![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
Please discuss edits here. Also, stop placing the fake edit-lock tags. Makrandjoshi ( talk) 16:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Fellow editors, here's something interesting. Go to blogsearch.google.com and enter IIPM, then sort the results by date. Look at the first 5 or 6 pages (and even later). Most of those are splogs (spam blogs with no real content) saying great things about IIPM. And most of the splogs are started by or written by someone named Sonu. Should we still be assuming good faith? Makrandjoshi ( talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Removing the copyrighted content, which are of the saying from different news portals, so that no violation regarding copyright occurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolbug ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm making certain changes in the 1st para, and later in the other paras. Will discuss them in one go once I'm through by 7th June afternoon. Would request editors to revert the changes after they've seen all the changes. Regards Mrinal Pandey ( talk)
Placed one line of the 1st para in the appropriate section where it should be. One line in GOTA details has been shifted to the appropriate section again. I do believe that if there is a separate section for controversies, then they should be mentioned there. Regards, Mrinal Pandey ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Will restructure the complete IIPM article. Will upload the same on 9th June. Feel free to make changes on that or revert the same as and when you wish. Regards, Mrinal Pandey ( talk) 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've made changes to the lede in order to make the reading flow a bit better. The opening paragraph's first sentence read "IIPM is a private educational institute..." but the second sentence suddenly declared "According to the institute it has not sought accreditation...". I've tried to provide some context and relevance by splitting the lede into two paragraphs. I'd like to ask constructive editors like Amatulic to kindly go through the same and make changes, if necessary. - Max - You were saying? 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I have commented out the line about IIPM having provided evidence to government agencies, since no citation has been provided. Once the citation is found, the comment tags can be removed and it can be included in the intro. Ponytailsnipper ( talk) 12:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The section on the global outreach program which claims IIPM organizes workshop by profs from top US business schools has been tagged as needing more than primary sources, for over a year now. But such cites have not been provided. Removing the section. Feel free to add back if some secondary sources are found. Additionally, another newspaper article has appeared questioning IIPM's claims of being different, this time in Mint. Adding that. Ponytailsnipper ( talk) 12:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Mirnal, you mentioned that you are planning on restructuring this page on June 9. Could you please share with us fellow editors what sort of restructuring you have in mind? What are the specific features about the current structure of the article that bother you? And how we should all move together towards making this article better? Please share your thoughts so we can discuss your proposed changes, reach a consensus and move on. Ponytailsnipper ( talk) 21:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of uncited claims in this article for which the "citation needed" tag has been on for over a year now. I am commenting them out. If citations are found and added, please remove the comment tags and include them in the article. Ponytailsnipper ( talk) 22:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Over the last couple of years, we have tried to reach a consensus about this page, but sock puppets keep indulging in blind reverts and refuse to take part in discussions here. Wiki admins even tried locking this page for almost a year, and still, when the lock was lifted, the blind reverts and whitewashes started. It is my opinion that IIPM employees are the ones doing it. A google blog search for IIPM will show hundreds of splogs (spam blogs) saying nice things about IIPM. The wiki whitewashing and the splogging seems to be part of a concerted strategy to ensure that google searches for IIPM throw up only favorable results. This is a last call to those who indulge in blind reverts. Please discuss point-by-point what your problems are. Otherwise, I propose that this page be put on indefinite full protect. Let us try to reach a consensus about that. Makrandjoshi ( talk) 09:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Reverts, and further reverts. No use even changing anything. I hope administrators take relevant action against vandals. I propose another full protect sine die... Regards, Mrinal Pandey ( talk) 11:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
to get an admin's attention to edit the page.
DMacks (
talk)
17:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Could you please offer a justification or reasoning for your reverts to changes by Max and Makrand? Both have added properly cited matter. A few points - - IIPM itself says that its courses are non-professional and non-technical, which is in contrast with other MBA programs. So mentioning it in the opening line with the courses is essential to this article being encyclopaedic. - The Mint article is linked to, and opinions have been states as those expressed in the Mint article. Why are you removing it? - Why are you removing the line at the end of the intro para saying there are also other controversies regarding IIPM like tax evasion, plagiarism, etc? All have been cited in the article later. Please discuss. Ponytailsnipper ( talk) 11:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to reformat citations to conform with Wikipedia guidelines. The editor (sockpuppet?) Newsxpress continues reverting to a prior version that had badly formatted citations, with misleading edit summaries. I note no discussion or explanation here of said reverts, despite the editors demands that I "explain" my citation format changes. This is ridiculous. I'm in favor of indef protection of this article if this continues. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Guys, my apologies for not discussing clearly about the changes... Will do so in the future. Anyway, I'm replicating a discussion I had with DMacks on his talk page. Thanks... Mrinal Pandey ( talk)
Mrinal, a few points
Mrinal, here are the last four discussions we have had that I dug up from the IIPM talk page. Please point out what exactly it is that makes you doubt my discussion skills? I have been utterly respectful and not acerbic in any way.
This section has been deleted per WP:REFACTOR as not being relevant to the improvement of this article. If user talk pages must be referenced, please post links to them rather than copy and paste. Talk pages in this case are User talk:Makrandjoshi and User talk:Ponytailsnipper. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 22:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: {{ WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 13:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
This page has been (rightly, in my opinion), editlocked, because there is true but unflattering information in the public domain that individuals and sock-puppets sympathetic to (And perhaps employed by) the institute have been deleting. The repeated blind reverts with whitewashing intentions has led to the edit lock. There has been a new piece of information, however, which is pertinent and important to this article. Outlook magazine has reported that IIPM's sister concern Planman hires a lot of students at high salaries, just to embellish average salaries, and then fires the new recruit a couple of months later. I quote:
"Students are placed at Planman, a sister concern, at higher salaries meant to jack up placement ratios and dumped/sacked within two months. "We students realised the problems just three months into the institute but all escape routes had closed," says a student.Students who were paying Rs 1.25 lakh a semester earlier are now made to pay Rs 4 lakh for the entire year."
So I propose adding the following lines in the "placement" section -
Makrandjoshi ( talk) 21:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Not done. You must establish consensus for a requested edit before adding the {{
editprotected}} tag to the talk page.
Sandstein
13:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should look at the fact that the link that you refer to is the link related to a column in Outlook. Personal columns are personal views and not representations of magazines, even if they are from the publisher of the magazine. Therefore, I should recommend that the viewpoint above not be added based on personal column viewpoints. Regards, Mrinal Pandey ( talk) 15:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the view point is very valid. If it weren't, by now we would have heard about some libel case against Mahehswer Peri and/or Outlook. In fact, the article in question says very clearly that they should have been sued for spreading canards if what the article alleges is not correct. A sure way to test it out would be to see if IIPM has anything to say about this article. I haven't seen any clarifications or even news about any impending legal cases. So what prevents IIPM from taking legal redressal? -- PublicInterestEd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicInterestEd ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Administrators, Kindly put a clear tag on top of the IIPM page that mentions that this page is edit protected. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey ( talk) 07:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Wanted to request administrators to kindly unprotect the page, if vandalism has stopped. Regards, Mrinal Pandey ( talk) 07:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I deleted a few lines referring to the long gone controversy as the opening para need have just a short synopsis of the institute and not specific details. Please revert in case you think it is necessary/unnecessary. Thanks and regards, Mrinal Pandey ( talk) 06:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no issues if you undo the changes I have made. Would really appreciate a note either here or alongside the edit subject [which we can see in the history column]. Thanks and warm regards, Mrinal Pandey ( talk) 11:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
Please discuss edits here. Also, stop placing the fake edit-lock tags. Makrandjoshi ( talk) 16:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Fellow editors, here's something interesting. Go to blogsearch.google.com and enter IIPM, then sort the results by date. Look at the first 5 or 6 pages (and even later). Most of those are splogs (spam blogs with no real content) saying great things about IIPM. And most of the splogs are started by or written by someone named Sonu. Should we still be assuming good faith? Makrandjoshi ( talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Removing the copyrighted content, which are of the saying from different news portals, so that no violation regarding copyright occurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolbug ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm making certain changes in the 1st para, and later in the other paras. Will discuss them in one go once I'm through by 7th June afternoon. Would request editors to revert the changes after they've seen all the changes. Regards Mrinal Pandey ( talk)
Placed one line of the 1st para in the appropriate section where it should be. One line in GOTA details has been shifted to the appropriate section again. I do believe that if there is a separate section for controversies, then they should be mentioned there. Regards, Mrinal Pandey ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Will restructure the complete IIPM article. Will upload the same on 9th June. Feel free to make changes on that or revert the same as and when you wish. Regards, Mrinal Pandey ( talk) 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've made changes to the lede in order to make the reading flow a bit better. The opening paragraph's first sentence read "IIPM is a private educational institute..." but the second sentence suddenly declared "According to the institute it has not sought accreditation...". I've tried to provide some context and relevance by splitting the lede into two paragraphs. I'd like to ask constructive editors like Amatulic to kindly go through the same and make changes, if necessary. - Max - You were saying? 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I have commented out the line about IIPM having provided evidence to government agencies, since no citation has been provided. Once the citation is found, the comment tags can be removed and it can be included in the intro. Ponytailsnipper ( talk) 12:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The section on the global outreach program which claims IIPM organizes workshop by profs from top US business schools has been tagged as needing more than primary sources, for over a year now. But such cites have not been provided. Removing the section. Feel free to add back if some secondary sources are found. Additionally, another newspaper article has appeared questioning IIPM's claims of being different, this time in Mint. Adding that. Ponytailsnipper ( talk) 12:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Mirnal, you mentioned that you are planning on restructuring this page on June 9. Could you please share with us fellow editors what sort of restructuring you have in mind? What are the specific features about the current structure of the article that bother you? And how we should all move together towards making this article better? Please share your thoughts so we can discuss your proposed changes, reach a consensus and move on. Ponytailsnipper ( talk) 21:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of uncited claims in this article for which the "citation needed" tag has been on for over a year now. I am commenting them out. If citations are found and added, please remove the comment tags and include them in the article. Ponytailsnipper ( talk) 22:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Over the last couple of years, we have tried to reach a consensus about this page, but sock puppets keep indulging in blind reverts and refuse to take part in discussions here. Wiki admins even tried locking this page for almost a year, and still, when the lock was lifted, the blind reverts and whitewashes started. It is my opinion that IIPM employees are the ones doing it. A google blog search for IIPM will show hundreds of splogs (spam blogs) saying nice things about IIPM. The wiki whitewashing and the splogging seems to be part of a concerted strategy to ensure that google searches for IIPM throw up only favorable results. This is a last call to those who indulge in blind reverts. Please discuss point-by-point what your problems are. Otherwise, I propose that this page be put on indefinite full protect. Let us try to reach a consensus about that. Makrandjoshi ( talk) 09:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Reverts, and further reverts. No use even changing anything. I hope administrators take relevant action against vandals. I propose another full protect sine die... Regards, Mrinal Pandey ( talk) 11:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
to get an admin's attention to edit the page.
DMacks (
talk)
17:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Could you please offer a justification or reasoning for your reverts to changes by Max and Makrand? Both have added properly cited matter. A few points - - IIPM itself says that its courses are non-professional and non-technical, which is in contrast with other MBA programs. So mentioning it in the opening line with the courses is essential to this article being encyclopaedic. - The Mint article is linked to, and opinions have been states as those expressed in the Mint article. Why are you removing it? - Why are you removing the line at the end of the intro para saying there are also other controversies regarding IIPM like tax evasion, plagiarism, etc? All have been cited in the article later. Please discuss. Ponytailsnipper ( talk) 11:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to reformat citations to conform with Wikipedia guidelines. The editor (sockpuppet?) Newsxpress continues reverting to a prior version that had badly formatted citations, with misleading edit summaries. I note no discussion or explanation here of said reverts, despite the editors demands that I "explain" my citation format changes. This is ridiculous. I'm in favor of indef protection of this article if this continues. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Guys, my apologies for not discussing clearly about the changes... Will do so in the future. Anyway, I'm replicating a discussion I had with DMacks on his talk page. Thanks... Mrinal Pandey ( talk)
Mrinal, a few points
Mrinal, here are the last four discussions we have had that I dug up from the IIPM talk page. Please point out what exactly it is that makes you doubt my discussion skills? I have been utterly respectful and not acerbic in any way.
This section has been deleted per WP:REFACTOR as not being relevant to the improvement of this article. If user talk pages must be referenced, please post links to them rather than copy and paste. Talk pages in this case are User talk:Makrandjoshi and User talk:Ponytailsnipper. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 22:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: {{ WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 13:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
This page has been (rightly, in my opinion), editlocked, because there is true but unflattering information in the public domain that individuals and sock-puppets sympathetic to (And perhaps employed by) the institute have been deleting. The repeated blind reverts with whitewashing intentions has led to the edit lock. There has been a new piece of information, however, which is pertinent and important to this article. Outlook magazine has reported that IIPM's sister concern Planman hires a lot of students at high salaries, just to embellish average salaries, and then fires the new recruit a couple of months later. I quote:
"Students are placed at Planman, a sister concern, at higher salaries meant to jack up placement ratios and dumped/sacked within two months. "We students realised the problems just three months into the institute but all escape routes had closed," says a student.Students who were paying Rs 1.25 lakh a semester earlier are now made to pay Rs 4 lakh for the entire year."
So I propose adding the following lines in the "placement" section -
Makrandjoshi ( talk) 21:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Not done. You must establish consensus for a requested edit before adding the {{
editprotected}} tag to the talk page.
Sandstein
13:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should look at the fact that the link that you refer to is the link related to a column in Outlook. Personal columns are personal views and not representations of magazines, even if they are from the publisher of the magazine. Therefore, I should recommend that the viewpoint above not be added based on personal column viewpoints. Regards, Mrinal Pandey ( talk) 15:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the view point is very valid. If it weren't, by now we would have heard about some libel case against Mahehswer Peri and/or Outlook. In fact, the article in question says very clearly that they should have been sued for spreading canards if what the article alleges is not correct. A sure way to test it out would be to see if IIPM has anything to say about this article. I haven't seen any clarifications or even news about any impending legal cases. So what prevents IIPM from taking legal redressal? -- PublicInterestEd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicInterestEd ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Administrators, Kindly put a clear tag on top of the IIPM page that mentions that this page is edit protected. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey ( talk) 07:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Wanted to request administrators to kindly unprotect the page, if vandalism has stopped. Regards, Mrinal Pandey ( talk) 07:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I deleted a few lines referring to the long gone controversy as the opening para need have just a short synopsis of the institute and not specific details. Please revert in case you think it is necessary/unnecessary. Thanks and regards, Mrinal Pandey ( talk) 06:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no issues if you undo the changes I have made. Would really appreciate a note either here or alongside the edit subject [which we can see in the history column]. Thanks and warm regards, Mrinal Pandey ( talk) 11:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |