Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 9

message: Makrand, Deepak, thanks for the suggestions. I'm not intending to completely transform the current page of IIPM; but just wanted your inputs on certain guidelines. I was surfing the IIMs page on Wiki. Couldn't find any of the controversies of IIMs listed out there. Could you give me an insight into why's it like that? Just a query. Thanks, Mrinal 203.76.135.250 07:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, am waiting for your inputs on my query whether newspaper reports which cite the news of the strategic alliance, but are not available on the net, could be accepted? Regards, Mrinal  203.76.135.250 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a Wiki. If you have references, go ahead and add the controversies. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could scan the reports and upload them in the talk, as has been done previously, there will be no issue. Makrandjoshi 18:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Mrinal, Glad to know you're back and that your office has been desealed. You will note that the "strategic alliance" has been added to the page in the form of three day workshops (though there is no information on what else is part of this alliance). I think while PR is definitely "purchaseable" in the form of articles, to prove a real alliance I would recommend that both parties place it on their web sites. If you place a link saying this publication has published it but it's not on the web, someone else could say it has not, and then there's a deadlock. Deepakshenoy 10:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has Mrinal ever admitted his involvement with IIPM. If not, it would be wrong to assume this, and even violation of Wikipedia's policy that personal information should not be published. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, he has: "I write because the email you've sent to Dr. Tse is something that could have been worded much much better", which I believe he said to reveal he was part of IIPM, since that email was sent specifically only to Dr. Tse. Secondly, he has, earlier, mentioned my company's name and lots of other information; in fact I wasn't aware personal information is not published in Wikipedia, and I can't seem to find anything on the guidelines (do you have a link?). Deepakshenoy 13:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes of course. If there's a policy, there's a link. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks Ambuj! Here, my company name and information was revealed and stuff like "Hows the weather down south?", but by a different alias ("IIPMStudent9") which I have confused for Mrinal. Sorry for that - Mrinal is perhaps different from "IIPMStudent9". Of course, Mrinal did mention getting my email, which would count to be a self revelation of involvement with IIPM? Unfortunately, anyone can post as "Mrinal" given that this "Mrinal" does not log in. I'll gladly retract the statement of course, no problem with that. As personal affronts go, I think we've had some history of that here :) But yes, I get the point, and I shall keep any personal remarks out of the conversation. Deepakshenoy 07:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one has been offended yet, I would request to drop the matter, and make sure that future remains trouble free. That goes for all the editors involved here, and no one in particular. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, Deepak, Ambuj, I'm being given too much importance. For the sake of clarity :-) I'm not iipmstudent9 or whoever the person is; and I do not subscribe to the manner in which those statements have been made. And Deepak, thanks for the point about you keeping out personal remarks out of your conversation :-) No offence taken anyway. Take care and best wishes, Mrinal 203.76.132.74 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Mrinal, feel free to edit the IIMs page to include the controversies. As Ambuj says, this is a wikipedia. If there are some controversies which you think should be mentioned on the IIM page, you have a right to add them. Makrandjoshi 18:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi everybody, I'm not an IIM editor. But like I mentioned before, if editors of those pages, and if editors of other b-school pages are following a guideline with respect to information being displayed on the b-school information page, then I'll change the information being quoted on IIPM's page quite appropriately. I don't think that IIPM's information page is supposed to act as a benchmark to create new guidelines of how b-school information is written. I'm starting my changes from December 10th, 2006. Till then, please feel free to give your comments to my suggestions. They are directly related to the fact that on IIPM's information, there are links mentioned of magazines that cannot be accessed by a normal net user, there are links mentioned of articles, that can be purchased through PR efforts from both sides, and there are links that are almost completely unverifiable, except for news reports. If AICTE has mentioned something, I would prefer the information to be on the web sites of both the institutions (AICTE and IIPM) or at least on AICTE's. A magazine reporting that some guy in AICTE mentions something, is as good a PR effort of interested people, as would be IIPM's "PR" effort. So if Stanford and Yale's information cannot be put, I'll remove almost all the other information that is not on the web site of the quoted party. If controversies are mentioned on web sites of other b-schools, then they will be mentioned only after you convince me and show me the wiki websites of some b-schools (not just one) which have controversies mentioned. And I will then accept your argument. But I'm neither an IIM editor, not a Yale editor, but find both these b-schools' information on wiki quite appropriately put, and shall immediately change the information on IIPM's wiki page. Like I said, December 10, 2006, is the date on which I start changing. But only after you've given me information with respect to what all should I be considering. I repeat, IIPM's wiki page cannot create newfound benchmarks (which I seriously believe have been arbitrarily created in the past months, and not necessarily by Deepak or Makrand). Thanks and regards, Mrinal 05:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mrinal, Like Makrand said, don't wait. There are no benchmarks or b-school page guidelines,and controversies ARE mentioned in other school pages. The point is, if you want to add a controversy in an IIM page, please do so, it's a wiki. IIM pages aren't complete - in fact no page is - so it may just be that the info isn't yet added. Links to "neutral" sites are perfectly valid, even if they are probably IIPM PR releases, and you will notice how the Stanford information has been put. Yale wise there is no report at all that is verifiable (or you haven't put it here). If you remove the controversy section, I will revert it back. If you want to edit it, please do so and we can then provide our suggestions. Don't threaten us with your dates please, if you want to add content please add it. Deepakshenoy 10:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Mrinal, why wait till December 10? This is a wiki. Anyone can edit it at any time.  You make changes you want. If other editors find them violating wiki policy, they will revert them citing the reason. If not, they will let them be. Just some advise. If you are making any widespread changes to the page, then for those to stick, they should made citing wiki policy, and not some invented notion of "benchmarks". Else other editors such as myself will see no need to revamp an entire page. Makrandjoshi 07:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial suggestion of revamp test

message: The issue about using the terms "Indian Institute" as well as offering foreign degrees has to do with AICTE and government laws and thus is unrelated to IIPM's advertising claims. I've created a separate sub-section for it. Makrandjoshi 18:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Makrand, kindly note the para I've written in the above discussion. Kindly do respond to the same. Best, Mrinal 203.76.132.74 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some changes in the controversy section

message: Arindam Chaudhuri is a famous alumnus. As is Asheesh Khaneja, since his name turns up on several sites if googled. But the only record of a Ram Mohan Rao in Fuji Xerox appears on this page. Hardly counts as a famous alumnus. So removed him. Makrandjoshi 18:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Makrand, I'll change this part from December 10. Kindly read the para above and do please respond above. Regards, Mrinal 203.76.132.74 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edited the Famous Alumni

message: Mrinal, you need to remember one thing. A wiki is a collaborative effort with natural checks-and-balances. And a wiki has been put in place primarily to share information. When you mention schools like Yale, Stanford and IIM, remember that there are no major contentious issues against any of them. The controversies, if any, are of a minor nature, and usually involving some student, and not the core-offering of the school itself, i.e the education. With IIPM, it is different. It is a well-known fact that there are problems with the school. The whole controversy erupted because IIPM tried to muzzle criticism about it by threatening bogus lawsuits.... lawsuits I might add which were never filed. So on this page, the editors have been making an effort to make available every possible piece of information which might benefit the reader. Over the last year, editors such as Deepak and myself have tended to this page scrupulously. And we have reverted slanderous and insulting edits made about IIPM. The idea is not to be hard on IIPM. The idea is to present the complete facts. The page has been painstakingly built, following official wiki policies and guidelines. One editor coming and saying the whole page shuld be revamped, and that too for a reason having nothing to do with wiki policies and guidelines, but comparison to other school pages, is simply not acceptable at least to me. Any change you make should be made citing wiki policies and guidelines, and not citing some imaginary non-existent "benchmarks". Propose a change. If it is due to wiki policies, Ambuj, Deepak and I won't have any problem. We are conscientious wiki-ers. Makrandjoshi 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Makrand, I accept what you and Deepak are saying. I think that if we believe in freedom of expression without benchmarking it with others, then just the three of us can keep having a debate forever. But I appreciate your and Deepak's inputs. So I'll start making changes from this week onwards. If you don't like it, do please revert them. And if I don't like your reverts, I'll revert the same back. Let's go on doing that till we reach a negotiated conclusion (or one of us blinks first :-)). Best wishes, Take care, and let the reverts begin :-) 125.19.3.2 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is what is called a Revert War, Mrinal. You will remove the elements that belong in there, and that will simply result in cross-reverts. Deepakshenoy 10:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison to other pages

message: Dear Deepak, Makrand,
Sticking to the concept that you're free to make your changes, and I'm free to make mine (freedom of expression), my first change, which I'm sure you'll most vociferously oppose, is to shift all references to controversies to the IIPM Main Article on controversies that is already there on another page. My viewpoint is that if you guys have already created a separate page called IIPM controversies on wiki, then it is not appropriate to repeat the contents out here in the main section. Therefore, I request you to kindly add all the controversies in the other section; while I delete them from here. As promised, kindly feel free to revert back any changes you think you don't accept. And if I don't accept that revert, I will revert the same back. But do please always give comments if possible. Take care and have a merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Regards... Mrinal 125.19.3.2 06:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted this change. I don't agree with removing the controversies as I believe they should be mentioned on this page. The separate page is to provide more details, but the basic points must be mentioned here. If you will notice this is the #3 link when people search on Google for "IIPM", and this site needs to provide important information about IIPM, positive or negative. I'm also not sure why you provided this change: "The BBA/MBA degrees are offered by IMI Belgium, and not IIPM. IMI, Belgium grants BBA and MBA degrees to students of IIPM." - the first sentence conveys the meaning; the second one is a repetition, do you believe otherwise? Removing the Outlook withdrawal of IIPM's ratings is also important to mention, and the fact remains that IIPM uses these ratings even today, so we must provide information on this page that the rating is not valid. Deepakshenoy 08:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course, seems sensible. But I'll wait for comments from Makrand and Ambuj. I think the fact that there exists a different page for IIPM controversies clearly allows a space for all the details to be put :-) So reverting back your changes. Take care, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 08:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reverting it back. Let everyone see your changes in the history, and then accept/discuss, and then we can see what to put it in. Thanks. Deepakshenoy 10:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise Deepak. Let everybody see the logic. Controversy has a separate page. It's so strange that we repeat even one line out of that in the main page. So reverting back. Regards, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 11:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I don't see the logic. We have discussed this in an earlier archived talk page that we would put in five points. Reverting back. Deepakshenoy 11:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also another request Deepak, Can you kindly archive these set of discussions and let's start on a new page. I don't know how to archive discussions. Thanks and regards, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 11:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Requesting user Woohookitty to kindly leave comments before or after reverting. Kindly also leave a logic before reverting. It's a request as the change done by Woohookitty has no past logic (That means that I understand Deepak's changes as he's been involved for such a long time editing this project). So reverting back Woohookitty's revert. Regards, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 11:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Deepak, I'm reverting back your changes, but perhaps for the last time as it looks silly that we're just reverting each other's changes. kindly notice that earlier archived pages do not hold relevance with the passage of time. If you wish, we could move for requests from other editors, or if you wish, we could also move for mediation. It's a request. If you accept, let's put up this page for mediation to the mediations committee. It'll be great to have their responses. If you also wish, we could instead put up requests for comments instead of directly going to mediation. My only logic is that we should not repeat the contents that have already been put up on the IIPM Controversy page. There is a page that has been created; and we should adhere to the guideline. Regards, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 11:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm ok with mediation, but the page must go back to where it was BEFORE you edited the contents out. It is silly, yes, but you're just removing content that has earlier been discussed, so until you get consensus of your changes, kindly refrain from removing this content. There is no guideline, a page has been created for detailing the controversy, and as discussed earlier there is reason to place five points on this page. I will be requesting that this page be locked to the last stable version. Thanks. Deepakshenoy 12:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Have further modified the links and references and changed a bit of the wording. Mrinal, can you check to see if that makes better sense? Deepakshenoy 13:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes as promised

message: Main points
::::I have gone through the discussions. Deepak has made statements that go against clear personal attack guidelines set by wiki. But i think that Deepak has also apologised for the same. But i request other editors to see if Deepak's words are right.
:::: Deepak has made statements as follows "IIPM continues to take people for a ride. Why should we not mention it here, till IIPM fixes things? Let them get AICTE approval, we can then remove the AICTE bits." this clearly goes against wiki guidelines for keeping personal opinion out of the page. Can we send him a link to correct such words? Eds, do go thorugh above paras for reference to other such personal opinion, and not just from Deepak.
:::: But  I think both sides logic seems pertinent. It is correct that main page should have a summary. But it is also correct that the main page is copying text from another section created specifically for that. That seems not done. I've seen many pages and simply repeating stuff is not required. A link is perfectly ok especially when the other site has existed over along period of time.
::::I also wish to bring in that there are many points entered by deepak that require citation. I'm not able to google up the source for many points some in the first paragraph itself. Can somebody help me if there's an source for the HT article that came out with details about belgium government not approving imi mbas? I don't think that qualifies for NPOV. or at least provide a citation.
Also, i read some of the previous discussion. i find deepak's point pertinent that news can be bought and we should not list details of jvs till they are mentioned on individual institutes web sites. For example till the stanford or yale joint venture is not mentioned in the web site of both sites of stanford it cannot be mentioned out here. i find mrinal's points also correct that way that till the time aicte point is noted on AICTE web site the comments of the aicte guy remain a personal comment that don't qualify for NPOV. Ganesh's point is correct that the article should not seem like an ad. It doesn't either way. I like the comparison mrinal brings out with other business school web sites. perhaps his review seems the least like an ad. check out the other Indian b-school web sites. Though I agree with both, I have to give it to Mrinal for the logic. ganeshji, i'm reverting it back to before you reverted. Regards Desiree777 00:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Desiree I don't agree with all your points. Deepak's attacks are not even personal attacks but a revealing of personal information. Yes, there is a guideline that forbids even the revealing of personal information and Deepak 'might' have unknowingly gone against it; but it in no way qualifies for a heading like "Personal Attacks". Secondly Deepak's personal comments are restricted to this discussion page and if you notice the discussion of the other people like user Makrand user Mrinal even they have used utterly personal statements but again only in the discussion page. The discussion page "is for mentioning personal statements". The main project page is where you stick to NPOV. Please do not accuse without relevantly checking on user guidelines. Various points that Deepak has entered may not have a live link on the web but would be in the knowledge of the open domain. If the world in general accepts a piece of information, despite it being not 'googlable' it can be put up. I do believe that IMI MBAs not being accepted must be in public domain, though I'm not an MBA and do not have an idea about the Belgium government part, I'm sure other MBA's visiting this site must be knowng this information already. They should chip in and supoort the information. With respect to AICTE, the very fact taht IIPM does not find mention in the web page within the site of AICTE that lists recognised institutions, is proof enough that IIPM is not recognised by AICTE. We do not need a separate page on the AICTE web site devoted to IIPM. I'll wait for the comments of other editors. I'm putting this up for immediate RfC request for comments from other editors internationally. If you have any issues, you could also write directly to me or to user woohookitty user Woohoohitty. CiaoAdnn1n 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As I mentioned in the previous section, the main-article will have to mention the contraversy and criticism for it to be NPOV. A link to the child-article won't do. Blanking sections won't solve your purpose. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please dicuss here first. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ganesh, Deepak, I stick to my point; you cannot have the controversy in one story when there's another project already created for it. Do not kindly repeat text. I'm reverting back to the original version. Deepak, do kindly revert back if you have any argument with the change. I'm perfectly ok with you and Makrand doing the reverts. I have no idea about who Ganesh or desiree or admin are. Neither have they been involved with the editing of this page since you have been, nor do they have that much of an idea of our background discussion. Regards, Mrinal 61.16.233.194 11:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: user Mrinal (no login) do not change and revert pages arbitrarily. If you wish mediation, put up a request. Both the parties can approve of the same. Though your changes are not vandalism, they do not adhere to our revert policy. We're reverting back to user Deepak Shenoy's last saved version. You could directly write to me or to user user Woohoohitty in case you feel this revert is arbitrary. Through the Woohookitty login, adminstrator powers are granted...System c0ntr0ls 11:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addmin, what's up with your rfc? Revert on woohoo's page; and keep a track of the revert going on here. Send me or johnson the update... System c0ntr0ls 11:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attack and not adhering to NPOV

message: Mrinal, you have been requesting that I provide you links to other education sites on Wikipedia that have "Controversies" in them. Here you go:
* Yale
* University of Pennsylvania
* Vedanta University
* Warnborough University
* Columbia Pacific University
* Rochville University
* Kennedy Western University
I hope this clears that part up - that we must have a controversy section here as well. Deepakshenoy 11:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deepak, good work provided. Though the argument of Mrinal is still unanswered to a large extent - when there exists a separate section for controversies, why are we repeating IIPM content on both sites? Mrinal, you may like it or not like it, other editors will see the RfCs and come here. I don't know whether you have a problem with that. Ganesh, vandalism is when words are cut completely without logic. You can discuss with other editors but when the request is to shift the words to a similar worded project already available, it is extreme to call edits a vandalism. That way, I can put up five new paragraphs, and you might cut it, and i might say it is vandalism... I'm not reverting back your change right now. I'll directly contact System Controls or put up further RfCs. Regards, Desiree777 12:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Desiree, it's not whether I like your involvement or not. I appreciate as many people's feedback, but the same has to be given after understanding the page history. If you simply put across an argument without a background of having contributed to it, I can only take that as a positive vote. If we're working towards concensus, I don't want editors like you, Ganesh, admin, woohookitty, system controls etc coming in here and reverting. I honestly believe that though there is no such thing as a "right to edit", I shall appreciate it if you allow the revert right to be exercised by either Deepak or Makrand as they have been the only two I know of whose past edits have been thoroughly sensible and intellectually debated. I'm sure you and the other "sudden reverting editors" have not been involved with this IIPM page till two days ago. My only request is, kindly allow Deepak to revert than all of you reverting. I don't want the debate to be lost while arguing with Ganesh or you or everybody else. So despite my thanks to you for repeating my argument to Deepak, I would say that you should not revert back... Regards and apologies, Mrinal 61.16.233.194 12:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mrinal, Reverting is not a right only to existing editors of an article, it can be exercised by anyone. Let's all work on the assumption that we are mature people, and that anyone who wants to edit or change can do so. Do not put arbitrary restrictions - I don't even know if you are Mrinal or you are someone pretending to be Mrinal because you do not login here. Ganesh is a Wikipedia admin, by the way. Deepakshenoy 13:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Desiree, It *is* vandalism to cut out paragraphs that have been there for a long time, have been debated, and have been toned down to acceptability. The controversy summary must exist here, and link to further details which is in the separate page. That's the answer to the question that Mrinal has raised that you think is unanswered - I believe it's perfectly valid to summarise the controversies in the IIPM page. Remember, the controversy page is only for the advertising controversy, and there are two others that don't need a page of their own. Deepakshenoy 13:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Deepak, changing, paragraphs cannot be repeated -Dude 219.65.248.193 06:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous, now people I have no idea about are destroying what we built over months of discussion. Deepak, Ganesh, can't you block the IP addresses of these people who ostensibly seem to be supporting my reverts, But I really do not appreciate that. Ganesh, Deepak says you are an administrator. Kindly block the IPs of these guys doing reverts, which I think they're doing just for fun... Regards, Mrinal 203.76.135.250 07:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes Deepak, I get what you mean. I'll create a login right now so that at least you know you are talking to me rather than to just any "Mrinal". Also, with respect to your logic of vandalism, I thoroughly disagree, as vandalism would be blanking out paragraphs. I'm requesting you to shift these paragraphs to the separate project called IIPM Controversy. Kindly do that and please do kindly appreciate the logic. Also, I guess if there's a separate page called IIPM Controversy (and not called "IIPM Ad Controversy") that has been created and accepted over such a long period of time, we should shift all the controversies to that, and not just the ad controversies. Therefore, I'll wait till today evening, and then again revert the section to what I believe is right.203.76.135.250 07:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mrinal, I believe there should be a summary right here. Please see the logic and stop reverting. Deepakshenoy 09:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ganesh, do kindly block the IPs of the people who seem to be reverting to my saved versions without giving any logic. I accept the logic that anyone can edit; but I feel that none of these reverts are being made with sense. It just seems funny and strange. Whatever. Thanks, and regards, Mrinal 203.76.135.250 07:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi All....repeating things doesn't make the site cool....-Dude219.65.248.68 08:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it does. Seeing the summary as it exists is important. Deepakshenoy 09:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies on other college web sites

message: I have debated quite long on this issue on the IIPM page and I have a good idea about the viewpoints of Deepak and Makrand. I'm creating this section for getting other editors' feedback on the fact that while there is a separate project created called IIPM Controversy, information with respect to 'controversies' are mentioned on the IIPM page too. On a daily basis, I am shifting such 'controversial' information to the project called IIPM Controversy. Which Deepak has opposed, and with logic. I have answered all his queries, again with logic, which he has also answered back. It'll be wonderful to get your feedback on my proposed move so that we can move towards a concensus. Thanks for the patience, regards, Mrinal 203.76.135.250 07:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for registering, Mrinal. For the record, I fully support a summary of the controversy on this page, with details on another page. Note that the page Income Tax has exactly such summaries, and so do many other pages on Wikipedia. Deepakshenoy 09:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Deepak, let's wait for other editors' views also as I know there are many hundreds of other pages, apart from 'income tax' that do Not list the summaries on one page and repeat the same on the other page... Even in 'income tax' link that you've provided, the main page listing is maximum of of very few lines, thus actually strengthening my case. But let's not again debate with each other on this because in the same way as your argument holds logic (and I've accepted that), there are hundreds of other web sites on wikipedia that follow exactly the opposite of what you are saying :-)But again, I'm getting trapped into arguing with you. Sorry :-) :-) Lastly, just a piece of information that might be helpful. I guess let's ignore this guy whoever is making the reverts. If he reverts whenever, let's just revert back to 'your' last saved version (you would've noticed that despite my arguments with you, I reverted back to your last saved version, rather Ganesh's last saved version). That way (that is, by ignoring him) I'm sure he'll realise that doing this revert stuff nonsensically is of no use. Of course, if somebody (even this Cool or Dude guy) write some logical argument, we could respond to that. But whichever way, it's your call. I might not get a chance to say this tomorrow, but thought I'll tell this to you (and Makrand and Ganesh and all the others, including Woohookitty, System Controls, Addmin, Desiree etc), may you have a merry Christmas, and as the cliche goes, a wonderful happy new year too :-) Take care and regards Mrinal Pandey 10:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Mrinal, and I wish you and your family a merry Christmas and a very Happy 2007 as well! Deepakshenoy 11:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repetition of information on IIPM page

message: user Mrinal, Makrand, Deepak, iipmstudent9, ganesh (admn), some of you already have edit powers on the protected page. If your user id doesn't allow the same, or if you wish to unprotect the page, put your unprotect requests here. Continue discussing your arguments on this talk page. An edit protect does not mean that we're siding with either one party's argument or the other. Edit protects are only meant to ensure that haphazard and arbitrary changes to the page are not attempted by parties interested in simply 'having fun'. As System Controls would have already clarified, we do not find Ganesh's reverts, or Shenoy's verbal tirade, or Mrinal's cuts as vandalism or going against personal attack policy. So kindly continue discussions with the parties. Put your unprotect requests where we've linked you up. It'll be done soon by Nishkid when he perceives the danger of vandalism has gone donw. Regards Group Systern Head 07:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, Group System Head. I request that we continue edit protection until we've sorted out, in the discussion, the need to keep or remove sections.  Deepakshenoy 08:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, this is not a full protect. This is a partial edit protect only done to protect against vandalism by unknown users, and not by known users. Kindly do not request full edit protection till a situation arises where the current users cannot sort out the issue. Dispute resolution takes many days. The partial edit would be removed once the administrator in question, Nishkid, would perceive that the danger of unknown user vandalism has gone down. Have patience 219.65.248.219 08:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, full protect not required. But partial edit protect should continue till at least a day after Christmas. To you too Rick!Jon Meacham 08:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit unprotect request

message: Mrinal is trying to remove the fact that outlook has retracted the ranking given. I believe this is vandalism. Deepakshenoy 08:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this site is the flavor of the month; you already have all the tech heads visiting the page. Seems to be the most active page this weekend. I've been directed out here by another RfC of woohoo. My view - request for shifting it to another page created already, holds weight, and cannot be called vandalism, especially when the user Mrinal has a background of discussing arguments quite proportionately. Having said that, Mrinal does not have the right to revert continuously and without waiting for feedback from other editors. I find Deepak correct in his request that such reverts cannot continue till discussions have sorted out the issue. Edit protection should continue for at least a couple of days as the other users reverting the page are adhering to pure vandalism. I find user Deepak, Ganesh (to Nikshkid), Mrinal's request to protect against other users correct and pertinent. I've forwarded your RfC furtheron... Rick Stengel 08:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By outlook the Deepakshenoy is referring to a mag in India Rick. It's on the net. What would you do if the city slickers vandalise our page after a bad ny yankees match :-). But I agree chum, user Mrinal's not a vandalims attempt Byron Calame 09:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Ranking section

message: I oppose the removal of the controversy summary, since it accurately depicts the issue at hand. Open to suggestions to improve the content, but not to the removal of it entirely. (Regardless of whether there is another page detailing the controversy) Deepakshenoy 08:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Accept the RfC context. Controvery section (in the IIPM page) cannot be removed. Improvement points - move the multiple references of controversies (from the top of the IIPM page) to the section in controversy; reduce the content strength in the IIPM page; shift most contents to the extra page IIPM Controversy. Readers are mature, they will link up to the other page IIPM Controversy too. Do not worry about readers not getting information. The worry we have is that you might end up in a run -off duel with user Mrinal; ending in mediation; and the background of mediation is quite gory, where both users lose complete control. So Mrinal, do not go to mediation till you have gone through all the other steps of dispute resolution. And we do see that with the words you are exchanging with user Deepak, the dispute is quite resolvable... Rick Stengel 08:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rick, you're too hard. User Deepakshenoy isn't opposed to improving contents. Neither is he requesting that contents not be shifted to the other page called IIPM Controversy. He's agreed to tone down the section considerably. I see woohoo, syscontrols and gsa have all come here. Has any of the talk page debaters applied for mediation ?!?!! User Deepakshenoy, if possible, sort out the issue logically and with negotiation rather than ending up finally in mediation. Take care    Jon Meacham 09:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked, none has applied for mediation. user Ganesh is admin, but was involved in reverting consecutively (?!?!??) and has messages exchanged on personal message boards with user Deepakshenoy; user Ganesh gave the request to editprotect to Nishkid (two in continuation). Richard you're right. Jonathan I don't believe your concept is correct. The page is splattered with controversy from the word go. It looks amazingly 'controversial'. And that despite a separate page existing Byron Calame 09:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cal, I dinna understand the "??!!??!" after the statement that user Ganesh is admin and she was involved in reverting consecutively. Are admins not allowed to revert consecutively? Or did you put those eggs'clamations bcos Ganesh talks on the personal pages of user Deepakshe Noy? N if that's the case, is there a rule that admins cannot communicate on personal pages? Cal, don't allow the context to change. The page is not "amazingly" controversial. There are only a few extra controversy elements added. You can't give  a generalized statement. N if u notice the statements that Noy has awready given, he's ok with taking the hoot off the extra stuff. So give a solution, not another perspective to the problem. Hope I'm civil enough... Or are admins not allowed to be civil :-) Steven Warner 10:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Removal of controversy section 

message: While the sealing and desealing happened in November, the news mentioned says that the courts have given IIPM two months to vacate. I believe we should keep this till Jan 17, 2007 at least and remove it only if nothing further has happened. Deepakshenoy 08:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deepakshenoy, just one small advice. If you continue giving many RfCs, the importance of the initial RfCs would drift away. I do believe that this is a current event, so you should keep this in the page, however, if it is a controversy (it sounds like one), then it should be shifted below to the controversy section. You should give more details furtheron in the project page titled IIPM Controversy...Rick Stengel 08:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noy, not that I love Rick or Cal, but I have to accept that rather than puttin up so many RfCs, u cd simply have combined them. But still u'll have ta go ahead n negotiate a middle path with Mrinal. He's the first one who put up an RfC for comments on reverting ur stuff on controversies. So that takes away a major heave off the argument dat he's a vandal. Neway, I believe dat the best method cd be dat u n user makrand and user Mrinl change the amount of controversial stuff on the IIPM page (it's a bit too much) and shift it relevantly to the IIPM Controversy page. I'll visit the talk page after the new year . . . hope everythin's sorted out by then Steven Warner 10:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Removal of news of the Sealing 

message: Dear Group System Head, Syscontrol, Nishkid, Would like to bring to your notice and to that of all editors and administrator that despite being generally civil, in the very recent past user DeepakShenoy has gone against wiki policy by attempting to disclose personal information about user Mrinal on the discussion pages. He had been warned by user Ambuj Saxena and consecutively, Deepak Shenoy had to apologize on the talk pages. The transcripts are available on the talk page. Ganesh, the administrator, has been discussing with user Deepak Shenoy on Deepak's personal discussion pages, also giving him a barnstar award for ensuring that the controversy section survived so long. The exact wordings used are, "I'm amazed the controversy section survived so long :)". You can check the transcript of the conversation on user Deepak Shenoy's page too.
Given the fact that you have copy protected the page on administrator Ganesh's request, and also given the fact that unknown users have in the past tried to revert, would it not be possible that users Deepak Shenoy and others tried to deliberately vandalise the page, and consequently ensure that the page gets protected by you? I wish you would kindly ensure that such a situation does not arise where the vandalism is done deliberately by a group which wanted the page to be edit protected. If the page continues to be edit protected, I will raise the issue in the next forum, pending your response, as I feel it is really strange that the edit protect request has come the moment a debate with respect to shifting relevant data to the correct page has come about. Regards Desiree777 10:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Desiree777, this is an open accusation on a forum that does not allow statements without facts. Though I get what you are trying to portray (and it does seem very funny that the group that has now got restricted access is the one which wanted to shift the pages to the IIPM Controversy page), I think unless you have proof, you should not make such statements, even if you're very sure that Deepakshenoy has been involved in vandalism. You cannot, for any reason whatsoever, accuse user Deepakshenoy of vandalism, even if he gets advantaged the most because of the edit protect. We're not talking about "circumstantial evidence". You need ip and user id connections and time of logins, which are all there, and there's no way you can accuse without such stuff. Instead, put up a request for an investigation by the group administrators or system heads who have access to exact routing points of requests. And then, if your suspicion is proved correct, you can make a statement against user Deepakshenoy... not otherwise!!! Karl Ivy League 10:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is strange. Mrinal is the one person who has been active on this page for a long time and we recognize him/her as a valid editor whose points of view are respected, even if not always agreed to. But Desiree77 seems to me like some sock puppet. No history of edits on any other pages, recently created ID, and such serious allegations without any proof. I find sock puppets to be demeaning to the wikipedia. 71.58.69.137 14:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on validity of Deepak Shenoy's argument

message: I read the above paragraph, and have understood the claim of a sock puppet. Not a civil comment, I should say, and goes against the guidelines of addressing. But perhaps that's why you have used an anon id. And perhaps to ensure that my views aren't taken strongly because of my original login, I have used a new id. But then, sysops work behaviour, sysop responsibilities and functional ethics forbid them from using powers irresponsibly. And therefore, am opening up the first request for mediation. Given the fact that this is the weekend before Christmas, but also given the fact that the users have checked the page continuously every day, this notice of mediation will be herewith called the First Notice of Mediation and is open to be accepted by the parties named above till the 28th of December 2006 12:00 (UTC). If the first notice of mediation is not accepted, a second notice would be formally opened up on 29th December 2006; for acceptance till the 3rd January 2007 12:00 (UTC). The parties are being accused of blatant misuse of relationships between each other. The accusation is also that administrators have misused their blocking powers to support one group of parties deliberately. Proof of the same would be provided, alongwith transcripts of conversations, to the mediation committee. In case both the requests are rejected, this notice would be converted into a notice of arbitration to the arbitration committee; and would necessarily involve the other entities involved. However, this notice would be considered as notice enough of informing the parties concerned. The notice may be accepted by addending separate paragraphs below, by the parties accused. If you need support in understanding how to respond to mediation requests by auditors, then kindly go to the dispute resolution link. And if you need details on arbitration, then visit the arbitration page link mentioned above. I repeat, this audit control mediation notice ends on 28th December 2006, 12:00 (UTC). Regards. Desiree777 15:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your accusations are baseless, and I'm frankly appalled that you're accusing me of something I didn't even do. I came to WP:RFPP and saw Ganeshk's request for page protection two days ago. I didn't want to handle it because I was unsure about the whole sitaution, so I waited. Nothing happened for two days, so then I took action and semi-protected the page. I was only doing my job, and I am in no way affiliated with Ganeshk or Sir Nicholas in this matter. In fact, I have no prior contact to Sir Nicholas or Ganesh (however, I did direct Ganesh to the RFPP page and my user talk page regarding this very issue), and I have not been involved in editing the article. Nishkid64 18:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice of placing mediation request against parties Deepak Shenoy, Ganesh (sysop), Nishkid (sysop), Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (sysop)

message: Two people who have been participating in this discussion, User:Group Systern Head and User:System c0ntr0ls have been blocked for misrepresentation authority. Neither work for Wikipedia, or have any special position, but were in fact brand new, single purpose accounts.
The way to can tell if somebody is an admin, is that they will not claim to have special authority. Admins must follow the same rules as anyone else and may only user their special abilities(such as blocking users) when it is in line with policy and consensus.
If you think someone here is pretending to have more authority than they really do, click the Ask me button on my signature and tell me about it. I will look into it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More single purpose accounts that seem to have cropped up are Byron Calame, Rick Stengel, Jon Meacham, Steven Warner. They pretend to be admins but I guess they're not. Deepakshenoy 20:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add Karl_Ivy_League and Chambers Jonathan.  Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HighInBC, Can you check if blocking is the way to go for all the above accounts. These accounts were created with a single-purpose to edit this article and disrupt. I am sure a RFCU will prove that these accounts come from a single IP range. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree with everything HighInBC says, but I'd like to point out that a more concrete way to tell if someone is an admin is to look on Wikipedia:List of admins. Cheers, FreplySpang 20:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ya, that is a good way to check too. I will look into those users, but unless obvious violation of policy is occurring, then there is not much to do. WP:RFCU is the place to go to check if people are the same person. People with more access to I will check. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to create a RFCU. I saw this on the page, "Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits - 	Block. No checkuser is necessary". I did not proceed further. Should I create one? Please advise. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If the user is already blocked no worries, leave it. If a user is being disruptive follow the instructions at WP:AIV. WP:RFCU is mostly used to provide proof for stopping active sock puppets(people with more than one account). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False authority 

message: I'd like to go ahead and re-write the Publications section. You'll see that I've basically used bullets for the journals, and mentioned The Sunday Indian. Hope you approve?
IIPM publishes 4 journals, managed by the IIPM Think Tank :
* India Economy Review: A quarterly review of the economy for policy makers and think tanks
* The Human Factor: A scholarly journal on best practice and research in Human Resource Management 
* Need the Dough: A scholarly journal for academics and practitioners on research the field of Accounting & Finance 
* Strategic Innovators: A collection of articles by eminent faculty and practitioners on Business Strategy 
IIPM's consulting arm Planman Consulting also publishes 3 magazines and an online business newspaper, where IIPM faculty are editors:
* Business & Economy: A fortnightly with news and feature articles on India-centric, globally relevant policy and business issues 
* 4Ps: A fortnightly magazine that caters to the marketing & advertising industry's needs
* The Sunday Indian: A weekly newsmagazine published in five languages across the country
* The Daily Indian: A daily summary of business news and highlights from an Indian perspective
Hope this works well. Put a fair bit of effort into it :) Let me know if I've missed anything. --Iipmstudent9 18:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Need source for "managed by IIPM think tank". Need source for "IIPm's consulting arm Planman consulting" because all sources I can see say it's founded by Arindam Chaudhuri, not IIPM. If there is no source, please remove that entire section - where IIPM faculty writes is an individual trait, not that of the institute. (Unless it's an acclaimed research journal, but the magazines you mention are not peer-reviewed) Deepakshenoy 06:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, when I was adding the course content stuff, I saw that this line The BBA/MBA degrees are offered by IMI Belgium, and not IIPM. was redundant, as it was clearly mentioned in the bullet points about the 2 and 3 year courses that the degree is awarded by IMI. There's no need to repeat the line, and phrase it negatively, na? Hope you approve, Deepak ji 09:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Deepak, I'm surprised you haven't noticed the Research & Publications link on www.iipm.edu front page. The blurb below the link clearly states IIPM Think Tank publishes 5 journals and leading business magazines... The link leads to a detailed page which has all the magazines. You can also download the IIPM brochure, http://www.iipm.edu/iipm-international-brouchure-feb-2006.pdf, which has all the magazines and journals listed in the research and publications section. In addition, Planman Consulting is IIPM's consulting arm, and the relationship is clearly described in the same brochure. All the same, I will wait for your say so before adding the magazines also on to the publications section. Thanks for making this wiki better, Deepak ji! --Iipmstudent9 10:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I also added the information about the Faculty, which I modified after your input. I have NOT YET added the information on worlds largest business school, and have NOT YET removed the un-verifiable information on IMI BBA - HT article. Do let me know when i can do both of those. --Iipmstudent9 10:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Implemented the changes since there has been no advice from you. Iipmstudent9 06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PLEASE stop advertising irrelevant links like iipmthinktank. They are of no use in this context. I've changed that and I also request a source where IIPM faculty are editors in these planman magazines. Deepakshenoy 11:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting the Publications section 

message: Clearly, the Controversies section is dramatically off-base on NPOV and verifiability. I will put up a disputed tag immediately. 
In addition, Deepak ji, please also refer to Wikipedia's guide to space and balance in an article to understand why this section is too big for the IIPM wiki article.
*1. I propose we rename this section to Criticism, as per Wikipedia convention. I am following precedent here - The IIT article, which has recieved the FEATURED ARTICLE status, follows the same.
*2. Further, I propose that there be only three points, re-written as follows, in the Criticism section:
* All Indian Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has said IIPM cannot issue degrees from a foreign university (IMI, Belgium) and cannot use the words 'Indian Institute' in its name.  IIPM has said it has not and will not apply for AICTE recognition, and believes the quality of its programmes is evident from the large number of reputed recruiters it attracts. Basically, I have tried to write in a neutral tone, and capture both sides of the argument, from verfiable sources. 
* Late in 2005, Some bloggers alleged IIPM misrepresented certain facts in its advertisements. The mainstream media examined how blogs were becoming popular in India, citing this issue as an example. Lengthy explanations and detailed accounts of what infrastructure (swimming pool?) was missing from which campus is too intricate to be covered in the wiki, and adds little value. The allegation that IIPM continues to use an outdated ranking is no longer relevant, as all of the ads have changed since beginning of Jaunary 2006. I guess the point that IIPM misrepresented facts places a significant responsiblity on the institute, and that line is commensurate with the wiki's overall size.     
I've left out the USA today plagiarism piece because it uses far too much space and says little about the institute. A clerical mistake from a webmaster doesnt deserve a mention on the IIPM Wiki article.
I await comments and re-writes, please. Iipmstudent9 17:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The controversy section in its present form is neutral enough and does not need any alteration. It is not violating any wiki policy. Makrandjoshi 12:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear Makrand, I dont want to repeat what has already been said by others, and is in any case obvious from my detailed note above. However, please allow me to guide you on this. Wiki policy on Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance, and Wikipedia:Verifiability are all breached by the contents of this section, apart from the section name. In order to rewrite this piece to confirm to Wikipedia policy, I have suggested the above. without meaning to offend, I must point out that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so your vote here means little, since it is not based on Wiki policy, and in fact reflects ingnorance of Wiki policy. I urge you to look at the links I have provided and become familiar with Wiki policy so we can create a better article, together :) Iipmstudent9 12:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  iipmstudent9, I am fully aware of wiki policies which is why I am telling you that your arguments do not hold water. Your citing policies and saying that they are violated does not mean they are violated. You have not made your case convincingly enough. I have reverted the changes you made.  Makrandjoshi 11:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Makrand, the controversy section as it exists is neutral enough. Deepakshenoy 11:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies - comprehensive re-write 

message: The institute also has a lot of relevant activity going on with reference to international plans and initiatives. This article talks about the global tours the students take. This link from the Financial TImes article alks about the global campuses in London and Nw York as well. I remember reading somewhere about a Stanford-IIPM joint Executive Education program for the first time in India, and a Yale-IIPM research venture. Will dig up sources tomorrow. I invite coments, and hope someone will write it up nicely? Iipmstudent9 18:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Outreach Program 

message: Dear HighBc, I noticed you had commented recently on a wiki site of IIPM. I wished to find out from you how to complain against a wiki administrator who, I have reasons and proof to believe, is misusing his powers to support one particular editor. If you can kindly show me the appropriate forum, I'll lodge a complaint against the administrator. I searched wiki and have not been able to find a link for the same. You could perhaps also go to the discussions page on the IIPM site to see my viewpoints regarding this. Regards, Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 12:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The admin's talk page is the best place to deal with this. Failing that you can post at WP:AN/I, however please have all of your evidence ready when you post there, and be sure you have already attempted to resolve this matter directly. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HighInBC HighBC's] to user Mrinal's message

message: I intend to replace the word 'presence' with 'campus' in the opening paragraph. 
Acording to Dictionary.com:
cam·pus     /ˈkæmpəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kam-puhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation 
–noun, plural -pus·es. 1. the grounds, often including the buildings, of a college, university, or school.  
2. a college or university: The large influx of older students radically changed many campuses throughout the country.  
3. a division of a university that has its own grounds, buildings, and faculty but is administratively joined to the rest of the university.  
4. the world of higher education: Foundation grants have had a marked effect on the character of the American campus.  
5. a large, usually suburban, landscaped business or industrial site. 
 
In addition, both Columbia GSB and Chicago GSB, refer to their campuses in skyscrapers in th middle of their respective metropolis'. Now, given IIPM's city-centre location in cities such as Mumbai, Delhi and Bangalore, it is clear that they cannot have enormous rolling greens. 
Therefore, since the use of the world cmapus is justfied by precedent and by common usage as demonstrated by dictionary.com, I think I will go ahead and make the change. As ever, I welcome comments, and will revert myself if proved wrong.--Iipmstudent9 06:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  IIPM itself says that only 1 location of its is a campus and all the others are branches. This dichotomy comes into play because IIPM claimed in its avdertisement that their campuses are equipped with swimming pools and what not. When pointed out that several IIPM campuses did not have these facilities, IIPM's official response was what i said. Makrandjoshi 11:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph - use of the word campus vs presence 

message: Are you guys all OK with going to formal mediation? Please let me now by signing your assent below, and then we can proceed to solve this seemingly unsolvable problem. Thanks,--Iipmstudent9 13:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for formal mediation 

message: An opinion was requested on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Neither of you are going to be satisfied with this:
*The "Controvery" section has a place in this article. I say this because there is apparently a side dispute involving a separate article about that topic, and I don't believe a separate article is warranted.
*Makrandjoshi's talk of "unapproved edits" makes no sense in a project that anyone can edit.
*If Iipmstudent9 finds that this article violates Wikipedia's pillars, and explains why, and keeps getting reverted by Makrandjoshi, that looks to me (as an outside observer) that Makradjoshi is attempting to enforce a particular POV on this article.
*HOWEVER, at the same time, I get the impression that Iipmstudent9 also wants to promote a POV by whitewashing unpleasant facts, which seem to be adequately cited.
*The section does read like a hatchet-job, however, and needs to be fixed. It should also not grow any bigger. Biased wording or loaded language should be cleaned up and rephrased more neutrally, but the basic facts about the controversy should remain.
*These are my opinions, coming in for the first time, knowing nothing about the subject, and looking over the edits and conversation. I doubt these opinions will help resolve anything, in which case, formal mediation would be in order. -Amatulic 18:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Use the sandbox for any changes you propose. Makrandjoshi 06:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makrand, this is the 4th time you are reverting without discussing. I am making a distinct effort to build this wiki in a positive manner, and I will not give up because of this behavior on your part. You have not pointed out anything that you disagree with, and have not bothered to re-write. You are not abiding by Wikipedia's policies. I will put in a request to block your IP.--Iipmstudent9 07:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go ahead and put in the request, iipmstudent9. Third-person opinions by Max as well as Amatulic have noted that you are trying to whitewash unpleasant facts, and so I am confident my reverts are entirely justified. Your juvenile antics are legendary. So legendary that they have even been noted in Hindustan Times. Check out the third paragraph from the bottom in this link - http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:9-NMFQWnfnkJ:www.hindustantimes.com/2005/Dec/07/181_1529694,000200170001.htm+iipm+site:hindustantimes.com&hl=en&gl=in&ct=clnk&cd=2
So go ahead and complain. Makrandjoshi 07:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I just saw this. You are accusing me of sock-puppetry. This is the only ID under which I am active on wikipedia and your accusations are very insulting. Either back them up with evidence, or at least more details like which IDs you suspect to be sock-puppets of mine. Or else shut up. Makrandjoshi 06:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: IIPMStudent9, all your edits are reverts disguised as edits. You are deleting data, and not adding to it. Your deletions are thus no different than reverts. For instance your deletion of information from JAM was all based on your own POV and original research. I am well within my rights to revert such pseudo-edits, which are actually whitewash jobs. Wherever you have added something which is valid, I have not reverted it. It is your deletions that I have issue with. So my suggestion to you, and this is a suggestion to save us both time and effort, before making any deletions get a consensus on them. Makrandjoshi 07:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, IIPMStudent9 is a popular username based on a stage-play at IIPM that was played at the cultural festival last year. So I dont know what you are referring to with regard to the Hindustan Times. And your accusation that I am deleting daa is prepostorous, take a look at my edit history. And I have already made a complaint, which I guess you will hear about soon, and I request you to agree to the mediation request. Regading JAM MAG content, my cotention is that it is not a valid source, and Wiki policy supports me in this regard. I have never made changes without first putting them on Talk page, and you never bothered to edit or comment, you only reverted.--Iipmstudent9 08:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: iipmstudent9's edits

message: I am trying to compromise - and rewrite the contrvoersoy section to make it more encyclopaedic. Take a look at the changes I've made, and please rewrite or recommend how I can rewrite. :) I'll be happy to collaborate.--Iipmstudent9 12:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed content to remove ad hominem arguments, to make it more encyclopedic. Rewriten few sections, added "some of" to be in line with how many companies JAMMAG talked to. Deepakshenoy 13:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deepak ji, I insist that Rashmi's IIM bias be included in any refernce to JAMMAG or BUsiness World. This is Wiki Policy on verifiability and sources. You agree? --Iipmstudent9 13:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an ad hominem argument. Disagree, this is not Wiki policy. I wil revert. Deepakshenoy 13:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that mean (ad hominem)? And I quote Wiki policy to you from WP: RS -  Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view. I'm sure you'll agree, so I'll wait for you to put it back in :) --Iipmstudent9 13:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read up ad hominem on the net please. The argument that Rashmi is biased against IIPM because she is from IIM are fallacious. Even Malay Chaudhuri has had a stint at IIM. The argument that businessworld will therfore be biased against IIPM are again fallacious. The argument that antecedents belong here are more fallacious, because this is a summary of the non-veracity of IIPMs claims, as investigated in the controversy. These articles are verifiable. Lets talk about the controversial elements please. Deepakshenoy 13:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I learnt a new workd :) Thanks. However, your train og logic is not sound. MK Chaudhuri was a prof at IIM B 30 years ago. Wiki Policy says any source which may have bias should always be disclosed. This particularly applies here. Read Chomsky (his column appears in Business & Economy) to understand how important editors are to a publications integrity. I continue to insist that because Rashmi's is an IIM alumnus, and she is editor+publsiher at JAMMAG, and the fact that she is an editor at BusinesWorld, and therefore the bias could not be more obvious. Please suggest a middle path? :) - --Iipmstudent9 13:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I dont see why the AICTE issue has to be mentioned twice, sir?--Iipmstudent9 13:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was part of the Jammag report itself, and then of a separate controversy where AICTE raised objections. Two controversies, two mentions. The second one is a short one isnt it? Deepakshenoy 13:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is your and IIPM's opinion that UGC opinions are irrelevant. What is an encyclopaedic fact is that the UGC Chairman has said these things about the institute. And the information is relevant for students who might come to this page looking for information. Let them be the judge of what is relevant and what is not. Don't go deleting information which is not violating any wiki policy. You have mentioned that a lot of good things have been said about IIPM. I am happy for you. I suggest you create a separate section called "press coverage" and summarise all this praise. But do not delete perfectly valid, encyclopaedic and correctly cited information. Your doing so borders on vandalism and I am asking for mediation here to object against your deleting such facts. Makrandjoshi 06:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting controversy section 

message: Some relevant facts have been added. a) IMI Belgium itself is an unaccredited school b) The UGC has said IIPM cant offer MBA degrees. UGC is different from AICTE. UGC is a regulatory body, and the UGC Act of 1956 is a law. Makrandjoshi 15:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding clarity to the courses and degrees portion

message: IIPM itself says it does not offer technical courses in business administration. It offers courses in planning and entrepreneurship. So the school can't be called a business school. Makrandjoshi 15:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, the University Grants Commission ACt of 1957 defines a University thus -
  “University” means a University established or
incorporated by or under a Central Act, a
Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any
such institution as may, in consultation with the
University concerned, be recoginsed by the
Commission in accordance with the regulations
made in this behalf under this Act.
Under this definition, IIPM is not a university as per Indian laws. So it can not be called an Indian university. Hence removed the listing from the category "universities in india" as well. Makrandjoshi 15:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have said this before and I will say it again. Wikipedia wants cited sources and not original research. That she has a case against her for hurting religious sentiments is a citable fact. All the other things which you said, about her magazine not being a credible source, and her reputation as a loose canon etc is original research. No citations, nothing. Makrandjoshi 10:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed this page from the category "business schools in india"

message: That IIPM is unaccredited is a fact, stated on its own website. This is not original research or biased viewpoint. Given that it is an unaccredited school, it is an important fact that should be mentioned in the begining, apart from the details of the accredition later. This is in conformation with wiki pages of several unaccredited institites e.g -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith_University
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Central_University
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canbourne_University
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellington_University
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landford_University
and dozens of other pages. Makrandjoshi 03:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's quite simple. Is IMI Belgium an accredited institute? I did not find their website anywhere. That it is not on UNESCO's list is a fact. You are entitled to delet it only if you are claiming that IMI is indeed accredited. 
IIPM states on its own website that it is an unaccredited institute. What being unaccredited entails is your POV. But the fact, very encyclopaedic, is that IIPM is not recognized by any accredition bodies. You are free to put on the wiki whatever IIPM states are the reasons for not seeking accredition, and you have done that already. But the fact remains that by its own admission it is an unaccredited institute. Makrandjoshi 06:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makrand, it is very simple, but you've got it wrong. Accreditation is a voluntary process completely. If you want to awad diploma's as IIPM does, you can do so freely. No accreditation required. So IIPM being unaccredited is like saying Harvard is unaccredited  - it gives a very wrong impression, and does not convey the excellence of education provided. So stop reverting, cool down, and lets talk about this after a few days... maybe one of us will see a different point of view, young man...
Further, IMI not being on UNESCO list is ridiculous. The Bologna process is ongoing, so accreditation in Europe is an ambigous area. IMI is a part of the bologna  process as are all other institutes in Belgium and Netherlands... 
You dont know enough to be editing this Wiki, and are making aggressive changes in nagative manner, without thinking of the consequences. --Iipmstudent9 08:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All this is again your own POV and all original research. You are desperately engaging in damage control. Why don't you get it? This is an encyclopedia. This is not a place to judge. We put out information there. And let the readers reach the conclusions they want. There is no use trying to talk sense with you, since you are hell bent upon original research, your own POV, and whitewashing this wiki. Hope you agree for mediation. Makrandjoshi 08:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I talked about Mediation a week back! Glad you finally agreed. Hope this will fix things.--Iipmstudent9 09:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I finally agreed? I kept waiting for the mediation request. You never raised it. Finally I raised it myself. Makrandjoshi 10:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That mediation notice is aggressively worded and simply not neutral. I cannot accept. Besides Deeps and Pandey sahib should also be there. I'm sure they would like to contribute?--Iipmstudent9 11:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I should have known you;d try to weasel out. What aggressive wording? It is a standard mediation template. You can add Deepak and Mrinal too. Makrandjoshi 11:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well, I guess you shouldve known, then. What else can I say in the face of your stubborn attitude --Iipmstudent9 11:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including the word 'unaccredited' in the first para 

message: Check it out - its shiny new. Feedback ? :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --Iipmstudent9 11:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are again deleting information that is relevant and encyclopaedic. You are almost begging for a revert war. Makrandjoshi 11:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  NO honey, you are reverting, I am making constructive edits. You are supposed to edit, not revert. What you are doing is destructive. --Iipmstudent9 11:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you do is blatantly delete stuff I posted. Reverting deletions is perfectly valid. Makrandjoshi 12:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redone Ranking section  

message: IMHO, Rashmi's JAMMAG, and Businessworld's article on the blog issue, are biased by Wikipedia standards... What do you think? --Iipmstudent9 11:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. We can settle this during mediation. Incidentally, Rashmi's article as well as Businessworld article mentions, not opinions, but facts. IIPM has never issued a point-by-point rebuttal of the articles. It would help if IIPM clarifies exactly what in those articles is false.  Makrandjoshi 11:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm talking about bias, not the actual aticle. And in any case, why should IIPM respond to some piddly college magazine (whose editor is in jail!) ?--Iipmstudent9 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keep such comments coming. Will look great during mediation. Calling a source piddly and biased without any justification shows your true colours. Makrandjoshi 12:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rashmi's Bias