User talk:StudentForLifeTime


 * }

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Indian Institute of Planning and Management has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http:// http://exposingiipm.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/why-are-no-newspapers-carrying-this-news/. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad sources
StudentForLifeTime: Blogs such as wordpress are not acceptable references (see this formal guideline for more information). If something is notable and important, it will have been covered in better sources (mainstream newspapers, etc.), which are the ones you should add instead. If something has not been covered except in blogs, then it fails the verifiability policy of wikipedia. Please use good sources so articles can be trusted and verified rather than being seen as just rumor-mongering and biased reporting. DMacks (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear DMacks: My intent is in fact just the opposite of rumor-mongering and biased reporting. The only links I have provided to happen to be posted in a blog because I could not find them on other websites. All of them are properly referenced with dates of publication. I will however try to find the same citations on other websites and replace them as and when I can. StudentForLifeTime (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be your intent, but if you "could not find them on other websites", then it is not allowed here. Wikipedia is not for everything and anything that someone read somewhere. We have very clear guidelines about reliable sourcing, in keeping with the official verifiability policy. DMacks (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll second that. Please stop using blogs as sources in Indian Institute of Planning and Management. I have fixed a couple of them already. Please fix the rest, or remove the badly-referenced text, otherwise your edits will be reverted. Also please use the edit summary field to explain your edits. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I take the point and have already replaced the blog links with the Times of India epaper link today and hope to add more citations from credible news sources in the near future.

THE FOLLOWING COMMENT BY SINCE-BANNED EX-ADMINISTRATOR WIFIONE HAS BEEN STRUCK, AS IT WAS MADE IN BAD FAITH. --Elvey(t•c) 09:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ::Dear StudentForLifeTime. Kindly note that the references of wordpress and one of a blog that you have given are not acceptable on Wikipedia. I will be reverting the statements today. There are a few other issues I have listed down below. Kindly address them before you decide to again add to the article:
 * Kindly read our policy/guidelines on reliable sources, verifiability, and the need to maintain a neutral point of view. These three are our editing pillars. Your additions to articles on Wikipedia should qualify on the mentioned three parameters.
 * The mbachannel link you have provided is being retained. However, given the non-neutral point of view of your statement, the same is being modified.
 * The UGC notice you have provided is a 2007 notice. The contents of the notice have already been dealt with in detail within the article and your addition does not add to the context of the article. This addition does give news, but Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia to note each and every news event. Therefore, the same will be also removed.
 * In case you do believe there are points that I have got wrong, please feel free to write directly to me on my talk page. In case you need any help in adding future sources, please feel free to write to me or to any other editor. You will be assisted considerably. Thanks and kind regards.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  05:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Wifone,

It is very disheartening to see the links removed, but let me try and place the issue in perspective. Let me try and tackle each of the changes in an orderly way.

First, the UGC ad

It appeared in the Times of India on August 23:

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/getimage.dll?path=CAP/2010/08/23/9/Img/Ad0090800.png

The date is in the newspaper itself. 2007 is part of the number of the advertisement. You can see the notice here:

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=CAP&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW&GZ=T&AW=1282757767984

Why would the UGC issue a 2007 notice in 2010?

The reason why the UGS seems to have been compelled to give this notice is for reasons such as the following:

http://twitpic.com/2fkopn/full

Now, you could argue that the Twitpic is not an autheticated account, but that is the trouble with banner advertising. They would never have a static URL.

I hope you would be able to see the problem that the UGC and some of the past students of IIPM are fighting: despite warnings, IIPM blatantly continues to advertise falsely and that is why such ads by UGC are required. I hope the above will be able to satisfy you that this is absolutely PERTINENT news worthy of being mentioned about IIPM as anyone who reads the entry should know what the government's regulatory body has to say about IIPM

Once I have your approval to re-insert the above detail in the entry, I will come back and address some of the other issues StudentForLifeTime (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC) THE FOLLOWING COMMENT BY SINCE-BANNED EX-ADMINISTRATOR WIFIONE HAS BEEN STRUCK, AS IT WAS MADE IN BAD FAITH. --Elvey(t•c) 09:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear StudentForLifeTime, thanks for your message. I appreciate your concerns. At the same time, much of what you are emphasizing is based on what Wikipedia would designate original research. Wikipedia articles can have only that information that has been exactly replicated in verifiable and reliable sources. This is not an optional requirement on Wikipedia, it is imperative. If you read through the whole article, you would find much of what you might wish to add already existing - one being the UGC issue. While your link of the newspaper Times of India apparently has a date that says 23/8/2010, the fact is that the notice is a 2007 notice that more or less repeats exactly those details attributed to UGC that already exist within the article. In case you believe that there is a reliable source that provides fresh details on the UGC - or other - perspective with respect to the article, please feel free to add the same. But while adding any statement, kindly always maintain a neutral point of view, another necessity while adding information in Wikipedia articles. Do not use your synthesis or analysis of words from any reliable source. Write exactly what the reliable source mentions. At this juncture, I would again advise you to give a thorough read to our editorial pillars of verifiability, reliability and neutrality. Please write back on my talk page for any assistance in adding any reference. Warm regards.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  18:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice Wifione's reply until now. I just put essentially the same response on Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management.
 * StudentForLifeTime, I also want to point out that this is a rare instance of Wifione and I both agreeing on something related to this article. I think that's telling. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * All right, so instead of my conclusion, let's hear it from the UGC itself as quoted in the Mint today: “IIPM is advertising its courses by using the name of UGC, MHRD and AICTE,” UGC vice-chairman Ved Prakash said. “It is indulging in cheating.” --StudentForLifeTime (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This conversation really belongs on the article talk page, not here. If you haven't done so, would you copy your comment above there? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

KUDOS to StudentForLifeTime - for constructive edits. Amatulić AND DMacks - too bad you missed the forest for the trees. A learning experience, perhaps? Any lessons to share? FYI, this Newsweek article brought me here.--Elvey(t•c) 09:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Bad people are bad, and they make it hard for good people to be good." I confirmed that WP:RS/WP:V always wins in the end, that determined bad-faith editors can make that process take excessively long due to their strong intent to undermine the policies of Wikipedia, and that the lengths and depths some will go to accomplish those ill purposes is astounding:( DMacks (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I brought up this issue about Wifione at his RFA, and he passed it anyway. At the time, I figured his past would eventually catch up with him, and I suppose now it has. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)