Talk:Vyapam scam

Edits on the page
Hi Fellow Wikipedians,

You are free to add/modify the content of Vyapam Scam. However, I would like to make a small request. If you feel that the content should be removed or the edit might be controversial, please post it here so that we all can discuss it. Further, this is what Wikipedia says too. Looking forward to co-operation from all of you. Thanks Katyaan (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Add Edit Notes
Request all the editors to kindly add notes to the edits made on the page. It helps other editors understand the reason behind the edit.Katyaan (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

What does this mean?
Can someone translate this sentence for me: "Investigators failed to find out how and why Trivedi's letter was entertained by the Indore crime branch." --Captain Infinity (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Unclear indeed. Whatever the intention, this would seem to be a minor detail that can safely be omitted. The whole section, including that sentence, is copied wholesale from reference [9], an article in the Times of India – and thus appears to be a , so the section needs to be rewritten anyway.  --Lambiam 11:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio concerns
Very informative article (and one of the highest viewed on wikipedia in the past week!), but as others have commented above and in the article history, there are quite a few copyvio/close paraphrasing issues. For example (found at a spot check), this text in the current |Modus operandi section: "The select candidates were asked to leave their answer sheets blank. They were randomly given high percentages after the exam. Concerned authorities of the Board then filed an RTI demanding to view those answer sheets. They then filled in the answers in the OMR booklet according to the marks they have already been given. This was done so that if someone were to ever check those answer sheets, there would not be any loopholes that could give them away."

is a word-by-word copy of the source. Can some of the regular editors of the article take a look? Abecedare (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference Spamming
The Article contains a lots of irrelevant reference to different source which bear no actual citation, pointed by the article. For exg. Reference 76 is used few dozens times but not a single instance is correct. DChinu (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC) DChinu 20-07-2015

Dead link reinstating
http://www.freepressjournal.in/pandey-was-blackmailing-vyapam-accused-had-links-with-stf/ is a dead link and user utcursch is continuously reinstating it to support what he wrote. Which is not a good wiki editing. He is continuoly reverting my edits with enough references BetterSmile:D (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The dead link is already fixed, and you're adding the false claim that Pandey's version "was considered correct by the Apex court". I'm trying to assume good faith, but your edits are very similar to that of, including use of folomojo as a source. utcursch &#124; talk 17:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Which dead link you fixed, its still the dead link and its still there in the article. What did you fixed ? http://www.livelaw.in/sc-tells-cbi-submit-sfl-report-vyapam-scam-court-oct-read-application/#.WXdpEIZiLgg.twitter & http://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2015/20168/20168_2015_Order_21-Jul-2017.pdf clarifies that Pandey's version "was considered correct by the Apex court" . So i added that BetterSmile:D (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just now saw your dead link fix. Sorry for the confusion. BetterSmile:D (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you please quote the sentence "which clarifies that Pandey's version was considered correct by the Apex court"? utcursch &#124; talk 18:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)