User talk:DeniseJZ

View, Inc.

Stop making unilateral edits. All the changes have been supported by references. Get consensus for your changes on the talk page or I will take you to Administrator noticeboard ofr edit-warring. You already made https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=View,_Inc.&action=history 8 reverts today]. Stop that. Kebawl (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Kebawl, I'm simply reverting the page back to its previous condition before you made the wholesale, unilateral changes that were unsupported. What's your relationship to Jmplaton who was banned for making legal threats and false changes? Are you an employee or getting paid to do your false and biased postings?

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Nick @Nick:, It appears that you blocked my account because I created too many other related accounts? I created these other related accounts mainly for privacy purposes, but upon further reading, I now understand that this is not permissible on Wikipedia. I'd like to apologize for this mistake and will immediately discontinue the use of all related accounts (if you'd like me to erase them, please let me know how so I can do it). Could you please unblock my main account DeniseJZ? I promise I will use only this main account going forward. Thank you very much! DeniseJZ (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even after posting this request you've been continuing the same behavior on this talk page. Also, you still haven't provided information on all your sock accounts. If the disruption continues then your talk page access will be revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 04:07, 19 September 2017 (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.

Please provide a complete list of all of your alternate accounts. Additionally, I would expect a commitment to avoid editing on the topic of View or Paul Nguyen in future would be a pre-requisite of any unblock. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that the unblock request is reviewed by an administrator familiar with the areas you've been working in, to decide whether it's desirable for you to return to editing, and if so, what sort of editing restrictions (if any) would need to be established before unblocking. I'm therefore happy for any administrator to review and unblock if they wish to do so. Nick (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate info

Dear Nick @Nick:, You justifiably blocked me for having more than one account. I apologized for not knowing this Wikipedia's rule and promised to use just this account going forward. I do not believe I did anything else wrong to continue being blocked. Like many others, I'm a busy professional & selected to edit on only this topic because I've been passionate about the subject of dynamic windows and been following the company closely & happened to know several principals of the company, including the founder, the first CEO, the COO, and some VPs. It appears that the company's current CEO Rao Mulpuri, who has been installed by some VC investors to take over the company through trickery & cheating, is instructing his employees & partners to rewrite the company's true history to de-emphasize the all-important role of the founder, the first CEO & the initial team (that Rao pushed out). As Wikipedians, we have an obligation to prevent the company's people from distorting the truth. That was why I had to keep making corrections every time they made inaccurate revisions, some of which literally replaced the entire page. I don't believe trying to keep Wikipedian accurate & truthful went against the mission of Wikipedian.

While I've been blocked, another editor Sundartripathi kept on making several false accusations against me, knowing that I couldn't answer because I was blocked. Sundartripathi may be a non-COI honest editor as he claimed but I'd like to be unblocked so that I can respond properly to Sundartripathi, as Wikipedia's editors should be allowed to. Disagreements among editors are common and hopefully get resolved through discussions, not through blocking. It seems unfair that one editor is blocked while the other is allowed to say whatever he wants, accurate or not accurate. I know that Wikipedia's administrators have the right to block whoever they feel like, but doing so unfairly may discourage others from contributing their knowledge to this great project. Having said that, I still want to express my appreciation of the many honest Wikipedia editors and administrators who have spent countless hours to keep Wikipedia informative and accurate DeniseJZ (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with Sundartripathi,

Dear Sundartripathi, I apologize if I got it wrong but you seem to be either an employee, a consultant, or a partner with View or View's current CEO Rao Mulpuri? Otherwise, how did you know so much about the internal affairs of the company, including which patents are important, who worked on them, and when they were filed? Also, you claimed to try to be neutral but you kept reverting to the company's people's biased, inaccurate text. Moreover, your tone is clearly biased for the company, such as calling the founder an ex-founder (when the truth is: once a founder, always a founder), and falsely claiming that the founder's name shouldn't appear in the introduction section of a company (when the truth is the opposite: look at Apple Inc. & Google Inc. Wikipedia pages). Again, Sundartripathi, I apologize if I'm wrong here, but if you're connected to View or to Rao in any way, could you please disclose it?

Sundartripathi, I've talked to enough people and known enough of the early history of View to answer your accusation that the founder, who's an expert in the dynamic window field, somehow founded View Inc. without making any technological contributions to it. On the contrary, the founder in this case founded View based on his many years of experience in the field. He selected the most viable among many different failed approaches to dynamic window technologies, and then invented and developed around these viable approaches, including both absorptive and reflective electrochromism. He built the initial team of engineers and came up with many ideas with them. These ideas of his continued to be developed & brought to fruition many years after he left. As the result, many of the later patents were supposed to include him as an author but the new CEO Rao wrongly failed to do so. You're entitled to say whatever you want to say (especially when you're not blocked) but anyone with a little common sense would see View's founder, a technological expert in the field, has to be the one who set up the technological foundation and contributed heavily to View's technology. Once more, Sundartripathi, I apologize if my thinking is incorrect here and you have no connection whatsoever with View or Rao Mulpuri. I hope that it's all right that we editors are allowed to have civil discussions like this to inform each other of the truth and keep Wikipedia correct and informative. Best regards, DeniseJZ (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sundartripathi has COI

Dear @Jd22292: Sundartripathi has been vandalizing the View Inc. page, using Wikipedia to settle scores by promoting the CEO Rao Mulpuri while attacking the founder with false information. Could you please restore the page to neutral, consistent with the policies of Wikipedia? Thanks. DeniseJZ (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me about this. I'm afraid I will have to ping Jytdog to assist you on this one as he seems better at removing promotion than I am. To Jytdog: the page in question is View, Inc. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This thread, as well as the two above it, and the one below this, are all inappropriate uses of your talk page while you are indefinitely blocked. If you continue to trying to do this, which is called "editing by proxy", you will lose your Talk page access. (see WP:BLOCKEVASION) I am pinging User:Nick who indefinitely blocked you, who may consider revoking your Talk page access now. Jytdog (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Jd22292: and @Jytdog:, I apologize if I didn't know the rules of Wikipedia. But am I not allowed to answer questions and state my reasons on my talk page? Can't we focus on the correct facts instead of attacking the editor? I do not mean to challenge you here at all. Whatever the rules you tell me here, I will adhere to.

The only appropriate use of your Talk page while you are indefinitely blocked is to appeal your block. Jytdog (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My colleague above stated "I would expect a commitment to avoid editing on the topic of View or Paul Nguyen in future would be a pre-requisite of any unblock" yet here you are, still discussing the page. I think, at this point, the prospect of you being unblocked is somewhat remote (but will remain at the discretion of whoever reviews your unblock request). You may only use this talk page to continue the discussion about your unblock. I also note we're STILL awaiting details of all the sockpuppets YOU have used, which is why no further work seems to have taken place concerning the unblock.

You will lose access to your talk page if there's any further discussion concerning articles, particularly those which you've been told you should avoid permanently.

-- Nick (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore View Inc. to neutral text

Thank you, jd22292 . Dear @Jytdog: Sundartripathi is clearly either the new CEO Rao Mulpuri of View Inc. or working for him. He's been using Wikipedia's page View Inc. to settle scores by falsely promoting Rao (a businessman, not an inventor as falsely claimed by Sundartripathi) while attacking the founder with false info (Sundartripathi kept writing the fake attack phrase "completely failed" when the truth was that prototypes never worked perfectly-that's why they're prototypes & not final products; and prototypes build the foundation for later improvements). He labels "sockpuppets" anyone who knows and who tries to correct his false info with more correct facts, while Sundartripathi himself worked with his sockpuppets JmPlaton, 14kawadat ....

It would be great if you can help restore the page to neutrality without false attacks per Wikipedia's policy. Thank you. DeniseJZ (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't shoot the messenger!

Dear @Nick:, @Jd22292:, & others, I would like to remove the block on my account, for the following reasons: - I was simply trying to protect the View page from being used to settle scores using promotions & attacks with false info. - Unfortunately, I did this incorrectly with more than one account (for privacy). I readily admitted I was wrong & ignorant of Wikipedia's rules. I've promised to use only 1 account going forward. I believe you readily know what my other accounts (already deactivated) are. It appears unfair to continue to punish me by forcing me to publicly incriminate and humiliate myself, when I already promised repeatedly I will not do this again. - I'd like to understand a bit better why some administrators want me not to ever discuss View & its founder again, when I know both well from public & personal info. I didn't use my deep knowledge to slander or attack others. I used my deep knowledge to contribute to make Wikipedia more helpful & informative. Why would one want to block an domain-expert if he's presenting true facts. Isn't correct, neutral information what Wikipedia, that we love & volunteer our time without pay, all about? I'd also like to be able to contribute my vast domain expertise in a civil, non-disruptive, informative manner to the Deletion proposal of the View page. - Please don't shoot the messenger because he didn't know & didn't follow the rules. Instead, look at his messages to see if they're correct and accurate, civil and non-disruptive.

Like you, I'd just like to contribute my expert knowledge to make Wikipedia better. Mistakes were made but I'd like a second chance to correct my mistakes and continue to make contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. DeniseJZ (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose

As part of your getting unblocked, you have been told that you should promise to dis-involve yourself with the View article.

I agree with that, but before you do....

You have a very obvious interest in this matter that has driven you so far as violating our SOCK policy, but you have not disclosed any external interest. Would you please do so? It will help sort things.

This is not a request for you to disclose your real world identity at all. It is a request for you to disclose any relationships with the company or people involved in the matter. There is hot, ongoing litigation, and it is fairly obvious that you probably have some connection. Making such disclosures is discussed in the WP:COI guideline.

Additionally, if you have been hired to edit WP on behalf of one of the parties, you must disclose your employer and the client per WP:PAID. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree not to edit View article directly, but will edit/work on other less controversial articles. I know several executives from the company but have an interest in only facts and neutral points of view. I am not writing on their behalf and are not paid by them to write. Thanks for removing the block. DeniseJZ (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. That doesn't really explain why you were so driven to influence this article, to the point where you actually sockpuppeted.

Your disclosure is legalistically narrow and does not explain your behavior, nor your editing. This edit by you for example, is filled with content not in any source provided. Not in any source. So where did that content come from? What was driving the editing, if not the sources? The only answer is - your personal knowledge (where ever that came from), and whatever external interests you had.

I do not support your being unblocked on the basis of what you wrote there.

But thanks for disclosing ~some~ connection. With that I can tag the article with this account and the sock accounts. Jytdog (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jytdog for your comment. I used both public knowledge from reading articles (but didn't have lots of time to reference all of them), plus some personal knowledge (is that wrong, if it reveals truthful info?). The information was just facts that could easily be found with Google search-please doublecheck yourself. I clearly had an interest in this subject but isn't it the same with any editors or they wouldn't bother to take the time to edit? Just because one has an interest doesn't necessarily make one COI? As I said, I didn't realize it's such a big deal to have more than one account, but now I know and already promised repeatedly not to do it again, I feel it's unfair to continue punishing my account. This was my first time being blocked for sockpuppetry, without any warning. A new editor, or an infrequent editor, should be given some warning or a second chance to learn the rules and stick to them. There are many rules on Wikipedia that it's hard for a busy newcomer to master them all. Thank you for being understanding. DeniseJZ (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing more to say here, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]