User talk:WossOccurring

3 Words
Cheryl Cole announced that it would be her 3rd single after performing it on Cheryl's Night In. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.82.192 (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really get how too without ruining an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.82.192 (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, okay86.133.82.192 (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Jewls1993

A question
Hi there. You seem to know your way around here pretty well for a new editor. If you don't mind me asking, did you previously edit under a different account? Regards  So Why  21:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No I did not. I've just taken time to carefully read the welcome message I've received. Thanks for the message, WossOccurring (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Hello! I made a list of some User:A_Nobody that can also be helpful for new users.  Wikipedia can be quite complex and so if you ever feel overwhelmed, one thing I might suggest is Adopt-a-User where you find many helpful editors.  Good luck and happy editing!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
Hi.

I don't think this has any legs, and I don't think it's really canvassing. Another user has suggested that all the participants in the previous AfDs be notified to ensure even-handedness, so you may want to do that, although those discussions are quite old and the users may have moved on. pablo hablo. 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Youtube celebrities
Believe you me I sympathise. An encyclopedia which has a List of Youtube celebrities... Ummmmmm OK. I guess the meaning of "encyclopedia" means little to seemingly most people on here if such lists, many of them morons, are deemed notable enough for their own articles and lists. That trivial list represents pretty much everything in my view that an encyclopedia should not cotain. Rather concerning at the strong support and snowball keep it got. Perhaps that tells us something that this site will never be taken seriously as a proper encyclopedia as long as we have such lists and editors around who continue to mold it in such a fan crufted popular cultural fashion... Dr. Blofeld       White cat 19:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

PR: Cheryl Cole's Night In
FYI: I put in a peer review on Cheryl Cole's Night In.

In case you are looking to return the favor, since you seem to be a decent writer, I am currently trying to get GA status for my article History of the Galveston Bay Area. The reviewer doesn't like my writing a whole lot and he's given me a brief window to improve it. If you have a few minutes to spare and want to look for small improvements that can be made feel free (don't feel obligated).

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

NotABallot
There have been hundreds of Doctor Who-related AfDs before, and they've never needed that tag. Please do not edit war over this, and read WP:BRD and WP:DTTR. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► inspectorate ─╢ 19:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
╟─ Treasury Tag ► draftsman ─╢ 19:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Advice
Please stop threatening to block people whose point of view you disagree with. For a start, you need to be an admin (like me) to be able to block people. Secondly, your threats are in serious danger of heading into WP:DE territory. I realise you are new, and Wikipedia takes a while to learn with all its policies, rules, de facto rules, guidlines etc. Allow the AfD discussion to run its course, the merits of arguments for and against are what count, not the number of !votes. Mjroots (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet more advice
It's good policy not to reply to !votes in an AFD you've created. Even when you're acting in the very best of faith, replying to !votes to argue with !voters creates the appearance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and that can cause uninvolved editors to pile on in defense. Nobody likes to be argued with, and most people are suspicious of an editor who becomes overly involved in the outcome of an AFD, especially to delete. In this case you might get people wondering if you hate science fiction, if you're hostile towards female characters, if you're hostile towards non-US fictional characters, etc., etc. and the AFD is much more likely to end in a keep because people will !vote Keep just on principle. (There are extremely rare exceptions, say if the article changes significantly over the period of the AFD or if the !voters are blatant sockpuppets. This isn't sockpuppetry; there are just a lot of people who disagree with you intensely. That's not a problem; it's okay for people to disagree with you, or me, or anyone.)

Basically, editors shouldn't care about whether an article they nominate to AFD is kept or not; the process is there to build consensus, and none of the notability guidelines are 100% objective. Create the AFD and let it run. If you find yourself wanting to argue with people who !vote against deletion, take a step back: basically, if the article is harmless enough to be AFDable, it's not important enough for you to care about. Let the AFD run and go on to other things. It's better for your blood pressure and better for the encyclopedia. Cheers! --NellieBly (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Need a chat?
Good evening and, er Merry Christmas (or the hour and a half left of it!). I saw your ANI thread has been generating a certain amount of drama. Anyway, if you need someone to talk to or a little assistance finding your way around, my talk page is always open. All the best, HJMitchell    You rang?   22:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been. (blocked by –MuZemike 00:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC))

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

As ✅ by CheckUser. –MuZemike 00:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please
could you read Wikipedia: Record Charts discussion pages before reverting my edits, the template is allowed as a consensus believed it was better. The reason it's not listed on the main page yet is because there are some problems with it. For example Beyonce can't be used yet because of the ' symbol. I have reverted your edits back to mine.