Talk:CSI College of Engineering

Improving the Article
Hi, I've created the article. However, I'm unable to find much info regarding the institution. If anyone comes across this article and has more referenced sources of information, please.... Plunge right in! Or if you wish to bring something to my attention, please contact me on my talk page. Thank you! a JC freak y A k B a K  13:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: the strike in 2005
There was a major strike in the college in February of 2005. If anyone could come up with neutral and verifiable sources, that would make the article more informative and encyclopedic. Thanks. a JC freak y A k B a K  17:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

IP requesting details
dear sir, As i need semister wise  all subject Details  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.117.138 (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

blp concerns
I received a complaint at OTRS about the prominence of the material on the fraud. (I am one of the people there who deal specifically with complaints from education institutions) I consider the complaint justified. I think this is normally something we would include, but not highlight.

BLP concerns apply to any article involving identifiable living people, especially when they are explicitly named. The rule (as I interpret it; this is not the official wording) is that matters concerning the private life of people who are not individually prominent, are not included here, unless the matter involves sufficient world-wide publicity that it would be part of the social history of our period, and included it in Wikipedia would not harm them further.This however involves people in their official capacity. Even so, we need to be very careful and even considerate, and report only to the extent necessary for a general reader. Accusations must be justified, either by a definitive verdict of a court, or extensive coverage from sources of unquestionable reliability. (e.g. The Times, not The Mirror).

Looking at the article, I see that the information is based on refs 3 and 4. However, looking at the google translation of them, they are identical--one of them is apparently reprinted from the other. I cannot see ref 5, sand if it is is Hindi I would not be able to read it. Unless someone can, I do not think it safer to rely on it.As it was published the same date and with an almost similar title, it is probably also a duplicate.

The information in refs 3 & 4 do not solve one apparent contradiction: It is said the people involved were suspended from the school and arrested; one of the versions of our article says also that they were acquitted. this makes no sense, and is presumably an error.

I noticed one of the i.p. editors, 210.212.231.226, has been making improper edits--bolding the name of the accused, putting the name in capitals. This must stop. It is an indication of bias, not of writing from a neutral point of view. I will block if it continues.

Since the article is semi-protected, I I will make the necessary adjustments, unless some other established editor gets here first.

Now, a substantial about of uncontroversial descriptive material was removed earlier by an editor as unsourced. I need to check, but for such material as the degrees offered and the departments, we would normally rely on the school website. (The names of the chairmen of the departments, on the other hand, should be only on the school website--they change too frequently. Since it is only semi-=protected, any established editor can do this; I'll look at the article in a day or two, hoping for improvements.

 DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the names from the section for now. I will get back to this today when I find time. Suraj  T  04:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to the ORTS complaint, I have removed the names as mentioned above." A number of errors were included in the article by IPs and I removed as much as I could. As for the removals of content before, I have to do more digging. I would also like to add that sources are hard to find for stuff happening here. I believe whatever has been reported online about this college has been included in the article. Cheers. Suraj  T  06:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2012
210.212.231.226 (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Suraj  T  04:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Controversy - 'Placement Scam' placement and title
Hi!

Getting back on to WP after years. I'm writing this here so that anyone who is currently watching this page could chime in, if required.

I believe that the section titled 'Placement Scam' could be brought under a 'Controversy' section, and moved to the end-portion of the page. In its current placement, there is no main information about the article, but it jumps straight into the so-called 'scam' after the very brief introduction.

I propose that we do two changes: change the name of the section to 'Controversy' and move it below, so that it's the last section on the page.

a<b style="color:#FF0000;">JC</b>freak <b style="color:#CC66FF;">y</b> A <b style="color:#FF6600;">k</b> 08:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, just noticed that the entire 'scam' section reads like a flaming piece in a gossip tabloid, rather than a Wikipedian article. I vote that we re-write the entire section. a<b style="color:#FF0000;">JC</b>freak  <b style="color:#CC66FF;">y</b> A <b style="color:#FF6600;">k</b> 08:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

COI editing
The article has been subject to frequent COI edits by an editor who frankly states that his goal here is "to give a good shape to our college wiki page". He commonly removes negative material, and re-adds positive material if others delete it. I recently did some necessary edits - removing puffery, redundancy, and copy-pasted material - and he reverted without comment to his preferred version - thus restoring the puffery, redundancy, and copyright violations. I have warned him (twice now) about COI editing, and I restored the changes he reverted. This is a section where he can explain, if he wishes to restore his version, why he thinks it should be retained. --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)