User talk:Yaf

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Retired?

Forgive the intrusion, Yaf, but I am confused as to why you decided to come out of retirement to revert my edit. Your last edit was almost two years ago. Are you out of retirement, and can we look forward to your participation at GSL moving forward, as opposed to the occasional revert? I only ask because it is an ongoing article and may require time on the talk page to address changes and seek consensus. Seeking consensus, as you may know, is an important aspect, as well as WP:AGF. Darknipples (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly have other interests, but sometimes some WP actions cause even the dead to spin in their graves. You really should not edit war. There is also the 3rr rule, too, that you should be aware of. I won't report you, but others may. Yaf (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I obeyed the 3RR rule if you wish to count my reverts for today. Please be careful not to WP:POV RAILROAD. I won't report you either, but others may. Darknipples (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yaf

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaf. Thank you. Felsic (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaf. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 21:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conditions on unblock of User:Miguel Escopeta

Yaf, If you have retired, then this doesn't really affect you. But in case you choose to return, I've unblocked User:Miguel Escopeta contingent on you and he not editing any articles or article talk pages if the other has edited it after 1 January 2015. See [1] My understanding is that he has told you about this off-wiki and you've agreed. If that is not the case, let me know now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shooting ranges in the United States

The article Shooting ranges in the United States has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is almost entirely uncited. One of the three refs is a list of places to shoot (WP:NOTDIRECTORY), with much of it written like a manual (flagged as an issue nearly 10 years ago). Another is lead risks, which is equally applicable to the main Shooting Range article (which also bears a WP:Globalize template for being US-centric!). Weirdly, but perhaps tellingly, the article opens with a main hatnote, normally used at the start of sections. Much of the information duplicates Shooting range and other articles, or is otherwise not very helpful ("...rental fees vary...", ya think? And sounds like a manual). It's unclear that there is enough US-specific encyclopaedic content to justify an entire article on US Ranges.

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Shooting ranges in the United States for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shooting ranges in the United States 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/Shooting ranges in the United States 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.

Hemmers (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]