Omermar

Geminate recombination

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 was tagged for speedy deletion because it did not provide enough information to identify its subject. Its entire text was "A geminate (double) recombination of two species, A & B, is the (reversible) reaction that gives the third speciy, AB.", which did not explain to me what type of recombination was taking place (genetic? Associative? Some other form?), nor what types of species were being reacted upon. Having googled the subject, I agree that there is likely some encyclopedic material here, but the deleted article didn't provide enough information to determine that. I would recommend, if you wish, that you first put together an article at User:Omermar/Geminate, which - when clicked - will permit you to draft an article, add resources and depth. Then - when it's ready - you can easily move it to Geminate recombination. If the article you move to that title has more detail, and maybe a source or two, then there is no risk of its deletion. I'm happy to help with inserting references, copyediting, or what-have-you, if you wish. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Earth-Life Science Institute

The article Earth-Life Science Institute has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable, unsourceed

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)

Your signature

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)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your question on the candidate page

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 6,821,586 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. Worm^TT(talk) 08:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Open-endedness PROD

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.

You are the one who thinks it needs to be deletedd, You have one option, that is to nominate it for deletion using WP:AFD. ~ GB fan 19:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I HAVE nominated it for deletion, and then you -- without indicating any reference or having any support for your decision -- randomly decided to remove the delete tag. This is not the Wikipedia spirit. You cannot just make edits and changes with zero support. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Omermar 19:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You can keep adding the PROD and it will do absolutely nothing. Another Admin will remove it because per Wikipedia Policy it can not be deleted using WP:PROD. ~ GB fan 19:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Omermar, signatures can be added using ~~~~ 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)

Omermar, you currently keep running into walls because you revert before understanding the reason for the edit you have reverted. If something is unclear, please ask instead of reverting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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)