User talk:Gmp007

Ways to improve Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation
Hello, Gmp007,

Thank you for creating Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"There are far too many sources from one group, it needs to have a wide range. It is also not a common approach, so notability is questionable."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with. Remember to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Ldm1954 (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * thanks for the insightful suggestions. I have added more references (8 in total) from several other authors. CEE (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Ways to improve Chinedu Ekuma
Hello, Gmp007,

Thank you for creating Chinedu Ekuma.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"It appears that you have gone around the review process. There is no indication that he meets the criteria for notability. Please revise and submit for review; the alternative is that it is nominated for deletion."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with. Remember to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Ldm1954 (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Chinedu Ekuma moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Chinedu Ekuma. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it is promotional and reads like an advertisement, you may have a possible Conflict of Interest and there is no proof of notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I've reviewed the article and didn't notice any promotional content, but I may have missed something. Could you please take another look and point out specific examples? I appreciate your help and want to ensure we make the best use of our time by addressing this accurately. Thank you! CEE (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Words like "renown", "prestigious" and mant other similar are peacock. Beyond this he is not close to qualifying for academic notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads-up. I noticed that another volunteer has addressed most of the issues you mentioned. While we might have differing views on notability, I must express my disagreement. Developing methods for many-body physics, particularly those designed to enhance the widely used Dynamical Mean Field Theory (DMFT), involves significant complexity and innovation, which I believe strongly supports the notability. CEE (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Chinedu Ekuma for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chinedu Ekuma 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 Articles for deletion/Chinedu Ekuma 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. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation 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 Articles for deletion/Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation 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. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
gmp001 (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Please put new unblock requests at the bottom of the page; I've moved the last unblock request.

And I'm sorry, but you can't expect anybody to believe this. The story that two completely independent people on the same network/computer, both individually, just happened on an obscure Wikipedia deletion discussion for "typical medium dynamical cluster approximation," three minutes apart from each other and nearly the same with the Chinedu Ekuma article, to express the same opinions defending the content, is a fantastically unbelievable one. If you actually want to be unblocked, honesty is the best policy. I'm not even sure that you have an option other than stopping the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry and following WP:OFFER at this point. To unblock someone, administrators have to have some level of trust in the editor in question. Not telling the truth repeatedly is a poor way to build that trust. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * CoffeeCrumbs (talk). What I have said is the truth. I own the other two accounts, which did not make contributions to the same page or content, but not the third account. I have emailed all the individuals that work directly under me, but have not been able to identify the person who has the third account.
 * Those who work in a university where, for example, the same computer infrastructure is used by the same individual by just logging in with their user ID and password, will appreciate how complicated this can be. gmp001 (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You and SrihariKastuar used the same IP address - not two addresses within the same range, the same individual address - to comment on the same obscure discussion, four minutes apart from one another. I might have been prepared to believe that this was someone else - a colleague perhaps - whom you asked to weigh in on the discussion to support you, but I do not believe that it was a random stranger, completely unknown to yourself.
 * On a separate issue, you did not disclose the connection that I believe you have with one of the subjects you were writing about. There is more about this at WP:COI. The COI issue is not the original reason for your block, but it is something that you would need to address before anyone is likely to look kindly on an unblock request. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * CoffeeCrumbs (talk) If what you think is the case here, I should have told you since. I do not know SrihariKastuar, and just like any other person will, when I created the said page, I shared it in our library for others to check it out. IP addresses are recycled within the library, and in this case, someone else used the same IP address as I did. I do not have any issues owning up to my mistake(s), but here, I cannot apologize for what I do not know about. I can only ask for the removal of the block placed on my account based on what I know and did, which I have owned up to and apologized for. gmp001 (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * CoffeeCrumbs I completely disclosed the COI on my page and even invited the community to weigh in as I have second level COI with the subject having known the work of the developer through my own adviser. For the record, I never met the developer in person. I do not know of anyone that do not have some level of COI. Here, I was honest enough to disclose it before sharing the page. gmp001 (talk) gmp001 (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)