User talk:Mansjelly

July 2014

Your recent editing history at India Against Corruption shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

You are obviously not new to Wikipedia and you are obviously here to revive the ridiculous claims of the HRSA-based IAC organisation that were rejected at umpteen different venues on Wikipedia some months ago. Back then, the problem was more of meatpuppetry than socking and the same may apply now. In any event, you are not going to get that connection into the article against the widespread consensus that was formed earlier this year. Sitush (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to User talk:Sitush could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify

If you do not make it explicit that you do not intend to take any legal action OR suggest that others take legal action, I will have no alternative per our policy to block you. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, your post to my talk page makes it clear that you didn't intent legal action. Sorry, but we do get a lot of statements that do turn out to be legal threats. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for warning me. Can you do something about this editor Sitush and his Uncivil talks.Mansjelly (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. BLP applies everywhere. The accusations in this are not acceptable. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any "accusation" against Nanda. Please specify the accusation so that I can respond to it. The fact that his salary is astronomical and others in IIMA resent it is very well known and verifiable. IIMA is a Govt college whose accounts are statutorily audited by the "Comptroller and Auditor General of India" so every piece of information about Nanda's salary and contract is verifiable. Thanks Mansjelly (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the BS article you cited is not a reliable source,^{[citation needed]} but a paid PR article^{[citation needed]} to counter the allegations raised against Nanda within IIMA^{[citation needed]} - such as that he gets an unheard of astronomical salary package^{[citation needed]} and gets to keep 100% of all his private consultancy income - and shares nothing with IIM. The entire senior IIMA faculty is now demanding the same thing^{[citation needed]} and there is open warfare in IIMA over this.^{[citation needed]} He is also being paid 80% more than what he made at Harvard,^{[citation needed]} so this puff piece has no credibility as an RS^{[citation needed]}

In short, nothing you assert will be accepted at face value without you providing a source (top-super-secret or otherwise). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being an obvious sock/meatpuppet, blatantly attempting to chill discussions at India Against Corruption, and generally wasting other editors' time with disruption. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]