User talk:Duergarthedwarf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I was removing incorrect templates. The templates are obviously incorrect, so I was removing them. Adding incorrect templates is disruption. Removing them isn't."

Decline reason: "You're obviously unwilling to follow policy, and have an axe to grind. WP:TEA is the place for you, and then a long, hard, think, before you come back here for another unblock request. I will enforce this 'gardening leave' for one week. — Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Whoever blocked me is a vandal.

I will endorse an unblock if you start discussing your changes. You're obviously familiar with MediaWiki software and Wikipedia's tags, and more specifically, it seems you have an axe to grind. If you're unblocked, will you discuss your changes and form consensus before making them again? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Whoever keeps adding those incorrect templates should discuss them before adding them. I should not have to discuss removing vandalism.
In other words, I take it you're unwilling to follow our policies on consensus, seeing as the templates are not obvious vandalism as defined in our policies? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The user in question is adding templates, including clearly bogus ones (can anyone find a weasel word in any of the 50 or so places he's added that template?) at a fairly rapid rate and given that he seems to be hitting EVERY D&D monster in order I don't think he's actually checking for notability or much of anything else. At the very least one of each of the templates he's adding is vandalism. Hobit (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The term "clearly bogus" is an example of weasel words, which I don't think you understand. You would be advised to learn from the blocking of this user that it is inapporpriate to revert other editors work without reasonable cause. The Notability, context, in universe & No footnotes templates which you refer to as "bogus" have all been added for good reason, and stand up to peer review. None of my edits are vandalism; if you wish to complain, take this issue to RFC instead of belly aching here. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dinosaur (Dungeons & Dragons)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dinosaur (Dungeons & Dragons), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaur (Dungeons & Dragons). Thank you. Gavin Collins (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)