Talk:Top Chef: All-Stars

No winner in last supper??
I write here because of this revert. There might not have been a winner declared with the words 'you are the winner', it was declared by saying you are safe or you go to the finale, but it was obvious that Richard was the winner. There are references (primary) that states him as the winner, you can also read Gails blog where she states: So I suggest that we change the table and state Richard as the winner, user:Drmargi agree? any one else please say what you think? --Stefan talk 05:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bravotv.com: So it was obvious that he was moving on.
 * GS: Yes, it was. He did the best without question.
 * All that means was that he was the most obvious choice to move on. They knew they'd pick one finalist, then have the other two do the one-bite challenge for the second slot in the final.  That doesn't mean they declared Richard the winner.  Unless the show explicitly declares a winner, we can't arbitrarily decide a chef was the winner, any more than we can designate one as high or low unless the show identifies them as such.  That's original research and a reflection of your interpretation of events, not what actually happened.  Bear in mind, too, that there was no prize, or any of the other trappings of being the winner.  We simply can't say he was, and the narrative for the episode covers what happened.  Drmargi (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The show is as as much a primary source OR, WP:OWN WP:OR if not more than a web reference from one of the judges on the producers web page??? Where is the source for any of the other winners?? I at least have a source, do you have for any of the rest? Why is watching the show and hearing the winner being declared not WP:OWN WP:OR but reading it on a web page by the producers is??? Please explain, I do not understand. --Stefan talk
 * Where in the show did you hear them say "Richard, you are the winner"? You didn't because they didn't. Padma congratulated him as the first one going to the finale, but she didn't announce he'd won. Anything else is your interpretation of what being first chosen means, and that's OR. I can't explain the table, nor can I give it much creedence when it contradicts the broadcast. In this instance, I have to give more weight to the broadcast than a summary table put together by a network (not producer) functionary. Drmargi (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Top Recipe page at bravotv.com also lists Richard's dish as the winner, with Rick Moonen showing how to prepare it. Le Duf (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The BravoTV official website Cheftestant Scorecard has Richard clearly labeled as the Elimination Challenge Winner, and the recipe clearly states it is winning dish. Norbytherobot (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * DRmargi, 1) as I stated above it was not said with those words, 2) It was obvious and maybe those words was cut out and never shown, so as you state and I agree by WP:OWN WP:OR I say he was the winner. 3) Why is it less WP:OWN WP:OR to see the show and state he was NOT the winner compared with me stating he was? 4) Therefore you should not write ANYTHING in Wikipedia that is challanged. You challenge that Richard was the winner and I challenge that he was not. 5) That why we have WP:V and sorry I do not have time to read it now but Im pretty sure it states that you need references for challenged text, as far as I know you have no reference for Richard NOT winning (and the show it self is NOT a reference). I do have 2 references that shows him as a winner. I agree that my references are not good third party references by they are better than nothing. --Stefan talk 02:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Trouble is, everything you cite demands we assume something we didn't see actually happened. That's problematic for a couple reasons.  First, we can only add what we know, not what we think we know to the article.  Second, what if your assumptions and mine aren't the same?  Whose wins out?  Sorry, but we can't verify he won because it wasn't in the broadcast.  Bravo's website, however entertaining is not more reliable than the broadcast.  We just can't put it in, however much it might make sense to do so. Drmargi (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:Truth, not good but that is what wikipedia is, and I still think you are doing as much WP:OWN WP:OR as the rest of us when you say Richard did NOT win, I saw him win! You did not, both as much OWN OR! I have a cite that states he did, you do not. --Stefan talk 10:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi all, am a big Top Chef fan and after reading thru all the comments decided to finally add my two cents to the debate. I think Richard is the winner for the following:
 * A. He came in 1st. Kind-of reminds me of back when I used to run track. When the first runner crossed the finish line, someone didn't always shout winner, but he crossed first so everyone kind-of new it...  Ok, maybe one might argue Top Chef is different though because they usually do say it.
 * B. I think overwhelmingly though the fact that the Top Chef website sites him as the winner and also has his recipe as the winning recipe kind-of says it all. This is not some fan run website or wikipedia entry, this is the official Top Chef site and is part of and a continuation of the show.  I also have to point out to Drmargi that while you seem adamant that this is not a source material you yourself sited the website in the second discussion above titled 'Move', so I don't understand the inconsistency.
 * C. I asked Charlie Sheen what his thoughts on Richard's performance were and he just said "Winning!"
 * Ok, joking on C but the point is at the end of the day this is just a show, so everyone needs to just remember that. Drmargi you seem to put in a ton of effort into maintaining the Top Chef sites which I commend you for and thank you for; but you also have to realize that you too are making your entries based on your own assumptions. And while you argue above: "Who wins out?", by not letting other peoples' opinion that he is the winner remain you are more or less saying that you win out. HumilityOnWiki-IWish (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go back to the statement I've made all along: you did not see Richard win, you saw Richard selected first for the finale.  If the website, wants to call him the winner to fill out it's table or give Rick Moonan something to cook, that's dandy.  But it doesn't supercede the more reliable broadcast.  That's my source, and I can point to it to verify my edits.  Putting any further interpretation on what happened or what might have been edited out (and come on, that's a pretty absurd edit) is WP:OR, and that does not rise to the standard of an encyclopedia. As much as we might like to think of Richard as the winner, we cannot say he was because we did not see him declared one.  Drmargi (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are making the assumption that the official website is not a continuation of the broadcast, that's WP:POV; whereas several others here are making the assumption that it is and therefore source material. You are also making the assumption that by not explicitly calling out "winner", there was none, again WP:POV; whereas several others here watched the episode and thought by coming in first [and not having to compete for the remaining spot] that Richard was the winner. Clearly, several people here saw the episode and "saw" Richard win. For you to keep deleting everyone else's edits is acting as if you own the site, and as this is a collective work I don't think that behavior rises to the standard of the site WP:OWN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumilityOnWiki-IWish (talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, only Gail and Tom and Padma know for sure. I tried to contact them with the debate, maybe they will clarify in their blogs or on the Reunion show. Then the issue will be resolved once and for all! Here's hoping anyway! HumilityOnWiki-IWish (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Drmagi, you are not allowed to revert and revert and not discuss, your last revert was done without any comment here. There are 4 users agreeing that we should state that Richard is the winner and only you stating not. Please discuss and explain your self. I will do a revert now, I do not like being part of edit wars, but I will revert the page to the state it was WHEN I notified you that the revert YOU did that stated this was questionable, that is the 'original' version and it is the version that has consensus. Please show a policy that states that since one editor saw a show and interpreted it in one way he has the right to revert, when 4 others think something else happened. BTW I have never seen anyone in the show state that a contestants lose, they are always asked to pack their knifes, maybe they did not loose, maybe they packed their knifes and off the air decided not to come back, since we never saw them being told that the lost on the show :-) it is all relative and depends on what how you interpret it. It is all just a matter of how much OWN OR you want to do. Pease stop revert warring. --Stefan talk 00:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Stefan, I'm under no obligation to discuss here immediately after every edit. I'm very actively involved in this discussion, as you well know, and suggesting otherwise is highly inaccurate.  What's more, the article is supposed to remain as it was when the discussion opened; the editor who made the change I reverted acted in error, making my edit perfectly appropriate under the circumstances.  Drmargi (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Explain how you are not bound by WP:V, you latest revert removed links (references) and reverted to nothing, please add sources proving you are right! Do not force me to ask for the whole article to be referenced, then we will have nothing left, work with me, not against me. --Stefan talk 03:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you really want to argue semantics, the judges rarely say "X is the winner". The usual course of action is Padma saying "As our guest judge, you have the pleasure of announcing tonight's winner", and then the guest judge, without specifically stating he is about to announce the winner, says who had the best dish. So you can go through every episode of Top Chef, listen to the exact semantics of what is announced, and edit every wikipedia articles with the ridiculously pointless details of such, or concede that Blais obviously won this challenge, as evidenced by the show's precedents and the official bravotv.com website. 24.45.191.242 (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with drmargi. The people who are using the PR stuff on Bravo's website and consensus to "proclaim" hime the winner need to read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RS very carefully, because you're getting both wrong. Stefan, you don't seem to know the difference between WP:OWN, which has nothing to do with this and WP:OR, so you have more homework to do. Worse, the recent IP editor's comments are silly pretzel logic. As drmargi said the show if the seminal source, and you cannot infer an outcome that wasn't seen. Ergo, Richard was excused from the one bite challenge, was first the make the finale, but was no the winner. -- 199.36.244.11 (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I offer my apologies to Drmargi (and IP 199.36...), I used OWN when I meant OR, sorry. I have updated what I wrote in the above discussion. Sorry. --Stefan talk 00:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think that both the show and the bravo TV blog and score card is just as much a primary source and the blog/score card is clear that Richard did win, the TV show can be interpreted using WP:OR either way. And since the 'fact' that Richard did win or not is challenged, WP:V states that we need a source, the Bravo TV blog/score card is the best source we have, there are a few other sources on various newspaper sites that states Richard as Winner and some that states that he was sent to the finale first without saying anything about him actually winning. Most of them are questionable as RS. As for consensus we do not really have any discussion, the point is, can the show be used as a source and if different people interpret it differently what do we do, please discuss this. As for consensus have consensus by 3 vs 1 users that SAW Richard win (4 vs 2 is taking IP into account).
 * The key question that I do not really know is how do we consider a article about a TV show when we are using the TV show as the source? Is it considered to be the ultimate source and what if it is still interpreted differently as in this case? I still think V applies. 199.36 please explain what you mean that we get RS wrong? --Stefan talk 00:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * this should be a reasonably reliable secondary source. --Stefan talk 06:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No apologies needed regarding the use of OWN v. OR. That was a simple mistake.  But think of OR this way:  a few weeks back, there was a big fuss about Mike's dish that was drawn from what he'd seen when looking at Richard's book.  There was plenty written on the web about Mike cheating, but no real question here that we could not include any such discussion.  But if there had been?  Could we add a note that Mike cheated because he took an idea from Richard's notebook?  Of course not, because such a note would represent opinion, plain and simple, and no matter how many after-the-fact sources you produced, that fundamental barrier would keep the note out.  The same principle applies here.


 * Unfortunately, Stefan, it's widely held across Wikipedia that blogs are not considered reliable sources except in very rare circumstances, and this isn't one of them. We don't know who the writer is, much less how knowledgeable he/she is or what the source of her information was beyond her own interpretation of events.  Tom Colicchio's blog would considered reliable because he was there and is writing it himself, but this one is just some food or entertainment or whatever it might be blog, and we have no idea if meet the criteria for a reliable source or not. Even Gail's is questionable because it's a transcription of an interview, and we have no idea how much is edited.  Just because someone has written something down, doesn't make it so -- Wikipedia demands we think critically about sources and question their reliability.  Think of it this way:  I could start a blog about astronomy tomorrow and make the statement that the moon would be made of green cheese.  You wouldn't believe it for a minute, would you?  Nor should you -- we have to question sources, not take them at face value, particularly to support an argument.  I think that's part of the IP editor's point above.  The same applies to the Bravo website.  That site is designed to develop and maintain user interest in the show; while it's a great primary source for when an episode is on, who the cast are and similar, it's not a continuation of the broadcast, as someone above suggested, and we have to question the after-show content.  The broadcast itself will always be the definitive primary source; people who put together websites for the network make assumptions, and errors, same as the rest of us, and that allows us to question the content of the website.  We saw Richard move on to the finale first.  We saw he did not have to do the final challenge.  But we did not see, or hear, him declared the winner.  Anything else is opinion, and that falls under WP:OR.


 * Similarly, you're attempting to make a very basic error regarding consensus by turning comments into votes. A fundamental principle of consensus is that it is not a vote.  I'd strongly encourage you to go back and read WP:CONSENSUS before attempting to vote-count.  Drmargi (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good finally you are discussion
 * I used consensus wrongly sorry, but since you where not discussing I was running out of things to say, we had 3-4 editors agreeing with me and only you not, I though that was a good enough reason to revert. Especially since you have reverted 5-6 times without more reason than I saw that in the show. but sorry it was not consensus.
 * My sources are weak, i have already stated that, and they are primary, but if you can use the show I cannot see this as much worse, the bravo links are clear, the show is ambigious. But what you refuse to respond to is that seeing the show with your eyes and using YOR interpretation is even worse. How do you justify that?
 * Same as about if Mike cheated, very good example, I saw him copy a dish, I did not see him cheat, maybe he played a bit unfair but not cheat, other saw him cheat, we cannot write that UNLESS you have a WP:RS that states it, exactly the same as in this case you cannot say he did not win since you did not see it, same as I cannot say he did since I saw him we need sources!!!!!!
 * A show is not a source for a article of the show itself!!! That is basic in Wikipedia, same as if I write about the empire state building, I cannot say I saw it being blue therefore it is, I MUST have a source, please read WP:V
 * I challenge your view point and request a WP:RS that states that Richard didnot win and that mike and Richard was equal. I consider this to be a much better source that the show it self interpreted by you, this is interpreted by a outsider and published in blog form from a reputable(I think?) news organisation. See "Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format." from WP:RS.
 * I'm open to compromises, the whole article can be questioned since NOTHING have any sources but nether you or me wants that. I want you to discuss explain why you are not using OR and why using the topic itself as your source is OK for Richard not winning but not for mike cheating, I do not understand how you think!
 * Please respond to each of my points above, and if I have missed any of your points please remind me and I will try my best to answer to them, lets keep this nice. I will not revert this page again (except for the fact tag that I added and some IP reverted). --Stefan talk 00:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As for "inferring" a winner, there are numerous sources on the official Top Chef site: Gail's comment "[Richard] He did the best without question.", Eric Ripert's blog posts: "And the winner, of course as we know, is Richard, who does a good job despite the fact that his spaetzeles are a little bit firm," and "So Richard is the winner.", the Cheftestant Scorecard, and Rick Moonen's preparation of the winnng dish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.3.124 (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Scorecard and Moonen's demo have already been discussed. Gail's describing him as the best, not the winner; it's just her opinion which was the best dish.  Ripert was not a judge, and was not there.  He's free to call Richard what he wants, but it doesn't change the outcome as broadcast.  None is a reliable source that contradicts what was in the broadcast.  Drmargi (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The show did NOT declare a winner for the challenge. Saying that Richard 'won' is incorrect, I'm sorry Stefan. The show is the most reliable source for data about the show, and it is the single source Wikipedia uses for compiling the results tables, as it has been for the past 8 seasons. Richard did, however, advance to the final first and this has been noted on the table. It seems bizarre to me, Drmargi, that you didn't put a note on the results table- if Richard's 'win-but-not-quite' deserves a mention in Episode 1, then this quite definitely does. Please do not revert Richard's box on the table for this episode to WIN or to IN (without a note) without further discussion. (121.73.75.243 (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC))


 * No worries there. It just didn't occur to me to add a note to the table because it was covered in the narrative; both Richard's and Antonia's errors that cost them QF wins were a bit different situation, and seemed better covered by notes at the time.  However, given the number of folks who think they saw a win, or who are using after-the-fact judgments to somehow make Richard the winner, the note makes good sense.  Drmargi (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:RSN. --Stefan talk

What about putting Richard as HIGH since he was the judges' favorite, even though he wasn't declared the "winner"? -- Dragonof Fire (龙火) 02:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * HIGH is designed to designate a member of the high group. That wasn't used, and we don't know he was the judges' favorite.  Gail saying he did the best doesn't equate with his being the judges' favorite.  Drmargi (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * HIGH, FIRST, NOT HAVING TO DO EXTRA CHALLENGE THAT MIGHT HAVE MADE HIM LOSE, WHATEVER is fine with me, just make sure it is clear in the table that he actually did not have to do the second challenge and therefore did not risk being eliminated which all other contestants was risking. The reader can then use his OWN deduction to say that he was best, first, actually won or was just as good as the other two, up to them. --Stefan talk 04:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's already in both the table and the narrative. Drmargi (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But only as a foot note, and only very recently. Can we maybe please, please add one more text to put in the table? The definition of IN is not really correctly used now, it states " The chef neither won nor lost that week's Elimination Challenge. They also were not up to be eliminated." Mike was up for elimination in the last elimination challenge? If he was not up for elimination then neither was Antonia and I think we both agree that she actually was eliminated?? And I think that we also can agree that Mike did not Win (although I say he did win the last Elimination challenge). So Mike cannot be IN, correct? Or how would you interpret it? (that OR thing again, maybe we should get a secondary source?? ) Maybe we can redefine the SAFE since it does not seam to be used?? --Stefan talk 07:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually Mike should be LOW? Do you agree on that?? That would be a acceptable solution for me. --Stefan talk 07:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This DRMARGI fellow is rather dogmatic. Watch him delete this comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.153.237 (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The function of this discussion area is to discuss the article, not the editors. Please see WP:CIVIL.  Drmargi (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

For the first season, Harold was designated a HIGH for being called safe, on the penultimate episode. I do not see how this scenario is any different. Also, in season 2, Marcel has a WIN when he was announced safe, as well. Leaving Richard as IN makes this inconsistent. If you could explain how this episode is different, by all means. -- Dragonof Fire (龙火) 00:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Padma specifically and clearly said that Richard won the previous challenge at the start of last night's finale. I take that to be definitive evidence of his win. 24.45.191.242 (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Padma says in the finale: "Richard, you WON the last challenge, so you get to pick first". Norbytherobot (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Drmargi, you really have to explain how you think and not just revert. The way I think you have been arguing the whole time is that the show is the ultimate RS (I do not agree and I think that WP:RSN didn't either but nevermind), and since Richard was not declared winner in episode 15 he was not (I think that is WP:OR), now the show (episode 16) have declared that Richard won episode 15. Why cannot episode 16 be used as a RS?? The article is about the Show, things happen in a show that is not show on TV, if we had RS, e.g. a book written about the show, we could use that a write about what happened off camera, now in the next episode they clarify what happened in the last episode, why do you think we cannot write that?? I will revert your actions. --Stefan talk 00:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It'd be one thing if there was a contradiction, but they never specifically said Richard wasn't the winner in the Last Supper episode. Padma's comment in the Finale was merely an addition of information. There's no reason to ignore it. Malpine (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like DRMARGI disappeared!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.154.230 (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like DRMARGI is back, please replay to comments above, why does the source need to be only in the same episode? The whole discussion before was that there where no definitive declaration of him a winner in the show, now when EP16 declared Richard winner, why is that not good enough? I seriously does not understand and it look like I'm not alone, please explain. --Stefan talk 05:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Curious how all along it was argued that the broadcast was the Holy Grail, and to see Richard as the winner when it wasn't explicitly said was considered "original research and a reflection of your interpretation of events, not what actually happened"...but now that Padma said during the broadcast "Richard, YOU WON the last challenge", even those explicit words do not seem to pass muster. No, now the new thought is that he was referred to as the winner for the purposes of selecting sous chefs! Wow, if that is not an interpretation of events, and a pretty stretched one at that, I don't know what is!Norbytherobot (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please lets explain where we stand, I think like this, please comment at each point if you wish:


 * Everything on the page is OR, since there is no secondary source, the only secondary sources that can be considered is mentioned above at some place, and they ARE sources, but none of them are very good. So to say that an whatever was said in episode 16 or 17 is OR is correct, to say Richard did or did not WIN is OR. --Stefan talk 00:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To use the TV show as a source and do OR on it is probably the only way, it seams to be the way we write about TV shows, and in principle it is OK according to wikipedia policies until someone questiones it, that Richard is the winner and not winner have both been questioned, by Drmargi (I think ) and by me above. There are no source that I have seen that states that Richard did not win, there are sources (not good ones, but still) that states that he did, the argument is that it was not show in the episode that IMHO is WP:OR also. --Stefan talk 00:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The actual TV show did not state that Richard did WIN in the episode, it was stated in the next episode, and it could be assumed by OR that he did WIN in the episode since he was cleared from the last challenge that could have eliminated him. --Stefan talk 00:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If we are using the TV show as the source, it has to be interpreted. And I do not understand the reasoning for not declaring Richard as a WINNer, since the show, but not the episode makes it almost 100% clear (at least to me). --Stefan talk 00:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Questions: If a book was published, e.g. Top Chef 8 cookbook, which may or may not exists and it states Richards winning dish, would that be an acceptable source? Or does is the show the one and only source for this article?? In my mind that cookbook, especially if done by an independent writer, would be the only correct way of sourcing this 'fact'. --Stefan talk 00:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Question: The next show did declare him the winner? Why can then the table that shows the progress of the whole show not describe this, if it is such a big issue describing what happened in the specific episode?? Sorry if I'm stupid but I'm totally lost as to how this makes sense. --Stefan talk 00:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Just curious how the broadcast is considered the source material, until it's not? How is Padma saying: "Richard, you won the last challenge" arbitrary? How is it factually inaccurate, when it's actually a direct quote from the broadcast? How is your interpreting that as arbitrary not a POV? And last but not least, how is the statement "Richard was referred to as the winner for the purposes of selecting sous chefs" not a massive interpretation. If that was the case, why wouldn't Padma say: "Richard, you moved on first, so you get to pick first" or something?"Norbytherobot (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We saw what the judges said in the episode. To report otherwise is factually inaccurate.  Padma was one of a panel of judges, not the sole judge; that alone makes her comment her interpretation of events, not what actually happened, and thereby, arbitrary.  It wasn't until a sous chef was needed that Richard was suddenly declared the winner after the fact -- it's what we saw.  You and Stefan continue to make judgments as fans, not to an encyclopedic standard.  Padma's arbirtrary description of Richard as the winner for the purpose of selecting a sous chef does not supercede the events of the previous episode.  Anything else is WP:OR and a WP:POV interpretation of events.  Drmargi (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting... interpretation. It almost sounds a little bit more like a... point of view!  How do you know Padma's decision was arbitrary and for the purpose of selecting a sous chef... unless you're imbuing your interpretation of it?  How do you consider my judgement clouded because I'm [supposedly] thinking like a fan, but not see yours as the same.  I'm not trying to be facetious [anymore], but I really do think that Padma's statement is a relevant fact.  Again, not being facetious, but from where I stand it seems like your omitting the fact or reinterpreting it is not keeping this to an encyclopedic standard.  I know that you do a ton of work in Wikipedia, far more than me, so I know that you do take this all serious.  But I don't really see that you are not pushing a certain POV on your own and it seems you'd be guilty of many of the same offenses you're accusing others of, such as trying to assert ownership of the article. Norbytherobot (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You keep saying that, but you have nothing, zip, nada, niente to back it up. Meanwhile, you continue to use Padma to dodge the one critical fact, you, as a fan viewer, insist on adding to the episode 15 summary that DID NOT HAPPEN, that being Richard being declared the winner by the panel of judges.  The article, as I edited it, is factually accurate and stands up to scrutiny.  Your edits do not.  Period.  You persist in reporting events that occured in Episode 16 as though they somehow actually happened in Episode 15.  You can't do that in an encyclopedia.  You can add a note to episode 16 about what was said, and allow the viewer to draw their own conclusion, which is what I did.  But you cannot accurately, verifiability, truthfully or by any other standard of fact say that in Episode 15, Richard was declare the winner, because IT DID NOT HAPPEN.  Meanwhile, you continue to offer Padma's contradictory statement as truth over what we actually saw.  That simply does not pass the laugh test.  Drmargi (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:Truth, we do NOT write what happened or what is the truth. We write what is verifiable by WP:RS. Read what I wrote above, both you and me are doing OR when we write ANYTHING without a RS, you have NO source for Richard not winning, I have a bad source stating he did. and again watching the TV show and doing your own OR is NOT a source!! And if you are so specific about what episode what happened, then can you agree that the table should say that Richard was the winner? --Stefan talk 03:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please Drmargi, do not put Dispute about tag and then NOT reply on the talk page!! I will continue reverting and not respect that tag unless you discuss. Say something about that table!!! Say something about how you expect us to continue now when you want to discuss! That is what the tag is about right? --Stefan talk 23:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am confused as to why there is so much discussion on this issue. Not to mention all the contradiction. Richard won the challenge. The words don't have to be explicitly stated. And Drmargi has made some incorrect statements. Blogs are considered reliable when they are part of a major news organization, like the Wall Street Journal. That isn't some random nobody's tumblr. Further, primary sources aren't and should never be considered inherently unreliable. All the commentary about the reliability of Bravo's website for the show is opinion, not drawn from policy. This isn't a case where primary sources have to be handled delicately as they may have skewed information. It's a television show. The website for the television show says he and his dish won. Gail and Padma are heavily involved in the show, and when they say he won, he won. The format for that particular challenge was different than others. That does not negate the fact that Richard guaranteed himself a spot in the finale by having the best dish. Taking it any different is interpretation and, thus, original research. This silly dispute tag needs to be removed and the article updated accordingly with one of the several available and reliable sources. Lara 15:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do, every time I do I get reverted and revert and reverted, I have kind of given up, but with some support I will try to help. --Stefan talk 00:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The tag is there because editors persist in assuming what was not explicitly stated and adding it to the article, thus creating the controversy. Assumption does not rise to an encyclopedic standard, just to a fan standard, no matter how sure you all are that Richard won, he was not declared the winner in the episode, and cannot be so designated.  Unfortunately, a fan hivemind sees things otherwise.  Drmargi (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please show me which policy that states that we should watch TV shows and interpret them and then write what we saw? We write what we have sources for, unless what we write is disputed. We both dispute this fact, I have sources, you have not. Please explain your reverting! My sources are acceptable. You have NO source. --Stefan talk 03:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am so weary of your bully-boy tactics. There is no policy that you should watch and interpret, just the one that says you CAN'T.  That's the one you persist in ignoring.  Just as you persist in ignoring the best source of all:  the episode itself, wherein Richard was advanced to the final, BUT WAS NOT DECLARED THE WINNER.  You can twist and turn and spin that fact to your heart's delight, but you can't change it  I need no other source.  Moreover, the burden is on you to provide a source that reliably says what we saw on the TV actually wasn't what we saw on the TV.  Cute trick; good luck with that. Your sources are all after-the-fact interpretation. End of story.  Drmargi (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OR, The TV show is at most a primary source (I would not even call it a primary source but the TOPIC) See the phrase "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources." Explain to me how you are NOT analyzing, synthesizing or interpreting the TV show?? I have a secondary source that have done that and I WP:CHALLENGE that Richard did not win which you wrote. The show it self is NOT a source, at best it is a primary source. Read the policys. --Stefan talk 09:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW this is my source that Drmargi reverted without adding another source. --Stefan talk 11:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can continue to stand on your hill and declare I don't have a source until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it true. My source is the episode, the same source as the rest of the article, every season of Top Chef, and every elimination-style reality series on Wikipedia.  Trying to create a differential standard for sourcing this particular edit so that you can prevail won't wash.  And please review WP:BRD, with you persist in attempting to side-step.  A new editor edited (BOLD), I reverted, and discussion continues.  Please don't revert until such time as there is consensus and the controversy ceases to exist. Drmargi (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read BRD, have you? See the thingy at the top which says it is a ESSAY? Please read OR, see the thingy at the top, it is a POLICY. Now read WP:POLICY, WP:ESSAYS and The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. Now I say that you are side stepping OR by removing my source and doing OR on the topic, please explain why I am wrong. --Stefan talk 00:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Drmargi, again you have reverted without discussion, if you are to use BRD as your argument to override OR then you better discuss. The last edit that I made was on a stable version that have not been changed for months, so therefore I can consider YOUR edit as a B. You cannot use BRD only when it suits you, and you must discuss. --Stefan talk 03:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You know, Stefan, you can't have it both ways. You also need to knock off the giving of orders and the bully-boy strategies, and try a bit of civility. I find your sarcasm offensive and inappropriate. That's why I've walked away from discussions in the past: I'm tired of being bullied and told what to do. You also need to learn to be patient; editors will work to their timeline, not yours. Drmargi (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we been though this before, lets see what the notice board says. I agree that when it comes to BRD I cannot have it both ways, but neither should you, the table update have been for I think more than 2 months, your edits should be considered the bold one? You are still to reply to the baby steps comment from 3 months ago, I made a BOLD change more than 2 weeks later. You revert 2 months after my edit, if you want to invoke BRD for my edits, I will for you also and that edit should be considered Bold, not Revert!
 * As for giving orders, you use BRD, for reverting, but you runaway and do not discuss, that is not how BRD is supposed to work, if you have time to do the revert, then you should also make an effort to comment. I still have no idea why you did this edit. Your comment And while we're at it, since we're back discussing, let's take this back to where the most accurate source has it. does not make sense, YOU claim that the TV show is the master source, the next episode claims that Richard won therefore I cannot understand your reasoning, please see the baby steps 'discussion'. --Stefan talk 06:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Richard won Gerardw (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of mediation
See Dispute_resolution_noticeboard --Stefan talk 04:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit
Regarding this edit, I have a couple of comments:
 * 1/ I believe that mis en place is supposed to be italicized per MOS:Ety. I don't believe it's particularly common.
 * 2/ I don't understand why Richard's episode 15 win is listed in the episode 16 section also.

Lara 05:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For #2, because Wikipedia has once again proven itself to be the triumph of compromise over scholarship. Drmargi (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * #1 already fixed, I did #2 now. I tried to revert to a good old version, but obviously I picked a not so good version. --Stefan talk 09:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Restaurant Wars
Can somebody please check the third course for Restaurant Bodega? I'm pretty sure that it was said that the cake with lemon peel was made by Carla and the blueberry dish by Fabio, yet here it is written the other way round? --5.146.47.75 (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)