Rohit Kanwer

September 2019

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Praxidicae (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2019 (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 ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rohit Kanwer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am new to this and wanted to contribute from sources that I knew. The sources that I had quoted were from my own research. I would ensure that in the future, I only use sources that are not my own and authentic. I would sincerely appreciate if you unblock me and give me an opportunity to contribute to this community

Decline reason:

Based on your edits, I think that there is more to this than you just editing from sources that you know. You will need to review conflict of interest and paid editing and explain how your future edits will be consistent with these policies, including what topics you will edit about. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rohit Kanwer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have read through the policies and I'm am now better aware of these. I'll ensure that all my future edits are aligned with these policies.

Decline reason:

I agree more detail is required. What, specifically did you do wrong? How will you select sources in the future? MER-C 17:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm an administrator and I haven't read all the policies. Until you do as I ask above and give specific answers relevant to your situation instead of a general statement, you are unlikely to be unblocked, though that will be up to the reviewer of your request(which will be someone else). 331dot (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rohit Kanwer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My future edits will be based on more authentic public sources wherein I do not have any conflict of interest. I'm a researcher in the health care and biotech sector and the edits will always be in these sections only. In the last edit that I did on antibody-drug conjugates, the information presented earlier on the source was outdated (there are in fact 6 approved antibody-drug conjugates), which is why I updated the article. However, I quoted the research that I / my team had done instead of quoting the original source (which is where I believe the COI comes into the picture). In the future, I would be quoting the original articles/ sources and not my own research. This should allow me to align with the policies.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.