User talk:Adisakabiru

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Adisakabiru/sandbox

A tag has been placed on User:Adisakabiru/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Green Giant (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (February 18)

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

This submission has been declined for one or more of the following reasons:

It is primarily designed to threaten, disparage or attack its subject.
It is a biography of a living person that is unreferenced and entirely negative in tone.
It is a page that is purely vandalistic in nature.

This page meets one or more of the general criteria for speedy deletion and may be deleted without notice. Users who continue to create inappropriate pages will be blocked from editing 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 User:Adisakabiru/sandbox 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 User:Adisakabiru/sandbox, 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.

Bkissin (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adisakabiru! 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! Bkissin (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. – robertsky (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meritocratic Oligarchy: A Governance Model by Mr Kabiru Adeniyi ADISA FCA

1. Core Principles:

  - Leadership by expertise and achievement
  - Strict selection criteria for leaders
  - Regular rotation of power
  - Transparency and public accountability

2. Detailed Selection Process:

  - Educational requirements: Advanced degrees in relevant fields (e.g., economics, public policy, international relations)
  - Professional experience: Proven track record in public or private sector leadership
  - Ethical screening: Rigorous background checks and character assessments
  - Peer review: Evaluation by experts in respective fields
  - Public service exam: Comprehensive test on governance, policy, and ethics
  - Probationary period: Initial term to prove competence in actual governance

3. Governance Structure:

  - Council of Experts: Top-tier leaders making major decisions
  - Specialized Committees: Focused on specific areas (e.g., economy, foreign policy, healthcare)
  - Advisory Boards: Comprised of academics and industry leaders to provide additional insights

4. Term Limits and Rotation:

  - Fixed terms (e.g., 5 years) with possibility of one renewal based on performance
  - Staggered terms to ensure continuity while allowing for regular infusion of new ideas
  - Mandatory "cooling off" period between terms to prevent entrenchment

5. Accountability Measures:

  - Annual performance reviews by independent commissions
  - Public referenda on major policy decisions
  - Transparency in decision-making processes through open meetings and published minutes
  - Right of recall for underperforming leaders through public petition

6. Potential Benefits:

  - Evidence-based policy making
  - Reduced influence of special interests and populist rhetoric
  - Long-term planning prioritized over short-term political gains
  - Increased public trust through demonstrated competence

7. Potential Challenges:

  - Risk of creating an isolated elite class disconnected from average citizens
  - Difficulty in measuring and comparing merits across different fields
  - Potential for systemic bias in the selection process
  - Balancing expertise with democratic representation

8. Implementation Considerations:

  - Gradual transition from existing systems
  - Extensive public education on the new governance model
  - Constitutional safeguards to prevent abuse of power
  - Regular review and adjustment of the system based on outcomes

This expanded framework provides a more detailed look at how a Meritocratic Oligarchy might function in practice. It attempts to balance the benefits of expert governance with measures to ensure accountability and prevent the concentration of power. As with any system of government, its success would depend on careful implementation, ongoing refinement, and broad public support. Adisakabiru (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]