Talk:People's Education Society Institute of Technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This article is maintained by the Karnataka workgroup.
More information about this article...

This reads like it was written by the organization in question. Examples "is one of the premier engineering colleges", "is one of the highest ranked private colleges in Karnataka and a very coveted engineering college". I feel these should be removed. and replaced with more generic descriptions of the university SusanLarson 20:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)-- Required changes were made and hence the comment removed. hope this answers the question asked below, wat say?

Isnt it funny that even a discussion on the article is not permitted by the college ? (Check the history of this discussion and note the people at one particular IP address atttempting to remove entries here). How shameful.

Contents

[edit] vandals

hey sign ur posts goddamit! mark antek is a troll,he has been vandalising intentionally or unintentionally the PESIT page. wikipedia is not a place for advertisement or trade.So,please amke ur comments only abt the collg,dont make comments like"join at ur own risk". and i dont think resedential facilities need to be mentioned in the page.--Jayanthv86 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The talk page is supposed to keep a history of the discussion carried out while creating the page. In case something is fixed - you add a reply to the earlier comment - not just remove it. --Sir Titus 08:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

i have removed some more unwanted information. the artcle looks more like a advertisement to the collg.

[edit] Funny Vandals

Is there a company called Veerappan's Gang? Or is it the work of a vandal?? Can I revert this change?

  I removed this "company". Its inclusion is obviously vandalism. I am new to Wikipedia. Sorry if I am breaching any form of etiquette. -- George

[edit] Advertisement tag

The article still reads like an advertisement flyer. Citations are missing. The faculty section has horrible weasel words. I've added the appropriate tags. If a balanced opinion cannot be presented I would suggest the tags remain.

[edit] latest dataquest survey..

someone removed the post about the dataquest ranking of 2006.. even a link to the official ranking was given... i had also put up the results of the 2007 results but i couldn't find the official results on the internet. if someone finds the link, please add the dataquest 2007 rating along with the URL.

[edit] Heavy handed editing

Amarrg - please avoid heavy handed, judgmental editing. Your removal of almost all cultural activity references, rather than tagging them with {{cite}},is contrary to the way things are done on WP. If you have doubts about notability, say so on the talk page. Refrain from using terms like "adspace for budding rock-groups". In your haste, you removed a reference that has its own article on WP, and that has survived several Notability-challenges from over-eager editors. If you would like to be helpful and improve the article, search for and provide references. If you cannot find any, tag the item with {{cite}} - do not blindly remove something - someone else may be able to provide references. Achitnis (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, its a pity that instead of improving the article by providing the needed citations, you want to accuse me of "heavy handed, judgemental editing" - whatever that means. I could have added {{cite}} tags but I saw that no action has been taken on the existing tags, which essentially means that no one seems to be much bothered about the contents of the article. In which case, the best thing to do is to remove uncited ad-like material which I did. By the way, can you point out the reference you said I had removed? As you said, "someone else may be able to provide references", why dont you be that "someone" who could provide the needed references and all will be well... And I will ignore your dig on me being "helpful" for the time being... -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 06:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, understand that I am NOT from PESIT - the college didn't even exist when I went to college decades ago.
Not sure why you brought this in, I never talked of you belonging/not belonging to PESIT. So I will pass this one...
"Heavy handed, judgmental editing" is exactly what it implies - instead of carefully trimming/tagging, you just knocked off swaths of text in a "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" manner, on the basis that you judge it to be an ad or irrelevant. If you look at the way most considerate editors work, you will notice that before any mass editing, they post to the talk page, tell the world what they plan to do, and let it cool for a few days before taking any action.
Well, we cannot allow tags to remain in article for ages and just let it remain that way isn't it. If you really wanted that section to have remained untouched, all that was needed was to add references to the sentences, which you never did. And you want to come and accuse me of "Heavy handed judgemental editing". I want to re-iterate again that if you have references to those sentences, why dont you add them and let it done with. Isn't this edit of yours also an example of "Heavy handed, judgmental editing"? You could have provided references there or have added the appropriate tag, instead of removing the section, isn't it? As they say, "Practice before you preach"
Before you get completely out of control: see the reason for removal of that paragraph. There is a huge difference between removing something that violates a bunch of WP rules, v/s removing something that you simply don't understand or care about. Have you even *read* the stuff I removed? And how long did you go hunting through my edits before you finally found something that you could pound your chest about? How does that justify what you did? You removed stuff that was factual, but had no citations. *I* removed something that was hearsay, original research, had no citations, slandered various people, and was essentially a bunch of nonsensical gossip. Get a grip on yourself - whether I was right or wrong in my edits does not in any way justify yours. Achitnis (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Tsk, tsk. You removed something, I removed something. You are justifying yourself and I am justifying myself. If you do not follow something, dont preach others to do the same. As you had reasons to remove something in that article, I too had reasons to remove something in this article. Its your word against mine, and I will go with mine. And its you who should get a grip on, trying to accuse me of something that I never said as seen below. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 04:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You removed the Phenom reference, even though it clearly pointed to an article on Wikipedia, which meant that it was at least one thing you should have checked before clubbing everything under "budding rock-groups" and knocking it off. Also, it is perfectly OK for some material to be unreferenced, provided that at least some of it is referenced. In this case, your edit completely castrated the fact that PESIT is highly supportive of cultural activities that spread beyond the scope of the institution. Within the scope of "Engineering colleges in Karnataka", PESIT does have a record of being extremely successful in inter-collegiate, cultural competitions, which is a fact worth noting.
Hello, Phenom was not a reference, it was a wikilinked sentence in this article. A wikilink does not prove anything, it is a citation that decides whether a sentence is relevant to the article or not. If I am checking for citations, I check for citations in the article, I dont click on wikilinks. And I believe you are/were the manager of Phenom, which makes me wonder... If PESIT is a college known for winning cultural competitions, please provide citations. You can't just put something like that in an Wikipedia article without any citations and expect others to take that at face value.
Please note that this is an article about a college that may be unimportant to you, but not so to a lot of other people. People who read the article would like to know more about it than just its physical location. While I agree that the article started off pretty badly, it isn't going to be improved in any way by gutting it.
Dont put words in my mouth. Where have I ever mentioned that PESIT is an unimportant college? I will pass this one as well. We can have a fruitful discussion if you could respond to only what I have said and not to something that I have never said.
You should also be aware of the fact that most people shy away from dealing with large changes (which the frightening {{unreferenced}} tag boxes tend to imply). However, they have no problem dealing with smaller/granular {{cite}} tags which typically deal with a single item, instead of an entire section/article.
If you really have a problem with my removal, all you need to do is to add the sentences back with citation. What is stopping you from doing so? I removed them because no one was bothered to address the citation tags already present in the article.
And I actually do spend most of my WP editing time providing references, and knock off stuff only if it clearly violates WP guidelines - and I always make my intentions clear on the talk page days before I actually carry out the action.
For the nth time, add citations to the sentences if you really believe that they are needed for this article. We are having a discussion about nothing and I dont wish to continue further on this -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 08:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Achitnis (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)