Jump to content

Talk:Kitchen Nightmares

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drmargi (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 31 July 2017 (→Episode summary: closures). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kitchen Nightmares. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Episode summary: closures

Drmargi I think you're going to have to bring that one to the table. Edit summary isn't enough. Please justify revert by copying relevant link archive discussions here. Thanks. I appreciate it. Maineartists (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long-running issue. Try this for a start. In brief, the show is about what Ramsay does while he's there, not the eventual status of the restaurants. There are too many factors not related to his activities that lead to the sales/closures. Then, grab a sandwich and a cold drink, and head for Archive 2, which is entirely about the subject. You've been warned. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 02:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! It's a good thing I didn't "grab a sandwich and a cold drink", I would have either choked on the sandwich or spit out my drink from laughing so much! What a farce those archives are! But this: "... not the eventual status of the restaurants." Really? The series itself goes back and "revisits" the restaurants; that is the very definition of "eventual status". What on earth does "factors relating to his activities that lead to the sales/closures" have to do with merely stating a single line of current operations. Absolutely no "factors" were presented. In addition, the tables already include change of names which has nothing to do with the show; as well as the Lawsuit section. If you're going to argue a point, don't be hypocritical. That being said, I have no dog in this fight. Have fun with continual editing of "your" page. Best, Maineartists (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am NOT a hypocrite. How DARE YOU call me one? You drop in out of nowhere, and presume to judge the way you have, then laugh at what was at the time very serious, difficult discussion? What gall. I also resent the insinuation that this is "my" article. I expect you to rescind your personal attacks immediately. I get that you're pouting that your edits were reverted, but there is a process for making change, and issuing a string of insults at me isn't part of it. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, no need for "capital" letters. I can hear you just fine. Second, I did not call you a hypocrite; I pointed out the hypocritical argument that you presented regarding restaurant "status" and "extended information" outside of the show itself; which is presented on the page in some forms, but not others. Third, "dropping in out of nowhere" is precisely how WP works. If you have trouble with this modus operandi, then perhaps WP is not for you. Re: "gall" - I haven't had gall since the early 80s; so I doubt that is a valid description. As for "pouting", let's not pick up that stone; out of the two - I'm pretty much fine on this side; in fact, I'm down right giddy - but if you really need a "rescind": I rescind. Continuing, the edit history for the article suggests that the "consensus" (2009) was not only limited, tainted (sockpuppet IP) but undetermined with inconsistent vote count; as there (since that discussion) have been more editors wishing to include the closures (2016-2017) than the one editor who continually monitors the page and reverts their edits: you. To be productive here: the next time you revert what other editors find to be informative to the article, perhaps you should read up on: WP:TALKEDABOUTIT. Also, "consensus" can be revisited after a certain amount of given time with newly discovered evidence, editor activity and proper reason for justification. But as I said, I have no dog in this fight. Finally, as for: "String of insults" - in the immortal words of Sergeant First Class Hulka: "Lighten up, Francis." Best Maineartists (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just the testosterone laden response I expected: blow in, don't bother to read the archives, then presume you've got the whole picture when you're clueless, have a laugh at everyone's expense, sling a few insults when you can't have your way, then pick up your toys and leave. Buh-bye. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There it is: the psychology. Female here, too, Doc. No drugs in the system yet. Have read all Archives #'s 1-2-3-4: twice. Didn't laugh at anyone's expense, only the "so-called" consensus that is being enforced here at this page for your continued reverts. Could care less about getting my own way; the insults were a bonus. Never had any toys; I was a neglected child. Shall I order us another round of tea? or would you care to actually address some of the questions above in the first part of this exciting exchange? debating rather than deflecting to an archived discussion from 2009. Maineartists (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, no. I see no policy or other basis for adding increasingly irrelevant content about a show that ended three years ago. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kitchen_Nightmares&oldid=793275791"