Ferosekhan23

October 2018

Hello, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, I notice that you are adding the same couple of citations to a lot of fish-related articles, without actually adding anything to the text. This looks a lot like spam, and I need to ask you to stop, please. Focus on adding content, backed up with citations, not simply adding the citations themselves. If I can help with anything, just let me know. Jessicapierce (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Ferosekhan23, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Ferosekhan23! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Ecology. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ecosystem-based management, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not a platform for trying to get more hits for acadmic papers. Wikipedia relies on secondary and tertiary sources.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Reservoir. It is unacceptable to try to use Wikipedia to try and promote your research publications  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Please do not persist in adding citations to your own work to Wikipedia. I've left information regarding Wikipedia's guidelines regarding conflicts of interest, please ensure you follow them moving forward in order to avoid future blocks on your account.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing with a conflict of interest

Hello, Ferosekhan23. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violations and other serious problems with your editing

Please pay more attention to your editing. You are creating headaches for other editors who have to clean up your messes. For example, here you added material which contains passages which are copy violations. That is, you didn't rewrite the material in your own words. In other places you have removed legitimate sources on the grounds that the links to them have gone dead. Links to sources become dead all the time on the web, but that is no reason to remove the source. Links are changed because some web masters reorganise their sites without bothering to provide redirects. If you want to help then see of you can find the new link for the source. Removing the sources is vandalism. Here you both removed a dead link and also removed additional article text following the link. That's just plain sloppy. Generally your contributions are more unhelpful than helpful. If you want to continue editing, then please take some deep breaths and start paying proper attention to what you are doing. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Mullus. despite all the warnings you are still promoting your own academic publications. If this continues you will be blocked permanently.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)