Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 14

Please do discuss
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)

Vandalism not required
If vandalism continues, no one gets the advantage. So my request to the people whitewashing edits is that instead of trying to destroy relevant edits, kindly discuss on this page any changes you might want, however insensible they might sound. If there is general acceptance for the change, it will surely be included. Vandalism is of no use as administrators will end up blocking the page within hours of such whitewashing occurring. Hope sense prevails. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mirnal, you could also set an example by first discussing changes you want to make, and providing wiki policy-based reasons for it, instead of making a dozen specious changes in a row. Makrandjoshi (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely. I've redone the changes. Do discuss your points of view with respect to those, out here. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You have it backwards. Please propose your changes here, first. And when you do edit the article, confine your changes to one section at a time. Wholesale changes to the entire article will only result in wholesale reverts. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the changes as have been made in the past day(s) seem relevant enough. Having said that, this discussion page should necessarily be used (most preferably) before making controversial changes. For example, the controversy section should NOT be deleted till a majority vote or consensus vote has been taken. And even that has to be given at least a week of time for enough responses to come in. Thanks! I'll be putting up the link to this page on discussion forums so that interested people can chime in with their suggesions/vote Deborah Fernandes (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposing deletion of Controversy section
As the controversy section is fairly outdated and holds no relevance now, given the High Court rulings favouring IIPM, I propose deleting the complete controversy section. Please do give in your suggestions. Also, kindly do not revert changes blindly to previous editions. Try and rework the changes after discussing them here. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes you say it is out of relevance? Joshua Artgobain Benedict (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to be sensible. I say it's ok to delete the controversy section. Addy kundu (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is still very relevant. And is properly cited. Ponytailsnipper (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree that the controversy surrounding IIPM is an established part of its history and should be described in this article, as history in the past tense. I recommend proposing major changes here before putting them in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing the background, I agree controversy section can be deleted as in the current context, it seems just a laborious attempt to include details which anyway seem to have been taken care of by the court order. Joshua Artgobain Benedict (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can be deleted. Conditional acceptance. I've written down details on User Mrinal Pandey's talk page (talk) Carlisle Rodham (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, delete! But we should wait for at least a week for views from other editors/followers of this page as only then can a majority account be taken. Deborah Fernandes (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * hi, i am Solanki Kumar.....i feel that it can be deleted as it doesn't cover the current context...rest up to all you guys...it was just an opinion... (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC).


 * Dude Controversy are past and i feel people are interested in current and updated happenings, so i guess no problem if it gets deleted....--Sumitpatel12 (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * i feel deletion of old stuff and updation with current happenings is right--Ianchapell (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, True Pictures are always the current one, so old has nothing to do and say, so best is to delete it--Maheshbopara (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote this on Carlisle Rodham's page too. Though the above responses are in my favour, would request the administrators to check whether the above responses are sock puppets. I hope I'm not offending real users out of the above; for if you guys are real users, my sincere apologies. I'm just trying to make sure that a vote, even if in my favour, is not placed here unethically. Thanks and apologies again. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Having said that, before deleting the Controversy section (given enough aye votes) I have - to be the devil's advocate - jumped to the other side to place a tag requesting dated factually accurate information requirement on the controversy paragraph. If you think it is not appropriate, please feel free to remove the same. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC); and as I believe that four or five days have passed since the issue was raised, and some views - however incredible - have been given, I have placed a dead note tag in front of the controversy section; effectively putting in action the process of deletion of this section. In case you wish to include the section back, I believe you will have to - as some of the editors put it to me, and I followed before deleting the Controversy section - place the reinclusion move to a discussion, and given majority approval or a consensus, reinclude it by removing the dead note. Thank you and regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You did delete the controversies section after all! And all these people here are sock-puppets and/or SPAs. Have undone the whitewashes. Makrandjoshi (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this page locked?
If this page is locked for editing, can you please put a sign on top of it? Joshua Artgobain Benedict (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Talk page is not protected. The main article page is temporarily semi-protected due to excessive vandalism and there is a sign on the page's top. -- Alexf(talk) 14:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Joshua, I guess you would have been confused yesterday as the warning tag had been accidentally removed. It has been placed back at the relevant portion. Ciao Deborah Fernandes (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please justify your acts...
As you can see the history page

Mr. Makrandjoshi.. might be an administrator or an old editor but his acts of reverting down back to the old content to the IIPM page without justifying with proofs...seems that he himself is one of the sock puppets....

Humble request to all of you Please if you intend to do changes even you are an administrator or an old editors, you need to justify your act other wise it will be considered as whitewashing. Kindly mind your acts... Even if you think  my acts were not justified, you are always welcomed  to notify me  but in a right manner by justifying your act in respect proving that my act was wrong according to the rules--Carlisle Rodham (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a very simple justification. I have not made any unjustified changes to the article. Just reverted it to the state it was a few days ago before you unilaterally decided to overhaul it. You have made sweeping subjective changes to the page without discussing them here on the talk page, or even providing a wiki policy reasoning. In several cases, you have thrown out correctly cited material, especially from the introduction part. You can't make more than a dozen unilateral changes to the page without any discussion or wiki policy citing, and then expect it to stick. Please discuss the changes here first, let's reach an agreement on them being WP:NPOV, and then make changes. My own "humble request" to you. Let's not go on a reverting spree. The current state that the page in, is how it was for weeks and months under the editlock. That is what should serve as the starting point for further changes. So please, instead of reverting, open up talk sections here, let's discuss changes and then make them. Makrandjoshi (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your version doesn't have the latest and updated things, so i feel please provide yourself a cross-checking by updating yourself with latest happening.--Carlisle Rodham (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK Carlisle, right now I am going on good faith assumptions and not reverting your version. Even if you have added some new and latest things, you have left out portions from the old ones without any reason, so adding those portions back. Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

High Court Judgment
Mirnal and Carlise have both been talking about a High Court judgment that apparently "snubs UGC", and says it can't stop IIPM from offering MBA and BBA degrees. However, the link you had cited (from www.prnews.com) was dead, and I searched on google but did not find any other news site saying the same. What I did find was a number of articles saying that the Delhi High Court asking UGC and IIPM to reach an agreement in which UGC removes its name from a fake university list, and IIPM agrees to clarify that it offers just "certificate courses", meant to get students ready for MBA and BBA degrees, and does not actually offer degree courses. http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/iipm-will-be-deleted-from-fake-varsity-list-ugc-tells-hc/328522/ Hence, have made changes accordingly, with the proper cites. Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Further googling lead me to some pages that mention the "HC snubs UGC" thing, but they are all either blogs, or forums or then press release aggregators, all using the exact same content. Which leads me to wonder if this was just a press release put out by IIPM. Unlike the other story about IIPM and UGC reaching an agreement, which appeared in Indian Express, Economic Times, and other mainstream media outlets, this "HC snubs UGC" story has not appeared in any credible third-party new source. Hence, even if someone digs up another prnews.com type source, I submit that it does not meet the reliable sources policy standards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sources#Sources and can not be included in the article. Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Rankings Cites
I have doubts regarding IIPM being in Zee Business Best B-school rankings. The cites provided are again all press releases by IIPM itself and don't meet the wiki policy reliable sources standard I have linked to above. Mrinal or Carisle, please provide a citation from a respected mainstream media source. Or better still, from a Zee website (like you have provided for the other Zee ranking mention). Please provide reliable cites soon, else I propose deleting the text. Also, I see not cites for the acnielsen-orgmarg rankings, so removing them. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet theory
Hi. I suspected a few ids of being sock puppets. But unless the administrators confirm the same or deny the same, one can't delete or whitewash or revert the changes approved by users, who might as well be real, as they might be sock puppets. Having said that, we'll go by the concept that changes will be made to the final accepted version only after each change has been proposed here for at least a couple of days and discussed upon. I don't think any change, given the sensitivity of thisi page, can be allowed otherwise. Thanks to all editors for understanding. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Mrinal, admins have already confirmed the sock-puppets. But even if we assume they were all real, you still were not justified in deleting the controversy section. Such a major change... even vital change concerning the page, should be made only after consensus. I am opposed to deleting it, as are other editors (such as amatulic) who expressed their opposition. And yet you blatantly disregarded their opposition, and did it anyway. Makrandjoshi (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Future changes
Dear editors, I propose and request that all future changes - any change, even a revert from here on - will be first discussed here and put up for open discussion for at least two or three days before being made. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you follow your own advice? You have deleted the whole controversy section without any consensus. This page is being blatantly whitewashed by IIPM-sympathizers and the admins are doing nothing about it. Makrandjoshi (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposing new section on new courses
IIPM seems to have added newer courses in strategic alliance with some foreign b-schools. I propose adding a new section just around the section on courses that not only lists out each specific course in detail, but also lists out the schools with which these are being done. Please comment Mrinal Pandey (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems interesting, well i feel all of us would like to get updated.--Mohit006 (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am fine with it as long as there are neutral cites (not press releases from IIPM), and not just primary source. There is already too much primary source information here. Makrandjoshi (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposing a section on ISBE
There's some new thing called ISBE that is a separate school of IIPM. I don't have details but on the initial research, it seems to be worth a section. I propose including the same out here as a newer section. Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Use the sandbox for any new sections. If there is consensus, they can be added. Makrandjoshi (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposing another section on various Centres at/of IIPM
There seem to be many active Centres at IIPM for various management activities. I propose including those too. Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please make us aware, kindly add them soon--Fastmovement (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Awards won by IIPM internationally/nationally
I finally propose adding a separate section for awards won by IIPM at both international level and national level. Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Awards are the achievements or can say the milestones achieved, i feel this sections should also be created.--Mohit006 (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ranking cite added

 * Addition of Relevant Ranking cite...

http://www.zeebiz.com/bschool/BSchoolresult.html


 * Ok, good to see you learning the important of cites. I have reverted to the consensus version. Am now adding back the Zee Business ranking information with this cite. Makrandjoshi (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment about the recent sock puppets
This talk page is full of sock puppets and I have already blocked the most obvious ones. Please stop making more sock puppets to skew the consensus to support your view. It is a blatant violation of WP:SOCK. Secondly, I have reverted the article again to the consensus version since there was no consensus to delete verified and well-cited information, other than the discussion which was riddled with sock puppets. If you have anything you want to add, then please discuss these changes here and make these changes step by step and see if we can work something out. Continuing to disrupt Wikipedia with more sock puppets will only get you blocked, and making blatant changes without first establishing consensus, or blantantly ignoring community consensus, is very disruptive and it can get you blocked as well. 山本一郎 (会話) 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Yamamoto Ichiro, finally a confirmation on sock puppets, something I had requested earlier too! Thanks! I completely accept your viewpoint that sock puppets' viewpoints should not be accepted. I also wish to add something to what you've said. It'll be really nice if you and the other administrators, keep a check that any and every change is first discussed here before being added; basically so that nobody makes "blatant changes without first establishing consensus, or blantantly ignores community consensus" as you've put it. Having said that, I hope you keep a track on a regular basis to disruptive changes from all editors, including sock puppets. And of course, if any editor - including I - are found to be making such disruptive changes without them being discussed out here, I would encourage you to surely block the person out. Thanks for leaving a descriptive viewpoint. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I am the one who removed the full protection, I too have added this article to my watchlist and have been blocking socks rather liberally. Unfortunately, this seems to be more than just your run of the mill case of sockpuppetry and as such I have asked for a CheckUser to keep an eye on the page as well. It appears he has already blocked a few, but if it continues we will probably have to formulate a range block. Like Yamamoto has said above, anyone found to be abusively socking, edit warring, or otherwise disrupting the article be any means will be blocked.  Tiptoety  talk 17:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, please see Requests for checkuser/Case/Mrinal Pandey. Tiptoety  talk 22:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Mrinal, Sandox
Mrinal, you have proposed a lot of new sections. I suggest using a sandbox for putting up what you propose, and then, if all editors have a consensus, then adding those in. Don't add any new sections unilaterally, and also don't unilaterally delete the sections. Makrandjoshi (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus, not majority or voting
Mrinal and Carlisle seem to be under the impression that majority, or some straw polls are the last word and binding. They are not. Wikipedia works on consensus and not on voting or strawpolls. So your strawpolls for deleting the controversy section, which is properly cited with reliable sources, is not binding unless it helps reach a consensus. And if you are deleting properly cited content without consensus and if it violates NPOV, you are flirting with vandalism. See this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:!VOTE#Straw_poll_guidelines A few relevant points - The last point is most important. The Controversy Section only has facts. No opinions. It contains facts about events that happened. So voting on it is pointless. Makrandjoshi (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The ultimate goal of any article discussion is consensus, and a straw poll is helpful only if it helps editors actually reach true consensus.
 * 2) For that reason, article straw polls are never binding, and editors who continue to disagree with a majority opinion may not be shut out from discussions simply because they are in the minority. Similarly, editors who appear to be in the majority have an obligation to continue discussions and attempts to reach true consensus.
 * 3) For the same reason, article straw polls should not be used prematurely. If it is clear from ongoing discussion that consensus has not been reached, a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming.
 * 4) Similarly, if a straw poll is inconclusive, or if there is disagreement about whether the question itself was fair, the poll and its results tend to simply be ignored.
 * 5) Policies, such as NPOV and article sourcing, can obviously not be overridden by straw polls. People have been known to vote on a fact, which is ultimately pointless.

Removing primary source material
There is a lot of primary source material on the page not backed up by third party references. Such material has been there despite long standing requests for adding independent cites. So a lot of this page looks like an advertorial or prospectus for the institute. Removing the same. Makrandjoshi (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please add these too
Dear Makrand.. Pls add these too.

Under the seciton "Academics" Please add: A large number of students of IIPM are getting absorbing in IIPM's own organisations [link:http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=344005]

Under the section "Unfair trade practices investigations" Please add: In July 2008, in view of IIPM's and other un recognised educational institutes advertisement blitzes in the Indian newspapers, India's cabinet minister for Human Resources Arjun Singh issued an appeal asking students entering the portals of higher education to satisfy themselves that their institutions are recognised under the relevant laws and are of quality and repute. "In particular, you should not merely go by the advertisements issued in the media by higher educational institutions, but satisfy yourselves by all counts in respect of quality and statutory recognition," Singh said in the appeal. [Link: http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200806171654.htm] Indeed IIPM have been one of the biggest print advertisers in India. IIPM advertises through its subsidiary Planman Consultant India. [Link:http://www.exchange4media.com/e4m/others/analysis241008.asp and http://www.exchange4media.com/e4m/others/analysis200608.asp] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankarjaikishen (talk • contribs) 08:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Inviting Discussion
This page is under semi-protect. Whenever the protect has been lifted, sockpuppets or vandals have some to whitewash the page. So I extend an olive branch and invite those who have problems with this page to come and discuss what their problems are. If we get a discussion going, stick to wiki policy and all act in good faith, maybe we can avoid the constant protects on this page. Makrandjoshi (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're doing a good job improving the article. If more people like the anonymous editor in the section above come here with suggestions for improvements, we are happy to consider them.


 * Semi protection is a good compromise. Some articles are indefinitely semi-protected (see Muhammad for example) and I think that's a good idea. It allows established editors to make constructive improvements, and still allows unestablished/anonymous editors to make suggestions on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Kindly remove the following:-
Dear Makrand,

Kindly remove the following:-

IMI is an erstwhile diploma mill and a very private organisation whose degrees are not recognised by any Belgian or Flemish authority, and whose degree-holders can not make claims for further studies or access to regulated professions[16].

As the sources provided by you are from a blog i.e. (http://thalassamikra.blogspot.com/2005/10/information-pertaining-to-iipm.html) and not from the relevant cites.

--Gurmeet singgh (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Gurmeet


 * The cite is not used for opinion, but for the email in that blog-post from the relevant Belgian regulatory authority. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, blogs are not considered reliable sources regardless of the content. If no reliable sources can be found to support that claim, it should be deleted. Furthermore, the claim seems to violate WP:NPOV by having Wikipedia take a position based on what someone put in his blog. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, Amatulic. I have deleted the contentious content. Makrandjoshi (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Another Call for Discussions
The semi-protect will expire in 3 days. Unless we again want to go through the whole sock-puppets-blind-revet-followed-by-a-protect routine, we need to get some discussion going and reach a consensus that falls under wiki policy. So I invite those who are dissatisfied with this page to come forward and engage in discussion. Unjustified reverts will not get us anywhere and will get the page locked again. So come and discuss your problems as per wiki policy. Else, as Amatulić suggests above, I am afraid I too will be in favor of a permanent semi-protect for this article. Makrandjoshi (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

i am an ex student of iipm. the page on iipm is very very clearly a page that is being manipulated by people and groups with vested interests against iipm to malign the reputation of iipm. after having gone through all the discussion pages its very clear that makrand joshi has an anti iipm agenda and is hell bent on making iipms wiki page a uniquely different page from all other pages of all reputed b schools and universities of the world. i suggest that i be allowed to completely change the page as per the standards of any other page where in the introduction only the official version of an organisation is written. every other additional aspect should necessarily be sent to the controversy section and not remain in the very introduction itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nav1000 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "in the introduction only the official version of an organisation is written". Nope, that's not what a WP:LEAD is. It's an introduction to whatever the article contains. The "official version" of anything is but one side of any story, and often a less than reliable one at that. DMacks (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Kindly unblock this page as i feel there is lot more that people should know (the real missing facts). Lets have a healthy discussion and make it better and let people know whats is IIPM all about.--Preetigroverr (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting unblocking of the page as i feel people who are not aware of the real IIPM has putin the content.--Rohitkapoorr (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to have a healthy discussion and make it better here on the talk page and when there is some consensus of specific improvements to make, let admins know by placing a " tag. The long history of disruptive editing and sock-puppetry any time the article itself is unprotected have unfortunately ruined any chance of simply unprotecting the article for edits. DMacks (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's hear about "the real missing facts". If you want a healthy discussion, let's have it. Propose your changes on this talk page. Every time this article is un-protected, vandals come along and start a war, trying to white-wash the documented facts already in this article. If you have additional facts to present, then present them. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

International Management Institute (Belgium)
This article refers to degrees awarded by the International Management Institute in Belgium. This institution is not registered as a higher education institution in Belgium and can therefore not award recognised degrees. (Not recognised in Belgium means not recognised by any of the federated entities of Belgium)

And to be even more complete: registration is not such a difficult procedure. The accreditation of programmes is a different issue though. See: http://www.highereducation.be and http://www.nvao.net 81.164.220.185 (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblock Request
Quite clearly, the page should be unlocked as soon as possible for more comments and new editors should be allowed to edit. I find semi-locks strangely and biasedly enforced on this page. It would have been quite easy to block vandals using an approach that I find Wiki administrators using on other pages where:
 * 1. Administrators could block IP addresses of vandals
 * 2. In case vandals use multiple IPs, administrators could use the facility to block IP ranges, which I believe they have.
 * 3. Block user ids of vandals and proxy ids too.

Though I do appreciate that there has been a temporary semi-protect placed some time back, I believe this is a good time to remove it as (and I quote from Wiki policy), "Page protection should not be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes." And I hope that this is not the case currently going on with this page as I find it strange that editors who have registered beyond three months are still not allowed to edit. I request administrators to kindly remove the edit lock.

Sincerely, Dean.A.Sandeep (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The history of protection and vandalism of this article pretty clearly demonstrates that nothing short of the current protection strategy keeps the vandals out, so "as soon as possible" is essentially "probably never":( Anyone and everyone with actual content ideas has been repeatedly invited to propose specific edits and discuss here on the talk-page, and then those edits which seem viable can then be implemented by any established user. This is standard for all articles with any type of protection. Given that users aren't doing this despite years of repeated invites helps reinforce the point that serious editors don't have serious concerns and specific improvements to make. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I and other editors monitor this talk page, ready to discuss any suggestions for improving the article. In the past couple of years of article protection, none have been forthcoming.
 * When this article has been briefly unprotected, it suddenly experiences many edits (often from sockpuppet accounts) without prior discussion. That tells me that those who want to make changes to this article have zero interest in discussing those changes. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. If you have suggestions, propose them here. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Careers 360 article
I have edited the article to include in relevant places information published in an investigative article by the Indian education magazine Careers 360 http://www.careers360.in/lead-story/iipm---best-only-in-claims.html Have also added a small subsection under controversies summarizing the findings from the article. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Interestng article
I noticed many links that are either outdated or actually link to news not related with what is being mentiond in the line using the reference. Can I request editors to do the same? I'm only making grammatical corrections, that are more or less minor. Tks Wifione (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please check the following for me guys. Is plagiarism and tax evasion major controversies to be mentioned in the opening para? Tks Wifione (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And please also help me clear out repetitive lines throughout the description. For example, in various sections, the non-accreditation is mentioned repeatedly. Can we reduce these repetitions? It looks a little too made up. But please discuss and give me suggestions (or kindly do it yourself). Tks Wifione (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Tax evasion is a big controversy, a big crime, as is plagiarism, especially for a supposedly educational institution. They belong in the intro. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jam link and Careers 360
1. Though JAM calls itslef JAM magazine (I guess Just Another Magazine), there is no confirmation that this is a magazine. There is no registeration of it as a magazine or a newspaper. I tried to search but could not find. I propose some editor kindly give confirmation of the same. As I guess we can give references of only authentic newspapers or magazines.

To that effect, the Career 360 article doesn't pass muster. Even the link is some 'beta' version. So deleting the same. Tks Wifione (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For the sake of editors, I'm giving the official link of Registrar of Indian Newspapers https://rni.nic.in/octnov.asp. Please help me find out the names of the above two mentioned entities so that we can put their data, details and links correctly. Tks Wifione (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And editors, also, hopefully the above two will come out registered. How important and long standing are these reporting agencies that we should dedicate paragraphs for their reports. I need your inputs please. (Kindly change the page yourself if you get the details). tks Wifione (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

JAM magazine and careers 360 both qualify as WP:RS. In fact, Careers 360 has links with the Outlook group. No point in removing them. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed deletion. Both JAM and Careers360 are magazines that qualify as reliable sources. They are registered magazines, not newspapers, so you won't find them listed in a registrar of newspapers. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Pleas see here http://www.televisionpoint.com/news2009/newsfullstory.php?id=1239287881 Careers360 is a legitimate education magazine being distributed by the Outlook group. It was launched by Dr. Abdul Kalam, the former President of India. It is also available at all major news stands in India. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation Requested for Wifione
FYI for everyone here, I have requested a sockpuppet investigation for Wifione. The pattern of edits, marked by white-washing the page, deleting cited material, and so on are similar to how Mrinal_Pandey and his sockpuppets operated. The ivnestigation page is here, if you want to make comments - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrinal_Pandey Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm taken aback at the accusation within a day of my changing something that was not supposed to be seen this way. Dear Makrand, the only reason I changed the tax evasion and plagiarism stuff was because I did think that the plagiarim stuff didn't seem controversy! It's a plain statement of BusinessWeek to which IIPM has replied giving details of from where they have the copyright. With reference to the tax evasion part that I took out, when I saw the government link you had provided, it did not mention any detail of the tax being evaded. You seemed to have drawn a conjecture based on the government link you've provided. I do request you to see the government link again and if you have a problem, feel free to discuss the same and the plagiarism issue which I really don't think is a controversy.

Anyways I also have to say that despite what you are saying, I still haven't found any proof of JAM or careers360 being reputed third party sources. I think being 'reputed' is essential for a magazine or a newspaper. I do not know on what parameter are you considering JAM magazine reputed or Careers 360. I would look forward to your comments. YOu have given a link of some 'totalpoint' website to prove that careers360 is a magazine that was launched in April 2009. There are two issues. First of all April 2009 means the magazine is only 3 months old. I fail to see how it has become reputed in 3 to 4 months. Secondly, the link you have given of totalpoint is of a trade and media buying website which simply collates information and even totalpoint is not a reputed news magazine.

I simply have deleted details that do not seem to come from reputed newspaper or magazine. I do know that there are many reputed newspapers including CNN, BBC, WashingtonPost and even BusinessWeek that have existed for years.

But I do hope that accusing a fellow editor for being a sockpuppet within a day of her editing is not a display of your discontent at someone removing your third party sourced content from not reputed websites, which are still not confirmed news magazines. In good faith, I request you to kindly not take this as a personal attack. I am reporting you in a day or two when I get time for this issue, that you have branded me as a sock puppet simply because of your personal sources have been removed. Thanks,Wifione (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know about socket puppet claims, but I would like to comment on usage of Careers 360. Careers 360 being a initiative of outlook group qualifies as a WP:RS. The JAM article being used as a reference can be easily replaced with other articles for ex from Hindu, Indian Express. However this article has quite a few issues related to sourcing-- blogs and IIPM website references should be removed. --Nvineeth (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Blog and JAM
Nvineeth, I see that you have removed the Gaurav Sabnis blog. It was not used as a third party "reliable source" per se, but mentioned as being at the center of the controversy. IIPM sued him for his blog, he resigned, and so on. So it is more of a link about the incident, and not a third party source of information about IIPM. Here are some other examples of wikipedia pages regarding blog-related controversies where blogs have been linked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahiruddin_Attan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Wall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Simonetti Secondly, why should the JAM article be replaced? JAM is a legitimate and registered magazine that has been around for over a decade and is available at all news stands. It fits the WP:RS qualification. I can understand concerns over the neutrality of articles from that magazine AFTER IIPM sued the magazine. But the article being linked here was written and published before that lawsuit, and was meant as an investigation. As such, it is no different than the Careers360 article, and is vital for this page being encyclopedic. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont dispute JAM magazine, I just indicated above the even without JAM magazine there are several other sources to put across the point. A Blog being self published is better to be avoided, however WP:EL makes some exceptions & the blog being an important piece, at least belongs to external links section --Nvineeth (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Makrand, I repeat. Blogs can be never used as a reference in corporate wiki descriptions. Just count the number of blog references you have used and you will realise where I'm coming from. To defend your actions, you have given extremely rare and exceptional cases which themselves are hugely debatable. I request you to go through Wiki's policy document on editing and show to me a line that proves that blogs can be referred to so freely in this description. For your benefit, I am ready to wait for another day before starting editing on this page. Having said that, you still haven't answered many questions that I had asked. Why should BusinessWeek be considered a controversy when the statements given in the document you have referenced are self explanatory? How have you re-put the part of tax evasion when the government document you refer to does not contain the same detail claiming that there has been an investigation? Coming over to JAM, what verifiable reference are you providing to support your claim that JAM has been sued by IIPM - as you claim? I could not find a link. I'll appreciate it if you can provide the same. You say JAM is a legitimate and registered magazine that has been around for over a decade and is available at all newsstands. I checked. It's not available at any newsstand that I know of. Perhaps it is sold in some specific quarters you might know. But that's not acceptable evidence. On what basis are you saying that JAM is functioning for over a decade? Are you ready to quote any third party sources (please, not blogs) that say that JAM is (1) reputed (2) functioning for over a decade (3) is available at all newsstands? There're are national readership surveys in India. I would really appreciate it if you can show me one reference to the same which also says JAM is reputed. I fail to see how you are sticking to the point that JAM is certified as being respectable? I'm sorry but all I'm trying to bring out is that the first change that is done by me in the page is seen in bad faith by you. Further to this, I request you to kindly give me the following clarification. When you say Careers360 is respectable because it has Mr. Maheshwar Peri as publisher (he presumably was/is the publisher of Outlook), then I would request you to understand that in India, if you see a publisher's definition, as accepted by the registration of newspapers in India department, then a publisher is one who actually handles the printing of the magazine, and not the editing. Outlook is of course a respectable magazine because of Mr. Vinod Mehta who has been there for years. You cannot assume the correlation that a name of a financial investor defines the respectability of a magazine, which is 3 months old. Mr. Peri is the financial investor, not the editor of Career360, in the same way as the Raheja Group is the investor in Outlook. If you were to go by the huge hits that the Raheja Group has taken in the past and assume that therefore, Outlook is not respectable, I would hold that argument to be wrong. So kindly tell me why should a 3 month old magazine which has a JNU research scholar as an editor, should be considered reputed and valid to be included in the IIPM description. I'll also await your response to the fact that I propose (or I suggest, if propose is too strong a word for you) to remove all information related to links that no longer exist on verifiable third-party sites. I shall wait for your answers to my questions for a day before proceeding with the changes. Thanks and cheers, Wifione (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To respond to your questions
 * 1) Firstly, blogs are not being referred "freely" in this article. There was just one cite which Vineeth removed, and as we have discussed, it can be included as an external link.
 * 2) About JAM and 360, everyone who doesn't have a vested interest like you do, knows their eligibility as WP:RS. You are indulging in long-winded and circular logic, which I have seen from you before (under different names), and which I have no interest in rehashing. If you want to delete information references from there, go ahead. I will report you to admins for removing validly cited material, and it will also prove my suspicion that you are indeed the same sockmaster.
 * 3) What exactly do you mean when you say the plagiarism controversy is not a controversy because it is "self explanatory"? A so-called educational institution indulging in plagiarism, as exposed by USA Today ( http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-07-31-net-plagiarism_x.htm ) it is a controversy. And even the response by IIPM is by no means "self-explanatory", nor does it answer several questions raised by this plagiarism record.
 * 4) About tax evasion, again, what are you saying? Read the cited links, and they mention investigations or proceedings being initiated against IIPM for tax fraud.
 * 5) You are saying IIPM never made legal threats to JAM? Really? This is SOOOOOOO indicative of the same sockmaster - raising spurious questions which are commo knowledge, wasting people's time asking for "proof" for that, and then vandalizing the article. Anyway, here are two links that I got in like a few seconds of googling http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/051026glaser/ http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20051031&fname=Internet+(F)&sid=1 May I suggest that you start using google?
 * 6) Finally, this whole "I am going to wait for a day and then start deleting stuff I dont like" statement and approach is again SOOOOOOO indicative of Mrinal Pandey the sockmaster who kept saying this. Makrandjoshi (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Makrand Joshi, I have to request you to write calmly. I feel you are trying to steamroll and harass an editor. If you're accusing me of being a person called Mrinal Pandey, I feel completely harrassed by your accusation. Wifione (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Third opinion is fine, but not enough points raised to discuss the addition of disputed tag. --Nvineeth (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nvineeth, I have already put up the issue of unverifiable citations in this article on the disputes forum of wikipedia. Plus, the article also has a non-neutral point of view. I have also put up this article for third party point of view on the relevant wikipedia forum as i believe the discussion is between two editors only that is me and makrand joshi. in case you believe there are more editors interested in this article, then please refer to the disputes forum where i've put the issue. cheers, Wifione (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article
i think the neutrality of certain sections of this article is questionable. i have changed the first paragraph to include a neutral initial line which offers the appropriate introduction of the institute. i have not taken away any other lines from the first paragraph but ensured that firstly the institute is defined. cheers Wifione (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mrinal, we've gone over this before many times. Just saying that "neutrality is questionable" is not sufficient. You need to provide specific quotes and examples. Instead you are deleting relevantly cited WP:RS material, and instead adding primary source information. And also adding tags that administrators should be adding. Am reverting your unilateral edits. Makrandjoshi (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoting from NPOV_dispute (emphasis mine) - Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Makrandjoshi (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * i thank you for your points. i request you to be kindly calm, civil and responsible in your writing. also request you to kindly stop addressing me as mrinal. i would like to inform that i had only added information in the introduction making it more encyclopaedic (for example i had added tags that noted what is national economic planning) and had also added the fct that the institute is a society. your deleting the same is not in the nature of encyclopaedic additions. my request is kindly do not delete added information. your efforts to improve the same are appreciated. secondly, i had not added the point of view tag. perhaps you mistook the tag. whenever i add the point of view tag i obviously will add the reasons on the talk page. i had added the factuality dispute tag. i am disputing the factuality of your career360 article which is clearly a fringe theory article. i have put up the article for third point view and I have also put up the article at the dispute forum. you are encouraged to add your view there. please do realise, the tag i have put does not mention pov, but that there is a dispute in factuality of the sections. thanks you and cheers Wifione (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Wifione (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The facts you added about the societies act are from the IIPM website itself, hence primary source material. Check WP:RS. You also did a mini-whitewash by removing the term "unaccredited" from the description, and reworded some sentences to make them favor IIPM. Furthermore, you are adding the tag inappropriately. Hence I have reverted to a previous version. Makrandjoshi (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing the article to make it more "encyclopedic"
A lot of the article reads like a prospectus for the institute, with a lot of information cited from the IIPM website itself. With an aim to make the article more relevant, realistic and encyclopedic, from a third-person point of view sans any vested interests, I am making some changes to the article. Some sections are too short and shallow, and seem to exist just to give a PR bullet point to the institute. I have integrated these sections, without deleting the, into other sections. Some information is from primary sources and excessively laudatory towards IIPM without any corroboration. Its only purpose seems to be glorifying the institute. I have tried to remove all such superfluous uncited or primary-source information. I think the article is a lot more crisp and tight now. Makrandjoshi (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * dear editor, kindly do not remove tags which have not been resolved. i had put up a tag that told readers that i have put up the controversy section for discussion in a forum. please do not delete tags which have not been resolved. cheers Wifione (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * dear makrand, i also notice you have been regularly a 'single purpose account' for a large time. is there any reason that might be so or is it that you might be only interested in editing this page? cheers Wifione (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

third party comments
user Makrand Joshi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Makrandjoshi) has included a completely new section based on a source called Career 360.

After elongated discussions on the discussions page, I have said the above mentioned Careers 360 link is not reliable due to the following reasons: 1. Career 360 is a website that has been launched only two to three months back. 2. The number of journalists in that web site is only one (therefore, the number of people who might have verified the details is less). 3. The publisher of the site is a person called Maheshwar Peri who is well known as being a (former) publisher with a leading magazine called Outlook in India. But in India, the term 'publisher' is meant for the person who invests in the magazine, not the one who reports as a journalist. 4. the legal link in the website says that the website is owned by M/s Pathfinder Publishing Private Limited. It also mentions that "PPPL does not endorse or subscribe to the suggestions, advice and views of the authors of the content." It means that the owners do not subscribe to their own website's contents. 5. The website is a beta version.

I need your help in advising me whether the one link, on the basis of which one whole section has come up, is correct or not. Thanks.

Current Editors, kindly note: this section is purely for Third party comments unrelated with this article. The link on the third party forum has already been put up. The policy guideline for this section mentions that current editors or those connected with current editors should not give comments on third party requests. So current editors, kindly do not give comments out here. cheers and thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One 11:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that you are making your own rules here, pls read WP:RS. What do you mean by third party requests and there is no wikipedia guideline which says "current editors or those connected with current editors should not give comments on third party requests".--Nvineeth (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * dear Nvineeth, perhaps you should look at the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion. cheers, Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 3O is applicable only when there are two editors. But in this there are more than two, and the consensus is against addition of neutrality tag. Hope this is clear. Moreover, the hypothetical reasons quoted for the inclusion of disputed tag are not valid either. There are more than one editors who are opposing the disputed tag. Hope this is clear. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * dear Nvineeth, i request you to kindly note that the third party opinion tag is an informal tag put in good faith as i presume the career360 issue is between me and makrand. the 'fact dispute' tag is a tag that represents a clear factual dispute existing between editors. you cannot remove the same when there is a clear fact dispute. i am putting up this incident to the administrative noticeboard and requesting their comments. kindly do not remove the tag. Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

About Careers360, it is not just a website, but a magazine available on news stands in India. Like all publications, it has a website too. I have idea where you got the information that it has only one journalists. Stories on it have been written by a variety of different people. It is a magazine started by Maheshwar Peri who is still (not former, as you falsely claim) the Publisher and President of the Outlook Group. refer the Outlook website - http://www.outlookindia.com/aboutus.asp This magazine's launch is widely known, and was even reported in the Wall Street Journal's business newspaper in India - Mint - http://www.livemint.com/2009/01/05213711/Outlook-publisher-launches-own.html I don't understand what the website being in the Beta phase has to do with it not being WP:RS. I would love to hear third party comments, especially from wiki editors in India, about this astounding claim that careers360 is not reliable source. Makrandjoshi (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

fact disputed tag
editors kindly note. do NOT remove the tag of factuality dispute till the dispute has been resolved. the relevant link is as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 11:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * as some editors are removing the tags, i have requested administrators to help us out in this issue. the relevant link is . cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifione (talk • contribs)
 * I repeat. Quoting from NPOV_dispute (emphasis mine) - Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Makrandjoshi (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * dear Makrand. i request you to be calm in your writing and I put forward to you these poings.
 * firstly, you must have realised that we both seem to be having a clear dispute with respect to career 360 which sees us both at differing ends. that is why i have put up this dispute at the relevant forum, whose link i have given above. therefore, if you remove the tag, you are not acknowledging the fact that we both are having a dispute.
 * secondly, the dispute i am currently having with you is with respect to the accuracy of the link of career 360 which does not seem reliable. therefore, you would have noticed that i have not put up the POV or NPOV tag but the Factuality Disputed tag. hence if you address our dispute as the NPOV dispute, it is not addressing the dispute correctly. and your quoting Wikipedia policy is acknowledged by me, but my issue is that the policy is not quoted from the correct page. therefore I went and found out the policy on the correct page of Accuracy Dispute, which I reproduce for you in the following brackets (...if a dispute arises: insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. This will help focus contributions from others. Paste 'disputed' in the beginning of the article to add a general warning. Check dispute resolution for ways to resolve it)...
 * thirdly, alongwith removing the Accuracy Dispute tag, you perhaps are reverting to the older version, and therefore perhaps accidentally removing the third party input tag too. And even the additional citations i have given in the first paragraph. therefore I request you not to remove the same.
 * fourthly, i encourage you to participate in the discussion to improve the page. if you believe career 360 is a reliable and accurate link, then let us both support the views on the Reliabile Sources noticeboard and on the Accuracy Disputes noticeboard. it'll help us get this article back on line.
 * I really wish to work with you encouragingly from here on. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If your only concern is with the Careers360 link, then as a compromise I suggest posting the disputed tag on that section as opposed to the whole article. The way I see it, you are tagging the whole article as disputed based on just one source which you and you alone are refusing to admit is WP:RS. Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Point of View query
dear editors, is there any line or any lines that might seem not to have a neutral point of view? please discuss if you believe so. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * i notice that nobody has answered my query on the pov issue. i am again requesting editors to tell me if they think the article in terms of space and weight given to the various statements and sections, is not in a neutral point of view? i suspect the same but perhaps am wrong. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifione (talk • contribs)

Wifione, some points
Here are some points about editing. Please do address them one by one.
 * 1) Firstly, please always sign your comments with four tildes. It is common wikipedia etiquette.
 * dear makrand, do help me out here. i do always put the four tildes after what i write. i can tell you truthfully that many times even though it shows in my edit preview that i have signed properly, when i view the page again, it shows that i have not signed. and when i put four tildes again, somehow the link to my user page or talk page does not even show up. i am sure you would have noticed the second eccentricity in my signatures too. if you can help me sort this out, i'll be grateful. Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) The first line of the article - you keep inserting info saying IIPM was set up under the Societies Registration Act in 1973, but the reference you give is from IIPM's own website. That is a primary source, which is why I remove it. Check WP:RS
 * i believed primary sources can be put where the information is not a disputed information. i believed the societie's registration act is valid information. however, we can discuss about this too. thanks for your reply. Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) You are also removing the word "unaccredited" from the first line. Are you disputing the fact that IIPM is unaccredited? Because IIPM admits so itself and the same has been mentioned in other third party sources too. In light of that, your removal of that word is tantamount to deleting validly cited information.
 * i am not disputing the fact. i am perhaps referring to a point that perhaps the word unaccredited is repeated too many times. my request to you would be to look at the space and weight issue in the word (the no of repetitions). i thank u for the response. look forward to your comments. Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) The links from NBER and ULIP you inserted in the first para don't work. I have removed them. Feel free to replace them if you find working links.
 * thanks for this point. Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) A request. You have posted requests about this articles on so many different forums - third party, reliable source, admin etc... it is hard to keep track. The rule in all such things is to inform the other party on their talk page by leaving a link to the relevant pages. Like I did for you last month. You posted only one such link on my talk page, leaving out the others. Could you list the links to all your complaints/requests on my talk page, and also here on this talk page for other editors to see? Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * my fault makrand. i'll do so. sorry again. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wifione, a) IIPM beings set up under that act in 1973 is disputed..... it implies the institute is over 35 years old, which seems to be an attempt to give it legitimacy and hence should be verified by a reliable source, not just primary b) If you are not disputing the fact of it being unaccredited, then unilaterally removing it constitutes removal of valid and true information. And given that accreditation is an important issue for an educational institute, I and other editors think it belongs in the introduction. Makrandjoshi (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

careers 360 & disputed tag
Referring to the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, careers 360 is a WP:RS, also see the analysis at the end by an uninvolved editor. I will be removing the disputed tag. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * dear Nvineeth, i am putting up a compromise and putting the tag only in the section in dispute... thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why should there be tags at all? If the forum complaints you raised have resolved the issue that Careers 360 is WP:RS, what is the factual accuracy dispute? Could you please list down what information is factually disputed, and provide counter-links to it, so we can try to make it NPOV? Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)