Jump to content


Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I understand that there is some confusion over NIIT and its full form as the company doesn't seem to use the full form anywhere. But why is the title of this article 'National Institute of Information Technologies'? The only reference I can find to the full form is here: About NIIT and it says "Promoted as National Institute of Information Technology". Stryder29 (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does NIIT stand for? Or, if the company has decided to change its name to NIIT, what did it stand for originally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Le poulet noir (talkcontribs) 17:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It used to stand for "National Institute of Information Technology". (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a banned sock moved this page from NIIT. It looks like that was the correct move. Please comment if you disagree. Enigmamsg 04:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the discussion below, NIIT redirects here, so people can find it either way. Personally, I think maybe NIIT should be the primary and the full name should redirect back since the company itself never uses the full name. But, Wikipedia convention is certainly to use the full name, and I don't feel strongly enough about it to flip it the other way. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I added some content in NIIT in first para (ISO 9001) I urge you please don't remove that content and secondly if you can please help this article to improve as because this is a very important article in India specially in field of computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock5410 (talkcontribs) 05:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ISO 9001 info isn't appropriate for the lead paragraph and you haven't provided a reference for it. That's why I removed it in the first place. Please review the guidelines for intro paragraphs. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." Can you explain why you believe the ISO certification information meets these guidelines? If you had a citation, perhaps it could go in the article body, but without a reference it needs to be cut. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising and References[edit]

As long as this article continues to only include references showing what the company says about itself, the warnings about advertising and improving references need to remain. Right now, this is basically just a collection of press releases from the company, which is not encyclopedic. In fact, many times anonymous accounts are literally copying and pasting from NIIT's own marketing materials, blatantly violating NIIT's copyright.

To fix these issues, the article needs to include information from reliable external sources. Note that I said "information" from these sources, not sentences or paragraphs; copying and pasting from other sources isn't acceptable either. Find the information and rewrite it in your own words, then provide a link as the reference. Including some objective outside views will also help reduce the amount of advertising/press release content of the article.

Unfortunately, as long as so many people from the company are copying and pasting text from other sources in the article, I only have time to deal with the copyright violations. I won't be able to help with any research or rewriting until you stop copying and pasting. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted my second batch of non-free material today. I suggest requesting an anonymous IP block if more non-free material is added.—C45207 | Talk 14:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page is currently semi-protected.—C45207 | Talk 05:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at revising the intro. It's short, but the article is so light on content that I'm not sure what else should be included there. I have tried to find some additional external sources, but there really isn't much other than press releases and investment recommendations. There's a Microsoft case study, but that content doesn't seem encyclopedic (although some of the intro had been previously used in this article). This isn't a company that seems to have inspired a lot of other writing. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article remains in terrible shape. I'm semi-protecting it because the editors who keep adding violating material obviously need to read WP:CPVIO, WP:Advert and what Wikipedia actually is. --Bobak (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobak may mean WP:COPYVIO.—C45207 | Talk 06:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi I have written the first para and in History para in my own language please don't remove it because this has been taken from a valid source. I urge to to you please remove all those stuff that you have given at top of NIIT article all those citations or advertisements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we keep reverting your edits is explained in your comment above--you TOOK it from another source. Other sites are to be a source of information, not sentences. If you copy more than 3-5 words in a row from a source, you haven't reworded it enough. For example, these two sentences were copied and pasted into the article without any changes from the original source:

"NIIT is the first and the only Asian Education and Training Organization to characterize among the IDC Top 20 Global IT Training market leaders. The NIIT portfolio brings to IT education seekers, a range of programs that address the needs of various sectors."

You didn't rewrite this "in [your] own language"; you just copied and pasted. If you are adding content to an article after pressing Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V, it's going to be deleted. It's as simple as that. Even if you copy and paste but then change one or two words, it's still too close and will be deleted.
The warnings at the top of the article can't be removed until the issues are actually dealt with, and that is unlikely to happen until you read Wikipedia's guidelines. As I noted in the section above, I looked for other external sources to improve the references, and it appears that NIIT isn't an important enough company to inspire others to write about it. Until we balance what NIIT says about itself with what others can say about it, the notice banners need to stay. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are right there is nothing much that you or i can do about this article. but i have question i have an article called National Institute of Open Schooling my question to you what can i do, so that it appears on top 5 websites on google's search, yahoo and bing. If you can try to do something so when someone would type NIOS in google search or yahoo it will appear on top 5 websites . —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; quite a bit could be done to improve this article. You could start by reading the information on copyright violations, as recommended by others. Then you could look for reliable external sources that talk about NIIT and weave information from those sources into the article. If no one else has written about NIIT, then maybe it isn't actually notable enough to deserve an article. As noted above, I've looked and wasn't able to find much, but maybe you'll have better luck doing research. That's entirely within your control. If you want the warnings removed, that's the appropriate way to approach it, not by deleting warnings and pretending the problems are fixed.
Second, you don't have an article on NIOS. No single editor owns an article. It's a collaborative effort, not something you own. Good Wikipedia articles often rank highly in search engine results, but I think you should focus on the quality of the article rather than any tricks to improve the SEO. If you'd like to learn more about improving the quality of articles you work on, start with the Five Pillars of Wikipedia to get a better idea of what Wikipedia is and isn't. Then, you might review the Article Development explanation, which lists ways you can help grow an article. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title[edit]

This article was previously titled NIIT and was just changed without discussion to NIIT Limited. It seems to me that this should actually be about NIIT as a whole, as the company is barely notable on its own. I don't see that the separate division of NIIT Limited deserves its own separate article.

Any arguments against changing it back to NIIT? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change back The article does seem to address NIIT as a whole, more than NIIT Ltd.—C45207 | Talk 22:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And now it looks like we need a second discussion about whether it should be NIIT or National Institute of Information Technology. Since the company itself never uses the full name on their home page or overview, I doubt that anyone would search for it under that name. It seems much more likely that people would search under NIIT. Assuming no one has any arguments against that, I'll change it back. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent Both should probably exist. The non-article should redirect. —C45207 | Talk 04:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KP: I work for the company so I guess you can take my word for this or someone can google to verify the following details. The group's name is simply NIIT. Not National Institute of Information Technologies or any thing else. It is simply NIIT. Well actually they started with the expanded version 28 years back when they started. But since the company is private there were some objections to with calling it a national institute the company started to just use the acronym NIIT as the name as it had build substantial brand equity (NIIT is ranked amongst the superbrands in India)

Now, NIIT group has two companies NIIT Limited (the education and Training company) and NIIT Technologies (IT Services company). NIIT Limited owns 25 percent shares of NIIT Technologies post the demerger/split of the company in the year 2004. The name of the article should be NIIT —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rock5410's Changes[edit]

Hi i edited some part of NIIT actually i removed some stuff and also i removed all warning now i hope this article is alright and any warnings are not required.

secondly there is a article called Master of Science in Information Technology could you please redirect that article as M.Sc IT. And you could help that article to improve.

another thing there is another university called Kuvempu University its not appearing on google search India please do something so that it comes on top pages but its coming on bing and yahoo search ok. so do something please i don't much about wikipedia honestly speaking i don't have so much time to spent on web. i hope you don't take it in a wrong way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock5410 (talkcontribs) 12:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the warnings. It seems pretty clear that you don't understand what they mean and that you should leave those evaluations to be handled by others. The references from the TOI are definitely a step in the right direction; it is a better third-party source to help balance the self-promotion from within the company. To improve the neutrality and make it sound less like advertising, I'd like to see some sources that are less glowing. Right now, this is all about how wonderful the company is, with nothing showing any problems or controversies. I have a hard time believing that nothing critical has ever been said about the company; let's include that here for balance. If some of that was included, I think the neutrality and advert warnings could probably be removed--but I'd want to review the changes and discuss before actually taking the messages off. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is roc5410 i changed the from NIIT Limited to NIIT as you suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock5410 (talkcontribs) 05:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rock5410 changed few things in NIIT it has given some relevent information from sources. Actually NIIT is IT training institution since 1981, in 2004 it split and formed NIIT technology which serves IT Services. NIIT limited caters in IT training. THis is the only difference in NIIT i changed the main title from NIIT LImited to NIIT. Now its up to you which you like to see and to help this article to improve and also i read how to improve article in wikipedia which send me a link in my talk page.--Rock5410 (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i have made change to the article header from NIIT to National Institute of Information technology. And i have done it with conscience because whenever i search for NIIT in google or yahoo or Bing top two three pages come of NIIT. Another thing I got this information from referance source [1] another source [2]. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock5410 (talkcontribs) 10:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMP Notice[edit]

please remove the warnings in the images and let it be as it is or i will vandalize other Imp article of wikipedia. Thank You-- (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you mean this image of the NIIT headquarters? Unfortunately, the user who uploaded that image has been indefinitely blocked for refusal to discuss copyright issues, specifically those around images apparently downloaded from websites such as this one. For legal reasons, Wikipedia can't accept photos copyrighted by others without written permission. Threatening to vandalize isn't going to change our legal requirements. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits on July 18,2009[edit]

I made some edits on NIIT article and it has been taken from original source so that the information should be relevant. I want to remove the image on this article which has been listed as warning and try to upload another one shall i be able to do that and during uploading which claim should i chose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you downloaded the image from any NIIT site, then it can't be used here. This isn't a question of you putting a different license on it; it's a question of the actual legal license of the image. Images published on other websites are assumed to be copyrighted by those sites. If you upload it with a different license, it's a false claim of ownership. If the image is owned by NIIT (or someone else) but you still want to use it, you have two choices: 1) ask them to post a CC-By-SA or GFDL license on the page where you took the image from 2) have them email Wikipedia at [email protected]. Either way, written permission from NIIT is needed. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very IMP[edit]

Since its a company that trains students in country like also provides IT services to different institution. Thats why i have added wikipedia project comapanies and reated it as mid importance and rated start material.-- (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits[edit]

you had removed the main section of the article without discussing hear. I have reverted because it is the main section of this article and imp points are provided with valid source. please do not remove it.-- (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion isn't necessary for every edit. Dougweller clearly explained the reasons for each edit in the edit summary. The timeline isn't sourced and isn't encyclopedic. A bunch of information was included in the section on the 3 lines of business that didn't really belong there. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have tried to edit this article to make it a good one. Now i personally don't no where this article is lacking behind could you tell where this article lacks behind, i mean anything further is required, or not, to include and make it a good article.--Mymac007 (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, you could clean up the references so they all use a consistent format with all the correct info. For example, the language for online sources should be "Retrieved on (date)" rather than "URL last accessed on." This article should probably be moved to NIIT, with a redirect from here to there, as discussed above. As I mentioned earlier, "To improve the neutrality and make it sound less like advertising, I'd like to see some sources that are less glowing. Right now, this is all about how wonderful the company is, with nothing showing any problems or controversies. I have a hard time believing that nothing critical has ever been said about the company; let's include that here for balance." Those would all be improvements over the current article, at least as a place to start. That won't be enough to make it a good article, but at least it will move it in the right direction. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To aid with formatting sources, consider using the {{cite}} template.—C45207 | Talk 14:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


{{editsemiprotected}} The Software Services company is called NIIT Technologies and not NIIT Technology :(. I wanted to fix that as soon as a I saw that, but the page is semi protected. I guess I'd qualify as established user (from the def I read), though I not so frequent in my contributions anymore. :( Raghav 05:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there; yes, to edit semi-protected pages, you need to be autoconfirmed, which means 10 edits and 4 days.
I checked on their own website, and it does actually say "Technologies", so I have made the change that you requested with this edit. I also moved the page to National Institute of Information Technologies - the old page, National Institute of Information Technology, will automatically redirect to the new one. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  05:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I find it quite interesting that you say you found it on their website, when a search turns up nothing for me. That's part of why I think the main article should probably be NIIT, not a spelled out version: the company itself never uses the full form. Where were you able to find it? They do have the "NIIT Technologies" group, but that's a division within the company, not an indicator of the full name. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. NIIT Technologies can be found, but see [3] which clearly refers to it by the old name. What should be done about NIIT IMPERIA which reads like a brochure? Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That other NIIT is Palestinian, not Indian; are we sure that's the same organization? Also, before we do another move, let's talk about what should be the primary name. Should it be the NIIT that the company uses now, or should we spell out the whole thing in keeping with normal Wikipedia conventions? As for NIIT IMPERIA, I just did a quick check and discovered several copyvios, so I think we should start by removing the non-free content. Once that's done, I'm not sure whether enough will be left to justify a full article. Perhaps it should be merged into this article? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi'd the article again this am and now the talk page as he's editing templates here. Sorry about that. I can be emailed though from my talk page if anyone affected wants something. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I add some images but those were not in rightly licensed therefore i had removed them. But I want to ask you under which license should I give, to add images that you send me a link of Flick search, because i will add images from flicker link that you send me. And if I add those same two images that you mentioned which was wrongly claimed, so under which license should I add those two particular images. Because i 'm keen to add those two particular images on this article.

And secondly please make those as a gallery type like in the Infosys or Techno India article. Because i'm not sure whether it has been like gallery type or not.--Sita manu (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those particular images (and the others currently in the gallery plus the training center photo) cannot be legally used here. This is our continuing problem: you keep thinking that copyright is a matter of you making up the right thing to say, rather than saying what actually reflects the legal reality. This isn't about pretending we have rights to use these images, like you did with these photos (and you have in the past, claiming ownership of things you took from other sites). When you list a license for an uploaded image, that license should be the actual license of the photo. If you really want those particular images, then you need to ask the owners of those images to change the license to CC-By or CC-By-SA. You can contact them through Flickr to ask them about that. If we can go to the Flickr page for those images and see that it is licensed CC-By or CC-By-SA (not (C), not CC-NC-ND etc.), then we could use it. But as before, the change in license has to be visible on the source page; the license here on Wikipedia should match the source. Does that make sense? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues & semi-protection[edit]

I made some changes in the discussion. and i have a request that please remove the semi-protected stamp please. And currently the article is looking like an advertisement therefore try to rewrite this article as nutral point of view.--Sita manu (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the semi-protection continue at least until the scheduled expiration next week, possibly longer. Given your history of copyright violations and threats of vandalism, I would prefer that if you want to edit the article that you be held clearly accountable for it, Sita Manu. But if you'd like to work on making this more NPOV, go right ahead. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close Paraphrase[edit]

Here's the section that needs a real paraphrase. Mostly the order of sentences was reversed, which is not actually a paraphrase. For example, the sentence sentence in the article is copied verbatim from the first sentence of the source, a clear copyright violation. The other two sentences changed a few words but not enough to be a paraphrase.
Article: NIIT was established in the year 1981 by young entrepreneur Rajendra S. Pawar and Vijay K. Thadani. NIIT was formally known as National Institute of Information Technology a name derived from Indian Institute of Technology.[10] NIIT has pionerred in IT education in India and trains one out of every three software professional to work in an IT company . During 1982 NIIT setup educational centers in Mumbai, Delhi later it spread in western part of India specially in Bangalore. In the following years it stated corporate training programs.
Source: NIIT was formerly known as the National Institute of Information Technology, a name derived from the Indian Institutes of Technology. NIIT was founded in 1981 by Indian entrepreneurs Rajendra S. Pawar and Vijay K. Thadani to provide IT education in India. NIIT claims to have trained one out of every three software professionals in the country[citation needed].
WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name problem[edit]

I want to change the name of the article form National Institute of Information Technologies to NIIT because in the BSE stock exchange of Indian market the name of the company is NIIT Limited and NIIT Technologies Ltd. both are part of NIIT and both have shares even in there official website they haven't mentioned the full name which is actually given in the article therefore it would be better to keep there original name rather giving there full form, another thing please help me how should i give both the names NIIT Limited and NIIT Technologies Ltd. and with there BSE number sensex number in the box. Therefore its better to ratain its original name.--Sita manu (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who originally moved it from NIIT to the expanded name, and you have a history of disruptive moves and redirects. If I move this to NIIT, with pages for National Institute of Information Technology, NIIT Limited, and NIIT Technologies redirecting to this article, what assurance do I have that you won't decide later to change it back? What made you move it originally in July, and what made you change your mind now? Are you convinced this is right this time? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your are right it was my fault and I made the blunder by making it as National Institute of Information Technologies actually today when i went to the BSE stock exchange website of India and tried to search with the name that i had gave i didn't found any information. To be honest with you it was all fault, i'm a big stupid i admit. Please change to to its original name and delete the name that i have given. In July i found a website where its saying the full form of NIIT is National Institute of Information Technologies actually its a crap there are no such name of this company there only one name that belong to this company. Now this company split into two groups as NIIT limited and NIIT technologies ltd. therefore the redirects that you made are correct but the holding or the parent group is NIIT as a brand, and both have listed in (BSE stock) of India. Again i'm saying i'm sorry for what i have done in past if you can forgive me, please change it to its original name.Thanks--Sita manu (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WeisheitSuchen please change the username i gave explanation why i did it on july please change the user name of the article. If you can't do then i have to do myself.--Sita manu (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't move it, since the page has had other content besides simply a redirect to this page. It requires an admin to do that kind of move. You're not an admin, so you don't have that power either. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name Wrong[edit]

The name of the article is absolutely incorrect. The administrator must take a notice of that and should put the actual name rather giving a name which was given by some previous user. The company certainly doesn't use the name that was given the User:Sita manu. Therefore the name must be changed immediately.-- (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is incorrect i request to the administrator to change the name of the article. The company certainly doesn't use the name that had been given. The admin must take a note of that.--Sita manu (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are constantly removing the banner from the article it is clearly mentioned that the name of the article is wrong and it must be changed immediately and you are saying that it is not the right place to place the banner. Then my question to you is where should the banner be given and how the name should be changed.-- (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting renaming shouldn't be done in any banner; it should be done at the Wikipedia:Requested moves page. However, Rock5410, since you are indefinitely blocked, you shouldn't be doing any edits at all, even as an IP. Remember that you as a person are blocked, not just your many accounts. Just because you decided to ignore the directions on how to request an unblock doesn't mean you get to keep being disruptive with all your IPs. I've explained to you the correct process; you still think you're too important to follow the same rules as everyone else. If you're determined to make the request for the page move, I suggest you be honest about the fact that you are the one who changed it away from NIIT in the first place. Lying about the original change is what prompted me to report you as a sockmaster in the first place. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:NIIT/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

* Added class B as the article contains fairly good amount of information but needs brushing up, stub class removed. IA (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 08:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 00:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)