User talk:Frank Lofaro Jr.

Atheism

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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-H e rmit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 08:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

It is not a theory it is a belief. Make your case on Talk before unilateral change. GetAgrippa 22:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Perhaps you should look at our verifiability and no original research policies. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

3 Revert Rule (3RR)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Regarding exit lists

Your edits were unnecessary; please do not make those sort of edits again. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link that was supposed to go to the list of exits didn't go anywhere except back to the article itself. You can lose the attitude btw. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 21:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP warning

Please read Wikipedias policies on biographies of living persons and attribution of edits to reliable sources. Please do not continue to add poorly sourced edits to a personal website claiming that Bill Gates has Asperger's syndrome, or your edits will need to be brought to the attention of the BLP noticeboard.[1] [2] [3] Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversing speedy deletion

Please be advised that some of the articles you have re-created such as Ashfield Online truly do meet the speedy deletion criteria as they do not assert any importance or significance. Please keep that in mind. Toddst1 17:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:KieferSkunk's note below. Toddst1 18:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, such as Altermeta, you will be blocked. Please stop re-creating pages that have been speedy-deleted. See Criteria for Speedy Deletion for information on why these pages have been deleted. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I noticed in the deleted history of another webcomic page that there was no formal review of the deletion. I think you have a point and am now working to bring attention to the matter. Consider my warning above null and void. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the original versions of Altermeta and Angel Moxie. Those two pages were not subject to a proper deletion review. Please keep in mind that they may still meet criteria for speedy deletion, and thus may end up being deleted again either by speedy-delete, WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Thanks for your patience. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad attention to the bad deletions (amounting to a purge) has occurred and people other than me are fixing it. Thank you very much for working to restore content to Wikipedia. Since it is now getting a lot of attention both on Slashdot and here, I feel my work is done. [4] has the list of deleted webcomics - 50+ in a month, and speedy delete being used where not clearly needed (speedy delete is a dangerous weapon - and we should have more safeguards on its use). Hopefully others will restore the rest (excluding any truly not belonging). --Frank Lofaro Jr. 18:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, part of the problem I see is that some articles were, in fact, subject to formal review (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badly Drawn Kitties, for instance), and some articles that you created as part of the "un-deletionist" thing never existed in the first place (they have no deletion history aside from any that may have been performed today as a result of your edits). I restored the two that I found had been deleted without review, but I will not be doing the same for any articles that were reviewed and deleted - I'd suggest making a post at the Administrators' Noticeboard about the topic and see if you can gain consensus on the issue. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'll make that post, or leave it to others. In the meantime I am making a post to Slashdot to try to stop the plans for a donation boycott. I know Wikipedia needs money to stay afloat and do badly needed upgrades so the fact that people are listening to this point of view will hopefully sway them away from actions that are harmful and unnecessary. As for articles which never existed, they likely had a different name or such. In any event, thank you for your help and for being so nice about the whole matter. As for the ones reviewed and deleted, hopefully someone will go through a procedure for those. 50+ in a month still seems extreme. It was the speedy deletes that really were the most serious issue. Perhaps we should revise it so that things will only be speedy deleted when it is clear to all reasonable people that that would be the only reasonable course of action (patent nonsense, people's SSNs, threats, copyright infringements, Nazi propaganda, etc). --Frank Lofaro Jr. 19:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm relatively new to the process, so admittedly I don't have the extensive background with speedy-deletes that many other admins do. I happen to have read some of the comics in the list in that article, so I can definitely vouch for the fact that they exist. However, Wikipedia is not an indisciminate list of links, and not every webcomic is notable. If the issue was whether or not WP is censoring furry comics, I can assure you it's not. The issue is notability - if a comic only has a small reader base and does not receive any outside attention, it is no more notable than Milt's BBQ (a local restaurant close to my work) or my own personal website. Web comics such as Sabrina Online and Kevin and Kell are notable because of their widespread audiences (much more mainstream), and they have received significant outside attention and coverage. I believe the webcomics that are at issue here are all ones that don't meet that bar.

Again, it's a matter of policy about what content is suitable for an encyclopedia, not a matter of censorship and arbitrary decisions. Some mistakes were obviously made, but that does not mean that the articles at issue here are necessarily appropriate for WP, as per its policies. Just that in some cases, they didn't get the sort of review (even a speedy-delete review) that they deserved. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Abbys' Agency

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Abbys' Agency, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Abbys' Agency is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Abbys' Agency, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 18:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to Atheism

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Atheism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hilary Clinton. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Anastrophe (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Benoit

Sources (which are cited in the article) concluded that no steroids were present in Benoit's body, though he had elevated testosterone levels. Brain damage was found to be another likely cause, as well simply deep-seated, untreated mental disorders. The article cites each possibility, so I fail to see what a no point of view tag would accomplish

EDIT: It turns out that there was no cited source for the lack of steroids, my apologies. I have one and will add it now. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Barack Obama, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information you want to add is already in the article, albeit in a less slogan-like form. Furthermore, the level of detail you wish to add is not appropriate for a summary style article. Please bring your proposal to the talk page and seek a consensus for inclusion before adding material of this nature. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Genetic code

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Genetic code/GA1. I have de-listed the article as the referencing is so poor. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		For finding a whole raft of accident references for the Cessna 150 article - great work! - Ahunt (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Key lime pie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Method of exercising a cat

The article Method of exercising a cat has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Oroso (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Control-\

The article Control-\ has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Did a quick search and this does not seem to be notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Control-\ for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Control-\ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Control-\ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Chidgk1 (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Control-\ for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Control-\ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Control-\ (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Chidgk1 (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]