User talk:ChiranjiviVyasa

ChiranjiviVyasa, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi ChiranjiviVyasa! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

May 2021

Hello. Your recent edit to Lawrence School, Lovedale appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Meters (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. ChiranjiviVyasa (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Double-headed eagle, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up and for fixing the issue. ChiranjiviVyasa (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jason Fung has been accepted

Jason Fung, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Missvain (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Buffalo Automation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Autonomous navigation. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now. ChiranjiviVyasa (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited D. Selvaraj (Udumalpet MLA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Statesman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert Lufkin has been accepted

Robert Lufkin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Robert Lufkin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Lufkin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lufkin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thiru Vikram and Buffalo Automation

Having spent considerable time copy-editting Thiru Vikram into encyclopedic form, to then see that *all* of my edits were reverted with an entirely misleading explanation is disruptive. A reminder, you do not OWN this article. The article was filled with trivial peacockery and unverified data, or information which appears unreliable. Please make sure you understand WP:BIO. The article was also overloaded with unnecessary references. You (ironically) included WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN as reasons for reinstating the previous version. Please also take a good read of what those sections actually refer to and reflect on what information has been removed. If you continue to revert, I will take this further. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having invested considerable time in improving the Thiru Vikram article into an encyclopedic form, it is frustrating to see that all of those edits were reverted with what I believe was a misleading explanation. A reminder: no one "owns" this article.

Your suggestion that my contributions were "paid" is unfounded. Writing about a well-known entrepreneur in my community does not equate to a paid contribution. The only person raising the issue of compensation here appears to be you participating in a coordinated attack.

Several of the references I cited were removed by you during your reversion. If the concern was reliability or formatting, the normal process is to discuss or tag them—not delete them wholesale. Citing WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN as justification for reinstating an earlier version misapplies those policies.

If you continue to revert without substantive engagement on the article’s talk page, I will escalate this matter through appropriate dispute resolution processes. Please collaborate in good faith rather than reverting wholesale. Vyasa ChiranjiviVyasa 12:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for "Paid Editing" mix-up

I removed the portion of my comment on paid editing before you replied here, but now that you've decided to say that my suggestion is unfounded, I feel I should explain why I made that mistake.

The Thiru Vikram article was created by Trendsmurf who registered for an account on 22 December 2020. Their very first edit was to create that page, loading a fully created page with references. Their second edit was to put a "Paid User" notice on their user page, disclosing that they have been paid by none other than Thiru Vikram to create his WP article.
Then on the Article Talk page, on 23th December 2020, Trendsmurf contested a deletion saying the article should not be deleted because "he is a notable young entrepreneur".
Then on 24th December Trendsmurf posted again at the Article Talk page contesting the deletion. Trendsmurf then edited only this article, and no other, adding his last edits on 21 June 2022. In effect, Trendsmurf "curated", "OWNed" and defended the article since that was what he was being paid to do.
On 24th December, two days after Trendsmurf created his account, you created your account.
Your second edit was to Lawrence School, Lovedale where you edited the "Notable Alumni" section and your third edit - less than an hour after you created your account - you add Thiru Vikram to that section.
On 11th January 2021, you added a reference to Lawrence School, Lovedale naming Thiru Vikram.
Your next edit on the same day adds Buffalo Automation to the Vehicular automation article.
On 20th April, you reverted the removal of Thiru Vikram from the list of notable alumni at Lawrence School. Your next edit changes his description from "inventor and technology entrepreneur" to "inventor, entrepreneur, CEO Buffalo Automation", referencing the source you inserted on 11th January.
On 21st April, you added Thiru Vikram to List of University at Buffalo people.
On 21st April, you inserted a reference to Buffalo Automation into the lede section of Autonomous cargo ship as well as a "positive" spin on this topic, inserting it before a more skeptical comment which immediately followed originally.
On 23rd April 2021, you added Thiru Vikram to List of Indian Americans.
Then, on 25th August 2022 - two months after Trendsmurf stopped editing altogether, you make your first edit to Thiru Vikram.

In summary, in your first 4 months of editing, you made 54 edits and a very high proportion of them are "stealth" edits adding Thiru Vikram or Buffalo automation to articles, or you edit articles which arguably are tangentially connected with Thiru Vikram. It was only after Trendsmurf, who admitted to being paid by Thiru Vikram, stopped editting, that you then started and essentially took over curation and OWNership of the article. Perhaps now you can see how some editors might have confused you with another paid editor. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your rationale. Vyasa ChiranjiviVyasa 11:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Care to comment further? What is your real connection with Thiru Vikram? You appear to know him extremely well. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Laatus. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. PhilKnight (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ChiranjiviVyasa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I respectfully request reconsideration of this block. I edit from a large co-working space here in Buffalo, New York where many different people share the same Wi-Fi network and terminals. This is the reason for the IP overlap found in the CheckUser results, since unrelated editors can appear from the same connection.

My edit history demonstrates numerous reverts of vandalism and constructive contributions, including page creation, which are not consistent with sock-puppetry or disruptive editing. I also want to note that the vandal activity by the socks appears more consistent with the editing patterns of now-blocked account Technobuf, Second IP and First IP. Please review the edit histories of both the Buffalo Automation and Thiru Vikram articles as well as their respective ongoing AfDs. Similar sock-puppetry activity that resulted that has now resulted in page protection occurred even after my IP-wide block, which demonstrates that I was not the source of the problem. The same co-working space is also used by many disgruntled former co-founders of Buffalo Automation who now operate their new startups from here too because Buffalo Automation used to work here before relocating a few years ago to a building bought by Vikram's family.

To clear the air about COI raised by HighKing, I do know of Thiru Vikram as many in the Buffalo startup circles do. I have only spoken to him once, very formally, at an alumni event in 2014 since we both attended the same boarding school and I wanted to know about his experiences in America. Many who attend the Lawrence School, Lovedale also then attend the University at Buffalo since it is a popular tradition, exemplified by this gentleman: Palanivel Thiagarajan. I was Vikram's junior by a year and therefore was not permitted to fraternize with him due to the strict and conservative military culture of Lovedale, which mandates one to speak to seniors only when spoken to. I only spent a lot of time curating the Thiru Vikram and Buffalo Automation articles as I had first-hand knowledge that I wanted to share with the world but I always backed up my contributions with reliable sources.

I have never used alternate accounts to deceive, evade blocks, or manipulate discussions. I kindly ask that this block be lifted so that I may continue contributing productively to the encyclopedia. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Decline reason:

I'm not buying any of that. In any case, socking has been confirmed by CU, and your explanation of shared connection does not convince me.

It would be better for you to admit the error of your ways, and go for the standard offer, although I must say that with your history of UPE and other issues, you'd need to prepare a pretty compelling case. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Vyasa ChiranjiviVyasa 07:07, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to examine details before judging me

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ChiranjiviVyasa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I respectfully urge you to examine the details of my case as I have been the victim of a very sophisticated scapegoating scheme. The devil really is in the details of this case and I am willing to provide any additional information you need to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Firstly, I would like to note that the vandal activity by the sock accounts which I have been accused of operating, Laatus and Trendmurfs, is more consistent with the editing patterns of now-blocked account Technobuf, 2nd IP and 1st IP, all of whose vandalism I actively thwarted over the last few weeks. I encourage you to please review the edit histories of both the Buffalo Automation and Thiru Vikram articles as well as their respective ongoing AfDs and Talk pages. Similar sock-puppetry activity that has now resulted in page protection occurred even after my IP-wide block, which demonstrates that I was not the source of the problem.

Secondly, I edit from a large co-working space here in Buffalo, New York where many different people share the same Wi-Fi network and terminals. This may be the reason for any IP overlap found in the CheckUser results, since I once made the mistake of revealing my IP here when I forgot to login. The same co-working space is also used by many disgruntled former co-founders of Buffalo Automation who now operate their new startups from here too because Buffalo Automation used to work from here before relocating a few years ago to a building bought by Vikram's family. I am convinced that the old cofounders are behind this since they have now managed to evade both the IP-wide block of our coworking space AND the page protection increase: their former titles have now been added to the Buffalo Automation article and they have also managed to remove a reputable source (Wired Magazine) featuring in-depth coverage to negatively influence the AfD. They have also doubled-down on the disinformation campaign claiming that Buffalo Automation has been shutdown, which is patently false as everyone in town knows that they are actively hiring locally and they are also launching a consumer product next year. This is something I have contested both in the AfDs and also here.

Thirdly, to clear the air about COI raised by HighKing (Please see HighKing's contributions between August 27th and September 10th) , I do know of Thiru Vikram as many in the Buffalo startup circles do. I have only spoken to him once, very formally, at an alumni event in 2014 since we both attended the same boarding school and I wanted to know about his experiences in America. Many who attend the Lawrence School, Lovedale also then attend the University at Buffalo since it is a popular tradition, exemplified by this gentleman: Palanivel Thiagarajan. I was Vikram's junior by a year and therefore was not permitted to fraternize with him due to the strict and conservative military culture of Lovedale, which mandates one to speak to seniors only when spoken to. I only spent a lot of time curating the Thiru Vikram and Buffalo Automation articles as I had first-hand knowledge that I wanted to share with the world but I always backed up my contributions with reliable sources.

My edit history demonstrates numerous reverts of vandalism and constructive contributions, including page creation, which are not consistent with sock-puppetry or disruptive editing. I have never used alternate accounts to deceive, evade blocks, or manipulate discussions. Perhaps I was a bit too aggressive in my defense of the Thiru Vikram and Buffalo Automation articles, but that is only because I had spent considerable time contributing to them and protecting them from vandalism. I am sure you all can relate to the pain of seeing all your time and effort being torn apart by a pack of vandalizing wolves as senior editors.

I ask that this block kindly be lifted so that I may continue contributing productively to the encyclopedia on issues dear to my heart, such as health and the pharma-medical-insurance complex. If not, I urge you to at least stop the travesty unfolding at the concerned articles that have made a mockery of all of Wikipedia's safeguards and the entire editorial process.

I would also like to invite other editors familiar with the recent activity on the concerned articles to also weigh in. @Star Mississippi: (1st AfD closer); @Laatu: (1st impersonated account (which I initially pointed out in AfDs) and ironically the cause of my ban); @Trendsmurf: (2nd impersonated account which I also initially pointed out in AfDs); @DoubleGrazing: (well-meaning decliner of previous unblock request); @PhilKnight: (Well-meaning sock investigator and also my blocker); @JBW: (Page protector); @Nyeubim: (Reverter of related vandalism); @Oshwah: (Reverter of related vandalism); @Svartner: (Voter of related AfD); @Iljhgtn: (Voter of related AfD); @EmilyR34: (Voter of related AfD); @Oaktree b: (Voter of related AfD); @Jumpytoo: (Sock striker of related AfD); @Lavalizard101: (Sock detector of related AfD); @Izno: (Clerk of related investigation).

Decline reason:

Having conducted my own review of the technical evidence, I fail to find your explanation more credible than the alternative one – which is that you were in fact operating multiple accounts. On a procedural note, mass-pinging people is disruptive and exceedingly unlikely to help you advance your case. Doing it again is likely to result in loss of access to this page. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Vyasa ChiranjiviVyasa 06:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting I've seen the ping, but I do not currently have the on wiki time to look into this. If unblocked I think @ChiranjiviVyasa should be p-blocked from the AfDs independently of this block and from the articles if they're retained. They've made their case, and were edging toward a bludgeoning block even before this came up. Star Mississippi 12:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no input in the decision to block or unblock, but I'm not impressed by what I've seen, for what it's worth. Thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]