Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 4

message: User:Iipmstudent9, User:Tintin1107, User:Gurubrahma, User:Ravikiran_r, User:DrStravinsky and User:Peruvianllama, please stop reverting. Please take the time to review the WP:3RR and WP:DR policies.
If you do not agree with an edit, discuss it on the talk page. Revert wars accomplish nothing and clog up the edit history. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop reverting each other 

message: Maybe it is time to recommend locking this article for a while. Tintin 15:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. The edits being made by IIPMStudent9 are not vandalism. A page is  not locked simply because one side is sick of reverting another side. You must stop reverting and start making contributions to the page instead in an effort to resolve the dispute. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 22:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  PLease see my comment above to DeepakShenoy - lets work together for a commonly acceptable solution with K's help .--Iipmstudent9 04:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Tintin 04:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree to refrain myself from further edits. But the page will be constantly under watch and any IP edits will be taken care of instantly. Well, this is more like the "No first use" policy of using nukes. (IIPMStudent9 - Do you still have problem getting my name right? Usually the procedure is that one should learn the three R's before getting an "International MBA degree")PeaSea 06:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added this article to articles we're watching at the CVU. --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 09:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock ? 

message: A snapshot of the wikipedia article at this time looks like a typical IIPM advertisement. All the edits made by IIPMStudent9 are slow reversions which converge to the last version alleged to be of POV in nature. The only thing NPOV in the whole article is a little line on the IIPM controversy. I cannot agree with any of the edits made by IIPMStudent9 except segregating the controversy section and adding back the "Prof" title to Arindam Chaudhuri (albeit with double quotes or an attached note saying that it is not academic and just a self-adopted title). Also since it was also revealed that IIPM9 is the common handle for a group of students, it is not justifiable to use this ID further. Each individual has to use separate handles. PeaSea 07:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PeaSea, Please let me know what exactly you find to be a problem in the article, and we can discuss it. Konrad as a mediator could help us see things thru Wiki's view. And we've started using seperate handles. :) --Iipmalum 07:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snapshot 

message: I am twelve hours away from Indian Standard Time and is hence bidding good-bye from editing the article for the time being. I hope that my objections will be heeded. If after 8 hours this is not taken care of, I will revert back the last known NPOV edit but with a segregated controversy section. PeaSea 08:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I repeat, there is no war here, atleast for me. I previously agreed to a "No first use" policy and not a "wait and watch" policy.PeaSea 08:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I have added a Controversy section in the IIPM page. I believe there is enough need to inform students of potential issues with print advertisements and the website. Now, we need to evaluate all points of controversy and list then on the controversy page. I suggest that we list only the TOP 5 controversial items on the IIPM page, and detail them and others out in the Controversy page. It's too late right now, but I will attempt to do this tomorrow.Deepakshenoy 19:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Deepak, Awesome edit. It think this retains the NPOV nature and gives a bird's eye view of the subject. PeaSea 20:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "controversy" section is just a small part of the entire article. The rest of the section has been segregated. Hence I support this edit. PeaSea 07:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Revert Back 

message: Deepak, Wiki is an encyclopedia. The article is on IIPM. Since all the photos clearly state New Delhi, and campus and branches are clearly written seperately, what is the need for such a aggressively worded line, in BOLD?? K, please help with these issues? --Iipmstudent9 07:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The terms should not be in bold. See WP:MOS for more information about formatting articles. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 13:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, the bold parts can be removed, otherwise we'll have everthing in bold. I've removed the bold parts. Now, IIPMstudent9, you must understand - removing bold does not mean removing the entire lines! I've just reset the formatting but retained the lines. I assume you have no argument with the lines themselves. "Professor" Deepakshenoy 16:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deepak, darling, is there a way of making those lines look like a (aggressive and tort law fearing!)lawyer did not write them? It looks very out of place in an encyclopedic article, na? Can we assume that everyone will look at the photo's and the captions themselves are self explanatory? By the way, I've asked the IIPM administration to contact you to see if you would like to learn more about the institute offline. And thanks for reverting Gaurav Sabnis' vandalism :) Hope you'll see that there is no need for those lines, given existence of the captions. --Iipmstudent9 10:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IIPMStudent9, nope, sorry. This is not an advertisement for IIPM. It's very possible that someone,on reading the text, does not see the fact that such fancy infrastructure is only available in the Delhi "Campus". In fact the IIPM web site says that all your branches are "campuses" - see the IIPM Infrastructure page. I would like to correct that anomaly and make it clear. The captions are not self explanatory - the impression is completely different. These lines will stay, unless IIPM changes it's advertisements. Note that I have refrained from adding very pointed text like this: IIPM has only one campus - in New Delhi - and the rest are branches. IIPMs advertisements and web site give the impression that all branches have the same infrastructure as the New Delhi campus, but that is not true. The branches in other cities do not have some of the facilities (swimming pool, 1000 seat auditorium) etc. Contact me offline, of course, not an issue. Given that I don't even know your name(s), IIPMStudent9, it will be nice to add a name to an alias. Deepakshenoy 13:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, the Infrastructure section of this article doesn't belong. See Stanford for a well structured article about an educational institution. There should be a section on campuses, but that should address the history and what currently is on campus. Stuff like "IIPM's claims that its infrastructure is cutting edge." is an analysis of advertising practice and is not relevant to this section. That should be covered in the controversy article. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about advertising strategy ? Tintin 00:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't that section look inappropriate for the article about the college, as well ? Tintin 02:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Absolutely doesn't belong. If anything, it should be significantly edited and merged with the controversy article, which itself needs major surgery! ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the "Advertising strategy" being removed. It does not belong there. But the Infrastructure section? It must stay - in India there are colleges everywhere, what differentiates them is the infrastructure available. An encyclopedia must list what the college has, and unlike Stanford, we have multiple locations for IIPM. If Infrastructure is mentioned, then we must mention what infrastructure is available where. I can see why stuff like "IIPM's claims that its infrastructure is cutting edge." is not particularly relevant here, but I believe that if we're talking facts, we must specifically say that only the Delhi campus has the phenomenal facilities and the other locations do not. Deepakshenoy 04:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  DeepakShenoy, yes, IIPM's Delhi infrastructure is really very good. Back in my days we never imagined this would be possible for IIPM! There is no other institute in the country which provides the same level of infrastructure, is there? Lucky students! --Iipmalum 17:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold lines on Infrastructure