Contents

Talk:Olufemi Bamiro

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Nigeria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nigeria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nigeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NigeriaWikipedia:WikiProject NigeriaTemplate:WikiProject NigeriaNigeria articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Engineering This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... ((Article has very little duplicated content which will be removed) --Eruditescholar (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)) --Eruditescholar (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Little duplicate??? When over 80% of its content was copied word for word? Can you tell me why you create copyvios? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 03:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these were simply lists of awards or publications. It is difficult to rephrase the names of awards, organizations or publications, so those will commonly show up on the Duplication Detector. Please see WP:G12, which only applies "where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving." EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EricEnfermero: I have no idea of why you pointed me to a guidelines that am familiar with. Are you saying that the version I tagged was inappropriately tag for copyvio? Its content was copied word-for-word from this website yet you called that a non- copyvio? Perhaps we should invite an admin to validate your claim if you are actually right and maybe, am wrong. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nature of my concern - and the reason why I linked you where I did - is fairly obvious. Whether you are familiar with the given guideline or not, you did not utilize any familiarity with G12 to ensure that it was appropriately tagged for CSD or not tagged for CSD. The biggest issue to me is not whether there was a copyvio; the issue is whether this group of articles you tagged met the criteria for G12. Specifically, were they unambiguous cases with no free content worth saving?

I don't think that most editors would need an admin to explain a fairly clear distinction between "80%" and the G12 standard of "no free content worth saving", so no, notifying an admin is not a necessary step in my mind, as long as you're able to understand that there are other ways to deal with potential copyvio besides G12. EricEnfermero (Talk) 14:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our efforts aimed to improve the encyclopedia. I agree with you on the fact that there are several ways to deal with copyvio aside G12. All the same, I ought to point Eruditescholar to those copyvios rather than tagging them for deletion or removed them which I had done for some articles like that in the past. Thanks for saving those articles. I will point Eruditescholar to a useful tool. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eruditescholar, Can you explain why you rated this article as c - class on the quality scale and High on the importance scale?. I'm aware that you created this article, I don't think its a good idea to rate the same article you created yourself. I think that task should be left for other editors. Jamie Tubers, Versace1608, Stanleytux, and Omo_Obatalá may want to leave a comment on this rating. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article rating could be sometimes be controversial as we have different criteria for rating articles. On a general note: This article is about a well known former Vice-Chancellor who has made significant contributions to his institution, Nigeria's premier university, besides his distinguished achievements in academia. Hence the high-importance categorization. Also the article still has room for improvement and lacks some information, Hence it is below a B-class rating. While the Wikipedians you mentioned are good at rating articles, it's okay to rate when required, without assistance. Eruditescholar (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. Sorry for the late reply. This article doesn't deserve a C rating. It should be rated a Start until it is expanded. Versace1608 (Talk) 00:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]