Nidhi kachru

May 2016

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to WaterHealth International. 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2016 (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 WaterHealth International. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi James, This isn't at all a promotional content that I'm updating instead I'm updating the latest information about WaterHealth on Wikipedia. Could you please share more details on it & highlight the portions you feel are the promotional content. I'm also providing reference for authenticity of the content. Not really sure what is this about.. It would be great if you could please give more insights on it as I'm new to Wiki.

Thanks, Nidhi

Do you have an association with WaterHealth International? If not, why are you so determined to ignore the advice of a respected administrator? If not, request the edits on the talk page anyway so that they can be discussed. If so, make the conflict of interest disclosure and the paid editing disclosure and then request any edits on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Nidhi kachru/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Nidhi kachru, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using Wikipedia for promotion. You say your editing "isn't at all a promotional content", but it was very substantially an attempt to persuade readers that your company is doing a great job, and that it is a noble cause. If you honestly didn't see it as promotional, then you are so unable to see the nature of your own writing that it is unlikely you will be able to edit in the neutral way required for Wikipedia. The whole of your editing read as though it was written by a marketing or PR professional on behalf of the company. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I Cannot Assume Good Faith

You wrote, using an IP address for block evasion sockpuppetry: "As clearly me intentions aren't misleading or fraudulent in nature is just that I'm new to wiki and want to understand the platform better and work out things on it which I plan to edit." I will concede that your intentions were not fraudulent, which is a legal term. I cannot assume good faith that you merely are new to wiki and want to understand the platform, since you disregarded the advice of an administrator and other editors to push your edits through. Your intent does appear to have been to mislead the public, who trust Wikipedia to present a neutral point of view, to think that the information that you tried to post was neutral when in fact you knew that it was promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I recommend that any administrator who reviews a block request deny this block request, at least until there has been no block evasion for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)