User talk:Dr.P.Madhu

WikiProject Social Work

I notice you have contributed to the article Social work. I have created a new WikiProject, WikiProject Social Work. I have begun to work on this project and I would love to have your help. Please take a look at it and consider joining the project. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social Work Wikiproject

Could you take a look at the discussion going on at the talk page and add any comments you might have? Thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Praxisinterventionphdthesis.pdf listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Praxisinterventionphdthesis.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hut 8.5 20:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no organizations to support or compete with. My interest was only to contribute on the current debates in business ethics. However, some of editors including you have 'conflict of interest'. Your message appeared to me ironical. However, I thank you. Wikipedia is not the end. If wikipedia resort to poor quality articles either it will be ignored or sometimes it may be criticized. I wish that there should be criticisms on the way in which wikipedia articles are edited- especially by editors who are yet to gain some knowledge in the topics discussed. This i desire because that may let wikipedia to have new standards. Wish you all the best. Thank you. Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you should have no issues with refraining from linking to your self-published papers and dissertations in the future. Thank you. - MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove such "self-published papers and dissertations" when you find some- and when you find them inappropriate- Should that be an excuse to remove the entire thing?- how do you justify removing the whole lot of contributions which are referenced with high quality material? I am not bringing "me" into the discussion. You people have done great disservice to the subject matter by removing well referenced sections- which were indicating the current debates in the field. That is my concern. Bringing "me" into the discussion is nothing more than "personal attack" about which you were advising me to avoid! Come back to the subject matter of "business ethics"Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your self-published papers and dissertations on Praxis Intervention. This has no relation to the reversion of your edits to Business Ethics. - MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may have to remove the entire article "praxis intervention" if you think that there is "spam" in it. How is that wiki allows a person freely to go ahead with his/her personal vengeance for being accused of bad editing?! By removing what you call "spam" all that you did it removing the major source of that idea! By adding the comment " (Cleaning up big P.Madhu self citation / spam / WP:COI problem.) (undo)" you are adding personal vilification. Such a personal vilification indeed deserves a "warning". It also shows unbecoming of an authorized wikipedia editor! I have asked you to explain the academic justifications of your bad edit of business ethics- you have no answer. Now you remove the source reference for an article on a premise that it is a "spam"- All that you do is using your "power" as editor to fight your personal battle. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely!I just pity on the new realities of editors fighting their personal war with their personal 'enemies'! - Thank you Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)i[reply]

Go ahead with your edits. The idea of Praxis Intervention is already popular. Intelligent people will yet find out the source of the argument in that article. By removing my work you have removed the source material for that article just because we have some difference of opinion regarding your 'conflict of interest' in the business ethics article. This appears silly to me. I am not for the child play. Presently my concern is the Business ethics article and the damage you people did to it. I am sure you have no academic justifications other than excuses such as 'manual style'. Silly concerns should not dominate in an editors job of editing articles. Your intolerance to the well referenced 'business ethics' article appears to me a political intolerance if not it is just a silly issue of egoistic provocation. The wide world is watching what is happening. Thank you.Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me still to have a voice here. I believe your editing of Business ethics is wrong. And your editing of "praxis intervention" is further wrong. I am happy that I have a place here to express my voice against editors who make arbitrary decisions. I want my dissent to be present. Even if you block me or remove me I have no regret. My contributions are there- that will speak for itself till the later edits become better than mine. However, I quit further commenting or contributing to wikipedia. Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to engage that discussion with Business Ethics seriously. Maybe I can take it up with Jimmy Wales. What do you say ? Doxa 05:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckraju (talk • contribs) Thank you. The business ethics should be discussed. Let me see whether your edit is let to survive. If it is let to remain there after two or three weeks I may work on it to improve it further.Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Praxis intervention

Hello Dr Madhu, I was wikifying the references at Praxis intervention and noticed that one of the references, "Bourdieu 2003" (in the section: Systematic participant objectivation in praxis intervention), does not have a corresponding reference in the References section. Maybe it is a typo? I was hoping you could take a look at that and correct it. Could you also please add in-line references to the Praxis intervention in practice section as well? The only reference in that section (Maton) is not mentioned in the references section either. Thank you. --Joshua Issac (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Added 2003-Bourdieu reference. I will soon work on the section "Praxis intervention in practice". Some of the references are already there in "external resources" section. Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2010 (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) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]