User talk:Ejembi12

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Ejembi John Onah a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Ejembi John Onah. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ejembi John Onah (July 29)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ejembi John Onah and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Please co-operate with other editors
Please do not resist and defeat efforts by other editors to help improve Ejembi John Onah, which is presumably about yourself. Please read the following guides and policies; Biographies of living people, Referencing for beginners, Notability of academics.

Writing on Wikipedia is a collaborative process based on the assumption of good faith, the use of independent and reliable sources to create neutral articles. An article does not belong to the subject or the initial creator.

The article you have written so far has several serious problems. Please do not remove the edit notices placed on the page, they are there to attract the attention of editors who can fix the problems. Each tag may only be removed after the issue it relates to has been resolved. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Hello, I'm EricEnfermero. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Re:Ejembi John Onah
This article was not my effort except for minor edition for article quality, the comment by dodger is not a reflection of the article but I appreciate the comment

Re:Ejembi John Onah
Thanks Eric for your last comment, I did remove the copy and paste because the author of the article recommended that, since I am not the author, I have to respect that, I only did minor edition.

Re:Ejembi John Onah
The article contains reference to my scientific work which is what is expected from a scientist, so the author of the article reflected that, refer to others who are scientist like me example Paula Hammond also contains original research

July 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ejembi John Onah. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Ejembi John Onah
Eric, I am editor to several international journals and I follow guidelines, based on the observation on the comment, I did observe that those commentz were not true, then made the changes and saved as in the rule, so what is vandalism to follow guidelines?

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Ejembi John Onah, you may be blocked from editing. Adam9007 (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Re:Ejembi John Onah
An article was published about me on June 23, in which I made minor changes, so the current comment on the article is not a reflection of the biography, any assistance will be appreciated, thanks

Re:Ejembi John Onah
An article was published as a biography on Ejembi John Onah with minor edition from me since then to improve the quality of the article, so the current comment above the article is not a reflection of the biography, any assistance will be appreciated, thanks

Re:Ejembi John Onah
Please can any administrator assist on the biography article Ejembi John Onah with making changes on the current comment placed on the article since that is not a reflection of the article at all submitted on June 23 with minor edit from me to improve the quality of the article?

Re:Ejembi John Onah
Dear author, please be focused on your article and make all correction to the article, thanks

Re: Ejembi John Onah
favonian, you deleted the biography article on the above subject, please advise on the reasons why to enable the article be improved for re-submission, thanks

Re: Ejembi John Onah
Your question is currently being addressed to you in IRC. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  19:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Ejembi John Onah
Wikipedia:IRC help disclaimer|Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors

Re: Ejembi John Onah
Dear Author, the article on the above was deleted for various, although many were not factually true but the author presentation was very vague and was not a good representation of the subject, so it generated the deletion. First of all Focus Nanotechnology Africa and US-EU-Africa-Asia-Pacific and Caribbean Nanotechnology Initiative (USEACANI), US-EU-Africa-Asia-Pacific and Caribbean Academy of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (USEACANN) are sister organizations founded by the subject that have been in the forefront of nanoscience and nanotechnology since 2005 covering 189 countries with network http://fonai.org/Network.html including nano leaders globally who are contributors. These organizations are regarded as facebook of nano engaging innovative research as an academic, educational and scientific organization where the subject has been a professor since 2005 http://fonai.org/Research.html with the subject as a principal investigator and oversee other investigators spread across notable universities globally including Cornell University and Caltech. These organizations cannot be separated from the subject just like you cannot separate Microsoft from Bill Gate as the reviewers did in error too to delete. Apart from that, since graduating from college in 1985 with first degree and subsequent 2 doctorates, the subject has worked in various notable institutions as faculty, researcher, scientist,etc including Cornell, Institute for Polymer Research Dresden, Germany, Virginia Tech, etc which can be verified through extensive publications including books, etc through third party sources, etc. The contributions of these organizations and the subject are verifiable, independent, significant or presumed with extensive publicatons that can be independently verified from third party source. All these attributes and others were not mentioned by the author. Let the author address these issues, invite other editors to review for re-submission consideration as a proposal
 * If you wish to contest the closure of the discussion at Articles for deletion/Ejembi John Onah, you can do so at Deletion review. A decision made by community consensus (in this case, that the subject does not meet the requirements for a Wikipedia article) can only be reversed by community consensus - no individual administrator can overrule the result. Yunshui 雲 水 10:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Ejembi J. Onah
No question was asked. If you have one, ask it when you place the template. Katietalk 19:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple accounts
The use of multiple accounts on Wikipedia is not allowed. I mention this because of the recent edits of User:TerungwaSamuel, which are incredibly similar to your own. Please consider this to be your only warning on the subject, and if further accounts are created all of them will be blocked. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Primefac, TerungwaSamuel is entirely different from me, as a high level professional, I don't engage in such. I am in the USA here, check or inquire from Terungwasamuel, I think in Africa Ejembi12 (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Notability academics is a wiki document, so anybody from anywhere in the world can see and use it Primefac.

Ejembi12 (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Instead of making such accusation which are entirely baseless Primefac, you can check the IP of the communicating electronics and see whether they are thesame and you will find out they are different in this case and can easily be traced to the region they come from. All this time, I have respected your views, please let us keep it professional, no need for insults and false accusations Primefac, thanks.

Ejembi12 (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Re:Draft Ejembi John Onah
Jmcgnh, just to inform you that the discussion on the subject article is going on at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#03:29:14.2C_12_September_2017_review_of_submission_by_TerungwaSamuel. The citations you suggested has been fully pasted for you to read without access,so you are invited to join the discussion thanks

Ejembi12 (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Anachronist once more for undeleting the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Draft:Ejembi_John_Onah

and all those who contributed to the article improvement to this point including TerungwaSamuel, jmcgnh,etc

Ejembi12 (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

What is a 'high volume editor' to review an article before going live? Ejembi12 (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It means someone who has significant experience in reviewing AFC submissions. Primefac (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks Primefac, that was my thinking too, anywhere one can find a list of them in wiki?

68.175.131.44 (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The list of AFC reviewers can be found at WP:AFC/P. Primefac (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Being here to edit the encyclopedia
Hi - currently almost all your edits have been campaigning for the unblock of. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Please drop the stick and find something constructive to do before you're blocked for not being here -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Ejembi12 (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Yamla, thanks for your contribution, just to correct you, notability academics was established by article, Draft: Ejembi John Onah during the undeletion discussion or DRV through Requests for Undeletion,archive 282, that was why an administrator; User: Anachronist undeleted the article and without any violation of socket puppetry as wiki technical data findings showed, you may read those discussion: Out of 9 wiki criteria for Notability (academics), the draft Ejembi John Onah met 6 but only required to proof 1 for notability. As was directed by the undeleting administrator; the article; draft: Ejembi John Onah will be corrected for especially citation which uncountable of them were already presented on the undeletion discussion on the reference including highly impact peer review article from third party among others and reviewed by high volume editor before live as proposed by the undeleting administrator. I have done quiet well as a new editor, wiki already appreciated it several times. Please it will be great to appreciate out of courtesy other contributors, so an unblock will be appreciated. Ejembi12 (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

, can any neutral person apart from any administrators involved here objectively review the above request for unblock? Thanks! Ejembi12 (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Answered below by Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

[user:Eggishorn]], you did not answer my question by referring to the block by There'sNoTime as answer to my question. There'sNotime blocked the account that I am requesting an unblock, so I cannot understand why this twist and twist whereby a sincere request for an unblock. Ejembi12 (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , you may try appealing the block by following the directions you've been given multiple times, but here they are one more time: Create a new section on this talk page and place the following text in it: Another administrator will review your unblock request. I feel I must advise you, not as an administrator (I'm not) but as a peer editor, that unblock requests accusing admins of overreaching their powers or mere denials that the block was valid have historically had a poor record of success.  Unblock requests appear to be most successful when they address the original issue cited as the reason for the block and indicate the way the block intends to avoid that issue.  Good luck.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Yamla, can you please unblock now since I have followed your advice for you to unblock and taken the these steps? : Thank you all especially user: Yamla for the honest approach and advise to make me better equipped to build encyclopedia. User: Yamla based on your advice; once more, I have read the reason for the unblock with understanding and I am once more sorry, promising that it will not be repeated. I will with all interest, courtesy in approach, adhering to wiki rules join WikiProject Science to assist as stipulated in improving such articles as they relate to science. Therefore, I request for an unblock with appreciation if granted to start making my objective contribution as you advised user: Yamla and I promised, thanks Ejembi12 (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 21:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You were clearly warned -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 21:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Noting that I've transfered the unblock request from the above section here per the admin help banner. I take no position on this appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Before considering an unblock, one thing that would need to be addressed would be the editing of Ejembi John Onah. If unblocked, would you refrain from any and all edits on Ejembi John Onah? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes! That question has been answered long time ago; I have not edited Draft: Ejembi John Onah since; be reminded that the undeletion was done by User: Anachronist after a comprehensive review or DRV as meeting notability as outlined above. Anybody editing in future draft: Ejembi John Onah should read the DRV or Requests for Undeletion archive 282 and follow the citations from secondary peer review high impact journal sources there to be included on the reference part of the article. Then follow the advice of the undeleting administrator; User:Anachronist to resubmit to high volume editor for review before going live. Ejembi12 (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As a condition for unblocking, because this editor seems to be the subject of the draft article he's tried to publish (and moved into main space 3 times), indicating he's here for self-promotion rather than building an encyclopedia, I'd require that the editor agree not to write any more about himself in main article space, or in any area in which he has a conflict of interest, but rather to propose any changes on article talk pages. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed; User:Anachronist and thanks, your suggestion has been followed ever since. Ejembi12 (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC) Thanks, User:MSGJ, User: Anachronist and all other administrators/editors who contributed to the unblock request that was granted. I look forward to contributing to this team effort. Ejembi12 (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please observe for a while
I'm going to recommend that you watch how things are done around here for a while before continuing to edit. In other words, it might be best if you did not actively edit article or talk pages right now. You may even wish to seek out a mentor before choosing to modify anything else. Dawnseeker2000 22:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree! As I promised; just putting template WikiProject Science on talk page of science target article on Wikipedia: WikiProject Science as directed on the talk page. I am not editing anything more than that for now while I continue to observe User: Dawnseeker2000, is there anything wrong with that? Ejembi12 (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I re-iterate what Dawnseeker2000 said. It's clear you are not yet fully familiar with levels of projects or their actual topics of interest. Not everything that has anything to do with science is appropriate for WikiProject Science. For example, some articles are really only of interest to more specialized subtopics that have their own WikiProjects. Consider reading standard layout guidelines to see where to place project tags. A bunch of other editors are getting tired of running around cleaning up behind you. DMacks (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure of what you mean; User:DMacks because on WikiProject Science, there are target articles listed there and based on where you can help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Science#How_you_can_help as outlined that you can place such tags on such articles which are listed as science articles. I looked closely into your complain and saw that the templates I placed were removed from such articles as 'anatomy', 'density', etc which are core science articles targeted for such templates, so advise such people doing that to stop, in case they don't know that 'anatomy' 'density' are science articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Science/Target_articles. You may wish to look closely at the activities of the socalled cleaners who may not know science articles or may be doing it to just ridicule my work and complain. As a PhD in a science subject, I know what are science related articles. Thanks for your observation. User: Anachronist, I need your help again; some editors are removing the template that I placed on science target article like anatomy, density, etc which are core science articles and blaming me for putting the template for science articles as stipulated on WikiProject Science. Since people are removing these templates even when listed as science article; please warn them not to do that, thanks.

Ejembi12 (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You placed them at the bottom of the talkpages, as if you wished to discuss rather than actually tag. That's not how tags are instructed to be used. I have seen disagreement about whether one should only use the most specific (subproject project) tags. In keeping with WP:CATEGORIES, that means I am surprised to see a "science" tag on an article that is already "subfield of science". If the wikiproject supports top-level tagging, that is fine with me. But you should probably get that clarified with the wikiproject, now that you know multiple other editors disagree with it. DMacks (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok User: DMacks, thanks for that. I have raised the issue with the wikiproject science on the disagreement arising. Ejembi12 (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ejembi John Onah (December 9)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Worldbruce was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ejembi John Onah and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Ejembi_John_Onah Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Worldbruce&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Ejembi_John_Onah reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Worldbruce (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Draft:Ejembi John Onah does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. "It's a good habit to get into even if you only edit this one article."  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  23:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC) User: jmcgnh, thanks for the helpful reminder; I will take care of that. Also; when I finish editing the article; I would call on you to review it, if ok and possibly pass it on to main space since you are a high volume editor

Ejembi12 (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I looked it over again and I'm still concerned that the issue of notability covered in the earlier deletion discussion has not been addressed. The unsourced material that Worldbruce mentioned is also a problem, but the sources that would verify that material are not necessarily sources that would help establish notability. I worry that you are engaged in CITEBOMBing, distracted from the issue that most needs to be addressed.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  23:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User: jmcgnh; so far all issues raised by the last editor as in the review have been addressed which mainly requested citation in career, early life and publication section with sources which are verifiable, those citations were already in the reference which the editor verified as correct and really worked on them. If you have any concerns more, come with clear examples for me to resolve if applicable, thanks.

Ejembi12 (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Ejembi John Onah has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ejembi John Onah. Thanks!  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  04:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Most citations are internet based including google searches news channels and are reliable as supported by wikipolicy in this electronic age User:jmcgnh referring to other reliable websites. Alumni pages are list since graduations include many, scrolling down still make it reliable and verifiable. Thanks! Ejembi12 (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are free to ignore my advice.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  09:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Science banners
I noticed that you have diversified your editing to include adding the banner for WikiProject Science to many articles. These sorts of banners on article talk pages are an important part of how work gets organized on Wikipedia. There have been two problems with your additions: 1) you have sometimes added the banner template outside of the banner shell, when the banner shell is present and 2) you have added the Science banner to articles that already are a member of the Science WikiProject by virtue of having a banner for one of the many sub-projects of WikiProject Science. Please note, edits like these are not helpful. I've undone a few and I notice that others had already been undone by other editors. You've been busy, though, so some of your additions may not have been addressed yet. Please, in future, only add the banner when needed and add it to the banner shell, when a banner shell is already present. Also, when adding a banner, please take a few moments to add an article assessment to the template. These assessments make the banner more useful to the project. Thanks.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  11:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The 2 aspects you mentioned as a problem have been addressed since User: Jmcgnh if you see my recent placements; they are placed properly and secondly not placed where wikiproject science banners are already placed; remember wikiproject science is a general banner as different from specific subject based science. There were few that were placed wrongly at the initial stage which I did correct myself. Please do not remove wikiproject science general banner in preference to subject specific banner as I have seen you do; the 2 are different and should be allowed.
 * Ejembi12 (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no, you have not properly placed the banner in your most recent edit to Talk:Eye. Your science template was placed outside the banner shell and is not needed because Animal Anatomy is a descendant sub-project of Science, as shown by this hierarchy from its project page:
 * This WikiProject is an offshoot of WikiProject Animals


 * WikiProject Science
 * WikiProject Biology
 * WikiProject Tree of Life
 * WikiProject Animals


 * You may add sibling projects when additional distribution is needed, but adding parent projects is contrary to the classification system. Since you are familiar with Science, surely you understand the notions of hierarchy and parsimony. There is usually no need to specify that a dog is both a mammal and a vertebrate, since being a mammal necessarily means being a vertebrate.


 * Also, you did not supply an article assessment. The point of these WikiProject banners is not simply to add decorations to the talk page. The assessments help steer interested editors to the kinds of articles they most want to help with. It's part of the overall collaborative editing process of Wikipedia.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  13:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, the article that needed science banners are placed under what is called target articles on wikiproject science; if general science banner is not needed, then those target articles should not be there. Classification to specific subject does not undo the general classification; the existence of Chemistry as a science subject does not undo science. The existence of a son (eg subject specific banner) does not negate the existence of a father (general science banner) Jmcgnh
 * Ejembi12 (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that you did not receive notification of [this response] to your question at WT:WikiProject Science.


 * As to the target articles on page WikiProject Science/Target articles, the only way articles get added to that page is by already being bannered for WikiProject Science or a sub-project. Adding the banner for WikiProject Science is not what the instructions on that page are asking you to do. Yes, there is a mention of referencing WikiProject Science, but that's intended to be either a link in the assessment or in the edit summary.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  13:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Ejembi12. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Draft:Ejembi John Onah, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with 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).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. "Looking through the history, it seems we never established whether you are Ejembi John Onah or are impersonating him. In either case, there are evident reasons to wonder if you are editing with an undisclosed conflict of interest. I recommend that you follow the instructions in this warning notice and place a COI template on either your user page or on the talk page of the draft, or both. Posting an acknowledgment regarding autobiographies would also be a good idea, if it applies."  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  05:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Ejembi John Onah has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ejembi John Onah. Thanks!  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  06:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Ejembi John Onah
Draft:Ejembi John Onah, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ejembi John Onah and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Ejembi John Onah during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review procedures
Wow, the procedure for deletion review has a lot of steps! I don't see from your contribution history that you have discussed the deletion with the closing admin. That should have happened before you formally submitted a review request. You can still start that conversation with PMC on her talk page: User talk:Premeditated Chaos.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  14:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to make him jump through hoops. I would have declined to restore and referred him to DRV had he asked me. You can consider this my two cents so he doesn't have to close and re-open the DRV on procedural grounds. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. Your continued attempts to edit on the topic of Ejembi John Onah, including the DRV started at Deletion review/Log/2018 January 7 constitute a violation of the conditions under which your previous block was lifted. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You state that you have been editing other science related articles, yet your contribution history shows exactly one edit to mainspace (a trivial change, which was quickly reverted). -- RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User: RoySmith, please go to my page and click 'contribution' earlier when I was unblocked November 2, 2017, then started working on other science related articles on November 4 as promised until December 23, 2017 and see my multitudes of contributions to other science related articles. I kept to my pledge to edit other science articles and as I earlier stated; I started to edit draft Ejembi John Onah due to later advise from an experienced editor administrator user: Anachronist who undeleted the article while pointing out the condition for my unblock. I did follow advise of an experienced editor, so why are you punishing me for following such advice? Ejembi12 (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User: RickinBaltimore, please read my response as above and consider to unblock since I kept to my promise and conditions to unblock and when there was any change; it was in respect of an experienced editor and administrator User: Anachronist Ejembi12 (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ejembi12, these "multitudes of contributions" were to Talk pages, and were less than helpful (almost all were reverted). You have made a single, solitary edit to the Article space. Thus, there is no indication that you are here for any other reason than to get yourself on Wikipedia, and it is thus incredibly unlikely that you will be unblocked. Primefac (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

user:primefac, you always base your discussion on some sentiments not anything very objective: I did as I promised for unblock; you may not value it as you seem to be trailing me all about picking apart all I do with alot of your supporters which I call socket puppets against wiki policy. I did not come here for any personal attack from you, my contribution so far has nothing to do with myself, that is the issue that is clouding you that you cannot see anything good in what I do. I had nothing to do with editing draft: Ejembi John Onah until user: Anachronist advised me to, that is what you refused to understand. If you observed correctly; I started editing other articles as I promised based on conditions of unblock on November 4 and never edited draft Ejembi John Onah until that advice from user: Anachronist.

Ejembi12 (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but immediately after that post you went straight back to editing the draft. If you're seriously suggesting that the multiple administrators who have posted here are my sockpuppets, there's nothing more for me to argue here. I'm done dealing with this, and quite honestly I won't be surprised if your talk page access gets revoked should you keep this up. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

user: Primefac, which post are you talking about? I was unblocked on November 2, 2017 and started editing other science related articles from November 4, 2017 until December 23 as I promised as a condition to unblock. I did not edit draft Ejembi John Onah but pasted a note on the talk page that I was not allowed to edit the draft Ejembi John Onah, thereby advising other editors to edit then directing them to archived citations. After my post; User: Anachronist advised me to edit draft Ejembi John Onah, so that superseded the earlier decision and in respect of that, I started to edit draft Ejemb John Onah in midst of other editions, so where is my wrong that I should not obey an advice from experienced administrator like user: Anachronist who I consider my mentor?

Ejembi12 (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: Draft Ejembi John Onah
user:Premeditated Chaos, the article draft: Ejembi John Onah underwent substantial revision as the undeleting administrator User: Anachronist stated clearly in the miscellany for deletion process since it was undeleted in September 2017 in response to all reviews by editors with verifiable secondary sources fulfilling notability in the academics. It is my advice that entirely neutral voice should be allowed to speak on this current DRV not those who participated in the earlier with self interest view Ejembi12 (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone is free to comment on a DRV. I specifically identified myself as the closer so there could be no mistake that my comment is WP:INVOLVED. Your advice that people who participated in the earlier discussions with a self-interested view should stay out of it would also include yourself - I am willing to strike my comment if you are willing to strike yours. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, by self-interest view; I meant those who participated focusing on tendentious self interest instead of focusing on evidence of notability. I am not voting, so let the discussion be neutral on the article not on tendentious behavior and such people should not be allowed to participate. With this clarification; it would be appreciated if you could strike your contribution user: Premeditated Chaos and advise Smokey to do thesame since he has that self interest view still instead of focusing on notability. Ejembi12 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My offer stands as I presented it. I will not be striking my comment unless you do the same. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User: SmokeyJoe, it would be appreciative if you could allow a neutral voice to discuss on current DRV not focused on tendentious behavior as was the case last time before this current appeal, rather let the focus be on the notability, thanks

Ejembi12 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User:jmcgnh, at this point, you and the rest discussants except user: Anachronist are still repeating thesame thing not being focused on notability which you clearly indicated earlier that the article was notable and I followed your advice  among others as I have been to include those citations (you suggested 3 but even more were included) which were further verified by worldbruce and other editors as from reliable secondary sources. The article fulfilled 6 criteria out of 9 criteria on notability academics as clearly summarized in the deletion discussion which was the point user: Anachronist was making and continue to make because he saw clear evidence of notability which you know. Only one criterium is enough to proof notability academics. For no just reason; majority of the discussants refused to discuss the notability. Is there anything bad to follow directions and laid down rules as I have been? I am not sure why you continue to use profane language on me that are totally false but all thesame; I will appreciate it if you can temper it down to give way to basic truth because I have respected all your advice and followed it to the later. Since I joined wiki; I have received several appreciations for my edits even as a new entrant.

Ejembi12 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry things have turned out this way. I hold no personal animosity towards you at all and I hope my comments have maintained that spirit. Your editing career on Wikipedia has been afflicted by what can best be termed a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is for and why it's policies have grown up the way they have. I wish you success in your other endeavors and will be happy to work with you again if you return to WP in the future.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  00:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)