User talk:Expertseo

This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the account's owner has abusively used multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage · Checkuser request)

Speedy deletion of Viscus infotech

A tag has been placed on Viscus infotech, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ironho lds 11:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Expertseo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Logan | Talk 21:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Indian National Congress, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Avengers 11:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expertseo. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to state that User:Katyaan is not my own account but handled by an acquaintance. I taught the guy how to edit Wikipedia. After being blocked, I read the guidelines at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts and came to know the do's and don'ts of editing. I was of the view that two editors can collaborate on a common project, provided it is not vandalism. My acquaintance asked me to vote against an article so that it can deleted, which I did. However, after going through point 1 and 2 of the link above, I have realized that I worked against the principles of Wikipedia and therefore blocked. In my case, I believe the admins felt that it is being operated by a single person due to the edits on common pages, which is not the case. Since I taught the guy how to edit, he started with the pages I already edited. Moreover, I have never indulged in any form of disruptive editing. However, after going through https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks, I now understand that "you scratch my back and I scratch yours" doesn't work on Wikipedia and is wrong. I assure not to repeat the mistake in future and promise to make healthy contributions to the portal. Since blocking the accounts is not a punishment but a way to stop people indulging in vandalism, I sincerely hope that our case will be considered and will be given one more chance by the admins. I reiterate, we have never indulged in vandalism. Please go through our edit history to ascertain it. Expertseo (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

CU confirms that you also operated Isnowden (talk · contribs). Max Semenik (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2015 (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.

Since a checkuser just confirmed this case yesterday, I think that her input would be good here. Although I gave the block, I currently consider it as carrying the weight of a CU block. If she wants to reblock to get that into the log, it is fine by me.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: While I don't really care to modify the block at this minute, I don't find it convincing that this appeal mentions nothing about Isnowden (who is fully confirmed) and Rahulkhare (who is highly likely and i'd be more likely to support the 2nd person theory on). The single IP used is definitely static and has been used since September by Katyaan. So...I'm not convinced we have the full story and it makes me question the validity of the one presented. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on! Katyaan is another person but an acquaintance. Rahulkhare is a person from the same company I am in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Rahulkhare#December_2015. As far as User:Isnowden is concerned, I am really not aware of who he or she is. The IP is static because probably we are using the same public network connection located in the same city. I believe since we haven't done any vandalism (although broken the policy unknowingly), a second chance should be given.Expertseo (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I went through https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Expertseo page and would like to state that only User:Katyaan is known to me and not others. And, the known user is a different one and not my own account. I have attracted the block because I was unaware of the policy that I stated above. It would be great if you guys can consider unblocking us. Expertseo (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that "Expertseo" may well be a violation of the username policy, as it very heavily implies "Expert search engine optimization". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why I once tried to change the user name but couldn't.Expertseo (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who started SPI against this user. Anyway Expertseo, can you tell who is Girish534? Is he another employee from your company? How come all of employees of your company are interested in same topics? How come all of you support same political stand? Does your software company recruits people who supports one specific political stand? --Human3015^TALK 15:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Human3015, now you are on the wrong track. I am not aware of this user Girish534. And even if there is someone who is editing so am I responsible for it? Since now you have alleged, I would like you to prove to the community that I am related to Girish534. Moreover, when I say "company", then it doesn't mean that we are doing it professionally. Of course, when I find something new, it is discussed among the peer group and people take it up if they like. It would be better if you don't digress from the topic. And what political stand are you talking about? I have less than 100 edits. Expertseo (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]