User talk:MrTeja

Nomination of Janardhana Maharshi for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Janardhana Maharshi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Janardhana Maharshi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Celestina007 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Teja Tanikella for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Teja Tanikella is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Teja Tanikella until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Teja Tanikella for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Teja Tanikella is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Teja Tanikella& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Naveen Maryada for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Naveen Maryada is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Naveen Maryada until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hitro talk 07:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
Hello MrTeja. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Naveen Maryada, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:MrTeja. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Spiderone, I'm sorry that my edits gave you a false impression. I'm not being paid directly or indirectly. All my edits are done voluntarily. Hope I cleared your doubts on this. Thanks. TejaTanikella (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Janaa padaalu for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Janaa padaalu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Janaa padaalu until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/MrTeja. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The problem is, you actively lied to us. It will be very hard for you to earn back the trust of the community, but this unblock request doesn't even try. Frankly, you aren't going to be unblocked until you go at least six months without editing, then apply under WP:SO. That means no sooner than 2023-09-06, if you remove the above open unblock request today. --Yamla (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your response. I'm sorry again and am willing to wait and earn back my trust here. Please go ahead and remove my unblock request. MrTeja (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Garbha gudiloki moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Garbha gudiloki, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel 5969  TT me 11:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Garbha gudiloki
Hello, MrTeja. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Garbha gudiloki, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think we need to have another look at the WP:UPE question. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You went out of your way to lie to us. You worked hard to demonstrate your word cannot be trusted. What if anything has changed? Additionally, what about WP:UPE? --Yamla (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand that you are referring to the incident where I made false claims about my abilities and experience. I apologize for the pain and distrust that I caused. I want to assure you that I have learned from my mistake and that I am committed to being honest and transparent in the future.

I have taken steps to improve my trustworthiness, such as:

Reading and understanding the Wikipedia policies on conflict of interest, neutrality, and reliable sources. Participating in discussions on the Wikipedia talk pages to learn more about the community's expectations. Seeking feedback from other users on my work.

I am committed to doing my best to be a reliable and trustworthy.

Regarding WP:UPE, I understand that this policy prohibits users from making edits that are self-serving or that give the appearance of self-promotion. I will be careful to avoid making any edits that violate this policy. I didn't commit any wrong doing.

I hope that you will give me the opportunity to earn back your trust. I am committed to being a positive and productive member of the Wikipedia community.

Thank you for your time.

Additionally, I would like to clarify that I did not lie about my abilities and experience in order to harm anyone. I did it because I was insecure and I wanted to impress people. I know that this is not an excuse, and I am truly sorry for the pain that I caused. MrTeja (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * According to ZeroGPT, this response was most likely generated by an AI. Additionally, this is not all you've lied about. I categorically oppose unblocking you at this time. You continue to demonstrate deeply problematic behaviour. --Yamla (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

In these AI dominating times, I don't think using an AI to write me a paragraph using my own thoughts is any mistake.

I've already accepted all my wrongdoing here on Wikipedia and am truly, heartfully regretting.

I will never ever in my life want to repeat the same mistake and I just want to be a part of this amazing community as before. Please kindly accept my request and unblock my account so that I can edit as usual. Thank you. MrTeja (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * We want to hear from you, not an AI. It's not an AI that is blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)