User talk:PepeLow88

PepeLow88, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

May 2015
Hello, I'm Dl2000. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Nicola Walker, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Nicola Walker, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. "her agents say this is information" is not a reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The person who changed Nicola's birthdate to "15 May 1970" on or about 20 September 2014 did not provide any citations or references. This information is incorrect. If citing Nicola's agent as a source is regarded as unreliable, then the next best source has to be "confirmed in conversation with Nicola". PepeLow88 (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Pepelow88


 * The 15 May 1970 birthdate is found at IMDB, although that is not considered a particularly reliable source. However, we also don't consider a primary source such as from management to be automatically reliable, at least without additional external support - i.e. additional reliable secondary sources should be added.
 * Meanwhile, please review the conflict of interest policy, noting your possible associations with the subject . Dl2000 (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have submitted a request for correction to IMDb re Nicola Walker's birthday. This was submitted on the same date as the correction was made on Wikipedia. I am confident that they will change it in due course. I suspect whoever made the change to "15 May 1970" in September 2014 also made the change on IMDb. Two wrongs do not make a right. I have also reviewed the conflict of interest policy. There is no breach on my part of this policy. I am not a paid advocate. I am only trying to correct a material biological fact. If you care to look through Nicola's Wikipedia page history, you will see that "April 1970" was there from the outset. It was only changed in September 2014, seemingly without being challenged by anyone such as yourself. I also see that the person who made that change did not cite any supporting sources. Has anyone challenged or verified the September 2014 edit? If not, then why am I being targeted in this way? PepeLow88 (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)PepeLow88

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Nicola Walker. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Nicola Walker. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why some of the editors are coming down on me like a ton of bricks for making one edit, and yet no one has questioned the edit made in September 2014 in relation to Nicola's birthday? I would be very interested to see/hear what that person provided as evidence, back in September 2014, when he changed the birthday from the original "April 1970" to "15 May 1970". Why are these other two editors so anxious to preserve the "15 May 1970" date? Whilst I thank them for pointing out various tutorials and Wikipedia policy pages, I find it hard to accept that a person who is the subject of a Wikipedia page cannot be accepted as an authority on the question of when is her birthday. I suppose even if I were to provide these editors with a copy of the relevant birth certificate, they would still want a secondary source of confirmation. In the Wikipedia policy pages, I have frequently seen references to using common sense and flexibility. I'm not sure those approaches have been adopted to the edit I have made. Its ironic that my attempt to correct an inaccurate birthday should be in turn treated as untrusted and unsocial behaviour. PepeLow88 (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2015