A tag has been placed on Geminate recombination, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.
If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Spiesr ( talk) 13:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
As you wish I will not build a page for this, widely used by scientists, kinetic theory... Cheers, Omer. (18/05/08).
The article Earth-Life Science Institute has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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. --
Aunva6
talk -
contribs
16:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, but I don't believe it is justified. This is one of the first ool&planets- dedicated institutes, and probebly one of the biggest, as is indicated by all the sources I gave: govermental and academic. omermar 07:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Per
WP:SIGLINK, "Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive."
I noticed the signature you used on the comment you made at
Talk:Jacobian matrix and determinant did not. As for that comment itself, the
covariance matrix describes the
covariance between individual components of a random vector and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Jacobian, so I'm not sure if you're talking about something else or just confused. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
14:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi @
Omermar. The candidate page is probably not the best venue to get an answer from the candidates, as generally questions are posed directly to each, therefore not over-influencing each other. It's also possible that candidates stop watching the page after they have submitted their candidacy as changes are not necessarily relevant to them. Have a look at
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Questions for individual candidate question pages.
That said, I'm happy to answer your question. There are many circumstances that the minimum audience is 2, the nominator and the administrator who deletes the page. This happens on our deletion policies for
proposed deletion and
Speedy deletion. In some of the most obvious speedy cases, I would not object to the administrator simply finding and deleting with a speedy criteria, where the audience drops to one - but it's not actually as bad as that because a criteria has to be assigned and those criteria are subject to our consensus model.
You might ask why it's so low in those cases, and the simple answer is workload. We have 6,854,849 articles, which is at least two orders of magnitude less than our very active editors, more if you think about the number of people who might be interested in a specific subject. Since the number of editors required to create an article is generally 1, it makes sense that it should be a very low audience for deletion.
The final thing we need to consider is where deletions are contentious. They are clearly going to be opposed by the person that created them, but when other neutral parties also agree that the page should not be deleted, we use our consensus model. There need not be a quorum for consensus, we base our decisions on strength of arguments, but there should be a clear and identifiable consensus. I hope that answers your question.
WormTT(
talk)
08:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Do not add a PROD to Open-endedness again. Once a PROD is removed for any reason it can not be restored. If you think this article should be deleted, you have one option, WP:AFD. ~ GB fan 19:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC). Then why don't you stop removing my edits, and if you think there is an alternative edit then can't you make it to the page? It is important that Wikipedia is relevant and does not add to false information.
~~~~
at the end of a talk page message, and the template you're using is incorrect. Please follow the instructions provided at
WP:AfD instead.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
19:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Geminate recombination, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.
If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Spiesr ( talk) 13:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
As you wish I will not build a page for this, widely used by scientists, kinetic theory... Cheers, Omer. (18/05/08).
The article Earth-Life Science Institute has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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. --
Aunva6
talk -
contribs
16:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, but I don't believe it is justified. This is one of the first ool&planets- dedicated institutes, and probebly one of the biggest, as is indicated by all the sources I gave: govermental and academic. omermar 07:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Per
WP:SIGLINK, "Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive."
I noticed the signature you used on the comment you made at
Talk:Jacobian matrix and determinant did not. As for that comment itself, the
covariance matrix describes the
covariance between individual components of a random vector and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Jacobian, so I'm not sure if you're talking about something else or just confused. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
14:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi @
Omermar. The candidate page is probably not the best venue to get an answer from the candidates, as generally questions are posed directly to each, therefore not over-influencing each other. It's also possible that candidates stop watching the page after they have submitted their candidacy as changes are not necessarily relevant to them. Have a look at
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Questions for individual candidate question pages.
That said, I'm happy to answer your question. There are many circumstances that the minimum audience is 2, the nominator and the administrator who deletes the page. This happens on our deletion policies for
proposed deletion and
Speedy deletion. In some of the most obvious speedy cases, I would not object to the administrator simply finding and deleting with a speedy criteria, where the audience drops to one - but it's not actually as bad as that because a criteria has to be assigned and those criteria are subject to our consensus model.
You might ask why it's so low in those cases, and the simple answer is workload. We have 6,854,849 articles, which is at least two orders of magnitude less than our very active editors, more if you think about the number of people who might be interested in a specific subject. Since the number of editors required to create an article is generally 1, it makes sense that it should be a very low audience for deletion.
The final thing we need to consider is where deletions are contentious. They are clearly going to be opposed by the person that created them, but when other neutral parties also agree that the page should not be deleted, we use our consensus model. There need not be a quorum for consensus, we base our decisions on strength of arguments, but there should be a clear and identifiable consensus. I hope that answers your question.
WormTT(
talk)
08:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Do not add a PROD to Open-endedness again. Once a PROD is removed for any reason it can not be restored. If you think this article should be deleted, you have one option, WP:AFD. ~ GB fan 19:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC). Then why don't you stop removing my edits, and if you think there is an alternative edit then can't you make it to the page? It is important that Wikipedia is relevant and does not add to false information.
~~~~
at the end of a talk page message, and the template you're using is incorrect. Please follow the instructions provided at
WP:AfD instead.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
19:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)