV pushing. GetAgrippa 21:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Calling it vandalism is wrong and damaging. Leaving it out is POV pushing. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not a theory it is a belief. Make your case on Talk before unilateral change. GetAgrippa 22:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I stated it is a belief (which you stated just above) that many people share (I think you'll agree to this). Now, removing THAT statement would definitely be pushing a SPOV (scientific POV) instead of working towards NPOV (neutral POV). --Frank Lofaro Jr. 22:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should look at our verifiability and no original research policies. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Stating that many people believe in intelligent design and creationism (my latest version) is verifiable and not original. I am trying for a compromise here. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Revert Rule (3RR)

Please read WP:3RR and edit accordingly. Vsmith 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been progressively refining, so those aren't true reverts. Some are, but there is a progression towards more info, then citing sources, then stating it is a belief. It sometimes feel as if I have been tuned out over here. At least on the MediaWiki article people are trying to be constructive about things. As it stands, "Genetic Code" takes a non-neutral POV and my attempts to fix it have been called vandalism (that is not a nice accusation to make, see WP:AGF) so why shouldn't I consider removing useful information to be vandalism and consider it a vandalism revert (exception to 3RR). If I'm wrong in considering it vandalism for removing it, then it should follow other are wrong for calling my edits that. Then we just have a content disagreement, and let's treat it like that. False accusations are against WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I'll be the bigger person, and not call other's changes vandalism, which could be seen as a violation of WP:POINT and as a counter-attack.

BTW: I unabbreviated the section heading since it is the first mention of 3RR in this page, that's just good style. If you wish to prevent me from getting in trouble for a 3RR violation, thank you. I hope this makes things clear.

Perhaps the origin of the genetic code should be moved into the evolution/creationism articles and referenced from there. Then all theories can be mentioned, and we keep non-scientific beliefs out of Genetic code, but not have that article stating a point of view at all (biased or not). Good compromise? --Frank Lofaro Jr. 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits to Bar (music)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Frank Lofaro Jr.! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bexample\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to remove vandalism. I'll try again --Frank Lofaro Jr. 07:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)