User talk:Noodlefish96

The View[edit]

Hi there. My name is DantODB, and I was the user that submitted the View for GA consideration. I keep seeing the word "consensus" being mentioned, and I am genuinely curious as to what is in need of a consensus. A handful of your edits proved inaccurate. A couple of them being Michelle Collins not being included in the infobox or co-host table. Per [1], Collins was a permanent co-host no matter how long her stint was. Another thing was that in the comments part of the GA review, the administrator asked for a more elaborate critical response section, which I have been trying to provide but have been reverted multiple times now. These are just a few edits that I wanted to bring up. We only have a couple more days to get this article in shape for another review, so I would really appreciate your collaboration instead of constant reverting. If you would like to contact an administrator regarding an edit war, please feel free to do so. Thank you! DantODB (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that I simply returned the article to the way it was before all of your edits were made in the past few months. Wouldn't your argument mean that the edits that you made also required consensus? I also would like to point out that we both have been reverting each other's edits. Thanks! DantODB (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not considered edit warring by whom and consensus reached by whom, if I may ask? DantODB (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. DantODB (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take this time to read WP:NOTVAND and WP:OWN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Noodlefish96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

They broke the 3 edit rule with other editors, I sent them a warning. The only edits I made were to revert their contributions which other editors said needed for consensus to be reached and they continued to edit after I sent them a warning. I did not break they 3 edit rule and they did. Noodlefish96 (talk) 9:01 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

Editor will stop calling good-faith edits vandalism and explain objections to edits when asked to, realizing that "get consensus" is not enough of a reason. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only one DantODB was edit warring with was you and your IP addresses. You provide no reason for your reverts, called them a vandal, and claimed you had consensus despite making zero posts to the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) That is not correct the administrator of the GA approved of the edits made on the talk page and the user provided no reason for their reverts, I asked for consensus and explained it is needed because editors have been working on the GA for months, they continued to revert after I warned them. They can have sources that still constitutes as edit warring and vandalism Noodlefish96 (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamstom.97 is the GA reviewer. They point out deficiencies in the article; they don't "approve" edits. Up above, DantODB essentially asked what you objected to with respect to their edits. You blanked their question, calling them a vandal. Why did you do this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) They also influence the direction the article should go based off the progress that has been made, which he approved of. I answered the user on their talk page, they broke the 3 edit rule already and I felt I could not have good faith with them at that point. Noodlefish96 (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Also I blanked my talk page because I thought the conversation should have been over with because I already responded on their talk page02:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Noodlefish96 (talk)[reply]

So

No reason for reverts beyond "get consensus". When asked what needed consensus, you ignored and still ignore the question.
Repeated false charges of vandalism with still no understanding what vandalism is.

I recommend you remain blocked with a caution that repeating the same behavior after your block expires will result in a longer block. You are expected to use the article talk page to explain your objections to the material when asked. "Get consensus" is a meaningless answer in this situation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) No that is not correct and I was adding on to what I said when you just edited now. They told me the edits were for critical reception, as you can see I had said there wasn't anything wrong with that but you can't revert months of editing without reaching consensus first. I didn't repeatedly falsely accuse them of vandalism they continued to edit war after I explained to them they can make those edits without reverting as much as they were and warned them. When they continued to edit the same exact way after that I felt they were vandalizing the page and wrote that once hoping they would understand not to keep reverting because I had lost good faith.Noodlefish96 (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm sorry are you reading anything I'm saying? Noodlefish96 (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm reading you still don't know what vandalism is and I still don't know what your objection to this edit is beyond "you can't do that". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Again they reverted months of improvements just to make a small contribution to the critical response section after I explained to them they should reach consensus since other editors have been working a while on the article for GA.Noodlefish96 (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I wanted to chime in on the supposed reverts that I was accused of. One of the points brought up on the GA Review on the article talk page of The View (talk show) was: "The reception section could use some work. For such a long-running show, there should be a much more comprehensive critical response section, and it would be great to get some analysis content for the ratings section that can give an overview of the viewership (i.e. whether it has gone up or down at certain times, when the peaks have been)." I simply restored the original content before it was trimmed to half of what it was. Additionally, I removed a whole section that was deemed a violation of MOS:TVINTL, but it kept being reverted. DantODB (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DantODB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) You didn't just restore the original content in the critical reception you reverted many of the other edits that were improvements to the page. The notable episodes section should not have been reverted and the original content could have been added to the critical reception section Noodlefish96 (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And where did you say this before? Diff, please? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DantODB "Hello, there is nothing wrong with contributing to the critical response section or fixing and error but reverting that much editing requires consensus" Noodlefish96 (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few things. First, please use {{u|UserName}} to ping people, not userlinks. Second, that post does not explain why you thought DantODB made the article worse. Third, I am willing to unblock you if you start using the talk page to discuss specific concerns and learn what vandalism is. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN I didn't think their contributions made the article worse I wanted them to reach consensus before reverting so many improvements made to the page. I don't mind using the talk page when it is needed. Noodlefish96 (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN I have read through the vandalism page and am using the ping link now.Noodlefish96 (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notable episodes section was also trimmed of half of its previous content. The two biggest controversies that the show has ever had were erased. Plus, there's no significance to the episodes where Kim Kardashian and Michael Wolff appeared as guests other than their status as prominent figures, which could be argued for every single guest on the show. DantODB (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DantODB The reviewer didn't say anything about the notable episodes section being too small. The show has had many controversies, those weren't the biggest two. There were numerous Elisabeth/Rosie fights. Every guest in the updated notable episode section received more media attention and exposure than the nurse comments made. They shouldn't necessarily be included in the "notable episode" section anyways. Kim Kardashian and Michael Wolff received widespread media attention for appearing on the show, arguably more than any guest in the past few seasons.Noodlefish96 (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up "Elisabeth Rosie The View Controversy" and received over 4 million hits. Source: [2]. Michael Wolff received fewer hits and Kim Kardashian received more. However, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton each received more hits than Kim Kardashian. Should we put them both under the notable episodes as well? This is where discretion needs to be used. The Rosie and Elisabeth confrontation was monumental to the show, as specified by the sources cited, while there are multiple guest appearances that receive widespread media coverage every year. DantODB (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DantODB That's because there were multiple Rosie/Elisabeth fights. Hillary and Joe Biden have made several high profile visits over the years but Kim's most recent one received more attention than any Hillary or Joe interview after 2012 when the section began.Noodlefish96 (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source? DantODB (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DantODB Hillary Clinton on ABC The View 4,360,000 results ^[1] Joe Biden on ABC The View 2,420,000 results ^[2] Kim Kardashian on ABC The View 3,690,000 results ^[3]

Without specifics Hillary has been appearing on the View since the show began and Kim only since 2011. Her previous appearances only promoted products while her recent one was an exclusive interview where she discussed her life since being robbed at gunpoint. Of course that received more attention than any other appearance she made on the show. That includes every visit made by them since 1997 as well as Hillary appearing on the View for Barbara Walters retirement which is already included. Noodlefish96 (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per [3], [4], and [5], Clinton received 45M, Biden 16M, and Kardashian 15M. Regardless of when their appearances were, that's what it is. "Her previous appearances only promoted products while her recent one was an exclusive interview where she discussed her life since being robbed at gunpoint." Please direct me to the project page that says which content of an interview holds more weight than others in regards to citations and their significance. DantODB (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. DantODB (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on AN3, you are advised to self-revert, or else you will be blocked for a longer duration. Acroterion (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now discuss, and please listen to advice. Acroterion (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion They're continuing to make edits I disagree with while they won't respond to me and I'm not allowed to do anything about it? Noodlefish96 (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't edit-warring, you were. Use the article talkpage to discuss what you want to do.' Don't edit without gaining consensus - "doing anything about it" is edit-warring. Talk:The View (talk show) is the place to go, and you've made no effort to use it. I note that the article is on Good Article review, so lots of major changes are really not a good idea at the moment. Acroterion (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion They are editing without consensus which is why I reverted them, they can't discuss with me before they make their edits and I have to? They reverted my edits first they were edit warring with me, why am I not allowed to protect the content I feel should stay in the article? Noodlefish96 (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this admin "who also approved?!" [6]. I see no evidence of any discussion of any kind. Acroterion (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion On the talk page the GA admin said he liked what he saw and did not list it as one of the items he would like to see improved Noodlefish96 (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Listen very closely. Adamstom.97 is not an administrator, and that's not how it works. I expected you to stop editing the article until \there is a consensus for your changes, which you haven't obtained. They are the reviewer for Good Article status, and your bull-in-a-china-shop edits have disrupted that process. NeilN explained thatto you up the page. Acroterion (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Noodlefish96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

excuse me "reviewer" I only made edits the other editor said he didn't intend to remove but had to so he could get the content he was looking for. Also as you can see the other administrators said they have no idea why I was blocked.Noodlefish96 (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were unblocked on the condition of making changes in how you edited, but you have continued in the same way. Moreover, in this unblock request you make it clear that you have no intention of changing your ways. The only thing about this block that might reasonably be subject to review is that it is for such a short time, in view of the evidence that you are likely to continue in the same way after it expires. (And incidentally, what "other administrators" have said they have no idea why you were blocked, and where did they say it? You say "as you can see", but I can't see it. I ask purely out of interest, as it is not relevant to the reasons for declining your unblock request.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2018 (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.

GreenMeansGo isn't an administrator either, and I'm trying to sort out the mess that you and DantOBD have created. I expected you to stop editing and discuss. You didn't and you went right back at it. That's why you're blocked. I'm trying to work out whether DantOBD should be blocked too, or whether to fully protect the article, or both. Acroterion (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [7] undid your self-revert. That's not on - you self-reverted at my request , waited a while and then put it back. You've also failed to abide by NeilN's condition of unblocking - that he was "willing to unblock you if you start using the talk page to discuss specific concerns and learn what vandalism is" You have not done so. Acroterion (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to follow along here without checking the changes to the actual article, and this seems to be a real mess. As has been noted above, this sort of behaviour puts the GA review in serious jeopardy. If the editors working on the article want it to be promoted, then this issue needs to be sorted out for good, and fast. Otherwise, I will have to fail the review regardless of any adjustments that have been made based on my comments at the review page. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: This is now a CheckUser block.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Incidents noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DantODB (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.google.com/search?ei=oA6BWowIzJSPBKz6mLAD&q=hillary+clinton+on+abc+the+view&oq=hillary+clinton+on+abc+the+view&gs_l=psy-ab.3...92637.92954.0.93085.3.3.0.0.0.0.125.286.2j1.3.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.HJoewdJ4Ljk

[2] ttps://www.google.com/search?ei=rQ-BWrfuH469jwTY6b6wDw&q=joe+biden+on+abc+the+view&oq=joe+biden+on+abc+the+view&gs_l=psy-ab.3...86946.88053.0.88610.9.9.0.0.0.0.101.640.7j1.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.2.180...0i7i10i30k1j0i8i7i30k1.0.0SvFnTTs0Dg

[3] ttps://www.google.com/search?ei=gw-BWqvYEcPTjgSV15ngDQ&q=kim+kardashian+on+abc+the+view&oq=kim+kardashian+on+abc+the+view&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30k1l5.34413.41440.0.41573.36.24.4.8.11.0.126.2167.13j9.22.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.34.2298...0j0i131k1j0i67k1j0i131i67k1j0i46i67k1j46i67k1j0i10k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1.0.Ba4viD6keKk

[1]

[2]

[3]