User talk:Sundeki

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Sundeki! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Proposed deletion of Star Wars: The Old Republic (novel)


The article Star Wars: The Old Republic (novel) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Book with no assertion of notability, no confirmation that it will even be published.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 16:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Star Wars: The Old Republic (novel)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Star Wars: The Old Republic (novel), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 15:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wookiepedia
Hi! I know it's been awhile, but please don't use open wikis as sources. Wookiepedia can't be used as a source. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, 3RR
Your recent editing history at Fraser Anning's Conservative National Party 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 BRD 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for attempting to inform me of the 3 revert rule, but as specified on the Edit War page, in the 3 Revert Rule section, an exemption to the rule, as follows: 7.Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. The page in question has broken/missing citations, citations that are irrelevant to the claim and are possibly representative of a smear, and involved reverts from other people to reinclude biased and potentially libelous material, as well as not being in line with 2 of the 3 sections considered relevant on the "Biographies of living persons" page, specifically regarding "Neutral point of view (NPOV)" and "Verifiability (V)". The 3 Revert Rule does not apply in this case, and 3 of the 4 reverts in the 24 hour period are actions taken for reasons stated previously. It may be claimed by some that these were not relevant to the exemption rules, but given that the page expanded in size, with all new information being given citations and dead citations being removed, it cannot be claimed that I was acting in bad faith or with intent to vandalize the page. That of course is not for me to decide.Sundeki (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)