User talk:Agpworld

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf^(talk) 11:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

ashvingidwani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I just updated the current works of the cast in our play on wikipedia. Completely factual and no fancy advertising content at all like the guidelines say. Even the draft page of Devdas 2018 play currently under review is completely factual and not advertising. Please help me understand the actions that were deemed advertorial. Thanks!

Decline reason:

Your choice of new username seems acceptable. However, your edits indicate that you have been violating WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:PAID, in that they all related to a production that your company was producing, and many of your edits consisted of linking to your company website. Merely telling the world about what your company does is considered promotional on Wikipedia; Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state. As such, you will not be permitted to edit in the area of your conflict of interest. If you want to edit about another subject, you will need to state what that is, along with indicating that you understand and will comply with the policies I mentioned here. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Ok. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I understand now that linking to our website was a mistake and that shall not be repeated again. Since we are in the theatre space, we can contribute about artists, plays, standup comedy, history, and the theatre culture arising in India. I hope we will be able to unblock the account and we can continue to contribute in the best way possible according to guidelines.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Could I get you to clarify who "we" is please? Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! By 'we' I meant my team and I. I will be the sole contributor on this account, but the research will sometimes be supported by my team as well. Thanks.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Devdas (2018 play) (November 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiDan61 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The sourcing for this draft comes largely from advertorials for the play. Better independent reviews would be needed. Given the play's limited run (only ten days), its long-term notability is doubtful.

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 Draft:Devdas (2018 play) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Devdas (2018 play), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
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.

WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Agpworld! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation 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! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]