Jump to content

User talk:Deepfriedokra: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→FYI, spambot: new section
Vishnukvv (talk | contribs)
90 edits
→Dharmapuri temple: new section
Line 300: Line 300:


[[User:JanetMcclellan7]] is a spambot account. I blocked it. -- [[User:Gogo Dodo|Gogo Dodo]] ([[User talk:Gogo Dodo|talk]]) 01:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
[[User:JanetMcclellan7]] is a spambot account. I blocked it. -- [[User:Gogo Dodo|Gogo Dodo]] ([[User talk:Gogo Dodo|talk]]) 01:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

== Dharmapuri temple ==

Hello,

This is very ancient and famous temple in Telangana..lot of devotees visit every day...and also from neighbouring states...

Revision as of 13:03, 26 August 2018

Crazy as it might seem to you and me, new conversations are added below the older ones.
NOTICE-- NEW MESSAGES NOT LEFT AT THE BOTTOM OF MY TALK PAGE WILL BE REVERTED. Hence-->

User talk:Dlohcierekim/boatramp

first Article

Hi Dlohcierekim, in Aprile I tried to write my first Article in Wikipedia English, yet it was deleted... now I have new content but I'm not sure if it will be considered promotional Also (By the way the new content is translated from an Article I've already created in Wikipedia Arabic)of course I couldn't translate it directly through Wikipedia tools as I'm a new editor ... what do you suggest me to do ?? thank you in advance Geegooo (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated disruption

User Mayerroute5 is returning again and again to make the same disruptive edit for nearly the 20th time since May in spite of being repeatedly warned and even being blocked once. The pages are 2018 Indian Premier League, Template:2018 IPL match 58 and Template:2018 IPL match 59. He is constantly breaking the project guidelines and conventions and isn't ready to accept them. I have reported about this in the Administrator's thread earlier as well, and now I request again for some action to be taken here as it is becoming difficult to control his disruption! Cricket246 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing visibility of an edit

Hi, would you be able to remove the visibility of this edit which contains a pretty vile personal attack? Also, could you direct me to the location I should report edits like this in the future to have them hidden? Thanks. LynxTufts (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case rename

A few months ago you did some moves at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IMZahidIqbal which (probably accidentally) caused the case history to be deleted (see [1]). I have just restored it, and I'm just letting you know that I undid your action per WP:ADMINACCT. If this wasn't an accident and you meant to delete the history, please let me know. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Исмаил_Рагимов

Two weeks? His latest block, which he returned ffrom only four days ago, was for two weeks, and all he has ever done here is add totally fake economic data on multiple articles. For example this previously undetected piece of vandalism on SOCAR, the article about the state oil company of Azerbaijan (note how he just changed the date in the ref, to make it look like it was sourced...). So I feel it's reasonable to expect an indefinite block... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: I will consider it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:1853:1C00:9D67:C3F5:8F37:ACFB

Can you maybe revdel these edits as BLP violations? I saw that youre active. Editorzszs (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorzszs: Sorry, no. Does not rise to level requiring revdel.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you.★Trekker (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

Hi Dlohcierekim, Hope all is well, When you're not busy could you revdel this please, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marcia Parker SF/sandbox

This somehow got recreated, speedy tags included. I'm guessing they were editing it and hit save after you had deleted the first copy. Home Lander (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @Home Lander: She recreated after I deleted.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dlohcierekim i need your help to understand this issue

i am eager to know that this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabar_Koti was nominated for deletion on January 22 2011 and The result of the discussion was delete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sabar_Koti but why it is still live while it Fails WP:MUSIC & i have doubt on User:GSS who created this may be for paid editor and keeping the page live, because his second page https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yudhvir_Manak&action=edit&redlink=1 recently deleted due to promotional & non notable. He have also moved may pages & many of them still are non notable https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&user=GSS&type=move i think he is playing money game behind his white work (contribution) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Act345 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Act345: Thanks for your note. As there was only one "delete", it was a WP:soft delete and thus treated as a expired WP:PROD. It was subsequently recreated with improvements, thus making it inelligible for WP:CSD#G4, inappropriately retaged for ProD, and appropriately detagged. As deletion now requires disccussion, the best route/only route would be another WP:AFD.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Knight (Greensboro) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bill Knight (Greensboro). Since you had some involvement with the Bill Knight (Greensboro) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Bagumba (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing blocked for my account ; for what purpose?

Hello, I think you blocked me from editing for spamming purposes... I do not really understand what made me seem to be a spammer. Could you give me the reasons that made you restrict my account if you please? Alain02 (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is your blocked account? Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alain02: One might surmise you are evading a block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: I just wanted to know the purposes that led you to blocking my account so that I can know what not to do while editing an article. Forgive my ignorance, I haven't been editing for too long.
Well, @Alain02:, off hand, I'd say your are not blocked. If you used another account, now blocked, it would be helpful to know what that account was so that I can see the edits that lead to your blocking. I'm being patient and helpful, but I should probably stop wasting my time and block you for evasion and trolling, so do let me know what the previous account was.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: It's my capacity to editing articles that was blocked not the whole account, it's the same account with which I am talking that was affected: Alain02. Please note that it was blocked just for 3 days; I am just trying to avoid recidiving the mistakes that I did in order not to bother the Wikipedia community anymore.
@Alain02: I see no blocks, and we cannot selectively block you from editing. You are however not autoconfirmed on this account. You must make at least ten edits before being able to create articles. I'm skeptical of your claim of only editing with this account because of the word "recidiving". That is not a word. I have blocked for recidivism, which is a word I use when reblocking someone who repeats blockable behavior. You also say you were blocked for spamming. There are no spam warnings on your talk page. No warnings at all. No prior blocks on your current account. But to answer your question, don't add external links to pages unless you are citing a source. Don't write about a subject in a non objective tone. Before trying to create new articles, try improving some existing articles.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster County

On your comment on my request for this article [2] about this editor trying to sneak in negative commentary - yup. Standard tactic for Cutler. This guy has been trying to get his rather odd conspiracy views in Wikipedia for a while. I've got a very(!) short summary of examples here, but I've found stuff in articles from 2016 and earlier from him. There's an edit filter in place that cuts back a lot of his stuff, which is why you don't see anything resembling the prior rants anymore. Prolog has been incredibly diligent on reverting and semi-protecting targets, I just request the ones when Prolog isn't around. You can get some idea of what this guy thinks by googling their name and lawsuit. Some interesting reading in there. Thanks for you help! Ravensfire (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

Hey, no need to change the protection level (or reason) back to what I set it at. If you feel it should be longer, feel free. Not a big deal at all. Have a good one. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About Uncle Dlohcierekim's Move

Uncle Dlohcierekim,

How could you provide The real edits by me is undone by Ravensfire in article Simran Bagga is protected by you. most of the given information in that article is fan edits. without any references there are alot of fake information pressing the actress.women is equal for everyone.Award nominations are fake.check if you can or if you are true editor in wiki.Also improperly placed most informations in the intro section (Says the movies with Kamal Hassan..which indirectly reflects her relationship with Kamal...with is not a good behaviour of her limelight— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.2.119 (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uncle Dlohcierekim. Really? I'm afraid I've blocked. Hope you don't mind. Bishonen | talk 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: thaks. had not gotten there yet.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose your guest above is using "Uncle" as a general honorific? Not uncommon in some cultures, such as here a couple of hundred years ago. I will always call you Uncle from now on. Bishonen | talk 15:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: Gad. Yes. It's grating, and I sometimes got it at work, though not lately. Multiculturalism, you know. So I take a deep breath and take it in the spirit and all.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll have to call you "auntie", broad "a".-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delleted page question - How to do it right to avoid delletion

Dear Dlohcierekim I would like to ask you how to write this File Commander /Android/ article to avoid new delletion.

I saw an article about File commander which has been approved and not delleted yet and I cant understand why mine was delleted if this one still exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Commander

Will this text below, be OK?

File Commander is a file manager/file explorer application that allows users to handle files on Android devices. Released in 2012 it is still running (on Android version 4.1 or later) and maintained by its creators. The current File Commander version is 4.9, being less than 30Mb in size. In 2017 the app hits over 100 million installations around the world.

Up-date history: 4.9 Release date: 2 Aug 2018 4.8 Release date: 28 Jun 2018 4.7.1 Released date: 13 Jun 2018 4.7 Release date: 31 May 2018 4.6 Release date:16 Apr 2018 4.5 Release date: 12 Feb 2018 4.4 Release date: 14 Dec 2017 4.3 Release date: 24 Oct 2017 4.2 Release date: 28 Aug 2017 4.1 Release date: 28 Jun 2017 4.0 Release date: 25 Apr 2017 3.9.5 Release date 09 Mar 2017 3.9.4 Release date 27 Feb 2017 3.9.3 Release date 06 Dec 2016 3.9.2 Release date 02 Nov 2016 3.9.1 Release date 10 Oct 2016 3.9 Release date 30 Aug 2016 3.8.1 Release date 20 Jul 2016 3.8 Release date 07 Jul 2016 3.7.1 Release date 07 Jun 2016 3.7 Release date 26 Apr 2016

Please comment on Talk:Albert Cashier

You have previously participated in discussions about the use of gendered pronouns in the biography of Albert Cashier. An Rfc about this topic is taking place at Talk:Albert Cashier, and your comments are welcome. Mathglot (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:Madeinphilly

I have concerns that account might be a promo account. I found this old comment left https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lithopsian&diff=prev&oldid=755930683

Also, their user page (prior to being blanked and deleted} also advertises SOL3 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I worked for them over a year and a half ago when opening this account. As stated, last time I checked all of these brands aren't under the same parent company. The only common denominator is I work within the footwear industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeinphilly (talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Pinging Toddst1 SemiHypercube as they had participated in AFDs of article involving User:Madeinphilly --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


<<ec have not read the foregoing.>> @Tyw7: Unsurprised. Despite their assertions, the content felt ham-handedly promotional, and the SOL3 content was deleted as G11. They're user page could've been G11'd as well. They have a COI warning and I left them some advice. They had a long hiatus, so we will probably not see further creations from them for a while. If they continue, they will create enough of a pattern for WP:COIN.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Here's the full thread User_talk:Lithopsian/Archive_1#SOL3 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 3) Should this user be given a WP:NOTHERE indef block? SemiHypercube ✎ 20:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging John from Idegon as he nominated the articles for deletion. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to block a user who may just be struggling to grasp how to contribute constructively. They have few edits. Many inexperienced users only understand WP:BOLD, so WP:bite and WP:AGF come into play. There is no rush to block anyone unless/until problems persist. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict template

Just so you know (if you didn't already), the edit conflict template is not <<ec>> but {{ec}}. SemiHypercube ✎ 20:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's probably his style. Ha ha. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cocker (album)

And that is why we pay you the big bucks. The world may crumble, and every area may be under DS, but this shall remain pristine. :) Drmies (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ven Dr Sumedh Thero

Hello Dlohcierekim, thanks for informing Ven Dr Sumedh Thero about wp policies. I assume you forgot a "not" in the sentence "Wikipedia is a promotional venue or a place to post ads." Please see [3] for his last edits. JimRenge (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acellus

I noticed that you deleted the wiki article on Acellus. This was done in error.

A decade ago an article on Acellus was deleted, and the article was deemed poorly linked, too promotional, and on an obscure subject.

This is no longer the case. Acellus is now in use by over 2 million students worldwide. It has multiple references in the press, in EnSciTech, The Chicago Tribune, The Kansas City Star, and others.

Frankly, it is ridiculous that Wikipedia does not have an article on it.

I understand that the wording was too optimistic for a non-biased encyclopedia, and I agree that the article can be easily changed to reflect this. There are also many links that can be added to increase the quality of the article.

I would like you to revert your delete, but I understand if you are somehow unable. If that is the case, I would love to put it back up and fix any issues myself. User:Hoorah83 16:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoorah83: Thanks for your note. Please reread the messages about speedy deletion on your talk page. IMHO, this clearly met criteria for WP:CSD#G11-- unambiguously promotional. Please feel free to appeal at WP:DRV. In addition to not reading like ad copy, all content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. Good luck and happy editing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: Thank you for your quick response. I did put quite a bit of work into the article, and it was discouraging to see it so quickly discarded. Your promo link was very educational, and I appreciate it. Would it be against the rules or somehow impolite to immediately create a much smaller, brand new article that is very carefully worded and well-linked from press articles? And then slowly as I find more links (and there are quite a few) expand the article, making sure it is written in as unbiased a way as possible? I can see that with the way the article is currently written, getting the deletion overturned may be a more difficult process. User:Hoorah83

An edit you made to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing some time ago

Hi, sorry to bother you. I had a question about a particular part (actually, just one sentence) of the "Summary" section of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing that I couldn't quite figure out how to interpret correctly. I eventually tracked its current form back to an edit you'd made in February (I know, sorry to just be bringing it up now), so I was hoping you might be able to help me understand the intended meaning? I figure, if it confuses me, I'm probably not the only one. Given the page's topic and audience, I feel the language can never be too plain, and any potentially confusing wording is best rewritten in clearer terms. Basically, the third paragraph of that section reads:

It is essential to recognize patterns of disruptive editing. Our edit warring policy already acknowledges that one act, by itself, may not violate policy, but when part of a series of acts they constitute a pattern that does violate policy. Disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one brief period without fruitless attempts to discuss with the user, (as when the user persists after 12 warnings to stop) and may not consist of the repetition of the same act. Nevertheless, a series of edits over time may form a pattern that seriously disrupts the project.

The sentence I had questions about is the one highlighted in green. Your edit inserted the bold text in the middle.

The previous version, "Disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one brief period, and may not consist of the repetition of the same act.", I feel is fairly clear.

But in its current form (without the highlighting): "Disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one brief period without fruitless attempts to discuss with the user, (as when the user persists after 12 warnings to stop) and may not consist of the repetition of the same act." ...That sentence just has so many negatives that I honestly can't work out what it's trying to say.

So, apologies again for taking up your time with this admittedly-trivial matter, but I was just wondering if you could perhaps explain the intent of the sentence, as it's written now? I'd like to preserve its full meaning, and just rewrite it to express that meaning using slightly plainer language. But, I can't do that without first understanding the sentence myself. Thanks! -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FeRDNYC: Trying to make more clear. Perhaps I made less clear. There should not be a time limit on when editing has become disruptive but we should not block for disruption when someone is not really being disruption.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: Thanks! That's extremely helpful. I'll try and work on a re-wording based around those concepts. (Most likely what I'll do is revert the sentence to its earlier form, and then add another one explaining what you just presented, in similar terms. I think that's probably the cleanest solution.) Much appreciated! -- FeRDNYC (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FeRDNYC: A quick glance says Special:Contributions/LBS_(not_group) may be such . Vandalism or AGF clumsiness? Disruption or awkwardness? Only saw one edit, already reverted. Haven't looked further. Still drinking coffee.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update in the "Accounting software" page

Hi

I would like to request you to add CashManager Accounting Software as reference like other references in the accounting software Wikipedia page. If you want to learn more or verify, please refer to these websites(G2 Crowd, Capterra & Finances Online).

why does "XERO" & other software website pages exists on Wikipedia? Did you take money? Your response says that clearly. Because XERO, CashManager and all other software website and companies are same. If you still don't agree then something you did here is wrong.

Why can't you create a Wikipedia page for Cashmanager?You could just do that same as other softwares/companies.

Did you take money from Other companies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helendawson (talk • contribs) 05:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Helendawson: Not familiar with other pages you referenced. As there are more than 5 million, I hardly could be familiar with them all. Looked clearly promotional to me. Best advice would be to appeal at WP:DRV. If you feel I've done something unscrupulous, please feel free to complain at WP:AN. Or you could read material left on your talk page and try to create a non-promotional encyclopedia entry. All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. Cheers, and happy editing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


It because you are taking bribe from others. I need to publish this news to the news portals. What you people are doing here on Wikipedia. If anyone else try to publish, you make them promotional. You should explain the differences. But, definitely I am recording your activity and will publish worldwide what you are doing it is not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.153.219 (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should certainly follow the advice already given. As you appear to be offering threats, I may take you to ANI. Strongly suggest you follow advice already given. Your "you people" statement makes it clear to me you do not wish to contribute to the community. You look like an outsider trying to cause disruption and acting with an ulterior motive. You have made a serious accusation. Suggest you retract it or report it at WP:AN.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS. If any TPW wish to add comments, feel free. Having a tremor day and it's getting hard to type.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

congrats! you exist!

JonathanLa (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, spambot

User:JanetMcclellan7 is a spambot account. I blocked it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmapuri temple

Hello,

This is very ancient and famous temple in Telangana..lot of devotees visit every day...and also from neighbouring states...

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deepfriedokra&oldid=856612187"