User talk:TTL GS

Welcome

Hello, TTL GS, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

TTL GS, good luck, and have fun. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:External links

Hi. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a listing of sites. Please read the above page and understand why fan pages are not particularly pertinent to a wikipedia article. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that when the inclusion of a specific link is objected to, which this one has by two separate editors, the onus is on the individual wishing to include the material to gain consensus on the talk page prior to restoring it. Thank you, -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3 revert warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Is edit warring to restore a disputed link worth getting blocked over? Because that's what will happen if you restore the fandom link again without bothering to review our policies and guidelines on external links that have been provided to you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check the "Official site" link, it does not work, and the "Star Wars" article, which contains a link to a Wookiepedia article. TTL GS (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)TTL GS[reply]

If the official site link does not work, then it can be tagged as a deadlink. It's not relevant what other links appear in other articles; the English Wikipedia has over 6 million articles and we strive to ensure they adhere to our best standards and guidelines. Just because you can find a violation of WP:EL in one article doesn't mean they should be included in all articles. The bottom line is, if the content you wish to add to an article is disputed, you need to get consensus to include it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is Wookiepedia allowed then? I remember having come across other articles containing links to this wiki. TTL GS (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)TTL GS[reply]

Again, we have over six million articles. Volunteers are continuously trying to bring articles in line with our policies and guidelines, but it is a process. Perhaps there was a discussion at Talk:Star Wars and the consensus was to include the link? Perhaps someone added it and no one noticed? Who knows? It doesn't change the requirement for you to get consensus if you want to add a completely different link into a completely different article. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then why doesn't someone who knows about the Wookiepedia links remove said links? TTL GS (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)TTL GS[reply]

You are concentrating on the wrong thing. It does not matter why there are other links in other articles, all that matters is that you get consensus for the link you want to add in the article you are editing and stop reverting in order to avoid a block. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the policy? TTL GS (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)TTL GS[reply]