User talk:Topchef5050

Welcome!

Hello, Topchef5050, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Doc Quintana (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision to the progression chart at Hell's_Kitchen_(U.S._season_7)

I would like to understand your reasoning for changing the progression chart from "IN" to "WIN" on the page. Precedent for all previous seasons is to mark those who are part of the black jacket group as "IN" instead of "WIN". I [| reverted] a previous change similar to this and would love to hear your reasoning for this at this season's talk page as we're having dificulty between this and the episode 10 wording. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal on Hell's Kitchen (U.S.)

I am proposing a serious change to the Broadcast section of this article. Please take a look and provide feedback. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries and discussion

Your constant refusal to use an edit summary when making changes to articles, particularly competition series articles for long-past seasons, and your refusal to discuss changes once asked to do so is becoming increasingly disruptive. You are expected to provide an edit summary that explains the rationale for edits, and to discuss controversial edits; failure to do so can result in your being blocked. PLEASE refrain from making edits without an edit summary, and in the case of your recent Top Chef edit, discuss the change you are attempting to make rather than simply trying to force an edit by reverting over and over and over again. --Drmargi (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Please do not make significant changes in article content without citing a reliable source for your change. See WP:Identifying reliable sources. Tiderolls 18:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Hello, I'm Tolly4bolly. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to The Biggest Loser: Couples 3, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, T4B (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Biggest Loser: No Excuses with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. T4B (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to The Biggest Loser: Couples 3 with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. T4B (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, The Biggest Loser (U.S. TV series). While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Ushau97 ^talk 17:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Biggest Loser (U.S. TV series)

Hello. I see that when you edited The Biggest Loser (U.S. TV series), you attempted to warn other users in the actual article. This is not permitted on Wikipedia, and is considered vandalism. From what I can see, this is clearly an issue with other editors concerning this article, so I advise you to take it up with them rather than vandalizing an article. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thank you. Creativity97 02:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to discuss, failure to use edit summaries, disruptive and tendentious editing, page ownership, 3RR violations, a little vandalism and more

Your recent editing history at Top Chef (season 4) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Top Chef (season 4), you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

You have been asked repeatedly to use edit summaries and to discuss on the talk page when you disagree with an edit or when your edit is challenged. You do not own the article, you are not the sole arbiter of what is or is not correct in an article, you are expected to use edit summaries and when a conflict occurs, you are expected to discuss the conflict on the article talk page in order to gain consensus, all of which you refuse to do. I have advised an administrator of your persistent refusal to work within WIkipedia guidelines, and will continue to note such actions as disrupt the article on this page. You should review WP:NOTHERE, WP:3RR, WP:EDIT and WP:CONSENSUS at minimum to gain at least a minimal grasp of the principles of appropriate editing. --Drmargi (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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. Tiderolls 00:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topchef5050, the log for your block reads "Disruptive editing" and the block notice reade "abuse of editing priveleges". Specifially, though, you are blocked because you have convinced me that you will not stop edit warring, adding unsouorced content and refusing to communicate with those editors that have approached you with concerns regarding your edits. Tiderolls 00:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do that was wrong? I do not understand!

Read Verifiability, Consensus, Bold, revert, discuss and Edit warring. Your edit history shows a serious lack of knowledge of all these policies and guidelines. Tiderolls 01:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I did not mean for this to happen.

I do not quite understand your post, but I appreciate your apology. Now that you've decided to use a talk page you should read Talk page guideline. Tiderolls 01:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess all I was trying to do was put facts from Top Chef on Wikipedia, but if you do not approve of it, I totally understand!

If you read the policy pages I linked to above, you will see that facts have to be verified. Also, if your edits are challenged, you are obligated to stop reverting and discuss your editorial position. It is not my place to approve or disapprove. Your edits have been challenged by multiple editors. Please read the pages I have linked so that when your block expires you can avoid future blocks. Tiderolls 01:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.

And here we go again

Your first edit back after your block is to remove something accurate with no explanation and no discussion. The most recent season of Top Chef was split between Seattle and Juneau. That's verifiable, and should not be changed. Did you learn anything from the block? --Drmargi (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I did not mean to go against the truth!!!!! By the way, wasn't season 3 of Top Chef split between Miami and New York????? Oh, and please remember that Lisa was the runner-up for Top Chef season 4; Richard was the second runner-up!!!!!

First, I don't know whether Top Chef 3 was split because I didn't watch then. And given your refusal to provide an edit summary, there's no way to know why you're adding another city. What I do know is that you persist in making the same changes over and over with no edit summary, and seem unwilling to learn how to edit properly. Did you read any of the documents Tiderolls and I suggested?

Second, Top Chef does not declare first and second runner up, and you don't get to makes that decision for them based on your interpretation of events on the show. The editors at the time agreed on the order the final three were listed. If you want to make a change, you MUST go to the article talk page, start a discussion, get agreement that the change is appropriate, and then make the change.

The article talk page is the only place for your comments. Putting them in the article is considered disruptive editing, bordering on vandalism. Either learn the policies around here and commit to working within them, or be prepared for more, and longer, blocks. --Drmargi (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Bravo website for Top Chef 3 and Top Chef 4. For TC3, it was filmed in Miami, with the finale in Aspen, CO. No New York. For TC4, there were no first and second runners up declared, just Stephanie as the winner. When the decision was made how to order them at the time, the consensus was to list Richard first because he'd won more often than Lisa, as I recall (see the talk page to be sure.) That's what Tiderolls means by verifiability. --Drmargi (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiderolls & Drmargi, I hope that your accounts get taken off of Wikipedia permanently, because you are making no sense at all!!!!!

We don't make sense because you won't take the time to learn the basic policies required of editors on Wikipedia. This isn't a fan site. You need to be informed, and you don't seem to be willing to try to be. --Drmargi (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Topchef5050, the next time you add content without citing a proper source or edit war on an article, I will block your account indefinitely. Please ask questions if you need clarification on the policies and guidelines. Tiderolls 05:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tide rolls, why are you doing this to me???? What did I do that was wrong?????

Did you not read the pages that cover the policies and guidelines that I've linked here more than once? Which part of what policy is unclear to you? Ask specific questions and I will be able to give you specific answers. Tiderolls 21:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did you mean when you threatened me about when I "add content without citing a proper source or edit war on an article"? I do not understand!

You have not cited sources for the content you are adding to the various articles. You have reverted editors that have taken issue with your changes without responding to their good faith inquiries (that is, until you were blocked). Read...the...policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability....Wikipedia:Edit warring. I will say again; let me know specifically what part or parts of these policies are unclear. I will answer your concerns or, if I do not have an answer, I will find some one who does. Tiderolls 06:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, as you did at The Biggest Loser: Couples 4. 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. Tiderolls 13:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While your block is for an indefinite period it is not permanent. If you can convince a reviewing administrator that you understand Wikipedia's edit warring policy, it may be possible for you to be unblocked. Tiderolls 13:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]