User talk:Worstcook

June 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Worst Cooks in America, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Worst Cooks in America was changed by Worstcook (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.876539 on 2011-06-25T19:35:08+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Block evasion
You appear to be the same editor as the edit-warring anon IP 205.209.83.211, as evidenced by the fact your list of contributions mirrors that of 205.209.83.211. As well, here is one example of an identical edit and a near-identical edit summary:


 * Worstcook Revision as of 22:12, 12 July 2011, summary: "(→Contestants: Please keep consistent with first season)"


 * 205.209.83.211 Revision as of 00:47, 12 July 2011, summary: "(→Contestants: Make an episode chart also keep consistent with first season.)"

As you appear to be a sockpuppet attempting to evade an admin's block for edit-warring, I have contacted that admin to report your behavior. At least two editors and I believe more have reverted your edits because they are contentious and non-constructive. Continuing to insist on them in the face of consensus that these are inappropriate edits in disruptive to Wikipedia. The proper course of action, rather than edit warring, is to discuss things on an article's talk page, as at least two editors have tried to do with the anon IP. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Project accessory


The article Project accessory has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Article about a TV series (?) that has no reliable sources, so it unverifiable. Does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sparthorse (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * DO NOT remove deletion tags from the article. Please read the above, and adhere to policy regarding proposed deletion of articles.  And as always, a reminder, that I expect you'll ignore, to provide an edit summary.  Drmargi (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just added a new discussion item on this article's talk page. The article continues to be a fansite with an elimination table, and has no content. Unless you and your IP buddies step up and write a substantive article in the next few days, I'm going to WP:PRD the article. Drmargi (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Project Accessory. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sparthorse (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Project Accessory. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sparthorse (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You appear to be using the anon IP 155.47.192.82 to avoid WP:3RR. Please note this is unacceptable behavior and that an admin can be called to investigate IP sockpuppetry. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Even without the anon IP's edit, you have violated WP:3RR. You have shown a continual pattern of edit warring rather than discussing issues on article talk pages. This is a bright-line violation of Wikipedia policy, including a blatant disregard for a duly issued warning. I am reporting this to the Admin Noticeaboard for 3RR vios. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A complaint about your edits has been filed at the 3RR noticeboard
Please see WP:AN3. It looks like the WP:3RR rule has been broken. If you don't promise to stop edit warring, you may be blocked. You can respond at the noticeboard if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Project accessory
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Handyman
I noticed you created the article All American Handyman. Mind creating one for the Canadian version? Canada's Handyman Challenge ? ( HGTV website: http://www.hgtv.ca/canadashandymanchallenge/video.aspx )

70.24.247.54 (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

MasterChef
Hey! It's great to see someone else helping out with the MasterChef USA articles. Quick question-- do you think the contestant progress table should list elimination episode or date? I am thinking date might be more official. Thanks! TDI19 (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the date is more official, so I think that putting the date would be a good idea. Worstcook (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever you think is best, because I think that either way works for the MasterChef articelsWorstcook (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Around the World...
Good catch on the RISK business tonight. Too many editors, particularly IP's, treat these articles as fan sites and interpret what happens in an episode. You're doing a great job! --Drmargi (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankyou RISK is totally inappropriate in this article as everyone on the losing team is put up for elimination, IN and IN (-) makes a lot more sense. I think I'm geting better at doing this. Worstcook (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

STOP REVERTING
Despite continuous warnings on the irrelevant reverts u keep making on the elimination table u just don't aim to listen, do you? The color used to represent eliminated contestant's progress is "darkgrey".
 * References:
 * 1) Nine(9) seasons of Top Chef.
 * 2) Hell's Kitchen
 * 3) International MasterChef versions.

STOP REVERTING OR YOU WILL BE REPORTED. --Heyhello1234567 (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the last time I checked the other two MasterChef articles used what I was doing, but I guess we are changing it. I was just trying to keep everything the same. I will change the other two articles. Thanks for the notice.Worstcook (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Heyhello, you should look at WP:CIVIL and watch your tone when leaving a message for another editor. This is a collaborative project, not elementary school. Worstcook made a simple error, and courteous message would have solved the problem easily. Moreover, this is an encyclopedia, not a text message, and you are expected to write comprehensibly -- the word is YOU not the letter u. --Drmargi (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Plus ot had been that way on MasterChef for a long time, and no one had discussed anything about changing it. That is why I changed it back because you must discuss with fellow editors before making a change to an article.Worstcook (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL!! In case you don't know what LOL means --> LOL. Drmargi, why don't you go through MasterChef season 3's revision history and then take part into matters not concerning you. My edits were reverted almost every time i made them on the page without the so-called courteous message from your client [WorstCook]. I left messages on the revert description space too but your client did not seem to bother giving them a nice read. Speaking of 'read' why don't you have a look at your own message and then talk about CIVIL, I don't see any fairy dust sprinkled on it either, u know. You might try to troll on me but trust me, darling, i can come up with much worse. Enough said. Goodbye. --Heyhello1234567 (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok you guys need to stop being so serious about this. for one it's just a reality show elimination table. I made a mistake let's move on please. Thankyou for your time. I already fixed the mistake so I think this conversation is over. No need to bicker.Worstcook (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your comment in Talk at MasterChef where you seem to just give up, please don't allow yourself to be bullied into not expressing your real opinion. Your opinion is just as important as any other wiki user....no one opinion holds more weight than another. I would hate for this article's chart to be changed to something that only one editor insists and the actual readers and fans of MasterChef don't, simply because one user badgers the other editors/users. Granted I was late to the conversation because I don't edit that page and was not aware of what was going on until I saw the change briefly before it was reverted, but my opinion as a wiki user and certainly as a viewer of the show and reader of the wiki page has just as much weight as any other. I hate when this happens on wiki - this is why the option to call in Admin exists when users can't agree - to prevent this type of thing. Please stand your ground if you disagree. Thanks. 68.225.205.146 (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry the readers and fans of MasterChef (U.S.) article need to vote if they want to halt the change if they exist that is. Worstcook agreed on the change before you came. rofl. if he/she backs out now that'll be a shame plus hypocrisy. go read his comments when they said "We'r good to go!!" and u'll know who's the real quitter. --Heyhello1234567 (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't being a hypocrit. As you can see if you read the converstation you became very passionate with your opinion. I dececided that you weren't going to budge. So I knew that something was going to be changed whether I like it or not, so I decided to compromise. I agreed on the change because I didn't feel like arguing with someone who is so passionate about it that they won't budge.Worstcook (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't make sense darling. All i got was budge budge budge. Bottomline, get me opinions or i'll make the changes soon. Case closed.--Heyhello1234567 (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bottomline, no one agrees with you so move on with your life.Worstcook (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Heyhello, you have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works. First, moderate your tone and review WP:CIVIL; you are on the verge of WP:NPA with several of your comments. Next stop for you is the Civility noticeboard at this rate. Second, the process of change at Wikipedia is built on the principles that any editor can make a change at any time, and that conflicts are resolved via discussion and reaching WP:CONSENSUS, not via vote. Your statement that "...the readers and fans of MasterChef (U.S.) article need to vote if they want to halt the change..." is wholly incorrect. The minute I see the word fan, I know an editor has lost sight of the principle that this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. You need to read the policy on consensus, quickly. Moreover, if you want to make changes, the burden is on you to gather support, not on Worstcook to provide opinions as you demand. Third, anyone can comment on any talk page at any time, so the IP editor and I are entirely within our rights to comment here. Finally, Worstcook has the right to change his/her mind at any time, and to have the change respected. There's nothing hypocritical about it. (BTW, the word is spelled hypocrite).

You might want to try a more mature approach to discussion rather than telling us to mind our own business like an adolescent might. You'll get further. As it stands, I agree with Worstcook's assessment of you as a bully. Worstcook, you have the option to ban this guy from your talk page if the bullying becomes excessive. You're not there yet, but if this keeps up, you might consider it. And frankly, the article is barely an article, just a collection of overly detailed, ridiculously complex, and entirely uninterpretable tables with no accompanying content. How about working on narrative instead of squabbling over the color code? This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Two thirds of what's in the table should be discussed in narrative instead. --Drmargi (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did ask him to stop worrying about the table and worry about the fact that the Season 1 article has no episode guides to help readers understand what is going on in the series. That is what we should be discussing.Worstcook (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously Drmargi? Again? I know this is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Go review comments and you'll know who's been crying out loud about the fans and their take on the article. You seem like a High school teacher to me, correcting my spelling mistakes and telling me to mind my manners otherwise i'll end up in detention. Good luck making these articles, or as i may say, debacles a success which i'm sure is very very far from happening. --Heyhello1234567 (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Worstcook/sandbox
User:Worstcook/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Worstcook/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Worstcook/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is my personal sandbox where I can experiment on different things I want to do it is my right to use it so please don't delete it because I work hard on creating it.Worstcook (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Project Accessory


The article Project Accessory has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2011"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donald D23  talk to me  13:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)