User talk:Dugnad

Melrose Place
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)

Riley Keough
SlimVirgin talk  contribs 17:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

January 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that: 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)
 * 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.


 * You know perfectly well that following WP:LP is an exception to 3RR. Dugnad (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 23:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't report to the BLP noticeboard because I thought any admin (who should know WP:LP and WP:V very well) would agree that my edits were OK. Apparently I thought wrong, and I have now reported.

WP:3RR says, as I understand it, that WP:LP-exceptions are removal of material. Dugnad (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * libelous
 * biased
 * unsourced
 * poorly sourced contentious


 * You have been reported by Nymf at Administrators%27_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)

Addition of unsourced material
Have you read this page: NOCITE? I sort of fail to see what is contentious about an academy award nomination. Please add fact to such instead of reverting other editors please. Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Now you're being ridiculous, not least considering the section has a template saying it needs more sources (and not more unsourced material). (And no, the first sentence doesn't belong in the lead.)


 * WP:NOCITE is, contrary to what you and Nymf seem to think, not the policy on sourcing. WP:V is the policy on sourcing. 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:, , , , and ? Dugnad (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Asking me "did you read and understand" something you know I've read is surely a lot better than me calling you ridiculous for saying I should cn-tag something added to a section that already has a template saying it needs additional citations. Anyway, regarding those sentences:
 * I challenged the material by removing it.
 * The material was immediately challenged after being added due to the section template.
 * The material was IMO likely to be challenged anyway.
 * The material required but lacked a source, so I reverted.
 * I'm wondering if you have read WP:UNSOURCED: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed."


 * 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)

PC
Thank you for adding comments to the Pending Changes discussion.

Could you please read WP:PCRFC, and see if you've got any ideas that can help us come to some agreement? Thanks,  Chzz  ► 17:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Popular press
We do not typically link to the popular press in medical articles due to issues around accuracy. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ludivine Reding moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Ludivine Reding, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Roller26 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Dugnad objected to the page being moved to draft . Per the draft space policy, "If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD," I have moved the page back to mainspace.  Feel free to list it at AFD if you think it is not notable. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 22:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks and noted., 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 , it has a lot of material plus lot of sources. --Roller26 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

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