Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management

For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Please Add New Paragraphs Only At The Bottom Of This Page

Please note that all new discussion should be added at the bottom of the page. Recent discussions will be at the bottom of this page, please respond in the appropriate sections.

Partial suggestion of revamp test

Makrand, Deepak, thanks for the suggestions. I'm not intending to completely transform the current page of IIPM; but just wanted your inputs on certain guidelines. I was surfing the IIMs page on Wiki. Couldn't find any of the controversies of IIMs listed out there. Could you give me an insight into why's it like that? Just a query. Thanks, Mrinal 203.76.135.250 07:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, am waiting for your inputs on my query whether newspaper reports which cite the news of the strategic alliance, but are not available on the net, could be accepted? Regards, Mrinal 203.76.135.250 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Its a Wiki. If you have references, go ahead and add the controversies. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you could scan the reports and upload them in the talk, as has been done previously, there will be no issue. Makrandjoshi 18:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mrinal, Glad to know you're back and that your office has been desealed. You will note that the "strategic alliance" has been added to the page in the form of three day workshops (though there is no information on what else is part of this alliance). I think while PR is definitely "purchaseable" in the form of articles, to prove a real alliance I would recommend that both parties place it on their web sites. If you place a link saying this publication has published it but it's not on the web, someone else could say it has not, and then there's a deadlock. Deepakshenoy 10:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Has Mrinal ever admitted his involvement with IIPM. If not, it would be wrong to assume this, and even violation of Wikipedia's policy that personal information should not be published. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he has: "I write because the email you've sent to Dr. Tse is something that could have been worded much much better", which I believe he said to reveal he was part of IIPM, since that email was sent specifically only to Dr. Tse. Secondly, he has, earlier, mentioned my company's name and lots of other information; in fact I wasn't aware personal information is not published in Wikipedia, and I can't seem to find anything on the guidelines (do you have a link?). Deepakshenoy 13:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course. If there's a policy, there's a link. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Ambuj! Here, my company name and information was revealed and stuff like "Hows the weather down south?", but by a different alias ("IIPMStudent9") which I have confused for Mrinal. Sorry for that - Mrinal is perhaps different from "IIPMStudent9". Of course, Mrinal did mention getting my email, which would count to be a self revelation of involvement with IIPM? Unfortunately, anyone can post as "Mrinal" given that this "Mrinal" does not log in. I'll gladly retract the statement of course, no problem with that. As personal affronts go, I think we've had some history of that here :) But yes, I get the point, and I shall keep any personal remarks out of the conversation. Deepakshenoy 07:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If no one has been offended yet, I would request to drop the matter, and make sure that future remains trouble free. That goes for all the editors involved here, and no one in particular. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, Deepak, Ambuj, I'm being given too much importance. For the sake of clarity :-) I'm not iipmstudent9 or whoever the person is; and I do not subscribe to the manner in which those statements have been made. And Deepak, thanks for the point about you keeping out personal remarks out of your conversation :-) No offence taken anyway. Take care and best wishes, Mrinal 203.76.132.74 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mrinal, feel free to edit the IIMs page to include the controversies. As Ambuj says, this is a wikipedia. If there are some controversies which you think should be mentioned on the IIM page, you have a right to add them. Makrandjoshi 18:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi everybody, I'm not an IIM editor. But like I mentioned before, if editors of those pages, and if editors of other b-school pages are following a guideline with respect to information being displayed on the b-school information page, then I'll change the information being quoted on IIPM's page quite appropriately. I don't think that IIPM's information page is supposed to act as a benchmark to create new guidelines of how b-school information is written. I'm starting my changes from December 10th, 2006. Till then, please feel free to give your comments to my suggestions. They are directly related to the fact that on IIPM's information, there are links mentioned of magazines that cannot be accessed by a normal net user, there are links mentioned of articles, that can be purchased through PR efforts from both sides, and there are links that are almost completely unverifiable, except for news reports. If AICTE has mentioned something, I would prefer the information to be on the web sites of both the institutions (AICTE and IIPM) or at least on AICTE's. A magazine reporting that some guy in AICTE mentions something, is as good a PR effort of interested people, as would be IIPM's "PR" effort. So if Stanford and Yale's information cannot be put, I'll remove almost all the other information that is not on the web site of the quoted party. If controversies are mentioned on web sites of other b-schools, then they will be mentioned only after you convince me and show me the wiki websites of some b-schools (not just one) which have controversies mentioned. And I will then accept your argument. But I'm neither an IIM editor, not a Yale editor, but find both these b-schools' information on wiki quite appropriately put, and shall immediately change the information on IIPM's wiki page. Like I said, December 10, 2006, is the date on which I start changing. But only after you've given me information with respect to what all should I be considering. I repeat, IIPM's wiki page cannot create newfound benchmarks (which I seriously believe have been arbitrarily created in the past months, and not necessarily by Deepak or Makrand). Thanks and regards, Mrinal 05:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mrinal, Like Makrand said, don't wait. There are no benchmarks or b-school page guidelines,and controversies ARE mentioned in other school pages. The point is, if you want to add a controversy in an IIM page, please do so, it's a wiki. IIM pages aren't complete - in fact no page is - so it may just be that the info isn't yet added. Links to "neutral" sites are perfectly valid, even if they are probably IIPM PR releases, and you will notice how the Stanford information has been put. Yale wise there is no report at all that is verifiable (or you haven't put it here). If you remove the controversy section, I will revert it back. If you want to edit it, please do so and we can then provide our suggestions. Don't threaten us with your dates please, if you want to add content please add it. Deepakshenoy 10:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mrinal, why wait till December 10? This is a wiki. Anyone can edit it at any time. You make changes you want. If other editors find them violating wiki policy, they will revert them citing the reason. If not, they will let them be. Just some advise. If you are making any widespread changes to the page, then for those to stick, they should made citing wiki policy, and not some invented notion of "benchmarks". Else other editors such as myself will see no need to revamp an entire page. Makrandjoshi 07:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Some changes in the controversy section

The issue about using the terms "Indian Institute" as well as offering foreign degrees has to do with AICTE and government laws and thus is unrelated to IIPM's advertising claims. I've created a separate sub-section for it. Makrandjoshi 18:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Makrand, kindly note the para I've written in the above discussion. Kindly do respond to the same. Best, Mrinal 203.76.132.74 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Edited the Famous Alumni

Arindam Chaudhuri is a famous alumnus. As is Asheesh Khaneja, since his name turns up on several sites if googled. But the only record of a Ram Mohan Rao in Fuji Xerox appears on this page. Hardly counts as a famous alumnus. So removed him. Makrandjoshi 18:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Makrand, I'll change this part from December 10. Kindly read the para above and do please respond above. Regards, Mrinal 203.76.132.74 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to other pages

Mrinal, you need to remember one thing. A wiki is a collaborative effort with natural checks-and-balances. And a wiki has been put in place primarily to share information. When you mention schools like Yale, Stanford and IIM, remember that there are no major contentious issues against any of them. The controversies, if any, are of a minor nature, and usually involving some student, and not the core-offering of the school itself, i.e the education. With IIPM, it is different. It is a well-known fact that there are problems with the school. The whole controversy erupted because IIPM tried to muzzle criticism about it by threatening bogus lawsuits.... lawsuits I might add which were never filed. So on this page, the editors have been making an effort to make available every possible piece of information which might benefit the reader. Over the last year, editors such as Deepak and myself have tended to this page scrupulously. And we have reverted slanderous and insulting edits made about IIPM. The idea is not to be hard on IIPM. The idea is to present the complete facts. The page has been painstakingly built, following official wiki policies and guidelines. One editor coming and saying the whole page shuld be revamped, and that too for a reason having nothing to do with wiki policies and guidelines, but comparison to other school pages, is simply not acceptable at least to me. Any change you make should be made citing wiki policies and guidelines, and not citing some imaginary non-existent "benchmarks". Propose a change. If it is due to wiki policies, Ambuj, Deepak and I won't have any problem. We are conscientious wiki-ers. Makrandjoshi 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Makrand, I accept what you and Deepak are saying. I think that if we believe in freedom of expression without benchmarking it with others, then just the three of us can keep having a debate forever. But I appreciate your and Deepak's inputs. So I'll start making changes from this week onwards. If you don't like it, do please revert them. And if I don't like your reverts, I'll revert the same back. Let's go on doing that till we reach a negotiated conclusion (or one of us blinks first :-)). Best wishes, Take care, and let the reverts begin :-) 125.19.3.2 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Mrinal

This is what is called a Revert War, Mrinal. You will remove the elements that belong in there, and that will simply result in cross-reverts. Deepakshenoy 10:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes as promised

Dear Deepak, Makrand, Sticking to the concept that you're free to make your changes, and I'm free to make mine (freedom of expression), my first change, which I'm sure you'll most vociferously oppose, is to shift all references to controversies to the IIPM Main Article on controversies that is already there on another page. My viewpoint is that if you guys have already created a separate page called IIPM controversies on wiki, then it is not appropriate to repeat the contents out here in the main section. Therefore, I request you to kindly add all the controversies in the other section; while I delete them from here. As promised, kindly feel free to revert back any changes you think you don't accept. And if I don't accept that revert, I will revert the same back. But do please always give comments if possible. Take care and have a merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Regards... Mrinal 125.19.3.2 06:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted this change. I don't agree with removing the controversies as I believe they should be mentioned on this page. The separate page is to provide more details, but the basic points must be mentioned here. If you will notice this is the #3 link when people search on Google for "IIPM", and this site needs to provide important information about IIPM, positive or negative. I'm also not sure why you provided this change: "The BBA/MBA degrees are offered by IMI Belgium, and not IIPM. IMI, Belgium grants BBA and MBA degrees to students of IIPM." - the first sentence conveys the meaning; the second one is a repetition, do you believe otherwise? Removing the Outlook withdrawal of IIPM's ratings is also important to mention, and the fact remains that IIPM uses these ratings even today, so we must provide information on this page that the rating is not valid. Deepakshenoy 08:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, seems sensible. But I'll wait for comments from Makrand and Ambuj. I think the fact that there exists a different page for IIPM controversies clearly allows a space for all the details to be put :-) So reverting back your changes. Take care, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 08:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting it back. Let everyone see your changes in the history, and then accept/discuss, and then we can see what to put it in. Thanks. Deepakshenoy 10:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Likewise Deepak. Let everybody see the logic. Controversy has a separate page. It's so strange that we repeat even one line out of that in the main page. So reverting back. Regards, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 11:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't see the logic. We have discussed this in an earlier archived talk page that we would put in five points. Reverting back. Deepakshenoy 11:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Also another request Deepak, Can you kindly archive these set of discussions and let's start on a new page. I don't know how to archive discussions. Thanks and regards, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 11:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting user Woohookitty to kindly leave comments before or after reverting. Kindly also leave a logic before reverting. It's a request as the change done by Woohookitty has no past logic (That means that I understand Deepak's changes as he's been involved for such a long time editing this project). So reverting back Woohookitty's revert. Regards, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 11:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Deepak, I'm reverting back your changes, but perhaps for the last time as it looks silly that we're just reverting each other's changes. kindly notice that earlier archived pages do not hold relevance with the passage of time. If you wish, we could move for requests from other editors, or if you wish, we could also move for mediation. It's a request. If you accept, let's put up this page for mediation to the mediations committee. It'll be great to have their responses. If you also wish, we could instead put up requests for comments instead of directly going to mediation. My only logic is that we should not repeat the contents that have already been put up on the IIPM Controversy page. There is a page that has been created; and we should adhere to the guideline. Regards, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 11:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with mediation, but the page must go back to where it was BEFORE you edited the contents out. It is silly, yes, but you're just removing content that has earlier been discussed, so until you get consensus of your changes, kindly refrain from removing this content. There is no guideline, a page has been created for detailing the controversy, and as discussed earlier there is reason to place five points on this page. I will be requesting that this page be locked to the last stable version. Thanks. Deepakshenoy 12:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also decided to relook the controversy section and the respective links. I've removed one element where the branches were referred to as campuses, because IIPM has fixed that page. Let's see if the rest are fixed by IIPM and then we can decide to add or remove information in there. Deepakshenoy 12:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Have further modified the links and references and changed a bit of the wording. Mrinal, can you check to see if that makes better sense? Deepakshenoy 13:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mrinal, here are a few basics. You can make additions without consulting people. If other editors don't agree, then will revert them. You can make deletions if you are confident that it violates some wiki policy and cite that policy. But you can not, CAN NOT delete pre-approved and existing text without getting a consensus or providing a strong justification using wiki policy. Here again, you contention is very vague. There is no rule which says that some info on a sub-page should not be repeated on another page. Your removal of the controversy section is thus unacceptable. Your logic here is not universally acceptable, does not cite any wikipedia policy, and thus by removing pre-approved and exsiting data without consensus, you are starting a revert war. Makrandjoshi 15:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Mrinal, now you are vandalising the site. You have attempted to remove even other sections which are not flattering to IIPM but very much true and encyclopedic. Like the fact that IIPM is not accredited, and that it uses the Outlook rankings even though it has been removed from them. I have reverted your vandalism. Deepakshenoy 13:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Deepak, I don't believe at all that moving controversies (and not deleting them) to the appropriate page is vandalism. In fact, if that were the case, I should say that I waited almost a month before moving ahead with this move. I find it surprising that when a live active page of IIPM controvery already exists, how can you repeat the same stuff in the main page? I do not agree with your point of view on vandalism. Please get in more editors, or administrators immediately. I shall accept mediation rather than a dispute that gets elongated, as this might just continue. I repeat, this is not vandalism. It is simply ensuring that sections that belong to a separate article should be mentioned there and not repeated. And sorry I don't agree with your viewpoint. The IIPM Controversy page is the main page to list all the controversies IIPM has had. It is incorrect to allow details to continue on the main page. But I appreciate the words you are using to describe the changes. Thank god we're not fighting (though you wrongly use vandalism). And my apologies for getting into this debate. Do kindly also tell me how to archive so that we can start on a new discussion. I have put up a request (there's some page link they provide) for other editors to join in and give their suggestions. Let's hope they come over and guide appropriately. Let's get some neutral foreign editors. I did see that one administrator had joined in in-between. If you can, please do get some foreign editors or administrators before we go for mediation. Or if you think it's ok, we'll go for mediation. But I guess the page should not be changed only after the mediation requests of the mediation committee have been accepted by both of us. Maybe I'm wrong, but I read that the people editing the page should continue debating till the mediation guys step in. Your call... and take care and regards, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 13:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mrinal, this is vandalism. You are cutting out elements which we have ascertained as necessary over a long debate, and more than one editor has disputed your claim that these elements dont belong here. If you want to cut those bits, please get the consensus of other editors here; I think it's a good idea to have brought in other editors, I will ask other people to join in as well. If we're talking about not changing pages, then lets go back to the page as it was before today. I think we should debate about this; but we are at crossroads.

• I believe the controversy section should exist, you don't.
• I believe the AICTE non-accreditation bits should exist, you don't.
• I believe the fact that IIPM has been removed from the outlook rankings (in the ranking section) should exist, you don't.

I've looked at the links objectively again and actually removed one element IIPM has fixed. The rest remains a controversy and IIPM continues to take people for a ride. Why should we not mention it here, till IIPM fixes things? Let them get AICTE approval, we can then remove the AICTE bits. Let them remove the Outlook ranking from its brochure and web site, we will remove the mention here. Let them address the rest of the controversy; we will remove the bits they address. Till then, we have to retain those elements on this page. Having a separate page does help, but we need to give a summary (what exists currently is a summary).

If you still disagree, I'll have to be on one side and you on the other. Can someone else chip in too? Deepakshenoy 13:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deepak, expectably, I still disagree :-) But that's not a problem. Do kindly get in other editors; and not just Makrand and Ambuj. Let's get some foreign editors... Also, I think that we should keep on changing till the time editors come in. I don't agree that we should keep the page static. You are arguing your point of view in the correct manner, and so am I. Let's get other editors. Regards and wishes, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 13:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Though I am not a foreign editor per Mrinal, hope I can chip in. The main-page should provide a summary of the contraversy and that is what it is doing. We should keep the article NPOV and criticism and contraversy sections keep the article neutral. Removing them will make the article sound like a IIPM ad. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack and not adhering to NPOV

Main points

I have gone through the discussions. Deepak has made statements that go against clear personal attack guidelines set by wiki. But i think that Deepak has also apologised for the same. But i request other editors to see if Deepak's words are right.

Deepak has made statements as follows "IIPM continues to take people for a ride. Why should we not mention it here, till IIPM fixes things? Let them get AICTE approval, we can then remove the AICTE bits." this clearly goes against wiki guidelines for keeping personal opinion out of the page. Can we send him a link to correct such words? Eds, do go thorugh above paras for reference to other such personal opinion, and not just from Deepak.

But I think both sides logic seems pertinent. It is correct that main page should have a summary. But it is also correct that the main page is copying text from another section created specifically for that. That seems not done. I've seen many pages and simply repeating stuff is not required. A link is perfectly ok especially when the other site has existed over along period of time.

I also wish to bring in that there are many points entered by deepak that require citation. I'm not able to google up the source for many points some in the first paragraph itself. Can somebody help me if there's an source for the HT article that came out with details about belgium government not approving imi mbas? I don't think that qualifies for NPOV. or at least provide a citation.

Also, i read some of the previous discussion. i find deepak's point pertinent that news can be bought and we should not list details of jvs till they are mentioned on individual institutes web sites. For example till the stanford or yale joint venture is not mentioned in the web site of both sites of stanford it cannot be mentioned out here. i find mrinal's points also correct that way that till the time aicte point is noted on AICTE web site the comments of the aicte guy remain a personal comment that don't qualify for NPOV. Ganesh's point is correct that the article should not seem like an ad. It doesn't either way. I like the comparison mrinal brings out with other business school web sites. perhaps his review seems the least like an ad. check out the other Indian b-school web sites. Though I agree with both, I have to give it to Mrinal for the logic. ganeshji, i'm reverting it back to before you reverted. Regards Desiree777 00:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Desiree I don't agree with all your points. Deepak's attacks are not even personal attacks but a revealing of personal information. Yes, there is a guideline that forbids even the revealing of personal information and Deepak 'might' have unknowingly gone against it; but it in no way qualifies for a heading like "Personal Attacks". Secondly Deepak's personal comments are restricted to this discussion page and if you notice the discussion of the other people like user Makrand user Mrinal even they have used utterly personal statements but again only in the discussion page. The discussion page "is for mentioning personal statements". The main project page is where you stick to NPOV. Please do not accuse without relevantly checking on user guidelines. Various points that Deepak has entered may not have a live link on the web but would be in the knowledge of the open domain. If the world in general accepts a piece of information, despite it being not 'googlable' it can be put up. I do believe that IMI MBAs not being accepted must be in public domain, though I'm not an MBA and do not have an idea about the Belgium government part, I'm sure other MBA's visiting this site must be knowng this information already. They should chip in and supoort the information. With respect to AICTE, the very fact taht IIPM does not find mention in the web page within the site of AICTE that lists recognised institutions, is proof enough that IIPM is not recognised by AICTE. We do not need a separate page on the AICTE web site devoted to IIPM. I'll wait for the comments of other editors. I'm putting this up for immediate RfC request for comments from other editors internationally. If you have any issues, you could also write directly to me or to user woohookitty user Woohoohitty. CiaoAdnn1n 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the previous section, the main-article will have to mention the contraversy and criticism for it to be NPOV. A link to the child-article won't do. Blanking sections won't solve your purpose. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please dicuss here first. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ganesh, Deepak, I stick to my point; you cannot have the controversy in one story when there's another project already created for it. Do not kindly repeat text. I'm reverting back to the original version. Deepak, do kindly revert back if you have any argument with the change. I'm perfectly ok with you and Makrand doing the reverts. I have no idea about who Ganesh or desiree or admin are. Neither have they been involved with the editing of this page since you have been, nor do they have that much of an idea of our background discussion. Regards, Mrinal 61.16.233.194 11:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

user Mrinal (no login) do not change and revert pages arbitrarily. If you wish mediation, put up a request. Both the parties can approve of the same. Though your changes are not vandalism, they do not adhere to our revert policy. We're reverting back to user Deepak Shenoy's last saved version. You could directly write to me or to user user Woohoohitty in case you feel this revert is arbitrary. Through the Woohookitty login, adminstrator powers are granted...System c0ntr0ls 11:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Addmin, what's up with your rfc? Revert on woohoo's page; and keep a track of the revert going on here. Send me or johnson the update... System c0ntr0ls 11:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversies on other college web sites

Mrinal, you have been requesting that I provide you links to other education sites on Wikipedia that have "Controversies" in them. Here you go:

• Yale
• University of Pennsylvania
• Vedanta University
• Warnborough University
• Columbia Pacific University
• Rochville University
• Kennedy Western University

I hope this clears that part up - that we must have a controversy section here as well. Deepakshenoy 11:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Deepak, good work provided. Though the argument of Mrinal is still unanswered to a large extent - when there exists a separate section for controversies, why are we repeating IIPM content on both sites? Mrinal, you may like it or not like it, other editors will see the RfCs and come here. I don't know whether you have a problem with that. Ganesh, vandalism is when words are cut completely without logic. You can discuss with other editors but when the request is to shift the words to a similar worded project already available, it is extreme to call edits a vandalism. That way, I can put up five new paragraphs, and you might cut it, and i might say it is vandalism... I'm not reverting back your change right now. I'll directly contact System Controls or put up further RfCs. Regards, Desiree777 12:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Desiree, it's not whether I like your involvement or not. I appreciate as many people's feedback, but the same has to be given after understanding the page history. If you simply put across an argument without a background of having contributed to it, I can only take that as a positive vote. If we're working towards concensus, I don't want editors like you, Ganesh, admin, woohookitty, system controls etc coming in here and reverting. I honestly believe that though there is no such thing as a "right to edit", I shall appreciate it if you allow the revert right to be exercised by either Deepak or Makrand as they have been the only two I know of whose past edits have been thoroughly sensible and intellectually debated. I'm sure you and the other "sudden reverting editors" have not been involved with this IIPM page till two days ago. My only request is, kindly allow Deepak to revert than all of you reverting. I don't want the debate to be lost while arguing with Ganesh or you or everybody else. So despite my thanks to you for repeating my argument to Deepak, I would say that you should not revert back... Regards and apologies, Mrinal 61.16.233.194 12:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Mrinal, Reverting is not a right only to existing editors of an article, it can be exercised by anyone. Let's all work on the assumption that we are mature people, and that anyone who wants to edit or change can do so. Do not put arbitrary restrictions - I don't even know if you are Mrinal or you are someone pretending to be Mrinal because you do not login here. Ganesh is a Wikipedia admin, by the way. Deepakshenoy 13:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Desiree, It *is* vandalism to cut out paragraphs that have been there for a long time, have been debated, and have been toned down to acceptability. The controversy summary must exist here, and link to further details which is in the separate page. That's the answer to the question that Mrinal has raised that you think is unanswered - I believe it's perfectly valid to summarise the controversies in the IIPM page. Remember, the controversy page is only for the advertising controversy, and there are two others that don't need a page of their own. Deepakshenoy 13:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Deepak, changing, paragraphs cannot be repeated -Dude 219.65.248.193 06:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, now people I have no idea about are destroying what we built over months of discussion. Deepak, Ganesh, can't you block the IP addresses of these people who ostensibly seem to be supporting my reverts, But I really do not appreciate that. Ganesh, Deepak says you are an administrator. Kindly block the IPs of these guys doing reverts, which I think they're doing just for fun... Regards, Mrinal 203.76.135.250 07:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

And yes Deepak, I get what you mean. I'll create a login right now so that at least you know you are talking to me rather than to just any "Mrinal". Also, with respect to your logic of vandalism, I thoroughly disagree, as vandalism would be blanking out paragraphs. I'm requesting you to shift these paragraphs to the separate project called IIPM Controversy. Kindly do that and please do kindly appreciate the logic. Also, I guess if there's a separate page called IIPM Controversy (and not called "IIPM Ad Controversy") that has been created and accepted over such a long period of time, we should shift all the controversies to that, and not just the ad controversies. Therefore, I'll wait till today evening, and then again revert the section to what I believe is right.203.76.135.250 07:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Mrinal, I believe there should be a summary right here. Please see the logic and stop reverting. Deepakshenoy 09:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ganesh, do kindly block the IPs of the people who seem to be reverting to my saved versions without giving any logic. I accept the logic that anyone can edit; but I feel that none of these reverts are being made with sense. It just seems funny and strange. Whatever. Thanks, and regards, Mrinal 203.76.135.250 07:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi All....repeating things doesn't make the site cool....-Dude219.65.248.68 08:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it does. Seeing the summary as it exists is important. Deepakshenoy 09:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Repetition of information on IIPM page

I have debated quite long on this issue on the IIPM page and I have a good idea about the viewpoints of Deepak and Makrand. I'm creating this section for getting other editors' feedback on the fact that while there is a separate project created called IIPM Controversy, information with respect to 'controversies' are mentioned on the IIPM page too. On a daily basis, I am shifting such 'controversial' information to the project called IIPM Controversy. Which Deepak has opposed, and with logic. I have answered all his queries, again with logic, which he has also answered back. It'll be wonderful to get your feedback on my proposed move so that we can move towards a concensus. Thanks for the patience, regards, Mrinal 203.76.135.250 07:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

And Deepak, Makrand, this is my new id. Regards, Mrinal Pandey 07:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for registering, Mrinal. For the record, I fully support a summary of the controversy on this page, with details on another page. Note that the page Income Tax has exactly such summaries, and so do many other pages on Wikipedia. Deepakshenoy 09:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Deepak, let's wait for other editors' views also as I know there are many hundreds of other pages, apart from 'income tax' that do Not list the summaries on one page and repeat the same on the other page... Even in 'income tax' link that you've provided, the main page listing is maximum of of very few lines, thus actually strengthening my case. But let's not again debate with each other on this because in the same way as your argument holds logic (and I've accepted that), there are hundreds of other web sites on wikipedia that follow exactly the opposite of what you are saying :-)But again, I'm getting trapped into arguing with you. Sorry :-) :-) Lastly, just a piece of information that might be helpful. I guess let's ignore this guy whoever is making the reverts. If he reverts whenever, let's just revert back to 'your' last saved version (you would've noticed that despite my arguments with you, I reverted back to your last saved version, rather Ganesh's last saved version). That way (that is, by ignoring him) I'm sure he'll realise that doing this revert stuff nonsensically is of no use. Of course, if somebody (even this Cool or Dude guy) write some logical argument, we could respond to that. But whichever way, it's your call. I might not get a chance to say this tomorrow, but thought I'll tell this to you (and Makrand and Ganesh and all the others, including Woohookitty, System Controls, Addmin, Desiree etc), may you have a merry Christmas, and as the cliche goes, a wonderful happy new year too :-) Take care and regards Mrinal Pandey 10:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mrinal, and I wish you and your family a merry Christmas and a very Happy 2007 as well! Deepakshenoy 11:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to begin with season's greetings to all my old friends here. Its been a while since I have checked on the IIPM Wiki, and I'm very confused by the controversies section being on this page, and the other sections seem to have lost thier photos and a lot of content... Anyway, thought I'd say hello, before getting to work.--Iipmstudent9 12:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed changes

1. Faculty section needs to have information on the 5 journals the institute publishes every quarter. This makes more sense than putting it under publications. Also, B&E was ranked #2 in Delhi according to NRS 2006. It is not a collection of syndicated articles. References are available on the net in various media. The section can also be renamed faculty & research.

2. Pictures of IIPM Campus need to be used, as this is a Wikipedia tradition in all institutions sites.

3. The controversies section is far too detailed. IIPM is some 30 years old. All these issues mentioned have come up over the past one year. This Wiki distrorts the reality of how minor these issues are. (If IIPM educates 5000 students every year, then if JAMMAG's (accused in a criminal case and evading arrest) editor Rashmi Bansal writes in JAMMAG and BW (where she is an editor) about minor issues with advertising, it deserves a minor mention)

I look forward to hearing from each of you on the above issues. --Iipmstudent9 12:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Publications is where it's listed because it's published by IIPM. If you have data about it not being syndicated articles etc, please edit and provide sources. I would suggest you keep publications separate, but if you think a faculty + research section works well, give it a shot.

2. Pictures wise: No issues, just don't get into copyright issues. One picture of the campus would work well, I guess.

3. Controversies section: Has been discussed, and I feel this section belongs here, because these issues are still issues. 30 years old does not make a difference - older institutions have done worse damage. So let's keep it here, please. This issue is not minor at all, it's the very fabric of the way the institution presents itself to the world. Deepakshenoy 12:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Shenoy sahib, I will then implement points 1 and 2 after waiting for a couple of days for other responses. Point 3, I will formulate an argument, which I hope you wil have no other alternative but to agree to. :) Merry X Mas sir

--Iipmstudent9 12:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Shenoy sahib?!?!?! Stud, i just reverted back. why don't you just agree with what that bugger mrinal is mentioning? too much logic by you machchan. btw, the project meeting's at 10 pm; shady's not comng. c u dere...

Edit protecting article

Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account. Kindly go to main article and click on appropriate link.System c0ntr0ls 16:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much SysControls. As for unregistered users who are reverting blindly, please desist. And stop treating wikipedia as your personal chat client to discuss your plans for going to clubs and what not. Makrandjoshi 16:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear System Controls, NishKid, though I appreciate the edit protect of the article, as it ensures that the immediate attempts to revert without giving logic go down, I shall still request that the edit protect is removed at the soonest. This article clearly has many mistakes, and the biggest one of them being that despite there being a separate section called IIPM Controversy, a lot of the details are repeated on the page IIPM. What we could have given was only summaries, that too only one or two lines long referring to the separate page called IIPM Controvery. I request you to kindly revert back the edit protect at the soonest possible and blank out only those ids that were reverting illogically; if you see, there were just four or max five ids that were doing this. So rather than blanking all of us out, it'll be nice if you allow the main editors to work on it. Regards, Mrinal Pandey 07:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the blanking of that section is what was vandalism , and that is exactly why this page deserved protection. A summary of the controversy must exist, apart from the detailed article. This is my view and Ganesh has said that too, and so has Makrand. Now if you still insist on removing the section what you are doing is vandalism. If you do that this page will stay edit protected. I had reduced the summary by one more line because IIPM has fixed that problem, but the rest is a valid thing to mention here and it must stay.

You understand that the advertising controversy is just one part of the controversy section - there were reports of plagiarism and then the fact that the degrees aren't valid in India. You're trying to remove these as well. Vandalism.

Further, you are not just trying to remove the controversy section. You are trying to remove many other areas: In the ranking, the fact that outlook has retracted the ranking given, in degrees, the line that says the degrees are given by IMI and not IIPM and the lines about the degrees not being recognised by AICTE/UGC and that IIPM does not have the right to offer degrees without AICTE approval. ALso you are trying to remove the news about the sealing. That is vandalism in my view, and I will open out comments for those sections in RfCs below. Deepakshenoy 08:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit unprotect request

user Mrinal, Makrand, Deepak, iipmstudent9, ganesh (admn), some of you already have edit powers on the protected page. If your user id doesn't allow the same, or if you wish to unprotect the page, put your unprotect requests here. Continue discussing your arguments on this talk page. An edit protect does not mean that we're siding with either one party's argument or the other. Edit protects are only meant to ensure that haphazard and arbitrary changes to the page are not attempted by parties interested in simply 'having fun'. As System Controls would have already clarified, we do not find Ganesh's reverts, or Shenoy's verbal tirade, or Mrinal's cuts as vandalism or going against personal attack policy. So kindly continue discussions with the parties. Put your unprotect requests where we've linked you up. It'll be done soon by Nishkid when he perceives the danger of vandalism has gone donw. Regards Group Systern Head 07:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Group System Head. I request that we continue edit protection until we've sorted out, in the discussion, the need to keep or remove sections. Deepakshenoy 08:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Note, this is not a full protect. This is a partial edit protect only done to protect against vandalism by unknown users, and not by known users. Kindly do not request full edit protection till a situation arises where the current users cannot sort out the issue. Dispute resolution takes many days. The partial edit would be removed once the administrator in question, Nishkid, would perceive that the danger of unknown user vandalism has gone down. Have patience 219.65.248.219 08:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree, full protect not required. But partial edit protect should continue till at least a day after Christmas. To you too Rick!Jon Meacham 08:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC: Ranking section

Mrinal is trying to remove the fact that outlook has retracted the ranking given. I believe this is vandalism. Deepakshenoy 08:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I see this site is the flavor of the month; you already have all the tech heads visiting the page. Seems to be the most active page this weekend. I've been directed out here by another RfC of woohoo. My view - request for shifting it to another page created already, holds weight, and cannot be called vandalism, especially when the user Mrinal has a background of discussing arguments quite proportionately. Having said that, Mrinal does not have the right to revert continuously and without waiting for feedback from other editors. I find Deepak correct in his request that such reverts cannot continue till discussions have sorted out the issue. Edit protection should continue for at least a couple of days as the other users reverting the page are adhering to pure vandalism. I find user Deepak, Ganesh (to Nikshkid), Mrinal's request to protect against other users correct and pertinent. I've forwarded your RfC furtheron... Rick Stengel 08:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC: IIPM degrees not being recognised

Mrinal is trying to remove all mentions of the fact that the the degrees offered by IMI are not recognised in India, that AICTE approval has not been taken for the degrees, and that UGC and AICTE have questioned IIPM's right to use the word "Indian Institute" in its name. This is vandalism. Deepakshenoy 08:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, removing reference with a supporting discussion is not vandalism. However, you are right that these issues have to be mentioned. But again, the separate page necessarily forces us to have a view that you can mention references on the main page; but you cannot perhaps write so much on the main page. But I notice you have given a web site of Yale in one of your researches. I also notice the fact that you have given too less a mention of the courses of the institute (the reader gets no idea of the programme), and also about the background of the institute. On the side of caution, I should request you to also look at this issue... Rick Stengel

RfC: Removal of controversy section

I oppose the removal of the controversy summary, since it accurately depicts the issue at hand. Open to suggestions to improve the content, but not to the removal of it entirely. (Regardless of whether there is another page detailing the controversy) Deepakshenoy 08:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Accept the RfC context. Controvery section (in the IIPM page) cannot be removed. Improvement points - move the multiple references of controversies (from the top of the IIPM page) to the section in controversy; reduce the content strength in the IIPM page; shift most contents to the extra page IIPM Controversy. Readers are mature, they will link up to the other page IIPM Controversy too. Do not worry about readers not getting information. The worry we have is that you might end up in a run -off duel with user Mrinal; ending in mediation; and the background of mediation is quite gory, where both users lose complete control. So Mrinal, do not go to mediation till you have gone through all the other steps of dispute resolution. And we do see that with the words you are exchanging with user Deepak, the dispute is quite resolvable... Rick Stengel 08:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC: Removal of news of the Sealing

While the sealing and desealing happened in November, the news mentioned says that the courts have given IIPM two months to vacate. I believe we should keep this till Jan 17, 2007 at least and remove it only if nothing further has happened. Deepakshenoy 08:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Deepakshenoy, just one small advice. If you continue giving many RfCs, the importance of the initial RfCs would drift away. I do believe that this is a current event, so you should keep this in the page, however, if it is a controversy (it sounds like one), then it should be shifted below to the controversy section. You should give more details furtheron in the project page titled IIPM Controversy...Rick Stengel 08:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)