Void user654

Welcome!

Hello, Mediacomkol, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Template:Infobox India university ranking. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Muhandes (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Indian Institute of Foreign Trade

If you want to add ranking to Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, lets discuss it. But please please don't remove the current uptodate ranking, and lets follow WP:PROSE. --Muhandes (talk)

Hi Muhandes, I understand from your edits that you see only the latest rankins as the right representation of the institute and hence, decided to do away with all the past rankings. I beg to differ here. The standings of an institute is only justified when it is looked at more comprehensively. The right representation of the university in terms of rankings are only justified when the rankings of 'recent past' is comprehensively presented and not when only the current year rankings are given. Wikipedia,by design, is meant to serve that purpose and does not act as a live feed but as a comprehensive resource providing all relevant information. A chronicle of 'recent rankings' will help serve that purpose. I had included rankings of the university from last 5 years with mentions of the respective year. Let me know your views regarding this. Regards, Mediacomkol (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

First, lets observe what you did in this edit. First, you removed the NIRF ranking. I am going to assume good faith, but you have to admit removing only the worse ranking smells bad. Second, you added three unsourced rankings. Third, you added a 2012 QS ranking, which is the last time the institute was ranked. You don't see the problem there? The institute wasn't ranked in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. Don't you see that mentioning the 2012 ranking is misleading and promotional? The same applies to the 2015 Outlook ranking, where the institute was no longer ranked in 2016. Fourth, the QS ranking for 2012 used a source from 2017 ranking and the Outlook India for 2015 used a source from 2016, misleading citation, which is taken very seriously. Fifth, the edit goes against WP:PROSE which prefers text in prose over a list. Sixth, you introduced several clear promotional messages such as "IIFT has been consistently ranked among the top business schools in India for its MBA program." Seventh, you included several rankings which should not be used per consensus (see below). I'm sure you understand why I simply reverted it all.

Finally, Wikipedia operates by consensus. The de facto consensus is to include only the latest rankings, from the reasons I stated above and other reasons. It is also not to use rankings which stopped publishing. So if you want to change this consensus, I suggest getting more involved, editing a few articles and learning the ropes, and finally, discussing it at WP:INEI.

One final word. You edited only one area. Again, I am assuming good faith but you uploaded this claiming it is your own work and the edit summary here also shows knowledge and perhaps involvement with the institute. If you are somehow related to the institute you might have a conflict of interests. Again, I am not accusing you of anything, just pointing a new editor at some relevant material you might want to get familiar with. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk)

I would like to politely bring it to your notice, you're at fault at many places in your arguments given above. Firstly, I have tried to edit and revert it to an older state of the section. If you note, most of the rankings that I added were there in the earlier version of the section along with the some new additions of latest rankings.

Secondly, you don't seem to understand the area you are dealing with here with your edits. NIRF is probably the most controversial ranking that has been published in recent past. Kindly take a look at some of the outrage and discussions on NIRF rankings:

1) Hindustan Times 2) Times of India 3) The Hindu 4) The Wire 5) Career360 6) Indian Express 7) The Hindu Business Line

Final point, editing these comprehensive wiki articles need more SMEs rather than people having only an outside view and thus installing in the system unintended bias. I found the previous state of rankings a more unbiased description of the standings for the institute and therefore, tried to restore while taking into consideration new additions in my edit without realizing the accusations that I have to deal with.

However, I understand your intent and appreciate your involvement in all these wiki content to help build a fair representation of the subjects. I also understand my further involvement with this might raise a few eyebrows. Hence, I would keep myself away from further edits. But I request you to involve SMEs for any changes that you may bring here to obviate unintended harm to the subject's reputation, especially when dealing with sensitive information like 'rankings' - "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Controversial rankings should not be projected with a stamp of approval using wiki's powerful framework. Mediacomkol (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the matter of NIRF inclusion, it is just part of the de facto consensus. I would gladly (and automatically!) remove all NIRF references, if a new consensus is reached. In other words, you don't need to convince me, you need to reach a new consensus at WP:INEI. If everyone else feels as strongly about it as you, it would be easy. --Muhandes (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Hello, I'm Muhandes. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Muhandes for reviewing my edits. For your perusal, let me cite web resources on IIFT's two campuses which operates in unison. Please review the discussions in web resources and allow me to understand your reservations regarding the edits.

• These explain 2 campuses in India under (a single institute) IIFT.
  • http://www.mbauniverse.com/iift
  • http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-economy/iift-to-start-new-campus-in-kolkata/article2199405.ece
  • http://www.bschool.careers360.com/articles/iift?icn=iift_article&ici=iift_exam_rdmrvp
  • Joint placement events :(Read page 11) http://cc.iift.ac.in/docs/IIFT/Admissions_2017_Pilot/2017_19.pdf
  • IIFT's brochure (A common brochure for both the campuses) : http://cc.iift.ac.in/docs/IIFT/Admissions_2017_Pilot/2017_19.pdf
  • IIFT also has a common administration for both the campuses with the a single director and common faculty pool. : http://tedu.iift.ac.in/iift/allfaculty.php .

IIFT also sends document highlighting the idea of two campuses one institute to all the new joinees.Waiting for your inputs regarding the edits. Regards, Mediacomkol (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with this information, all I said is that you can't add anything without a source. If you have a proper source, go ahead and add it. Again, I recommend the referencing for beginners tutorial.--Muhandes (talk)