User talk:99.136.252.146

November 2012

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Musdan77 (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Musdan77 (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Musdan77 (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Musdan77 (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Musdan77 (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

.........

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Was blocked without due investigation and without proper reasoning or explantion. i did not engage in distruptive edditing nor did i give false warnings. it is my assertation that this person attempting to flag me is doing so for censorship reasons in a latch ditch attempt to be able to censor content. i am being abused by a an edditor has has been giving me multiple false warnings on my account, violating wikipeidas good faith polocy with his very first revert, and continuing on.... this edditor is also making distruptive delations on the artcial iw as blocked from, going agaisnt the same consensus he asked for. i made 1 warning for ever violation.... and sought disptute resolition by bringing other edditors to the table... the person continues to distrupe the page and refuses to resolve the matter using evidence or explnation and refuses consenses..... this person has falged multiple warnings disptie being well aware they were not valid..... i looked at each viloation as it happend... sought consensious and atttempt to being explnation and evidence to the table please remove this block as i consdier this block without due investgation, explaintion, or evidence to be a serious breach of admin powers and will request arbitration or seek methods to protect my self from harrsment if this is not resolved.... it is my assertion the the admin who engaged in this block was clearly not being Neutral... how could he/she?.... my action reflect consensious and im the one who provided evidence and explantion for my actions in dispute resolution. the ban of distruptive eddting and false warning has little if any merit of justfication.

Decline reason:

I understand that you are trying to be funny, but Wikipedia is a real encyclopedia, and not a place to insert pop-culture jokes. Since it looks like all of your edits thus far have been related to your attempt to add your joke about a TV character to the encyclopedia, Wikipedia has nothing to gain by the unblocking of this ip address. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

I think there's no possibility that you are serious, but in case you are: no, the intent of that television show is not to be a drama about a violently abusive wife, but to be a comedy about a family. There aren't any reliable sources that describe that character as violently abusive, because that isn't in the show. Your own interpretation of the show has misunderstood the show's intent, and Wikipedia doesn't need to add your misunderstanding to the encyclopedia. That's the exact reason that we require things to be verified in reliable sources- so we don't add one person's misunderstanding to the encyclopedia and report it as fact. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

{{unblock | This artical is not about the shows intent, that is on another page. this artical is about the characters and relationships between them.

you do not have the right or the privledge of having the difinitive say in what constitues the correct information this page should give.

nor do you have the right to final say in what the facts are.

you have no right and it is digusting that you claim i am joking.. and it is a total violation of good faith to do so.

i have had consenious from the talk page at the time you blocked me in error.

what givs you the right to view a disagreement on a subject a block worthy offense?... will you block every one you dont agree with?

just becuase you dont feel my change was correct... does not give you the right to have your interpration how correct the addtion was be some shield for you to block a person.

suddly conensious begines to from and then you begine blocking people who reasonabilitys dont match yours?

look at your messege... it is VERY VERY clear from your messege that you have no neutraility in this at all. were is your good faith ethic?... this is not a joke... and i am not laughing... your behavoure is inexcusable.

i did not see your input on the content of the page or the show before you block... now you wish to have your say?.... fine then.

you claim my addtion was not in the show... and yet... the source i listed had doucmented numeriou account of acts of violence in the show.

were is your attempt to remove all the other information in that page?... most of it has no srouces.. no back up.. and a person relfection of 1 persons anayisys of the people in the show.

my addtion has stronger suport and more factual information then most of the other informtation on that page.... yet you dpnt care about any of the rest of it... i suspect your attempting to censor, even if you dont realize it.

you dont care that most of that artical has no sources, is original research, and violates neutrality codes.

just one little addtion.. that actualy has something clearly identifble by both its video documentation and sources and other share anylisis on it..... but you feel soo much more strongly about it.. when there are actual violation all over that page that needs cleaning up.

based on your actions and your taking this all as a joke... i think your clearly not being adhearing to neutrality standerds as an admin.

i ask you un ban me and step away from the situation.. or i will seek arbitration.... i see one of the few people suporting you in this instance is a formor admin that was asked to step down to abuse allegations... i woudlent want you to share that fate. but your actions are comming of as malicious.

your block was not justifyable... nor your explaination for it... please remove it and step back. id prefer not to seek arbitration but i will if that what it takes to resolve the situation.