Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Let us Discuss Edits

Please discuss edits here. Also, stop placing the fake edit-lock tags. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Sonu sockpuppets haven't given justification for any edits, other than Coolbug's dubious claim of "copyright violation" below. If that's true, then that needs to be explained here, rather than edit warring. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sonu and Splogs

Fellow editors, here's something interesting. Go to blogsearch.google.com and enter IIPM, then sort the results by date. Look at the first 5 or 6 pages (and even later). Most of those are splogs (spam blogs with no real content) saying great things about IIPM. And most of the splogs are started by or written by someone named Sonu. Should we still be assuming good faith? Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, every editor from IIPM that has ever come here has done so only with the intention of sanitizing the article without regard to due process. Assuming good faith about them is like casting pearls before swine. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 17:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

copyrighted content removed

Removing the copyrighted content, which are of the saying from different news portals, so that no violation regarding copyright occurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolbug (talk • contribs) 15:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. Coolbug actually whitewashed the article without identifying anything copyrighted. Please discuss further here before making yourself look like the other IIPM vandals who have a conflict of interest. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1st Para changes

I'm making certain changes in the 1st para, and later in the other paras. Will discuss them in one go once I'm through by 7th June afternoon. Would request editors to revert the changes after they've seen all the changes. Regards Mrinal Pandey (talk)

Placed one line of the 1st para in the appropriate section where it should be. One line in GOTA details has been shifted to the appropriate section again. I do believe that if there is a separate section for controversies, then they should be mentioned there. Regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Overall I like the edits you have made. However, the lead section should summarize the article, therefore controversy should be mentioned in the lead because that's a major part of this article. I have tweaked the lead paragraph to include it again, as well as remove some bombastic terms like "de jure" and "ergo". ~Amatulić (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Mrinal Pandey, your recent reversions in the lead indicate an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's guidelines for lead sections. The main points of the article should be summarized in the lead; saying there are "too many" to summarize does not justify exclusion of any mention of controversy, which is the largest section in this article. If anything, the lead should emphasize it more. To avoid further dispute, I suggest you propose further changes on this talk page. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Will restructure the complete IIPM article. Will upload the same on 9th June. Feel free to make changes on that or revert the same as and when you wish. Regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent revisions to the lead look good now. Thanks.

When completely restructuring an article, please consider creating the article in your userspace first, and ask people to review it before making large-scale changes here. It's easy to do, just create the page User:Mrinal Pandey/Drafts or something like that, and put your restructuring there. If nobody objects, copy it to this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Actually, tried it before. Not many finally get to see it. I'll do it anyway. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just be sure to notify everyone here on this talk page where to find your proposed version. Or you could let the regular editors here know, just look at the edit history to see who's been making recent constructive edits. Makrandjoshi and Ponytailsnipper come to mind. The point is, if you have it in your userspace, and tell everyone, and nobody objects, then nobody has grounds to object later when you copy it to this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made changes to the lede in order to make the reading flow a bit better. The opening paragraph's first sentence read "IIPM is a private educational institute..." but the second sentence suddenly declared "According to the institute it has not sought accreditation...". I've tried to provide some context and relevance by splitting the lede into two paragraphs. I'd like to ask constructive editors like Amatulic to kindly go through the same and make changes, if necessary. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One more thing - I've purposely put "National Economic Planning" in quotes because this is a specific term that only IIPM uses for its programme. It is not a common name for a course of study like, say, microbiology or architecture. I could also not find a standard definition of "National Economic Planning" anywhere (in fact, the first result on Google is IIPM's own website). - Max ^{- You were saying?} 18:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. It flows well and puts the correct emphasis on things. I made some very minor punctuation and grammar edits. The only concern I have is the time frame indicated by setting up campuses. You wrote "is looking to set up", I changed it to "is setting up" but their web site indicates the locations are already set up. Need to make sure the description is correct with regard to what has happened versus what may happen in the future. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Amatulic, that looks good. Actually, I've not put in the "looking to set up campuses" line - that has been there since long. Your edits to this are fine too, no issues. Also, thanks for taking care of stuff like organizing refs properly and reducing redundancies. I was too lazy to notice that one of my refs was duplicated somewhere else in the article. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 05:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have commented out the line about IIPM having provided evidence to government agencies, since no citation has been provided. Once the citation is found, the comment tags can be removed and it can be included in the intro. Ponytailsnipper (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Global Outreach Program

The section on the global outreach program which claims IIPM organizes workshop by profs from top US business schools has been tagged as needing more than primary sources, for over a year now. But such cites have not been provided. Removing the section. Feel free to add back if some secondary sources are found. Additionally, another newspaper article has appeared questioning IIPM's claims of being different, this time in Mint. Adding that. Ponytailsnipper (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Same case with the industry interface. It only had IIPM links. Feel free to add it back with third party cites if found. Ponytailsnipper (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mrinal's Proposed Restructuring

Mirnal, you mentioned that you are planning on restructuring this page on June 9. Could you please share with us fellow editors what sort of restructuring you have in mind? What are the specific features about the current structure of the article that bother you? And how we should all move together towards making this article better? Please share your thoughts so we can discuss your proposed changes, reach a consensus and move on. Ponytailsnipper (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. User:Mrinal Pandey, please share your reservations about the current article on this talk page. Also, see Amatulic's suggestion above. If you plan to significantly rewrite this article, first write it a new subpage in your userspace (e.g. User:Mrinal Pandey/Drafts) and share the link on this talk page. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 06:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Commenting out all "Citation needed" material

There are a lot of uncited claims in this article for which the "citation needed" tag has been on for over a year now. I am commenting them out. If citations are found and added, please remove the comment tags and include them in the article. Ponytailsnipper (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposing an indefinite full protect for this page

Over the last couple of years, we have tried to reach a consensus about this page, but sock puppets keep indulging in blind reverts and refuse to take part in discussions here. Wiki admins even tried locking this page for almost a year, and still, when the lock was lifted, the blind reverts and whitewashes started. It is my opinion that IIPM employees are the ones doing it. A google blog search for IIPM will show hundreds of splogs (spam blogs) saying nice things about IIPM. The wiki whitewashing and the splogging seems to be part of a concerted strategy to ensure that google searches for IIPM throw up only favorable results. This is a last call to those who indulge in blind reverts. Please discuss point-by-point what your problems are. Otherwise, I propose that this page be put on indefinite full protect. Let us try to reach a consensus about that. Makrandjoshi (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Right now, the page has been locked for a few days. This is the time to cool off and come to the table, because only rational discussion can take this article forward. Blind reverts will only strengthen the case for an indefinite lock. I hope the owners of the accounts engaging in socking/meating will be wise enough to visit this talk page and put forth their points coherently during this time-out. If the revert war continues even after the current lock is lifted, I absolutely support indefprotection of this article - Max ^{- You were saying?} 18:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. During an indef full protect, any changes to the article MUST be proposed on this talk page. When a consensus is finally reached regarding problems with the content, a proposed change can be implemented by an admin without lifting the protection. If the sockpuppets or blind reverters want to change the article, all they need to do is engage in discussion here. In the meantime, before we indef protect this article, what changes should we still make to ensure it is balanced and encyclopedic? One thing I can think of doing right away is to finish cleaning up the references, turn them into actual citations rather than nondescript links, and merge any duplicates. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Again proposing an indefinite full protect for this page

Reverts, and further reverts. No use even changing anything. I hope administrators take relevant action against vandals. I propose another full protect sine die... Regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I second Mrinal's request for an indefinite full protect. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The blind reverts continue unabated. No one from the revert-warring faction came forward to discuss their edits during the lock period, so it seems clear that their intent is to disrupt Wikipedia to whatever extent they can. I support indefprotection. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 05:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected The page is indef-fullprotected: only admins can edit it. Note that I did not actually read the page, so the present content might not be correct. Make specific proposals for changes on this talk page and flag them with {{editprotected}} to get an admin's attention to edit the page. DMacks (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazingly, the version you protected isn't the one that the sockpuppets seem to want, so you violated the wrong version policy. Come now, admins aren't supposed to slip up like that. You'll never get rouge admin credentials with such carelessness! (Seriously though, thanks.) ~Amatulić (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mrinal, your changes

Could you please offer a justification or reasoning for your reverts to changes by Max and Makrand? Both have added properly cited matter. A few points - - IIPM itself says that its courses are non-professional and non-technical, which is in contrast with other MBA programs. So mentioning it in the opening line with the courses is essential to this article being encyclopaedic. - The Mint article is linked to, and opinions have been states as those expressed in the Mint article. Why are you removing it? - Why are you removing the line at the end of the intro para saying there are also other controversies regarding IIPM like tax evasion, plagiarism, etc? All have been cited in the article later. Please discuss. Ponytailsnipper (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ponytailsnipper.

Mrinal,
I had asked you to explain your reasons for your changes on the talk page yesterday in my edit summary, but you have again added content without discussion (and some of it without any basis too, e.g. the "not-for-profit" claim).

The other issue is that you have removed content with valid citations. Granted that, earlier, the statements were without in-place references (although the references were very clearly present later in the relevant subsections). However, even after I brought the content back after adding in-place references to reliable sources, you chose to roll the article back to your version.

The point is, you need to explain your actions on this talk page. You have engaged in rational discussions in the past, and we're asking you to do so again. Thank you. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 15:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Blind reverts with misleading edit summaries

I am trying to reformat citations to conform with Wikipedia guidelines. The editor (sockpuppet?) Newsxpress continues reverting to a prior version that had badly formatted citations, with misleading edit summaries. I note no discussion or explanation here of said reverts, despite the editors demands that I "explain" my citation format changes. This is ridiculous. I'm in favor of indef protection of this article if this continues. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion with Administrator DMacks

Guys, my apologies for not discussing clearly about the changes... Will do so in the future. Anyway, I'm replicating a discussion I had with DMacks on his talk page. Thanks...Mrinal Pandey (talk)

Hi, you've locked the IIPM page on Wiki. It'll be nice if you can put a tag on top of the page that informs users that the page is edit protected because of edit warring and that Wiki does not support or reject the current version (or whichever way the tag is supposed to be). Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. However, I'm actually comfortable endorsing the current form of the page, as it appears to be the consensus of all those who have participated in constructive editing and discussion lately. The talk page even singles you out as one of the trouble-makers, making many edits against consensus, removing cited material, failing to explain controversial edits, etc. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the tag on top of the IIPM page. With respect to the issues you've raised, perhaps the following might points might be helpful.

• 1. I have no issues with you endorsing the current form of the page in thought. Though I'm unsure about how, as an administrator, you'll use your professional power to put a tag on the IIPM page about Wiki endorsing the contents.
• 2. If you have time, you could see my past discussions (some months back) with the generally acerbic Mr. Makrand Joshi and the amusingly & suggestively named Mr.PonyTailStripper (named perhaps after the Dean of IIPM, who has a pony tail). My past discussions with them have left me with less confidence on their discussion powers. I don't wish to be negative, but in those past discussions (if you can, do please go through them), apart from repetitively arguing a point ad nauseum, these two have not constructively suggested changes. But of course, the past discussions might not be a good pointer to the current discussion pattern. So you might have a point...
• 3. Despite these points, I will have no personal issues even if you block my account or revert my edits :) As an administrator, I'm sure you have the power of doing that in case you desire.

But really, thanks for the tag. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk)

Mrinal, a few points

1. You don't need to copy-paste whole sections of talk-pages. Providing links to the relevant sections should be enough.

2. All you have pointed out in my case is one instance of being auto-blocked for the WP:3RR. Given how much sock-puppet activity takes place on this page, I am sure others will understand the reason behind that instance. I have not made the same mistake again.

3. On what basis do you characterize me as generally acerbic? I have tried to have discussions with you even in the past, but to no avail. Any discussions we have had, I have always cited wiki policy. I have at no point been disrespectful. If you feel that my "discussion powers" are questionable, please provide evidence from talk archives that makes you feel so.

4. Regardless of disagreements, the spirit behind constructive editing is to engage in discussions. I don't think it is appropriate to refuse to discuss something with a willing fellow-editor, especially since the fellow-editor has not indulged in any personal attacks.

5. I am the one who has been issued death-threats by people wanting to white-wash this page as you can see from my talk page. Those threatening me have even been banned as a result. In spite of those distasteful threats, I have always wanted to engage in discussions. I hope you will agree to do so too. None of us are going away anywhere, and refusing to discuss edits based on past grudges is just not done. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mrinal, here are the last four discussions we have had that I dug up from the IIPM talk page. Please point out what exactly it is that makes you doubt my discussion skills? I have been utterly respectful and not acerbic in any way.

Talk:Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management/Archive_10#Proposal_to_add_two_more_ranking_details

Talk:Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management/Archive_10#Examples_of_introducing_a_school_as_unaccredited

Talk:Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management/Archive_9#Partial_suggestion_of_revamp_test

Talk:Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management/Archive_9#Comparison_to_other_pages

I hope you can back up the accusations or insinuations you have made about me. I have always been in favor of discussing edits. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Makrand, thanks for the replies. I appreciate the points you've written. Let's wish our discussions continue in this context and with the sentiment we currently have (which is generally positive). Again, thanks for the replies. They're appreciated. My best regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Mrinal Pandey, it is a bit perplexing to see that you have "less confidence" in the discussion powers of others when you have yourself not explained so many of your changes (specifically, addition of unsourced material and deletion of info even after reliable sources were added in its support), in spite of repeated appeals to do so. I also do not understand why you have copy/pasted talk page conversations that are outdated and out-of-context. If you had a problem with User:Makrandjoshi or User:Ponytailsnipper, you could've atleast talked to User:Amatulic (I'm not counting myself, for good measure), who's an experienced and regular editor. He has done a splendid job in sprucing up this article, and certainly could've helped you with your edits. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 19:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, of course Max... But of course :-) Best wishes and warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And replicating a discussion on Makrand Joshi's page warning him that his account might be blocked

This section has been deleted per WP:REFACTOR as not being relevant to the improvement of this article. If user talk pages must be referenced, please post links to them rather than copy and paste. Talk pages in this case are User talk:Makrandjoshi and User talk:Ponytailsnipper. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 13:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the placements section

{{editprotected}}

This page has been (rightly, in my opinion), editlocked, because there is true but unflattering information in the public domain that individuals and sock-puppets sympathetic to (And perhaps employed by) the institute have been deleting. The repeated blind reverts with whitewashing intentions has led to the edit lock. There has been a new piece of information, however, which is pertinent and important to this article. Outlook magazine has reported that IIPM's sister concern Planman hires a lot of students at high salaries, just to embellish average salaries, and then fires the new recruit a couple of months later. I quote:

"Students are placed at Planman, a sister concern, at higher salaries meant to jack up placement ratios and dumped/sacked within two months. "We students realised the problems just three months into the institute but all escape routes had closed," says a student.Students who were paying Rs 1.25 lakh a semester earlier are now made to pay Rs 4 lakh for the entire year."

So I propose adding the following lines in the "placement" section -

In July 2008, Outlook reported that IIPM's sister concern Planman hires several of the institute's students at high salaries to embellish placement statistics, but these students are fired within two months. The magazine also quoted students as saying that they realize these problems too late after joining the institute and having paid hefty fees.

Makrandjoshi (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks okay, and it's relevant, but I'm worried about this article becoming nothing more than a hatchet job. The article you reference only implies, but doesn't actually state, that graduates from IIPM are unemployable. It is possible that IIPM offers a quality education in spite of dishonest business practices; nothing I have seen indicates anything good or bad about the educational experience.

If you see enough bad things written about the school, you might synthesize a conclusion about the school that hasn't been stated. I think this article must be careful not to conflate shady business dealings with poor quality education, or lead the reader to assume that one is a consequence of the other. Perhaps we could reorganize this article into sections about what the school offers students, and how they run their business? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

N Not done. You must establish consensus for a requested edit before adding the {{editprotected}} tag to the talk page.  Sandstein  13:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Point of concern with respect to the above discussions

Perhaps we should look at the fact that the link that you refer to is the link related to a column in Outlook. Personal columns are personal views and not representations of magazines, even if they are from the publisher of the magazine. Therefore, I should recommend that the viewpoint above not be added based on personal column viewpoints. Regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the view point is very valid. If it weren't, by now we would have heard about some libel case against Mahehswer Peri and/or Outlook. In fact, the article in question says very clearly that they should have been sued for spreading canards if what the article alleges is not correct. A sure way to test it out would be to see if IIPM has anything to say about this article. I haven't seen any clarifications or even news about any impending legal cases. So what prevents IIPM from taking legal redressal? -- PublicInterestEd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicInterestEd (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi PublicInterestEd, I guess IIPM is not into the business of suing every person who wishes to express his or her opinion about their interests. Therefore, you may perhaps never hear about them suing anybody [except of course AICTE and UGC, against both of whom they've actually got orders from High Courts]. Having said that, even if they wish to pursue a case against Mr. Peri, I guess discretion would validate on whether his personal comments really harm their business in any way. If the presumption is to the hypothesis (that his comments would harm), then one might see a court case or some similar action. But I suspect IIPM believes to the contrary. I guess that answers your comments on why institutions do not prefer taking court action against each and everybody with a personal opinion. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mrinal Pandey certainly seems to speak with a lot of conviction about IIPM. Perhaps s/he could also enlighten us as to how and why Rashmi Bansal and Gaurav Sabnis, for example, were threatened with legal action? Perhaps IIPM is just a typical bully that believes in picking on vulnerable individuals and would not dare to take those on who can call its bluff and bluster. Frankly, it is sickening to see charlatans and cheats styling themselves as "institutes" brazen it out, even if it is characteristic and expected. -- PublicInterestEd —Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicInterestEd (talk • contribs) 11:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi PublicInterestEd, My sincere apologies as comments I partook of seem to have irked you beyond expectations plausible in our dialogue. Should I endeavour to mention [if I may], I'm sure the other editors - including I, though I might fall out of context on this issue - on this page shall encourage you, nay, surely expect to see you contribute with pernicious, yet atypical information relevant to the development of the wikipedia viewpoint and article on IIPM. Be that as it may, till then, I resign myself to withdrawing from the current vituperative impact my agreeably narrow perspective might have caused your self. My apologies again, Sir. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that the editor 'PublicInterestEd' said nothing in the last comment that is relevant to improving this article, and instead resorted to personal attacks and editorial comments. We are not discussing character issues here. Stick to verifiable facts, free of speculation, please. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to see the incomprehensible gibberish employed by Mrinal Pande. But what is really disheartening is to see the likes of him and others succeed in blocking facts from being reported. Amatulic, I hope you'd clarify how pointing out IIPM's actions against vulnerable individuals and not against a respected publisher of a respected magazine group is "personal attacks"? -- PublicInterestEd —Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicInterestEd (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit Protect Tag Missing

Dear Administrators, Kindly put a clear tag on top of the IIPM page that mentions that this page is edit protected. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's got the lock in the upper-right corner, one of the standard WP tags that denotes the page being protected, and that icon links to the WP protection policies page. DMacks (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Though it was the wrong lock. Fixed. DMacks (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Request to unprotect page

Wanted to request administrators to kindly unprotect the page, if vandalism has stopped. Regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We tried unprotecting just last week...experiment failed miserably, had to reprotect. DMacks (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you try discssing the changes you want to make here? The only reason the article is protected is because other editors engage in warring without discussing their changes on the talk page first. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have Unprotected the page in hopes that calmer heads can prevail. Like always, any administrator can reprotect if need be, but be warned any further edit warring will be met with blocks. Tiptoety ^talk 03:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fake Protection tag, Sock Puppets striking again...Kindly Protect to fight against Vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbangboom (talk • contribs) 05:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Reprotection Needed - Sock Puppets striking again

Fake Protection tag, Sock Puppets striking again...Kindly Protect to fight against Vandalism (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC).

Deleted a few lines from the opening para

I deleted a few lines referring to the long gone controversy as the opening para need have just a short synopsis of the institute and not specific details. Please revert in case you think it is necessary/unnecessary. Thanks and regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do discuss

I have no issues if you undo the changes I have made. Would really appreciate a note either here or alongside the edit subject [which we can see in the history column]. Thanks and warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)