User talk:Foxtart

Foxtart (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)== September 2021 ==[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Shelby Kutty. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Shelby Kutty, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you are reverting back the edits even before I add citations. Can you have patience and wait for it to be completely done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtart (talk • contribs)

When are you going to stick to one account and disclose your conflict of interest? None of the references you add actually say what the text claims. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how do I disclose conflict of interest? I have no conflict as you claim. All the references claim exactly what the etxt claims

That is what you have said with every single account you have used (and sockpuppetry is grounds for being blocked) and yet it is unlikely. You keep adding information without references that are designed to puff up the subject. What is your connection to Shelby Kutty? Notfrompedro (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2021 (UT

What accounts. I have no connection? You have been harassing the contributors looks like

I guess we will let the sock report play out. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess! then please mind other business

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shelby Kutty. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been disruptive and harassing. I will be reporting you

Ok. Please don't forget to report your own use of sockpuppets, violating WP:BLP and WP:COI. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Shelby Kutty, you may be blocked from editing. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am editing with a reference. Please stop harassing and disruptive editing

No you added a Google Scholar reference which does nothing to show "over 300 papers" nor your claim of "among the top published investigators in congenital cardiology." The other reference is just a search page. You need reliable sources that are verifiable. You also need to stop adding puffery to promote Kutty. You also need to disclose your COI but clearly you have no intention of doing that. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Shelby Kutty. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Pubmed is the only soure and searching the author name is how you see publications. Go read other major scientists[reply]

Directing people to search pubmed is original research. You need reliable sources that are verifiable to make claims for biographies of living people. Please stop your incessant promotion and read these guidelines. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/profiles/details/shelby-kutty look at this source- it says the same. can i use this source.

Please just actually read the guidelines specifically WP:RS. That guideline states Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The bio from his own employer is not independent. Further the only reason to even include the number of publications is to burnish his reputation so for the final time: what is your connection to Shelby Kutty? Nobody with no connection to the subject would constantly push unreferenced puffery into one article and argue this incessantly to be allowed to do so. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:PushpaShivaram per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PushpaShivaram. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]