Hello, MrGodspower, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:Donna Mee, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• How to write a great article
• The perfect article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Celestina007 (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Donna Mee, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Celestina007 (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page Draft:Donna Mee, was unfairly deleted. Verifiable sources were there, and were provided. Why not verify them before deleting it? Since Wikipedia articles are subjected to editing, what seems to be promotional contents or such like in the draft have been removed. Please restore the page, it's verifiable.MrGodspower (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the article Draft:Donna Mee, you can verify the notability and sources used therein. The irrelevant sources and contents will be removed and never to be added again. The irregularities that affected my account MrGodspower, which the usage of multiple account have been cleared, I only maintain the current one. The Wikipedia community should see reasons in my request. MrGodspower (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your edits suggest that you are the same person as User:Nwanzeremanu. Please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Deb (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please I think you should stop making it uncomfortable for me to remain here. Yesterday was, I was paid to edit Draft:Donna Mee, and today, it's you are using multiple accounts. I'm still surprise at it all! I own only single account. --MrGodspower (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're being paid? Then please make the necessary declaration on your user page! Deb (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not paid. I only said that I was disputing that I was falsely accused of receiving pay for the edit. That's very wrong. There was nothing like that. --MrGodspower (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Authoritty, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Deb (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your recent edit to Okolochi appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Meters (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see our guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest. We can also only include information that has been published in reliable sources. Sentences such as "due to her intelligence" and "she broke all sales records" are very promotional. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Okolochi. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Do not restore the entries for people who do not have Wikipedia articles to show their notability. And being married to a notable person does not make one notable. Meters (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Donna Mee, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GSS ^💬 19:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will do the needful. --MrGodspower (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GSS was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Donna Mee and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Donna Mee, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

GSS ^💬 16:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MapleSoy was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Thanks for creating this article. To meet Wikipedia's standards, we would need to see significant coverage of the subject in multiple independent, reliable, published sources, such as magazine or newspaper articles. In reviewing the current references, only the LA Weekly article meets this standard. Please revise and resubmit if additional sources exist. 

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:Donna Mee and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Donna Mee, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MapleSoy (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrGodspower! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MapleSoy (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I write to inform you that the following media/pictures attacked to Jennifer Okere have been removed, making the article look horrible:

Kindly restore the pictures as they did not violate copyright of Wikipedia. --MrGodspower (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please I need answer to this question. Someone should tell me why the media attacked to Jennifer Okere was deleted, they were removed without informing me, so I wish to know why such action was done without a notices, and also tell what brought about the removal of the images.MrGodspower (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrGodspower, above you claimed that you were not getting paid for any of your article creations or edits. I have serious doubts about that, especially if we place Chikadoma Plant next to Draft:Donna Mee. Pinging Deb and Þjarkur as well. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC) I will stop editing as I finds it pretty fun to practice the skill, to enable you stop accusing me of being paid for the editing. None of the articles were paid for, the allegation is false. --MrGodspower (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a competence issue here. I suggest a temporary block on the user while we investigate. Deb (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chikadoma Plant has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The page is Hoax or used to promote some remedy that is is very dubious and sourced to one person using faked references. .

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hardyplants (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, in which other way should I improve the article? I have provided the sources to the article, yet you still tagged it "fake". This is demoralizing indeed as my efforts to contributing to Wikipedia community seems to be irrelevant to you. I lack the right word to describe this act. I'm from Nigeria, should that be the reason why my edits are being tackled even when it's unnecessary? How do you think the references are fake, it was the one person and et al that wrote about the plant and carried out researches for Chikadoma Plant, and I had no other options than to base my resources with them.

Honestly, I see no reasons to tag this page/article as fake or with other irrelevances, I wish you could see reasons with me. My efforts are not being encouraged at all, all the pages I created have been tackled. I think I would quit the editing and mind my person life and business Please do not delete the article, the sources are accurate, and the article worth having as the researches to it are meaningful. Thanks. --MrGodspower (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be the faker here but the sources used are "fake". The problem is that the person who "named" this plant does not know what he is talking about because the pictures he has used are not of a lupin and most of his "research" is published in paid-for "journals" making the research unreliable because there are no confirming studies. You would need to find other sources than confirm what he reports. Wikipedia is not based on primary research. I hope you can find better topics to work on instead of those that relied only on primary sources that are highly suspect. Hardyplants (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those journals are not African nor Nigerian based but outside African continent hence no issue of financial conflict of interest.

It is noteworthy to emphasize that journals have Board of Editors who assess the suitability of articles for publication, not only that, articles are usually sent out by the Journals to external reviewers before a final decision is taken. Acceptance of articles is peer-review dependent. It is not a one man show.

Please, download online the articles and see the merits behind the acceptance after peer-review by the Journals. Thanks. MrGodspower (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Chikadoma Plant. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Lupinus arboreus. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Lupinus arboreus. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those journals are not African nor Nigerian based but outside African continent hence no issue of financial conflict of interest. It is noteworthy to emphasize that journals have Board of Editors who assess the suitability of articles for publication, not only that, articles are usually sent out by the Journals to external reviewers before a final decision is taken. Acceptance of articles is peer-review dependent. It is not a one man show. Please, download online the articles and see the merits behind the acceptance after peer-review by the Journals.

Even the content of the article Chikadoma Plant differs from that of Lupinus arboreus, meaning that different researches were carried out on each of them. I think you need to revisit your decision, and consider restoring the page. According to the researcher, the following are worthy of noting; the Genus is Lupinus,while the Species is arboreus, which is also the botanical name. This made the page dependent to Lupinus arboreus, and didn't mean I duplicated it. I am yet to be convinced why the international journals approved the publications when the research is a duplicate of Lupinus arboreus, according to User talk:Elmidae, even after conducting peer-review of the journals before approval of publication is made. Please consider my submission, restore the page Chikadoma Plant. The page, I think, was unfairly deleted with much deliberation on it, I weren't given enough time to give reasons before the deletion. MrGodspower (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the sources were legitimate (the few I looked at also had pictures that were clearly not a lupin species) the page is a content fork based on a singular common name ONLY used by one person. ALL such names should be part of the main page for the species not on their own pages and supported by NON-primary sources.Hardyplants (talk)

You claim to have taken this picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flower_of_Chikadoma_Plant.png is that true? It is clearly not a lupin. Hardyplants (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrGodspower. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Donna Mee".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 13:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]