Jump to content

User talk:Ppwrong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 05:32, 12 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome

[edit]
Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Endofskull (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on S. Satya Rama Murthy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ZhongHan (Email) 15:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of S. Satya Rama Murthy for deletion

[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article S. Satya Rama Murthy, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Satya Rama Murthy until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with S. Satya Rama Murthy. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Please do not remove AFD templates Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

[edit]

Are you able to discuss? Do you need some assistance? Please stop removing the templates on the article that is against policy. Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting,

http://www.myfirstshow.com/news/view/2304/Live-Update--Komaram-Puli-Audio-function.html (Ppwrong (talk) 6:11 pm, Today (UTC+1)).

There is only this in the citation you are providing ...Satya Rama Murthy who is the largest financer in India...

The article will stay and be discussed for a week so you have all that time to improve it, as I see from my search he is not individually notable, other editors may add content as well. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with S. Satya Rama Murthy, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Awards

[edit]

You are adding information which is unsourced. There is one source only in the Best Actress category for a claim that needs to be better verified. In books and other reputable sources Nargis is claimed to be the first winner of the Best Actress award. Also, the awards for acting were first given in 1968, so I can't see the logic behind your additions. Please use the talk pages of the articles, and then edit. Thank you. ShahidTalk2me 18:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most importantly - Rashtrapati Award are separate awards. It is not the original National Film Awards. ShahidTalk2me 18:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

[edit]

Please stop edit warring, and using personal attacks. Calling me a racist is a major insult and if you do it again, you will be blocked from editing. ShahidTalk2me 18:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also

[edit]

Please stop adding capitals to your edit summaries this is not needed and against wiki guidelines and people do not like it. Please consider WP:ADOPTION as you appear to be new and with multiple editing issues. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at National Film Award for Best Actor, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Film_Award_for_Best_Actor&diff=386787471&oldid=386785619 your edit summary in this diff is a personal attack, please do not do it again, as such personal attacks can result in your editing privileges being restricted. Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, ANI

[edit]

Your editing has been mentioned in this thread at the Administrators noticeboard incidents, here - thanks Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Reviewing the thread at ANI - you are editing in a highly hostile manner, and creating multiple accounts to do so and attempt to hide it. This is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia.
Calling another editor racist in that manner, and a bunch of your other edits, exceed our community standards for civil and constructive discussion. I have applied a one week block on your editing in response.
I am going to be blocking your other accounts permanently.
If this type of misbehavior continues when the block expires you will be blocked for longer.
You can continue to work to improve articles in a constructive manner, but if you keep fighting over them as you have done here, your career at Wikipedia will be over shortly. Please back down and talk to people rather than insult or threaten them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
Due to continued evasion of your block as confirmed by CheckUser, I have increased the length of your block to indefinite. You know better than to create sock puppets and feign other people. Regards, –MuZemike 05:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

request to unblock

[edit]
This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.
Ppwrong (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))
121.247.113.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

[[WP:Block#Evasion of blocks|Block evasion]]: Confirmed by CheckUser


Decline reason: You have not been autoblocked. However, you have been blocked directly as stated in your block log (Checkuser confirmed block of main account). Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock|your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

SpacemanSpiff 08:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information

[edit]
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).

Ppwrong (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

because I understand what I am and why my Ip address was blocked for - (sockpuppetry), I am sorry, This block is no longer necessary, I will from now on fix to doing edits with open IP address(without username), I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead -ex: articles like Sharon Lowen.I request ur kindself to reduce the block duartion to 24 hrs

Decline reason:

Your username does not need to be unblocked if you wish to edit from an IP address. TNXMan 00:10, 29 January 2011 (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.

IP address unblock

[edit]
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).

Ppwrong (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

sockpuppetry of 121.247.113.58 that is why the usernames associated with the above IP was blocked for, I am sorry for this, This block is no longer necessary, I will from now on fix to doing edits with open IP address(without username) and will restrain from sockpuppetry, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead -ex: articles like Sharon Lowen.I request ur kindself to reduce the block duartion to 24 hrs

Decline reason:

You don't seem to get it. You've been blocked. This means you as a person aren't allowed to edit. Your original editing style, which you continued using the IP, does not lead me to believe that you will contribute constructively. Favonian (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2011 (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.

crucial information about checkuser and sockpuppetry

[edit]
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).

Ppwrong (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Reduction of block duration to february 15 2011, requested for the IP address - 121.247.113.58 . I will only edit using open IP address, no username related to this Ip address was in use from december 25, except for kaverijha23 of which all edits were constructive, for filmfare article i was only trying to discuss that The times group organises both filmfare awards and filmfare awards south.What guarantee u can give dear admin that from april 26 after u unlock this IP, if i login with kavarijha23 again and that username will not be blocked??? so how can u measure my genuinity??? u can measure it only if i edit with open IP address so, from now on i will edit with open IP -121.247.113.58, I apologise you in this regard. Kindly consider my request-sincerely

Decline reason:

In all the garbled language here I'm trying to see where you have explained why this account should be unblocked. I'm pretty sure it's not there. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2011 (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.