User talk:Noodlefish96

The View

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)

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)

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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)

February 2018

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)

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

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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) 02:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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. [[User:Noodlefish96|Noodlefish96]] ([[User talk:Noodlefish96#top|talk]]) 02:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. [[User:Noodlefish96|Noodlefish96]] ([[User talk:Noodlefish96#top|talk]]) 02:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. [[User:Noodlefish96|Noodlefish96]] ([[User talk:Noodlefish96#top|talk]]) 02:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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