User talk:Jui89

October 2016

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that in this edit to Gurbaksh Chahal, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jui89, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jui89! 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 I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest

Hello, Jui89. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Gravity4, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

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).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--- Dear Cordless Larry

I do not have personal relationship with any of the company or an individual, nor am I a paid editor. I am choosing to edit articles related to the sector, as that is where my subject matter expertise. I merely started to edit and am still learning. The post isn't about my relationship or my edits. Rather, a clear cut observation I found as I looked through few company and product pages. I am concerned that 2-3 high ranking editors, seemed to have taken more personal approach to a dozen or so companies. Thank you.Jui89 (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the sheer single purpose of your edits, you can see why the suspicion of having a conflict of interests is... glaring at us. Regardless of that, we do have a civility policy in place, please ensure that you adhere to it, strictly. Also, please try to avoid edit warring and use the pertinent article talk page instead. Thanks. El_C 19:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El_C I appreciate the note. I can assure you I am not conflicted of any interests, rather this is the area of my expertise. I recently started to edit and resort to edit the area I know the most. I also noticed you changed the heading of the section for Gravity4 to "Discrimination Suits" from "Legal Complaints". I read the conversation between you and Chisme and would like to voice my concern. As I stated, based on various other major company pages on Wikipedia, they don't post every complaint on the site, unless a judgement is made. On such page of interest to me is Facebook. There would be a laundry list of editing I would be doing if I listed every employee complaint on that page. Therefore, I am suggesting this section be completely removed from Gravity4 till then, since it does follow the same guidelines. I do thank you for already removing the complaint's name. Thank you. Jui89 (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responded here. El_C 17:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for explanation

Berean Hunter You have locked my account indefinitely without providing any details. There is no connection with me and any other user on the discussion board. I do NOT have multiple accounts and I have NOT abused wikipedia rules. Any issues that have been presented to you by Chisme are misrepresented. I started to edit in Oct 2016, only to realize I was not to delete sections without adding the content and citation and reasoning. I waited and learned the basics. I have reached out to other admin for mentorship - I am sure you can check my logs. If I were the multiple person with multiple accounts, how could I have made this novice editing mistakes? Also, I am sure the IP logs show I am NOT anyone other than who I am, and do NOT have multiple accounts. This is unfair and I do request you please review my account with fairness. I have shared this learning perspectives with admin El C ‎ just recently as well. To be punished for voicing my perspective with Chisme and then to be banned indefinitely without any basis - is unfair.

I ask you please review my logs again.

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).

Jui89 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

there is no sockpuppet evidence against me. Why is my account blocked? There is no relation or any activity or collaboration with the user:Jkmarold55 or anyone that I have done to violate wikipedia rules. Just because I voiced my concerns on the edits on a controversial page, I am being pushed out? Please review my account and provide what I did wrong? Jui89 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You claim there is no evidence against you. This is incorrect. It is presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jkmarold55. Yamla (talk) 17:33, 7 April 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.

Yamla I wish someone would explain what I am reading. "Jui is avoiding scrutiny. 75.15 IP blocked one week." I am not Jkmarold55 and I am not avoid scrutiny. I am not working under any blocked iP. What exactly do I need to provide you this assurance? Please help me understand - as I am new to the community. Much of the jargons do not make sense to me. Thank you. Jui89 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: As blocking admin, prehaps you could help explain things. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: I would welcome this immensely. If I have done something wrong, please do let me know what I did. How else would I know or learn? Otherwise, I feel I just got pushed out of the community for voicing my opinions - all of which conformed to the wikipedia guidelines. Mistakes I made at early onsets have never been repeated. I have disclosed the full unintended mistakes I made on edits above and to other admins. When I rejoined the community, I have always cited my edits. I have complied with the rules. I do not understand the iP block. I am not have multiple IPs or accounts. I would like the opportunity to correct any mistakes, if I have made them. Thank you. Jui89 (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This is you editing under an IP which given the fact that an SPI case was underway and you were reverting where you had used your account...well that wasn't wise. Sock like behavior which is what most of it looks like. Also, your fixation on another editor and pointing the fingers at them doesn't help. Please see this essay about that very thing.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: Thank you for pointing this out. So, I made one edit while I was unlogged while traveling. Honest one mistake on my part. I will keep in mind to double check when editing in the future that I am logged in. I do request this mistake be forgiven and my account not be suspended. Thank you. Jui89 (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you would have been logged in then you would have been in violation of 3RR, right? Your account did 1, 2, 3 and then with your IP 4 (as you have acknowledged above) and you just happened one time to be logged out? I don't think so...looks like you were avoiding scrutiny to me.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was logged out. I can't do much if honesty has no value. I understand and have read the 'big brother essay', I do recommend looking at the log of Chisme here. Perhaps the blocking admin could look why that user's fixation on my edits are acceptable? Perhaps you will notice he too has edited only on those two subjects vigorously I am being accused of. I get punished because I am an honest novice and accept my mistake? I understand your decision is made. I have shared everything with honesty. Thank you. Jui89 (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could be coincidence that logging-out just happened to be on the fourth of four edits that violated 3RR. I suppose it's in the realm of possibility, but you have to admit Juli, that it looks bad. El_C 22:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El_C To not admit a mistake is worse than looking bad. In any regards, Thank you. Jui89 (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the constant accusations of trolling that seemed to be a running theme for you and the IPs. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skamecrazy123 I gave you the benefit of the doubt hoping you being a seasoned editor, would help a newbie. Instead I got bullied. Your log discussions show your collaborations with Chisme. I do feel sad that high ranking editors have biased perspectives. This is community portal. What difference would this unbiased documentation be from a tabloid, if high ranking editors can't serve as mentors for the new comer? Jui89 (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any sympathy I may of had for your cause evaporated the moment you tried to (not so) subtly accuse me of paid vandalism. As I said in the SPI, it's amusing to watch someone hang themselves with their own rope, which is exactly what you have done here. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skamecrazy123 Surely I never asked for sympathy. Just would be nice if "fairness" was spread evenly by the high standing editors, especially for volunteer work. Jui89 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats good, because you are getting none from me. And where was the fairness in calling me a troll and accusing me of paid vandalism without a single shred of proof? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skamecrazy123 Perhaps I should have used the word bully instead of a paid troll.

Again, excuse me if I don't feel much sympathy for someone who tried to bully us away from the article by constantly accusing us of trolling. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skamecrazy123 No, You actions on wikipedia can't excused. Please read and review the rules of being more ethical.

I'll take comments on ethics from someone who isn't blocked for sockpuppetry. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]