User talk:Sy036267

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Thanatology. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. The main problem is that you are sourcing your own hypothesis to your own blog, which is both a conflict of interest and doesn't demonstrate that your hypothesis is notable. It would need to be cited by other independent, reliable sources to be included in the encyclopaedia, and even then, it should be added by someone else, not you. Please read the articles linked to. Also, when you leave a comment on a talk page, like you did one mine, please "sign" it by adding four tildes (this symbol ~) at the end which will automatically include your username, a timestamp and a link to your talk page. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Near-death experience

Thanks for your edits, however, Wikipedia runs on reliable sources. Adding in a self-published book or blog about your own hypothesis is not acceptable. If you have valid scientific research in this field, please cite academic books or peer-reviewed scientific papers. I noticed you added two scientific papers and they were not reverted - That is the sort of thing you should add. Most personal blogs are not reliable and will be deleted on Wikipedia. Just because your personal blog or book was reverted please don't get angry or leave Wikipedia. You sound like an interesting editor, and your edits are appreciated. Thanks. TreeTrailer (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

What everybody has said. Please read WP:REFSPAM and WP:SELFCITE and WP:PROMO. We love experts, but not when all they do is spam Wikipedia. Please consider broadening your contributions. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring refspam

Your recent editing history at Thanatology,Near-death experience, and Death, shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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. Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

November 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Thanatology, you may be blocked from editing. Mys_721tx (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)