Talk:Nicole Kim Donesa

Requesting extended confirmed protection due to edit war
I want extended confirmed protection for this article as there is an edit war going on.


 * See Requests for page protection. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Requests for page protection. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 16:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:DOB
, WP:BLP is strict on this. Even assuming that your source DOTS Ph counts as an ok source per WP:DOB, it doesn't say born 1994. Just because something is online does not mean it's a WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

, you wrote ": please stop your disruptive edit you are a swedish user how could you even know her)" I don't know her but I know WP. celebsagewiki.com is very obviously not a WP:RS, again, just because something is online does not mean it's a WP:RS. Because WP:EW I'll wait for someone else to revert you, however, see WP:3RRNO #7. Consider self-reverting you latest addition. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

, per GMA Network that looks like a better source. Now, add the inline citation in the article, see WP:TUTORIAL, otherwise it is likely someone will remove it again. Also, while edit summaries are good (but it's not where to put the references), it is better to do actual discussion on talkpages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

, you really need to stop this disruption immediately. See the Three-Revert Rule for why. There is a strict rule about making claims, even seemingly neutral or positive claims such as dates of birth, in articles about living persons. A social media source is not considered reliable for these purposes. See the links I left on your user talk page for more information. Do not revert again without providing a reliable, independent source that meets the requirements of the verifiability and reliable sourcing policies. Unlike, I do not feel that the GMA source is acceptable for a basic information claim such as DoB since it is just repeating a social media post without any apparent attempt at independent verification. Thank you. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)