User talk:Sundartripathi

Welcome!

Hello, Sundartripathi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Exemplo347 (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kelly Hyman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kelly Hyman 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/Kelly Hyman until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Sundartripathi: What is your relationship with the blocked accounts Jmplaton and 14kawadat. Are you working for the company and getting paid for modifying the View page? Please disclose your conflict-of-interest status. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkrause038 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mkrause038, there is absolutely no COI with anyone. I can only laugh loudly for this, however I can understand your situation now. The page will be edited with the consent and way it should be. If you don't min, Do you really have a COI with Dr. Paul Nguyen? Why an ex-founder has to be in the lead section and why you don't want a history section on the page? Do you think that mentioning ex-founder (Dr. Paul Nguyen) in the history isn't the correct way? Sundartripathi (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the article and your editing. I will ask you this one time. What connections do you have with View, any of its investors, any of its employees, or its attorneys, directly or indirectly through a third party? Please answer the question completely, and do not respond with your own judgement as to whether you have a COI; I am asking about relationships.

Please note that if you are editing Wikipedia for pay, you must disclose your employer, the client, and any affiliation not covered by the first two. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, One of my friend (affilated to View) asked me to look into this page claiming, there is some serious spamming going on the page and incorrect info has been added. When I looked into the page history, there was an on-going edit war. I did following

Edits related to Nguyen - Added Founder Paul Nguyen to the infobox, removed incorrect claim Nguyen as Chairman and President, added details on the history section. Neutral edits.
Changed: View, Inc. (previously known as Soladigm), makes dynamic glass systems based on electrochromism to View, Inc. (previously known as Soladigm), is an American manufacturer of dynamic glass systems based on [[electrochromism]. Neutral edits
History': Created a history section, tried to minimize the content like removing (associated with the Walton family). Added facts about the history, really couldn't find the litigation link that you have added.
Opened SPI: Against both groups.
Competitor section: added a competitor section to stay neutral.

I don't think this is COI or any affiliation with View/Nguyen, it was only reference. My edits were mostly in the neutral tone, what I can find on the Google. Not everyone including me can really deep dive into the details, the way you did. The aim was to stay neutral, where I was partially successful and you made it complete.

I have been removing promotional content on Micafungin, Griseofulvin and others, which I will continue to do. Sundartripathi (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, if required, I can declare this on View's talk page as well. Sundartripathi (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered the question about being paid - please note that PAID says you must disclose with respect to "any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation" Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I am not paid or promised to be paid for any edits. If I was or promised to paid, I would have disclosed on my talk and View's talk page. The friend has only asked to look if you can do something, but this was not paid. If I would have been working as per their instruction, I would have disclosed it. If you need more clarification, please let me know. Sundartripathi (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering directly on the paid thing.

Ok, you definitely have a conflict of interest and your edits display this very, very clearly. I recognize that you were dealing with other parties that have very clear WP:APPARENTCOI, but your own relationship via your friend at the company made itself clear in your editing, as well. A lot of situations like this turn out to be thorny this way.

I am going to put the "connected contributor" (the plain one, not the paid one) on the Talk page. Going forward please do not edit the View article directly, but instead offer suggestions on the Talk page. Will you please do that? thx Jytdog (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, that is completely fine with me, I understand that it is an indirect COI. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious - you have been aware of the litigation? Jytdog (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the limited details from his end, I was looking only for the one side of the coin and didn't even thought there could be other side as well. I became the guilty of a crime that I didn't even know I am doing. You did it to almost perfection, I got in touch with the friend again, he made an excuse that he didn't know if it was necessary to tell me about the litigation with Nguyen and their company. He said, he was thinking of it was a confidential matter and should not be disclosed publicly. Probably they were looking for a cleaner page. However, he has said that there is still incorrect info on the page, he will be sending me the details. Instead of editing the page, I will put up on the talk page (if I found it correct) and thereafter you can make your own assessment.

Also I am more interested in the pages with history of edit wars and high level of conflicts, is there a way, I can find them directly. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying and for agreeing to post to the talk page instead of editing directly. If you do post, please make sure that the content is well supported by high quality, independent sources. Especially with the litigation going on, we have to take statements from either side with a big grain of salt.

Sundartripathi I do not recommend that you go looking for "hot" articles to work on. While your work identifying the socks was great, your own editing was not helpful - the sources you used were poor and you added things to the article that were not supported by the sources. To work on hotly contested articles you need to a) find the best sources available; b) read them carefully and understand the issues; c) think about what the arguments have been in the WP article; d) think again about what the sources actually say; e) write content that only and carefully summarizes what the sources say. You didn't use the best sources, and you wrote stuff that was not in the sources at all. If you edit like that on a contested article you are going to make things worse, not better.

I haven't figured out how much of that is due to your COI and how much of that is due to you not really understanding basic scholarship (which is just a, b, and e above... steps c and d are just extra when working in a hot area).

fwiw I recommend that you work on non-contested stuff, and just focus on getting really good at a, b, and e. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, thanks for the details. I have edited a spelling on View page " when Mulpur joined" to " when Mulpuri joined", without mentioning on the talk page, felt it to be unnecessary discussion for this minor correction. 03:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following

So, you appear to be following my edits. This is creepy. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I have no intention to do that, I am following your edits for more learning without any other intention. Not doing anything that is unconstructive. Sundartripathi (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Neal D. Barnard, was based on Template:Biography. Sundartripathi (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for failing to disclose paid editing in contravention of the Terms of Use.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SmartSE (talk) 09:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]