Vijayante

I think what you have said is valuable information and will make the article better, I hope we can work out something that feels good to both of us. warmly, Sethie 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've explained the relevant policy on Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Please justify your removal with direct references to appropriate Wikipedia policy. As I have already said, BLP only applies to poorly sourced material. --Philosophus ^T 00:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please note that you have reverted the inclusion of Kent in Maharishi Mahesh Yogi three times. If you do so again, you will be in violation of the 3RR policy and will be blocked. --Philosophus ^T 00:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, you will be blocked from editing. Sfacets 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That actually isn't entirely correct. Even if he stops now, it is still probable that he will be blocked. --Philosophus ^T 00:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, just to tell you, just because something's negative doesn't mean that it's libel. In this case, the controversial statement was sourced. Please read WP:BLP, thanks! Gracenotes^T § 00:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

What you are saying is not correct. I think Jimmy Wales would agree. This is a living biography, and negative statements that are slanderous should not be included, particularly if they are false. I realize you are very determined to include this slanderous material, but I am very determined to see justice done. Vijayante

Please, please indicate why these particular negative statements are libelous (since slander applies to speech and such, but this is a minor point). Gracenotes^T § 01:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

As long as you do it the right way, no one has an issue with your attempts. Sfacets 01:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for ackknowledging that. It is what I am trying to do. Vijayante

Vijayante, please stop. Unless you are actually trying to break a record for number of reverts past 3RR, you are really hurting your position and reputation --Philosophus ^T 01:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Allow me to share this statement with you. Ram Naam Satya hai. Lord, Thy name is Truth. Vijayante

Here's another statement: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject". -Winston Churchill
Sfacets 02:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Vijayante,

To quote Wikipedia, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". As the other editors have told you, you are totally wrong about criticism being libelous, and in your use of personal research, and in your POV interpretation of BLP. Your persistent attempts to block critical links you personally disagree with is way over the top and will simply not be allowed by the majority of editors, who may disagree at times but at least collaborate. You may be determined but you are wrong and if you continue, there will be further consequences. As Wikipedia states: "Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx. Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, take seriously what they say and consider withdrawing from editing the article." When it comes to demanding other editors conform to your wrong conception of what is unsourced and libelous, I suggest you recognize your conflict of interest. As for your friend SSS108, let me be the first to inform you that SSS108 "is now banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages" for related behavior. I should think that you would realize now your attempt to sidestep other editors and get BostonMA to intervene on your behalf as suggested by SS108 (copied below) will not work:

On page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi there is a link near the end of the page Falling Down the TM Rabbit Hole Criticism of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and TM by a former TM teacher which if examined is seen to fall into the category of libelous to a living biography.

I removed the link but an editor has put it back in. The website that is negative is self-published by the author who created it. He uses very strong statements that seem unbalanced. Do I have the right to remove it again? Somehow I think I do, but am feeling a little intimidated and wanted to confirm.SSS108 recently recommended I call upon you if need some help. I am not new to Wikipedia though have not until recently seen what goes on behind the scenes. I like to help TimidGuy who has been trying to improve on the level of accuracy Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's biography. The other editors did allow some libelous material in the biography itself to be cut out, but they seem to feel that libelous material in a link is ok, although they do acknowledge it is a very negative link. Somehow I disagree--links also to a living biography should be balanced and not so somewhat deranged sounding as is the case with Falling Down the TM Rabbit Hole Criticism of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and TM by a former TM teacher. Thanks for advising. Cordially Vijayante

By the way, your statement that the former TM teacher is deranged is your unprofessional opinion, and without providing sufficient evidence confirming your diagnosis, IS unsourced and libelous. And that is an example what BLP is referring to, not criticism. When you live in a glass house, don't throw stones. Namaste. --Dseer 04:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vijayante, you have been reported for 3RR violation on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please take this time to review our WP:3RR as well as WP:BLP policies carefully. Please note that BLP specifically allows the inclusion of a reliable source. I noticed that you say in the Talk page that you have personal information that the source is 'wrong', and you may be right, but that should not affect our consideration of its qualification as being attributable. If you have another reliable source that refutes that source, then you are welcome to add it, but we can't use personal knowledge to exclude a source. Thanks, Crum375 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." This is Wikipedia policy, and although all do not feel inclined to follow it, someone needs to stand up for it, and this I am trying to do. from Vijayante 13:30 6 March 2007

You are right, in principle - if all we had were tabloid level sources, I would agree with you. But, without getting involved in this specific case, if we have a paper published by a reputable academic institution, I would consider it 'reliable' for the purposes of Wikipedia. I would not accept it as gospel - I would only attribute it to its source, which seems to be a reliable person. It seems to me that all you have against this particular source is based on personal knowledge, and that's not acceptable. I would also include any refutation by a reliable source, if there is one. Crum375 20:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of motive, I suggest you cease continuing to "stand up" for a misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy regarding criticism when you have an apparent Conflict of Interest on the subject, and when you show continued disregard for collaboration with other editors in your admitted attempt to "help" TM advocate TimidGuy, and accept the actual policies for what they are. Your claimed personal knowledge that some statement is false and that the person making the statement is "deranged sounding" is totally irrelevant here, at best you can provide some source you think refutes the allegations, not suppress them because you consider them false. As a TM advocate, you should pay attention to what it says in WP:COI. And, your intepretation of Wikipedia policy about what is acceptable criticism is flat out wrong. You should refer to [[1]], and specifically the example they give of what is reasonable in criticism, [[2]], in which it is said about the subject, for example, that he was: "...an acrobat, a civil servant, a tailor's dummy, hebephrenic, psychotic, infantile, fascist, and devoted to making money...", and that his "...rhythmic procedures closely resemble the schema of catatonic conditions. In certain schizophrenics, the process by which the motor apparatus becomes independent leads to infinite repetition of gestures or words, following the decay of the ego...". That quite harsh criticism should give you a better idea of what is permissable in criticism of public figures as long as it is reliably sourced, and you should defer to the judgement of other editors who do not have your apparent COI and misconceptions regarding acceptable criticism.--Dseer 20:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source. In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Vijayante 01:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You appear to be doing the equivalent of throwing mud on a wall hoping something, anything, will stick! The link's source is mentioned in verifiable secondary, critical sources, it is acceptable. It is simply that you dismiss all critical sources as libelous based on your own personal beliefs, which is why editing with a COI is suspect. Wikipedia can not presume you know the truth or that others have told you the truth and critics do not. Who is being harmed when there is more than one POV and no Wikipedian presumption of truth, and you provide no irrefutable proof? Must we pretend there are no critics? Our job is to give appropriate weight to the POVs, and readers are presumed to be capable of sorting through conflicting POVs, doing further study, and determining for themselves. Wikipedia is not the arbitrator of truth and does not claim to be. What if the critics are at least partly right? Why do you think the reader should only read one side? --Dseer 03:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

i am not concerned about our generation, as who does not know the reliability of statements which pass as well-sourced information these days. we have the advantage of finding out for ourselves who Maharishi is if we really want to know, but we need to consider how long of a trail of missinformation we leave behind for future generations to sift through, and they will appreciate it if we are thoughtful and vigilant in this regard. Vijayante 16:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

24 hours may not be sufficient, the user has decided to revert the article three times daily. [3] If he is to continue, I would recommend either a longer or an indefinite block; the user has made few (if any) constructive edits, and seems eager to continue his nonconstructive edits. Sfacets 11:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Vijayante: As part of our examination into conflict of interest issues involving the Transcendental Meditation group of articles (see the Talk:Transcendental Meditation page), I would greatly appreciate it if you would disclose any conflicts of interest you might have. Particularly, it would be appropriate for you to disclose whether you practice TM, whether you teach TM, whether you are paid by the TM organization, and, as seems especially common here, whether you are a faculty member of the Maharishi University of Management. --Philosophus ^T 21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest you read WP:COI#Declaring_an_interest. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sfacets 11:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, you will be blocked from editing. Sfacets 04:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, you will be blocked from editing. You do not own this article and are not Arbcom. I ask you again to refer to WP:COI regarding editing given your role as a follower and advocate. --Dseer 04:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop. Vijayante, this is the final warning about your disruptive editing I am giving you. I have contacted Crum135 again, and here is what Crum135 said:

A clear pattern of reversions against consensus, lack of collaboration, and general tendentious editing is considered disruptive editing and can be blocked for disruption. If you see such a clear and consistent pattern, please let me know (with full diffs), and I will block again. One does not have to violate 3RR to be disruptive. You may also wish to notify the editor a priori about this, as our goal is not to entrap people but to guide them in the right direction.

I do not want you to say that you were entrapped, so I am warning you this last time. If you make one more disruptive edit, I will report what you have been doing and the same person can block you again.--Dseer 04:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you.Abecedare 05:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked for violating the three revert rule on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. This means that you have reverted an article four or more times in a 48-hour period. You are welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia when 48 hours have elapsed.

ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

wow thanks for the book update (:O) I am going to convert the ISBN number from the current ISBN 10 to ISBN 13... ISBN 13 is becoming the standard now and will overtake ISBN 10 soon so its best to keep the public up-to-date (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

• i got your email and i see what you mean, i agree with yah then, i wont change it (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Abecedare 03:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

"In consideration of the harm of reverting, Wikipedia policy states that you may not revert any article more than three times in the same day. This is a very strict limit, not a given right; you should not revert any one article more than three times daily." This does not mean that edit warring and disruptive editing patterns allow you to consistently push the limits of 3RR, which is not a given right. --Dseer 05:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think one problem they have is your reference, my guess is if you provide the article or book and the page number, author, publisher, etc... the issue will resolve (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

thanks Nima, TimidGuy is getting it. someone else has it and he needs to retrieve it from storage and one from a book on the way. Vijayante 15:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please don't resume this edit war, editors have been making positive contributions to the article since the protection lapsed. Your continual reversions can only accomplish one of two things: getting yourself blocked for a long period of time, or further protection of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, was the "The following statement made by George Harrison is supported by comments made by Sir Paul McCartney in his approved biography." also on page 397 from (Miles 1998)? -Nima Baghaei (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

yes Nima. sorry. it is the same reference really.Vijayante 20:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply