User talk:Yaf

Talk Archives

User talk:Yaf/Archive 1 -- 22 November 2005 - 14 July 2007
User talk:Yaf/Archive 2 -- 14 July 2007 - 8 July 2008

Welcome

Please feel free to leave comments. Thanks. Yaf

Lurking

For the record, I have followed your edit defense (hard to say you're warring when you're just trying to stand your ground) with SaltyBoar and would just like to let you know that your civility exceeds anything I would have exhibited. Mostly for that reason, I stick to the technical and avoid political discussions. I'd just like to commend you for "standing post" on this one. You do the work so others don't have to. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

WTF I was trying to undo the vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.99.192 (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your cache wasn't up to date. You reverted the correction :-) It happens. Try updating your browser cache more often. Cheers. Yaf (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked: long-term edit warring gets you four days off. Your previous block doesn't appear to have encultured you properly, so I'm inclined to believe that this is a chronic problem, rather than a single incident of relatively poor judgement. When you're released from this block, please strive to edit in a less hostile manner and try negotiation before devolving into blindly reverting others' edits. east.718 at 00:10, May 16, 2008

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yaf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Filing a 3RR violation report is not evidence of engaging in long term edit warring, nor does it warrant 100 hours of block for filing the report.

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for filing a report, but for "long-term edit-warring on Right to bear arms". You must adequately address the blocking rationale in your unblock request, see User:Sandstein/Unblock. — Sandstein 10:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wow, I compeltely disagree. The report against Yaf was filed as a reprisal by SaltyBoar after Salty was banned. At that time, all of the evidence was evaluated and warranted a ban against Salty. In essense, Salty got a "do-over" on this one because, like before, he disagrees. This seems unfair to me. To me, it is a clear reprisal for Salty having been banned. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My block has nothing to do with SaltyBoatr. No report was filed against me by him, nor was any 3RR report filed by anyone else against me. Rather, the threshold for edit warring was reduced to 1RR. That is allowed for admins, and is always within their authority/judgment. The 3RR rule for 24 hours is not a license to revert 3 times, 2 times, or even 1 time before being blocked. Blocks can be given at any time for even a single revert. Now, I reverted one of SaltyBoatr's edits after he had made 3 other reverts on the Right to arms article. SaltyBoatr then reverted my edit, and I reported his 4RR action as a violation of 3RR, rather than edit warring on the article. He was blocked for 100 hours, as expected, being it was his 5th 3RR edit warring block on this same article. However, I was likewise blocked for 100 hours, for 1RR, as the blocking admin felt that I had been engaged in "long term edit warring", for reporting multiple 3RR violations by SaltyBoatr on this same article long term, as he edit warred against the community. The WP:3RR rule is only a rule; even one revert can be viewed as "long term edit warring". Now, getting blocked for 100 hours for 1RR is severe, especially being it was only my third block in over 8,000 edits on Wikipedia, but this punishment is entirely allowed within the rules that admins follow. After all, their goal is to reduce disruption on Wikipedia. "Unfair" and "punishment" has nothing to do with it. My having filed consecutive successful 3RR reports against SaltyBoatr (resulting in 5 blocks altogether) was viewed as "long term edit warring", and hence my 1RR was punished with a 100 hour block. Ultimately, it's all about preventing disruption, and what is best for WP. Looks like the system works; SaltyBoatr is not pushing any of his POV/edit warring disruption against the community for the next 100 hours. Collateral damage happens; it's not personal. Yaf (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

You agreed to avoid multiple reverts and edit warring. I will caution you that any number of contentious edits or reverts related to the on-going dispute may be considered problematic for such a long-running issue.

Request handled by: Vassyana (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing my two cents in here, I don't see any reason to block over what Yaf did, and especially not for 4 days. This is a poor way to deal with a long term dispute. If you must, protect the article and encourage talk page discussion, as that would have a far better chance at improving behavior of all parties, no matter how big or small the offense is. And like Yaf, this does strike me as punishment, rather than prevention. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that it's already been two days at this point. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am template-linking your unblock request. Please note that the three revert rule is not an entitlement to any number of reverts. The rule itself states: "...the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period..."

I would encourage you not to continue to edit war. It's really silly to war over an article tag, generally speaking. Rather than invest so much energy into disputes over article tags, put it into improving the article. If you run into disagreements you cannot resolve, there are plenty of people waiting to help.

That all said, if I were to unblock you would you agree to avoid multiple reverts and edit warring, with the understanding that any incidents of edit-warring will be looked upon in a very poor light? Vassyana (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I likewise view edit-warring in a bad light. It was why I had reported the same edit warrior over and over and over. And, I didn't make multiple reverts. It was 1RR. And, as for other options, this dispute was run through two mediations over many months with 2 unsuccessful outcomes (Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Hunting weapon) with all editors save one agreeing. It was also run through 3O several times with no successful outcome, but again with the one editor not agreeing. It was also run through RfC processes with no successful outcome. It was also most recently proposed to Arbcom under User:SaltyBoatr, with numerous editors requesting that they take up the case, including even a recommendation from the mediator of the Second Amendment article mediation himself (Wizardman) but the case was not taken. A resolution is seriously needed to this long-running dispute related to all gun-related political articles on Wikipedia. Reporting multiple WP:3RR violations by the one edit warring editor had become the only apparent way for editors to be able to edit these articles without the one user immediately reverting everything that any editors attempted to write into these articles. So, I reported him (again and again.) And he was blocked, again and again. However, since making even 1RR, and then reporting the disruptive editor over and over is now considered edit warring, that is evidently not a valid way to address the problem. That said, a resolution is still needed. Where are the plenty of people waiting to help? (It certainly wasn't 3O, RfC, MedCom --although they tried twice-- or ArbCom.) (And, of course, I agree not to do multiple reverts; I wasn't even doing this in this incident.) Yaf (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to highlight what Yaf said above, it is only ONE editor in this case and fighting against the tide of editors that disagree with him. That one editor is the problem, everybody else is feeling the wrath for disagreeing with Salty. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clip vs. Magazine

I was wondering if you could chime in on the debate regarding the definition of a clip vs. a Magazine. I am looking for other firearms folks. The view at issue is that Clips are Magazines and the two editors for changing this are citing the dictionary. Don't know what your position is, but thanks for your help in advance. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2A Nonsense

I was sorry to see you remove the "man eating weed" inquiry from the 2A article. I was going to suggest that he go with the SPAS-12 over the M82A1, unless he has a very, very large back yard. ;-) PubliusFL (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be the better choice, of course :-) Personally, though, I prefer a 20mm Solothurn S-18/1000. :-) Yaf (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say I am very distressed you removed my contribution to the discussion on the second amendment article. You should assume good faith. Now, the man eating weeds are multiplying, and I have to consider some sort of explosive ordinance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.251.232 (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should try ANFO. :-) Yaf (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2A article update

Long time, no read. I guess there wasn't much to do together without SaltyBoatr (he hasn't contributed since June 20). Here's a comparison between the article just before the first post-Heller edit and currently. Before Heller, SaltyBoatr would have had us banned for a year making such changes. :) SMP0328. (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 2A article is vastly improved over the version back then. Despite this, there is some indication that the SCOTUS clerks may even have read our earlier version of the article to gauge public opinion, and to make sure of using all possible support points, in writing early draft versions of the majority opinion, judging just from the points made in Scalia's final version of the majority opinion and the degree of overlap it made with the major points that were contained in our article :-) I would like to think our joint edits and contributions at pushing for neutrality in this article helped in some ways in the final majority opinion coming out the way it did. As for the other editor, can't say I miss him. Progress is certainly faster now, though, towards improving articles :-) Happy 4th of July! Yaf (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean the four dissenting Justices read what SaltyBoatr said and used it in Justice Steven's dissent? It's funny thinking that our battles with him would have such an effect on Constitutional law. SMP0328. (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bluing (steel)

Hi Yaf, quick question here. I'm a little confused why you changed the title of the section back to "hot vs. cold bluing". There are three types of bluing talked about in the section: hot, cold, and rust bluing. Based on that the title isn't very applicable. I think "Types" encompasses all of them well and is short and to the point. --Wizard191 (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Walker Colt discussion page

All of these black powder articles may be at risk since a subject as locked up the Walker article based on his accusation that I plagerized material. the cited material is an amazon.com exerpt of my own book used for promotional purposes. Apparently something I added to one or another articles set this individual off. He has delete material from other articles as well.--Mcumpston (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]