User talk:Dugnad

Hey Dugnad, I've been recently contributing to the Melrose Place articles and was stunned to find the index article Melrose Place in such a bad condition. Can you please let me know why you moved the season sections into a separate article a month ago? Did you reach a consensus with someone or just move it by your own decision? Dmarex (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dugnad. You have new messages at SlimVirgin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the

]

January 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an

collaborate

with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Nymf _hideliho! 19:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well that following

WP:LP is an exception to 3RR. Dugnad (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

But it also states that Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. Also note that remove content of living persons apply when it is contentious Contentious material about living persons..., which is not the case. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 23:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't report to the BLP noticeboard because I thought any admin (who should know

WP:3RR says, as I understand it, that

• libelous
• biased
• unsourced
• poorly sourced contentious

material. Dugnad (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported by Nymf at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring, I hope you will not be blocked (and added a comment in your defense) as I believe you were acting in good faith. The next time you find yourself editwarring with "experienced editors" (as you describe us), please engage in communication instead of reverting four times in a row with no other attempts at communicating than templating the regulars. I explained myself (albeit briefly) at the article talk page, you just ignored that and went on reverting. That kind of behaviour isn't helpful for anyone - the talk pages are there for a reason. Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read this page:

WP:REF, which WP:NOCITE is a part of, also states this in the beginning. Please tell me how you think WP:V says I can't revert this

.

It is common practise to do as I did; if it weren't, articles would be filled up with cn-tags. Why on earth shouldn't editors (be told to) add sources at the same time they add info? Do you also disagree with these revertions: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]? Dugnad (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling me ridiculous, always a pleasure to (try to) communicate with you. OK, let's stick with

WP:V then - did you read and understand the parts saying "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source" and "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately" (my bolding in the last quotation). An Academy Award Nomination is relevant information & not very hard to (un)verify. Leaving it with a cn-tag would have given others the opportunity to add some source to this, something the one who first added it should have done, you who first discovered it was unsourced could have done (would have taken you a lot less time than digging up those diff's above) & and I (since I happened to notice your revert) now have done. Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

It's my impression that you believe that material can't be removed immediately unless it is

WP:LP-contentious, which, of course, is incorrect; see for instance the diffs I provided above. I ask again: Do you also disagree with those edits? It is possible to find an "endless" number of such revertions by various experienced editors. Also see this edit by an admin; perhaps you should go "communicate" with him? Dugnad (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

problem solving 22:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

ONUnicorn thanks and noted. Dugnad, the reason I moved to draft space was I could see that the subject is notable but didn't have proper sourcing. It just has one reference and one external link to IMDB. Kindly check her french wiki [7], it has a lot of material plus lot of sources. --Roller26 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn: Thank you! @Roller26: I suggest you read this. Dugnad (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]