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 {{Re|Ldm1954}}. 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)[reply]

@Ldm1954: 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)[reply]

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 {{Re|Ldm1954}}. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Ldm1954: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Ldm1954: 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gmp007. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 14:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Gmp007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am writing to address the recent block of my accounts, Gmp007 and Andy0900, and the assertion that I own the account "SrihariKastuar," which I do not. Wikipedia policy permits users to have multiple accounts as long as they are not used improperly. I have adhered to this policy, ensuring that my accounts have not interacted in ways that could violate any guidelines. Regarding the account "SrihariKastuar," I work in a large organization, and it is possible that a potential user shares the same IP address(es). This common occurrence within a large organization may have led to this confusion. I respectfully request a reconsideration of the block, as I believe it was imposed in error. Even when I created a page that showed any resemblance of COI, I made that clear in the page and allowed the community to deliberate on it, which is what the policy requires. gmp001 (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no error here. What you describe is called meat puppetry, especially when editing about similar topics. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2024 (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.

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).

Gmp007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am writing to request the removal of the block placed on my account. I believe that the block is no longer necessary and that I can contribute positively to Wikipedia. Here are my reasons: Regarding the account "SrihariKastuar," I work in a large organization where multiple users share the same IP address. This common situation within large organizations may have caused confusion. I assure you that my conduct is not connected in any way with the block intended for "SrihariKastuar." I kindly ask for your understanding and reconsideration of my block. I am eager to return to contributing constructively to Wikipedia and to follow all community guidelines meticulously.gmp001 (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppetry. The technical data does not support this being entirely a coincidence in a large organisation. Yamla (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2024 (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.

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).

Gmp007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand the importance of maintaining the integrity and security of Wikipedia accounts, and I want to assure you that I share this commitment. There are many individuals in my company, and it is possible that someone else might have accessed Wikipedia from the same network or computer, leading to the actions in question. The two accounts that I own, did not contribute to the same page, neither did I use it to participate in voting on any other page. I genuinely do not know who might have accessed my account or contributed to the issues that led to this ban. I have taken steps to enhance the security of my account, including changing passwords and implementing better access controls to ensure that this does not happen again.

I am a dedicated contributor to Wikipedia and believe in the value of the platform. I am eager to continue contributing positively to the community and would greatly appreciate another review of my case.

Thank you for your understanding and consideration. gmp001 (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You'll need to come clean that you've been collaborating with your colleague to influence that AfD. If you think someone has accessed your account, you have worse problems than this; we do not tolerate WP:COMPROMISED accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:39, 17 June 2024 (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.

gmp001 (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]