An article that you have been involved in editing, Titus Andronicus (band), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titus Andronicus (band). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Corvus cornix_talk 17:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Totient, I received your note on my talkpage. The article that I deleted consisted entirely of a list of non notable actors' names, their respective characters' names, all in chart form, and no other text. I did a google search prior to deleting, and found nothing that proclaims notability for this film. No film reviews, no reliable sources. Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic information about things that are already notable, it is not meant as a platform to help something become notable. If you have any sources that can show me that this particular film is in any way notable, I'll happily undelete and apologize to you and to the article's creator. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you are unblocked, you are absolutely welcome to, and encouraged to, remove the old block notice from this page, unless you have grown fond of it of course. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is permitted by policy, it is preffered that you do not blank your Wikipedia talk page after recieving warnings.Anonymous101 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, blank it. It is usuaaly preferred to archive although I have the previous versions of ths page and it is not a problem, apoligies. Anonymous101 (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist I won't stop you. On a first glance your comment looks and looked like trolling. Almost everyone with a slight interest knows of the difficulties with this case and knows that it is taking a long time. Also, the case has been accepted for a long time, it does not need a single vote there. Garion96 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a difficult case with two sides really opposing eachother. Just read the case pages and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision (including an archive). Garion96 (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to post on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_September_4 in reference to Jonathan Sammeroff. Please feel free to respond to my new comments on the matter (and remove this post once you have done so if you so desire) :o) Peenapplay (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)peenapplay[reply]

Generally if one includes a proof in an article one should use a proof that one can reference to some reliable source. But sketching out the major steps or something like that isn't considered original research. Also, there isn't any serious issue with presenting a proof without references if you are confident that it is principle referencable. Unless someone objects to a specific proof or step there's really not too much of an issue there as I understand it. If you have further questions you may want to talk to the people who run the mathematics wikiproject who may have more specific answers/guidelines. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be a good idea at this time. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support on my RFA; it was unsuccessful, but I appreciate your stated trust. I hope to see you around and I wish you the best, --danielfolsom 03:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TotientDragooned. You have new messages at Blanchardb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

While creating an article yesterday I had a blurp in my editing. I posted the article, left out a reference section, said oops, clicked on edit as soon as it went up, then couldn't access the article right away again. Waited just a second, an edit window came up, I pasted quick, clicked save page, and it blipped again. I thought my post would simply go up, and I deleted and copy and pasted the next section of article I was working on. Meanwhile, the reason my edit didn't post, I just discover, is that, the very same second I posted my article someone came by and categorized it as unreferenced.

My edit, which didn't post, because you were messing with the article I was working, took a lot of work to type--I use mostly books as reference sources. It took more work than the one second you gave me. What the heck did you think you were doing other than interfering with my writing the article?

Can you wait more than one second before putting "unreferenced" on an article? Especially can you not interfere with the creation of an article just so you can put an unreferenced banner on it? Just click on the history page, take one breath, and you would have seen I had just posted the article.

I do not even understand this. Totally weird and rude and hostile to editing.[1] --KP Botany (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Just nominate it for deletion. I'm not going to reference it again. I also lost about half the text I wrote up. --KP Botany (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skip it. I had the article deleted. --KP Botany (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did report it as a bug of some sort. I've never had it happen that an edit didn't go through without an edit conflict alert or something else.

The problem is you tagged mine unreferenced within SECONDS of my creating the article! Can't you take a breath, read my article, look at its history and see that someone is writing the article RIGHT NOW? I don't care if you put an unreferenced tag on my articles if they're unreferenced. Maybe someone will reference it. Heck, look at my edit history. About all I do on Wikipedia is spend hours referencing articles. And, the way I do it, it's inconvenient as hell to have to wait while someone is putting an unreferenced tag on the article to get on with editing it.

I DO care that you interfered with my creating an article that Wikipedia needs because for some reason you felt that it needed to be tagged unreferenced before it even took its first breath. She may be up for a bigger appointment real soon. Why don't you write the article?

Or please define precisely how you help Wikipedia by putting unreferenced tags on articles people are writing at that very second? You didn't help at all. You simply interfered with the creation of an important article. There's nothing about my contribution history and nothing you could have learned in the 2 seconds you spent looking at the article that showed you it urgently immediately required an unreferenced tag.

Just take a breath for crying out loud and let people write articles that the encylcopedia needs.--KP Botany (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my recent comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement#Proposal by TotientDragooned. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Connected space/Proofs, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. These are homework exercises.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ozob (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TotientDragooned. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles from deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. Ikip (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten your email and forwarded it to ArbCom for private review. In the meantime, please make no further edits to the case pages until otherwise instructed. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, please let me know if there's anything else I need to do. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Re: Your status) You'll need to email ArbCom at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. This is out of my hands now, and I don't have access to their mailing list. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather hear from ArbCom first, as the socking policy is very strict about using alternate accounts on policy and ArbCom pages according to a previous ArbCom ruling. I'll send them a note to see what's up, although I would point out that the case is starting to wrap up now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mind has gone dull from under-use. Would you mind explaining you were referring to at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Proposed decision#Oversighting of some of Carcharoth's votes. Carcharoth and Headbomb apparently got you point, but I'm in the dark. Finell (Talk) 02:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know what oversighted means. I wasn't brain dead, only ignorant; I feel so much better now. So she evidently super-deleted her own edits. That does seem out of the ordinary. Thanks. Finell (Talk) 04:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a double take when I saw your username out of the corner of my eye on one page. I thought it said "ToiletDragon."  – Ling.Nut 05:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TotientDragooned,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello TotientDragooned. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TotientDragooned. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]