User talk:Smkolins/Archives/2016/December

Warning: WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS
In this dif you restored content that violates WP policies WP:OR and WP:V as well as the guideline WP:RS. Please see the warnings below:


 * Information orange.svg Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been here a lot longer than you have User:Jytdog, slap those templates around. You are the one chopping whole sections despite good sources. I'll agree there is an unevenness of sources and things can use some standardization - some wikilinking vs actual just citation for example, but you don't seem to be making any fine tuned efforts. And I see you been in rever edit wars before. Wikipedia 101 is not to war. Smkolins (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well that time has apparently not been enough for you to edit according to policy. For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions
Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

?
We do not need links to "bahaivideo.com" in the Near-death experience article, and these two links http://bahaivideo.com/media/renee2.swf and http://bahaivideo.com/media/renee1.swf are dead in any case, as is http://lightafterlife.com/  Advocacy is bad enough but trying to edit war content based on dead links?

Please refrain from WP:ADVOCACY while editing WP, per NPOV and SOAPBOX. Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC) It is a shame to see rules thrown around in order to maintain order rather than discussion. All the additions I put back have a "good" citation, if sometimes difficult to get to - I added nothing that didn't have one - and some you yourself cleared. The points made were relative to the sources. The other links were convenience. Obviously they would not stand alone and that was not my aim. If I find relevant material from a source I post it. Just because it does supply one angle on sources does not mean it is tendentious. I've posted things based on the sources only. Smkolins (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)