User talk:Pmeetonline

December 2012

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. [1] MER-C 06:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was just trying to add the link of a site I regulary read because I though that would help the people. I was not trying to spam. Pmeetonline (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Nokia Lumia 620 with this edit. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Huawei Ascend W1, 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. Biker Biker (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was just trying to add the reference links for the written statements. I though that it will be useful for the people to get more detailed information of that particular topic from the suggested link. If you think that my action was inappropriate, I apologize for that and will not do the same again.

Decline reason:

Declining for the reasons expressed by Bwilkins below. You were warned, but choose to ignore the warnings. Bjelleklang - talk 19:36, 15 January 2013 (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.

I have a bit of trouble with this request: you were told a month ago that the link/site you were adding was inappropriate, and told that if you did it again you would be blocked. However, here we are a month later and you seem surprised. Care to explain? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:49, 15 January 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was adding some more features of a smartphone device and adding reference for it. Though, mistakenly I also added a link to its features and specifications in the external links section. I apologized for that. Then, when I tried to log-in to my account, it was blocked. I am just a technology and gadgets lover guy and adds the information about it as soon as I got them confirmed. So, many times the information comes from technology blogs and I also insert reference to the information I add. So, how is this inappropriate? I mean, I agree and apologize to the mistake I made adding a link to external link section but what is wrong to add reference to some points. So, I think my account should be unblocked and I can help in expanding the topic by inserting information of latest tech and gadgets.

Decline reason:

As per the guide to appealing blocks, the editor must show some understanding of why they are blocked. Although the impropriety of your links and the edits (for example, blogs are NOT reliable sources) have been explained to you time and time again, you continue to argue that such additions are ok. In addition, the site you're linking to is ALSO improper. The reason for your block - with significant warnings to stop - are valid, and your argument for unblock merely enforces the validity of the block. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:56, 16 January 2013 (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.

I'm leaving this for another admin to consider, but after looking at all of your contribs, it turns out that all you've done is to add links to technokraze.in. You even removed a link to another site already listing the specs for one phone, added some specs already in the article and added a link to technokraze as a reference to the duplicate information[2]. This is why you were blocked. And unless you can address this issue properly in the above request and convince us that you'll follow the rules and contribute (not just links) you are unlikely to be unblocked. Bjelleklang - talk 12:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link to a blog because of the following reasons. The link was in reference to the beginning words Sony Xperia Z, which was inappropriate. another thing I noticed that there were more than three links to the same blog which appeared spamming to me. Though I am not a moderator or administrator, I removed that which appeared like spamming and inappropriate to make Wikipedia useful. Wikipedia is a source of useful information and not for spamming. So, I did that. If that was wrong, I apologize for that and will not do it again. Now, to the link pointing to technokraze. I am a fan of technokraze and believe every content from them. They are accurate and never misleading. This is the reason I am adding the reference links to them. I am getting many information from there so I am adding its reference link.Pmeetonline (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technokraze is not a reliable source (WP:RS) and your repeated addition of the link, despite being warned not to, is why you were blocked. Until you accept that and promise not to add links to that or similar sites again there is no chance that an admin will unblock you. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is highly likely that you are directly connected to the site and therefore have a conflict of interest (WP:COI). According to the website's about us page, one of the co-founder/owners is a Meet Patel. Hmmm "Meet Patel" / "pmeetonline". Per WP:DUCK I think you have as much chance as a whelk in a supernova of getting your account unblocked now. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

No. I am not Meet Patel, I am Mehul Parmar. ME for first two letters of Mehul, ET for the two letter after Chetan. I don't know Meet Patel and I don't have any interest in him or technokraze. If that is not convenient to you, I will not place links of technokraze anymore. I am not a representative of technokraze or Meet Patel. So, please unblock me and I assure you that I will not place inappropriate links anymore.

Decline reason:

You have used this account virtually exclusively for adding links to one web site. You have continued to do so despite several warnings that doing so is unacceptable, including two which warned you that you were in danger of being blocked. You have removed a reference to another site, claiming that you thought including several references to one site was "spamming", which, in view of your own editing history is absolutely absurd. (Consider, for example, this edit, in which you added three links to your favourite site.) You have made completely implausible answers to comments made relating to your various unblock requests, which leaves no reason to have any confidence at all in anything you say. In fact, absolutely everything that you have ever done or said here, both in your edits to articles and in your posts to this page, looks exactly as if you are here purely for the purpose of spamming. Since none of your unblock requests takes us any further forward, to avoid wasting further time for administrators, your talk page access will be revoked. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2013 (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.

So what do you intend to do if unblocked? Max Semenik (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to expand the article related to technology, gadgets, education without adding inappropriate links to it. I apologize for adding those links in the previous edits. Will not do the same again. I will try to add useful information to the topic and will try to help in expanding the topic to the best of my knowledge.