User talk:Dannybriggs93

Welcome!

Hello Dannybriggs93, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Kilo-Lima 18:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you 86.14.253.78?

While I'm on a roll with my psychic vibes, you use NTL internet don't you? J.J.Sagnella 19:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons (season 18)

Please stop adding random dates and production codes to this page. As of yet, nothing has been confirmed, so do not add falso information. Thanks, Scorpion 04:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Revenge is a Dish Best Served Three Times

An editor has nominated the article Revenge is a Dish Best Served Three Times for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Springfield Up. Add four tildes like this ~~~~ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Revenge is a Dish Best Served Three Times during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Big British Quiz

This article has been the subject of a string of edits by an anon. from different IP addresses who has made the same changes with no explanation (including edit summaries). When I finally semi-protected it, so that anons can't edit, you pop up making the same edit. I assume, therefore, that you were the anon.

However firmly you believe something to be the case, whatever evidence you have for your belief, you can't just edit without explaining what you're doing and giving sources where relevant. I see from your contributions history that you're not very good at using edit summaries; these are requested for all edits, as (at the least) a courtesy to other editors. Edits without explanations are much more likely to be reverted. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem determined to ignore the request for citations (as well as oblivious to the fact that you've gone against Wikipedia guidelines in a number of ways). Saying "I spoke to them and they told me" isn't good enough; we need a verifiable citation. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

I suggest that you read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL; childishness like this can lead to your being blocked from editing. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

First, read WP:CITE and WP:OR — they're our guidelines and official policies. You don't add material to articles on the basis that you're an expert, that you watch the programme, that you live in the town, etc.; you have to give verifiable sources. It's there on the edit screen whenever you make an edit.

Secondly, and conversely, it's not necessary to know about a topic to recognise that someone is changing an article without probviding either explanations or sources.

Thirdly, any editor is entitled (indeed, expected) to hold to our policies. As an admin, I have a special duty to do so.

I suggest that, instead of wasting your time trying to slip in material that's not sourced, and berating me for doing my job, you spend the time looking for verifiable sources and giving them (and explaining why you're making the changes, at least in an edit summary). Then your edits wouldn't be reverted. It's that simple. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're having so much trouble with simple English guidelines and advice. Sources need to be given at Talk pages or in the article, not simply in edit summaries. Also blogs and public forums are not adequate sources. Please read WP:CITE. Does that help? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin-impersonation

If you again impersonate an admin, as you did here, you'll be blocked from editing (with no further warning). Given your gross incivility on my Talk page, and the fact that you seem to be using IP addresses (at least) to pretend to have support for your actions, you're very lucky not to be blocked already. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did warn you. Claiming to be an admin when you're not is not allowed. Blocked for twenty-four hours. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continue the personal attacks, and that block is going to be extended. I see that you say that you're thirteen years old; at the moment you're not even acting that age. I strongly suggest that you begin thinking more seriously about how to behave here. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock-puppetry

As I strongly suspected, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dannybriggs93 has confirmed that you've used Tgbbqfan! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock-puppet (as well as creating SoIdon'tgetbanned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), and that all your accounts are from 82.17.35.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) — the IP address that you pretended to unblock as both Dannybriggs93 and Tgbbqfan!. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Etitis

Is being really unfair because my area all use one IP address - not my fault?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dannybriggs93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

my area uses the same IP

Decline reason:

So? How is that relevant? — Yamla 15:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hope I'm doing the right thing here - but my area has the same IP address, we SHARE it, as our ie connection comes from the same box or something? I have been blocked because Mel Etitis believes I am using three different usernames as they all use my IP - but as I said - it's not mine - it could be any two other people who live nearby.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dannybriggs93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the reason in mentioned above, my street uses the same IP, and I have been blocked for sock pupeting - but i'm not as there's loads of people who have my IP address!

Decline reason:

Already declined. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Template:Treehouse of Horror

Please weigh in on Template talk:Treehouse of Horror#Inclusion of episode segments, so we can generate a consensus. Thanks, Fixblor (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]