User talk:Vivekachudamani

Chopra article
Please understand that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for editing articles. Your removal of content that was properly referenced is in violation of the guidelines, as is your additions of material that don't cite references. Your editing will likely be deleted and the previous version restored. TimidGuy (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome...

Hello, Vivekachudamani, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help How to write a great article Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there.

Chopra
Please use the talk page to discuss significant edits. Talk:Deepak Chopra.  Will Beback   talk    08:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra Disruption
You are persistently and unilaterally removing reliably sourced content from the Deepak Chopra article. The Deapak Chopra article falls under the TM arbitration Your actions,  especially given you've been warned in the past can be construed as disruptive, and given the arbitration you could be sanctioned. Please discuss your potential edits on the talk page and reach consensus for their inclusion to avoid further disruption. (olive (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC))

Dear Littleolive oil,

After waiting 5 days for a consensus building dialogue regarding the above entries, I assumed there was no objection, so I began by removing the Carroll entries along with a full explanation under "Robert Todd Carroll" I opened on the talk page. Alexbrn immediately undid the changes without explanation, only asserting Carroll was an "authoritative skeptic." Here is his response to me on his talk page along with my response:

My position has not changed, and I have just reverted a bunch of edits you made to the article backed with inaccurate claims that material is not backed by the source used (I of course checked). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC) We differ on what a reliable source is, so let's discuss this. Littleolive oil said we need to reach a consensus. That is why I explained my position last week. You both had all that time to make a considered response but you didn't. I assumed if either of you had objections you would raise them. Once I made changes this morning you changed the material back without explaining why only claiming the material is good without showing how.

Regarding your point about checking the source: Did you check this?

Chopra acknowledges that his thought has been inspired by Jiddu Krishnamurti and others. [30] Please tell me where this exists in the Skeptic's Dictionary?

or the source for this quote:

Author Todd Carroll said Chopra left the TM organization when it “became too stressful” and was a “hindrance to his success”. How does one determine who said these words from these sentences in his book?

Soon he was an international purveyor of herbs and tablets through MAPI. When association with TM itself became too stressful and a hindrance to his success, he left. Today I noticed Carroll has removed the sentence. "When association with TM itself became too stressful and a hindrance to his success, he left." A separate search for the word "hinderance" can bring us an alternate version with a dead link to hindunet.org that was not there last week. Previously it didn't even show a source of any kind.

I honestly do not understand why you want to stake your reputation as a fair editor on this material. Please explain, don't just assert.

I feel confident that a review panel of editors will recognize that this material does not meet wikipedia standards. Vivekachudamani (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you feel is the appropriate step to take on these edits? I have tried to reach consensus before making changes, but that has not worked. As the history page shows, back on 31 Jan 12 when I put up the physicists quotes with cogent explanations for their inclusion, it was Alexbrn who was the one who "repeatedly and unilaterally" removed my content because he thought they were puff quotes from scientists. When removed the Gamel, O'Har and Kaminer references as unreliable sources (I gave essentially the same reasons as stated above) he undid them instantly, without supporting his position. I took them out again, he put them back again. Then you told me to stop or else be sanctioned. Now in July here we are again. I am sincerely trying to make this a better article, and I am open to a reasonable dialogue, but people are playing by a different set of rules, where you get to insist on one's changes until the other person gives up or is sanctioned by Wikipedia.

Do you agree with Alexbrn that these sources should remain? None of them? Some of them? If so, which ones and why, given that I have taken the time to explain why they don't meet Wikipedia standards? Vivekachudamani (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I hadn't returned your comments sooner... I am traveling and only had limited Internet access. Internet should be more stable for a while now, now so let me look through what's been happening and then I can weight in. (olive (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

Edit warring on Depak Chopra
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Alex, Your recent edits show you are repeatedly violating WK:BLP policy. You have already been warned 3 times. BLP pages are judged in favor of removing contentious material. There is not mention of the 3 revert rule for BLP policies. I am following WP: BLP policy to immediately remove poorly sourced contentious material without discussion. You are violating policy. You must read the policy and abide by it. You need to understand the phrase "remove immediately without discussion." Furthermore Olive has already ruled against you on this material. Consensus by neutral editors was achieved even though it wasn't required here on a BLP. All the discussion on this is already there on the talk page. It is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. You are trying to game the system reverting it 3 times yourself but not having it technically count as a edit war by having "IRWolfie" revert one of those edits. But the 3 revert doesn't apply here anyway. That just makes you look pathetic and desperate.

This is going to look very bad for you when it is revealed you have staked your reputation on keeping in the SkepDic reference to the Jiddu Krishnamurti line when that line is not even in the book. It isn't there. It isn't there.    What could be a better example of unreliable source for the Jiddu Krishnamurti line than to send the readers to the SkepDic book where it doesn't exist? I'm honestly not trying to make you look bad, but you are not helping yourself here. I'm really trying to make this a better balanced article, stop posturing and bullying, let's stick to WP: BLP policy. Vivekachudamani (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Your recent editing history at Deepak Chopra shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit-warring on Deepak Chopra. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MastCell Talk 22:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you're invoking a WP:BLP exemption, but the material in question doesn't support your claim. Per Wikipedia policy, notable opinions from notable sources may be included so long as they are clearly attributed as opinion. The material you've been edit-warring to remove meets these criteria, and thus a WP:BLP exemption does not apply to your edit-warring. MastCell Talk 22:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

MastCell The source in question is the Skeptic's Dictionary. On July 4th I explained why 3 references were poorly sourced. There was no counter discussion except to assert that it was a reliable source. I asked Littleolive oil, who seems to be a page administrator on the Chopra page to weigh in. She's been preoccupied with a personal bereavement but on July 10, she responded:
 * I personally would not use Skeptic's dictionary in a BLP and probably not anywhere else. It is by no means mainstream unless mainstream to pseudoskeptical views. Carroll's tone identifies the source as less than academic. However if used SD should be used sparingly and with inline attribution so the reader knows the source is from a proclaimed skeptical source whose mission is to debunk. (olive (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC))

Since Littleolive said she wouldn't use it anywhere and certainly not in a BLP page, I think the material in question does support my claim that poorly sourced material should be removed immediately without discussion. First of all it was discussed, it was deemed poorly sourced. Carroll is not a notable opinion or a notable source. I even supplied a Carroll quote where he says readers should not expect to find a balanced treatment of subjects in the book. One of the citations is so poor that it did not even exist in any version of the Skeptic's Dictionary. I noticed that citation was quietly removed yesterday without any acknowledgement of their error or their justification in keeping it in all these years. I also see that a section of the discussion on the talk page has recently been removed. I don't know what.

My repeated removal of the material yesterday was based upon talk page discussion and Littleolive oil's judgment and in support of BLP policy. Each time I took it off I referred to the discussion, the decision, and the BLP policy. I was then reported to you for edit warring. When you blocked me, did know there was a lengthy discussion on this on the talk page? Did you know Littleolive oil's decision?

I feel strongly that this page is not being edited according to BLP policy and the sensitivity that requires. As I move ahead on this issue I would appreciate your response, so I have a record of everything. Thank you, Vivekachudamani (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I am an editor like any other and my opinion holds no more weight than any other. I'm sorry if anything I said led you to think or act in a way that got you into trouble. While BLP's must be treated with greater stringency than other articles in terms of how the subject of the article is viewed, still unless content is not sourced at all, we are all held to the 3RR rule-at 4RR an admin can block you. Wikiipedia as a collaborative community depends on consensus. Sometime consensus allows for bias and inaccuracy, but that's the way the community works. Carroll is not de facto a reliable source. His express purpose is to debunk and he clearly and unapologetically makes no attempt to be fair in the content or tone of the dictionary. Further as a dictionary, SD it is a tertiary source. However as I said, in the past a group of editors determined SD to be reliable for some content. This doesn't mean it is reliable for all content but this does point to the kind of view some Wikipedia editors have on it. If you want to remove something RS you must have consensus per the TM arbitration and this also means you must have agreement that something that is sourced is not a reliable source per Wikipedia standards. I know you are a new editor, so this wasn 't clear, and I'm sorry I or Mastcell didn't  give you more information. I think you are trying to do a good job and are a careful researcher. As for Wikipedia it takes a lot of time to figure out how it works. I'm still learning for sure. My advice is to not to revert content /edit war but continue to talk things out on the talk page. Good luck and don't give up. I'd add that no academic I know would consider something like SD a RS, but that doesn't mean it won't show up on a Wikipedia article.(olive (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC))
 * The book is referenced in academic works, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=573851582 your edit] to Deepak Chopra may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 8 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Chopra is Adjunct Professor, Columbia Business School ,  Columbia University  {{cite web|title=Columbia Business School|url=http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/courses/node?page=
 * God: A Story of Revelation (2012), and Super Brain coauthored with Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D. {{red|&#41;}}, {{cite news|title=Best Sellers|url=http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/2012-11-25/

Edits at Deepak Chopra
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn talk 20:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Talk:Deepak Chopra
Viveka, I see on Talk:Deepak Chopra that you think you're entitled to a 3RR exemption for removing what you call "potentially libelous material" from Deepak Chopra. Please don't count on it. I'll block you if you resume edit warring and tendentious editing on the article. And I suggest you either substantiate your statement (which you've posted in several places) that "Alexbrn has declared a conflict of interest on this page", or withdraw it. It's usual to provide diffs for such things. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC).
 * His signature says COI "Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI"Vivekachudamani (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn doesn't modify his/her signature just for the Deepak Chopra Talk page. That link in Alexbrn's signature points to a section of their Talk page where they enumerate certain (currently one) pages for which they declare COI, but this doesn't happen to be one of them. You might have clicked on the link first. Unless you have some other evidence to offer for your COI claim about another editor, I recommend you retract it. WP:NPA Dwpaul (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Really? You saw the link in Alexbrn's signature and assumed it meant he was declaring a conflict of interest on Deepak Chopra? You didn't click on the link, but instead made a far-fetched assumption and spammed it as an accusation on Talk:Deepak Chopra, on the BLP noticeboard, and on Alex's page? I can't decide whether that constitutes intentional battleground editing or simple incompetence. In either case, it's not good for the project. Let me put you on notice: you are within a whisker of being blocked not merely for edit warring on Deepak Chopra, but for disruptive timewasting on its talk page and elsewhere. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC).

Make sure you read this
I advised you on Talk:Deepak Chopra but I'll say it here as well.

Please read WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP carefully.

You've been blocked once already. If you continue to be WP:POV pushing, and not understand Wikipedia policies, you're likely to be topic banned. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yawn. Lots of threats. I suggest you get up to speed on this page's history.Vivekachudamani (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am trying to help you. You should also be aware of previous Arbitration Committee decisions on pseudoscience - Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.  The yawn here is not the "threats" against you - it's the fact that we've had this conversation many times per WP:FLAT.  If you don't agree with these well established policies, perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

On conflicts of interest
Since you've been pursuing the question of conflicts of interest quite aggressively, I feel it is fair to ask you whether you have anything that could reasonably be construed as a conflict of interest with regard to the Deepak Chopra article. MastCell Talk 21:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that I am aware of. I did contact wikimedia help after contacting Chopra's office regarding the biased editing and that resulted in Ticket#2013071510009944. Matthewbowker there has been working with us on these concerns. Alexbrn instantly reverted Matthewbowker's edits and suggested Matthew might have a COI. That was looked at and determined that he didn't.Vivekachudamani (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That rather misrepresents the situation. I said that if Matthewbowker was an advocate for Chopra instead of following his own independent editorial judgement, then this "raised the spectre" of COI. After some perfectly civil and dispassionate discussion everyone appeared to agree that it was fine for Matthewbowker to edit as Chopra's "advocate" so long as he kept to his own judgement to the fore. My revert of his initial edit (which simply implemented Chopra's shopping list of requirements for the article) was quite correct, as subsequent discussion and consensus has confirmed.
 * By the way, I'm still waiting for some evidence of my COI. Are you going to raise the issue at WP:COI/N or is this just time-wasting? Alexbrn talk 17:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alexbrn's interpretation here. The only thing I disagree with is the idea of a "shopping list," there were several changes that Dr. Chopra requested that I did not make, as they did not have sourcing or information to do so.  So, I chose to not include those changes - using my editorial discretion.  2013071510009944  does contain a declared COI, which is why Vivekachudamani is opting to go through OTRS and the talk page rather than attempting to make the changes himself.


 * Vivekachudamani, thank you for being willing to work with us. I understand it's frustrating, but thank you for being willing to stick it out and try to get your changes made according to policy.  It's actually really refreshing. ~  Matthewrbowker  Make a comment! 05:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I to understand from this that Vivekachudamani has declared a conflict of interest? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for an answer here. Alexbrn talk 05:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I forgot to reply, heh.  would you like to explain why you are editing Dr. Chopra's article?  I would rather not disclose it myself... ~  Matthewrbowker  Make a comment! 05:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Matthew. Details are not necessary: there is no need for Vivekachudamani to out him/herself . However since it is plain there is a COI of some kind I have flagged Vivekachudamani as a connected contributor on the Deepak Chopra article, and refer him/her to the guidance in WP:COI, which I trust will prove useful. Alexbrn talk 16:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Matthew for clarifying directly with me that there is no problem with me editing this page. I see Alexbrn has jumped to conclusions and put up a notice about me on the talk page. I ask that it be removed.Vivekachudamani (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors with COIs are not prohibited from editing pages; so what's going on? You removed the template stating you have may have a COI. This means there is no possibility you may have a COI. And you are asserting User:Matthewrbowker is verifying this after having worked with you behind the scenes. Is this correct? To be absolutely clear, the (now removed) "connected contributor" template stated, "A Wikipedia contributor, Vivekachudamani‎ (talk · contribs), may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article" -- and this is not the case? Alexbrn talk 20:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone editing here "may" have a COI, so selecting one person for such a announcement is meaningless.Vivekachudamani (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No - a COI risk arises where an editor is "covered by, or significantly related to, an article on Wikipedia"; which is what the connected contributor template is for. So when User:Matthewrbowker wrote that you weren't going to change the Chopra article yourself (which is great news, BTW) but were going through OTRS and the article Talk page because "2013071510009944 does contain a declared COI" that meant - what exactly? Alexbrn talk 05:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't know, I didn't declare a COI.Vivekachudamani (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is Deepak Chopra. Thank you. ~ Matthewrbowker  Make a comment! 19:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)