User talk:Makrandjoshi

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iipmstudent9 (talk • contribs) of 28.12.2005

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Indian Institute of Planning and Management, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Note that I did not open the RfM, but am listing list on your talk page since I this has not yet been done and I believe proper procedure requires it. - Aagtbdfoua 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Indian Institute of Planning and Management.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Alam blocked

Well, it seems Alam has been blocked indefinitely for his threats, so I guess we can now move on.

I am quite astonished at how quickly he was banned, though. Generally admins are lenient with troublemakers, giving them adequate warnings and temporary blocks before a permanent block. It's good to know that things like death threats (even casual or non-serious ones) are taken very seriously on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Max ^{- You were saying?} 09:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing a good work keeping the IIPM wiki neutral. Excellent work. These idiots can only make empty threats.

KunalT 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out

This blocking thing is a joke - I already found your address and it is being discussed how to destroy you... will watch u scream and enjoy, MJ!!! Can't wait to thrash you with my belt !! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlamSrini1 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Re:IIPM

Hi - no article can be permanently locked (that defies the purpose of WP). I advise you to write a detailed report (with relevant evidence, links and details) and post it at WP:ANI, so a large number of admins can be made aware and judge what to do. It is a serious issue if IIPM employees are really trying to sabotage the article. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 18:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About threats

RE: IIPM - I found from a message on Rama's page that some one made to you death threats and legal threats. Please give me the links. The matter shall be properly dealt with. --Bhadani (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is being referred to one of the most competent functionaries of Wikimedia Foundation, and I trust that it will receive proper response as may be required. --Bhadani (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. _GB^T/C 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but looking at the timings it's clear you only took it to the talk page after you made three reverts. _GB^T/C 16:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IIPM Full Protect Request

Hi Makrandjoshi,
I see that you have already asked AGK to indefprotect the page. I think it will be better to wait for him to respond than to take the matter back to RFPP, where in all probability, another admin who doesn't know the history of the article will decline an indefinite protection request on similar lines as AGK did earlier. We'll just need to watch the article until AGK comes back with a response. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 19:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply to my points

Dear Makrand, thanks for the replies. I appreciate the points you've written. Let's wish our discussions continue in this context and with the sentiment we currently have (which is generally positive). Again, thanks for the replies. They're appreciated. My best regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC) — Mrinal Pandey (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Empengent (talk • contribs). [reply]

Please justify your acts....

Mr. Makrandjoshi.. you might be an administrator or an old editor but your acts of reverting down back to the old content to the IIPM page without justifying with proofs...seems that you are one of the sock puppets....Please if you intend to do changes, even if you are an administrator or an old editors, you need to justify your act other wise it will be considered as whitewashing. Kindly mind your acts...

Please Note: Even if you think my acts were not justified , you are always welcomed to notify me but in a right manner by justifying your act in respect proving that my act was wrong according to the rules--Carlisle Rodham (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pl note

hi, it'll be nice if you can visit the wiki admin noticeboard site [1] where i've requested administrators to give their view on the tag removal. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifione (talk • contribs)

Hi, there's a recent comment on the talkboard where my words seem to allude to the fact that you are an spa. I thought I'd write on your talkpage to apologise for the usage of words in advance. And I do believe that the words could have been put with a better context. Having said that, will wait for your comments eagerly on the article. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archive.org

Hey--I noticed that you changed the link in one of the IIPM references to a Google cached version. The original is a dead link (as are a lot of the sources), but that's why there's a link to the archive.org version in the source. In the citation templates, I'm using archiveurl and archivedate as the two fields to add that. Unfortunately a few of these weren't archived, but Archive.org tends to be stable. Google's cache isn't especially stable, plus it has the disadvantage of revealing your IP address. Wifione tagged stuff for failing verification when it was just a dead link. Some of the things he tagged weren't quite in line with the sources though, so I've been changing the statements to be more realistic too. For all that Wifione was overly hasty to tag things in the controversy section, I've actually been having reasonable luck engaging in dialog and getting some compromises. Things seem to be calm enough now to have rational conversations, so feel free to join the discussion. I do think we need to come to some consensus about how much we should have about all the non-IIPM orgs (IMI, AICTE, UGC, NVAO, etc.). Obviously we need to talk about them some, but I'm not sure we have the weight right now. Maybe we should be cutting a lot of that and just focusing on IIPM, leaving the other stuff in the articles for each of those other organizations. I'd love to have you comment on that discussion on the talk page. It's under "Recent edits by wifione." WeisheitSuchen (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's noticeboard reporting

Dear Makrand, I have reported your editing as being tendentious. The link is as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Makrandjoshi_reported_by_User:Wifione_.28Result:_.29 I hope you stop disruptive editing and cutting out paragraphs after paragraphs simply without basis. Please feel free to add as many details as you might wish, but kindly do not remove paragraphs that have come into place after such discussions. Feel free to go against consensus and discuss. But removing validly cited paragraphs, company names, information etc will be wrong for other editors. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed at WP:AN3#User:Makrandjoshi reported by User:Wifione (Result: no vio). - 2/0 (cont.) 06:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wikiquette

I have created a wikiquette request for you here [2] Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 11:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the above request pending a satisfactory response from you and have requested the administrators, here [3] Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choices

Two choices: either file an WP:SSI right now or the next time I see a sockpuppet or outing attempt, you will be blocked. If it's true, we'll deal with it. Otherwise, it's nonsense that disruptive. I don't care if it's true or not, this is not an appropriate use of a talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you attempt to out someone again, it will not be a short block. That is not even remotely amusing to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not this one. I can provide more if you'd like. You want to play that game, go ahead, but frankly, I have little patience for this kind of nonsense. WP:COIN if you want, but realize very quickly that harrassment is also policy. Frankly, most admins would have blocked you long ago for your disruption so you're on very thin ice with me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm going to put it bluntly. Admins get to decide that sort of stuff, and involved admins don't make those decisions. If you want to go down that road, go ahead, but I'm not going to back-track through his edits and see what's going on when I see another editor who is ten times as deserving to be blocked right in front of me. And I seriously doubt I'm alone in this. Drop it. I'm watching the article and when (not if but when) that sort of nonsense comes back, I will request protection and work with the more sane editors. The ones who just want to push their nonsense will either do what's asked or be screaming into the wind. That's the way things work here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the proper process is dispute resolution, not name-calling and other accusations. If you haven't figured this out yet, there are plenty of POV-pushers around here. It's accepted as part of the process. Try editing some of Balkans articles (or even just the general India/Pakistan headaches). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

In light of the news, I wonder if HJ Mitchell or Ricky81682 think they owe User:Makrandjoshi an apology. Seems Makrandjoshi wasn't defaming the IIPM, so much as exposing its nature. I think I'll go remove the BS warnings and other spew from banned sock/ex-admin Wifione, above. Maybe Makrandjoshi will come back - a good thing? --Elvey^(t•c) 15:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that Wikione's antics caused so much harm and I agree that Makrandjoshi was ultimately proven correct. Unfortunately, it seems as though we need to reconsider the balance between the policies protecting identities and the ones against preventing conflicts of interest. I would still say that, while good intended, Makrandjoshi's actions were not in line with policy and I admonished the editor for that. Hopefully Makrandjoshi does return because we do need people who can help deal with our COI policies and perhaps work out a way to allow us to better balance the interests. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! Agree on all points.! I just suggested "a way to allow us to better balance the interests" here. Because of the horrendous, embarrassingly ridiculous time - multiple YEARS - and and horrendous, embarrassingly ridiculous amount of effort it took to get the issue to be properly addressed. I'm thinking that the next time I see a similar conflict, I'll ask for a topic ban based on the quite apparent COI rather than seek/wait (forever?) for hard evidence thereof. I think that's what we should plan on. And based on how that goes, consider next steps. --Elvey^(t•c) 15:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]