| Revision as of 07:24, 29 July 2020 edit208.53.231.158 (talk) →Donkey Kong record progressionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:16, 29 July 2020 edit undoSergecross73 (talk | contribs)Administrators101,566 edits →Donkey Kong record progressionNext edit → | ||
| Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
| :I’ve re-protected the page. I warned you to stop reverting and edit warring in the section above, and yet you continued to do so through these discussions, managing to get reverted by ''three'' separate editors. ] ] 11:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC) | :I’ve re-protected the page. I warned you to stop reverting and edit warring in the section above, and yet you continued to do so through these discussions, managing to get reverted by ''three'' separate editors. ] ] 11:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC) | ||
| ::{{ping|Sergecross73}} I'd formally challenged a blanket removal of longstanding content, and ] continued to repeatedly remove that content without seeking a consensus. I thought he was the one violating Misplaced Pages policy. If I was violating policy, it wasn't intentional. ] (]) 07:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | ::{{ping|Sergecross73}} I'd formally challenged a blanket removal of longstanding content, and ] continued to repeatedly remove that content without seeking a consensus. I thought he was the one violating Misplaced Pages policy. If I was violating policy, it wasn't intentional. ] (]) 07:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | ||
| :::Since your return a couple days ago, you’ve repeatedly reverted Chaleel, Wally, and Masem. In the section above, I mentioned that more reverting would lead to page protection. You responded to this comment, so you must have seen it. But the reverting continued. In the section above, you also confirmed you’re the same person who has edited by IP here in the past, who has been blocked countless times for edit warring before. The more times you’re warned and block for something, the less “chances” you get, and the faster action happens. Put it all together, and the page is locked again. You’re free to keep discussing and make ]s, just not edit war anymore. ] ] 11:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Masem}} I'd opened this section on the talk page and formally challenged a blanket removal of longstanding content Without a consensus to remove the content (or even a substantive discussion), all or most of it was removed again and and In the edit summary you say I've had at least three different people remove the content. Who would you say those three people were? ] (]) 04:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | {{ping|Masem}} I'd opened this section on the talk page and formally challenged a blanket removal of longstanding content Without a consensus to remove the content (or even a substantive discussion), all or most of it was removed again and and In the edit summary you say I've had at least three different people remove the content. Who would you say those three people were? ] (]) 04:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | ||
| :Stop wikilaywering and listen to what long-term editors are telling or you will be blocked. This is beyond disruptive now. --] (]) 05:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | :Stop wikilaywering and listen to what long-term editors are telling or you will be blocked. This is beyond disruptive now. --] (]) 05:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:16, 29 July 2020
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Billy Mitchell (gamer) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find video game sources: "Billy Mitchell" gamer – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Foodlogo2.svg){kind=link}
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Billy Mitchell (gamer) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find video game sources: "Billy Mitchell" gamer – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
| Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Billy Mitchell (gamer). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Billy Mitchell (gamer) at the Reference desk. |
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Edit requests
With the article being protected for the long term, I’m making a section exclusively for WP:EDITREQUESTs. Please present any you have below. Anything that is not an edit request will be reverted on sight without comment. Start new sections on this talk page, or my talk page, if you wish to discuss anything else. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Billy Mitchell has been proven to have fake scores and they need changing. Misplaced Pages is meant to be reliable, not a place to praise Billy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WGJCPRIMES (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there. You are welcome to provide content corrections and reliable sources that verify the changes, and they can be implemented on your behalf. Please keep in mind that “reliable source” on Misplaced Pages means something from professional writers/journalists/publications. If you present something from message boards, social media, or YouTube, it’ll likely be denied. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately this isn't something that hits mainstream news and the experts on this topic mainly present through youtube and message boards as it is a niche community. That being said I found this blog that goes in depth about the controversies of his records: http://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/2018/05/gaslighting-historical-event-billy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.177.103 (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- If it’s not the type of thing that is covered by reliable sources like mainstream outlets, then it’s not the type of thing Misplaced Pages is supposed to be covering either then. That blog would not be considered a usable source either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- If YouTube is not a reliable source according to Misplaced Pages's standards, then why is citation 38 regarding Mitchell being the first player to achieve a perfect score on Pac-Man a YouTube video? Talk about hypocritical. How are the videos Apollo Legend has been putting out recently that compile the evidence against Billy Mitchell any less valid than a clickbait feel good story from another channel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.83.101.221 (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- You’re not quite looking at this correctly. YouTube itself isn’t a source. It’s a medium for sharing sources. So it’s the source within that needs to be examined. So, for example, IGN is considered a reliable source. So, if IGN’s verified account uploads a YouTube video, it’s usable. So that’s fine. But a large portion of YouTube’s videos are “CrazyJared64” creating videos out of his basement. WP:USERG and WP:SPS stuff is not usable. So, what you need to do is look at the source that offers the YouTube video. Are they a professional publication? Do they have an editorial policy? Editorial staff with editorial process and policy? If yes, it could be considered reliable. Feel free to take a closer look at source #38. If you still feel it’s not reliable, you can make an WP:EDITREQUEST to alter or remove the content. But just know that pointing out unreliable just gets them removed, it won’t justify adding further unreliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 02:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately this isn't something that hits mainstream news and the experts on this topic mainly present through youtube and message boards as it is a niche community. That being said I found this blog that goes in depth about the controversies of his records: http://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/2018/05/gaslighting-historical-event-billy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.177.103 (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there. You are welcome to provide content corrections and reliable sources that verify the changes, and they can be implemented on your behalf. Please keep in mind that “reliable source” on Misplaced Pages means something from professional writers/journalists/publications. If you present something from message boards, social media, or YouTube, it’ll likely be denied. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to be niche, it's supposed to be factual. Even if you were going off things that are mainstream, I'd consider the actual Twin Galaxies website and this dispute thread that ended in Billy Mitchell being banned from TG to be a usable source. Also, Bill Bastable was the first to get a perfect Pac-Man, not Billy. Three of Billy's scores were proven to be fake also, not just two. https://twitter.com/Apollo_Legend_/status/1176551890017869826/photo/1 https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/176004-Dispute-Jeremy-Young-Arcade-Donkey-Kong-Points-Hammer-Allowed-Player-Billy-L-Mitchell-Score-1-062-800/page326 Proof here
- Misplaced Pages covers what reliables sources report. Forums and personal social media violate WP:USERG. Your views are not consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. Sergecross73 msg me 21:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The forum that I posted is the official Twin Galaxies dispute thread and is therefore the exact source to prove that three of Billy's scores are fake. An official statement from Twin Galaxies should be enough, correct? That's there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WGJCPRIMES (talk • contribs) 11:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Their published books or professional articles would be citable. Not their message board though. Same applies to sources in general - IGN is usable, their forums are not, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Billy Mitchell isn’t the first perfect score
The first perfect score was by Bill Bastable on September 6th 1982, also recently Billy has had all records stripped from him for cheating. -Kayden Kayden Pallas (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there. Please submit an WP:EDITREQUEST, or at least the content to be added/changed/removed, including the reliable sources that verify the info. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Bill Bastable is one of the best Pac-Man players in gaming history, but his score on September 6, 1982, was 3,332,820. He hadn't discovered the nine regenerating dots on the right side of the final screen, so his score was 540 points short of 3,333,360. Bastable later found out about the regenerating dots and obtained the maximum score on September 2, 1988, but he admits that he manipulated the game's hardware (specifically dip switch 8) to freeze play at least three times, which enabled him to take breaks with no risks and renders the score illegitimate.
As reliably sourced to the 2006 Oxford American story cited in this Misplaced Pages article, Billy Mitchell was the first person to achieve a publicly witnessed and verified perfect score on Pac-Man without manipulating the game's hardware, and even Twin Galaxies itself has never publicly questioned that fact. The various claims to the contrary have been repeatedly debunked, resurrected, and debunked again for decades. 208.53.224.126 (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Update: Guinness world records reinstated 5 Billy Mitchell World Records
The notices reads: "In the light of compelling new evidence received by Guinness World Records, the Records Management Team has unanimously decided to reverse decisions made in April 2018 in regards to videogame high scores achieved by Billy Mitchell between 1982 and 2010.
As of 10 June 2020, the following historical records for the arcade platform have been reinstated:
3 July 1999 - First Perfect Score on PAC-Man – 3,333,360 Points 7 November 1982 – Highest score on Donkey Kong – 874,300 Points 4 June 2005 – Highest score on Donkey Kong – 1,047,200 Points 14 July 2007 – Highest score on Donkey Kong – 1,050,200 Points 31 July 2010 – Highest score on Donkey Kong – 1,062,800 Points This reinstatement also re-recognizes Mr Mitchell as the first gamer to reach the kill screen on Donkey Kong (7 November 1982) and first gamer to score 1 million points on Donkey Kong (4 June 2005).
Guinness World Records is always open to accepting new evidence for historical achievements, and to reviewing new and existing evidence for disputed titles.
In this case, a re-examination of the records in question and the emergence of key eyewitness and expert testimonials led to a reversal of earlier disqualifications and the reinstating of Mr Mitchell’s original records. The records archive has been updated accordingly to reflect this." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.180.13 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2020
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Should change the title from "gamer" to cheater. 88.18.125.98 (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done Not a constructive suggestion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Question for Wallyfromdilbert
@Wallyfromdilbert: The reliable sources I'd cited, and many others, verify that Mitchell is still competing as a gamer and that he's been running a successful hot sauce business for most of his adult life. Why did you remove those sources from the opening paragraph of his bio? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Thank you for starting a discussion, as if there was much more reverting, the page will be locked again. I assume this is the same person who was editing from IP before. If so, you should know that some of your changes were challenged, and that you shouldn’t be re-adding without a consensus. If you are not the same person/people, then look through the archives to get some context on what was challenged and why. Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: With the article under protection, I pinged you on this talk page in late September to challenge its "Cheating" section header as a BLP violation. You ignored me. I pinged you in October to challenge it again, and you said it wasn't a BLP violation. I took the challenge to the BLP noticeboard, and as a result of the discussion there, the "Cheating" section header was finally changed to "Disputed score performances". A little over a day later, Wallyfromdilbert changed the section header again, to "Disqualified records". With the article still under protection, I attempted to challenge that change as inconsistent with the official statements of Twin Galaxies. Wallyfromdilbert refused to provide any explanation whatsoever for the change, and you ordered me to "stop badgering this editor" and "create an WP:EDITREQUEST", then closed and archived the discussion. Why would you say I'm required to get a consensus for any challenged change, but Wallyfromdilbert isn't even required to give a reason? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I explained in my edit summary that I was making the section header more concise . You not only restored your edit, you restored it again once another editor reverted you . You can try to make up facts, but this site logs everything. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Wallyfromdilbert: Yes, the site logs everything, and THIS is the link to the October change for which you explicitly refused to provide any explanation whatsoever. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Yes, what you’re describing is the WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS-building process. When a consensus is found, changes are made. When you just endlessly badger people without getting a consensus, changes aren’t implemented. Because the page is frequently protected, and you refuse to use edit requests or create an account, and your discussions are frequently badgering and circular in nature, editors tend to keep editing. Which is fine, because I can’t recall them ever ignoring a consensus in the process, because you never have a consensus in your favor. Even recently, you had two separate editors challenging your edits, Wally was not the only one. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: I created this section to discuss content with Wallyfromdilbert, and you've butted in and hijacked it to accuse me of "badgering" and "circular" discussions. Is it "circular" to repeat a question you haven't answered? Why would you say Wallyfromdilbert isn't even required to give reasons for his changes? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hijacked? You tagged me and asked me things directly, and I responded. If you don’t want me to comment, try not addressing me directly or asking me questions directly. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: I didn't ask you anything until after you butted in. Why would you say Wallyfromdilbert isn't even required to give reasons for his changes? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- This is an open wiki, so editors are free to discuss issues you may have with specific edits even if you are asking a specific editor to explain. As to that specific edit from Wally, that's such a small edit that it doesn't need any real explanation and it seems to be pushing to wikilawyer on these matters. --Masem (t) 03:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Masem: Which edit are you referencing? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- This is an open wiki, so editors are free to discuss issues you may have with specific edits even if you are asking a specific editor to explain. As to that specific edit from Wally, that's such a small edit that it doesn't need any real explanation and it seems to be pushing to wikilawyer on these matters. --Masem (t) 03:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: I didn't ask you anything until after you butted in. Why would you say Wallyfromdilbert isn't even required to give reasons for his changes? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Hijacked? You tagged me and asked me things directly, and I responded. If you don’t want me to comment, try not addressing me directly or asking me questions directly. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: I created this section to discuss content with Wallyfromdilbert, and you've butted in and hijacked it to accuse me of "badgering" and "circular" discussions. Is it "circular" to repeat a question you haven't answered? Why would you say Wallyfromdilbert isn't even required to give reasons for his changes? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- I explained in my edit summary that I was making the section header more concise . You not only restored your edit, you restored it again once another editor reverted you . You can try to make up facts, but this site logs everything. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: With the article under protection, I pinged you on this talk page in late September to challenge its "Cheating" section header as a BLP violation. You ignored me. I pinged you in October to challenge it again, and you said it wasn't a BLP violation. I took the challenge to the BLP noticeboard, and as a result of the discussion there, the "Cheating" section header was finally changed to "Disputed score performances". A little over a day later, Wallyfromdilbert changed the section header again, to "Disqualified records". With the article still under protection, I attempted to challenge that change as inconsistent with the official statements of Twin Galaxies. Wallyfromdilbert refused to provide any explanation whatsoever for the change, and you ordered me to "stop badgering this editor" and "create an WP:EDITREQUEST", then closed and archived the discussion. Why would you say I'm required to get a consensus for any challenged change, but Wallyfromdilbert isn't even required to give a reason? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Sources are not necessary in the lead when the material is already supported in the article (see MOS:LEADCITE), and the additional wordiness you added to the lead is also not necessary, as was discussed the last time you tried to make these edits. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Wallyfromdilbert: I believe the article previously recognized Mitchell as a "businessman". Weren't you the one who removed that? And didn't I attempt to challenge the change? Why would you say it's necessary to include Mitchell's work at the restaurant but not necessary to include his work at his hot sauce business? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- You can go look up the discussion we already had. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- To the IP: You can create as many disjointed conversations threads and repeat the same questions as many times as you want. How long will it take you to start accusing everyone of a grand conspiracy against you on here this time? This disruptive behavior will get you nowhere, just like when you tried it last year. I have already answered your questions during our previous discussion on this topic , and the only source you gave explicitly called him "a restaurateur" . I will not be answering any of your repeated questions or added to any of your repeated new threads on the same topics. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- You can go look up the discussion we already had. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Wallyfromdilbert: I believe the article previously recognized Mitchell as a "businessman". Weren't you the one who removed that? And didn't I attempt to challenge the change? Why would you say it's necessary to include Mitchell's work at the restaurant but not necessary to include his work at his hot sauce business? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@Wallyfromdilbert: Billy Mitchell has been running a successful hot sauce business for most of his adult life. Why have you insisted on repeatedly removing the fact that he's a businessman from the opening sentence of his bio? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- You do know that a "restaurateur" is a type of businessman? --Masem (t) 03:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Masem: Yes, of course it is, but it obviously doesn't refer to running a hot sauce business, and Mitchell has barely been involved in the day-to-day operations of the restaurant for several years. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Our reliable sources only go on that he runs the restuarants and sells the hot sauce. That's a "restaurateur". It makes no sense to try to explain this any differently without any other sources to go from. --Masem (t) 04:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Masem: Yes, of course it is, but it obviously doesn't refer to running a hot sauce business, and Mitchell has barely been involved in the day-to-day operations of the restaurant for several years. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Donkey Kong record progression
This section is intended for discussion of the following content:
On July 24, 2010, Mitchell reclaimed the record with a score of 1,062,800 at the Boomers arcade in Dania, Florida. It was the last time he held the title. The record was broken numerous times over the next ten years by Wiebe, Chien, Wes Copeland, John McCurdy, and Robbie Lakeman. All except McCurdy held the record at least twice. As of June 15, 2020, Lakeman achieved the current world record score of 1,260,700 points while streaming live on Twitch.
References
- Bradford, Matthew (August 7, 2010). "BILLY MITCHELL TAKES BACK DONKEY KONG RECORDS". Twin Galaxies International. Archived from the original on August 15, 2010. Retrieved August 7, 2010.
- "Steve Wiebe regains Donkey Kong World Record from Billy Mitchell". Twin Galaxies. 20 September 2010. Archived from the original on 23 September 2010. Retrieved 19 April 2019.
- Hilliard, Kyle (6 September 2014). "The World Record For Highest Score In Donkey Kong Has Been Beaten". Gameinformer. Retrieved 19 April 2019.
- Fahey, Mike (6 September 2014). "A New World Record Ends Hank Chien's Reign As Donkey Kong Champion". Kotaku. Gizmodo Media Group. Retrieved 19 April 2019.
- Good, Owen S. (9 January 2016). "New Donkey Kong world record set, and there's not much room left for another". Polygon.com. Vox Media, Inc. Retrieved 19 April 2019.
- Wong, Kevin (February 9, 2018). "Embattled Donkey Kong Record Holder Billy Mitchell Wants To Clear His Name". GameSpot. CBS Interactive Inc. Retrieved February 17, 2018.
- https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/highest-score-on-donkey-kong
- https://www.gamespot.com/articles/robbie-lakeman-sets-new-donkey-kong-world-record-l/1100-6478551/
- https://twitch.tv/videos/652597849
208.53.231.158 (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- There is no need on this page to track who else broke the record outside of Mitchell. It's already documented at Donkey Kong high score competition (which should be linked from this page, I haven't checked but will do after this.) --Masem (t) 02:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Masem: As explained in my edit summary, I hadn't finished cleaning up the content when it was blanked, and I'm open to removing much of it, including the names of most of the past recordholders. The record progression has been included in the article by many editors over many years, though, and I'm formally challenging the blanket removal at THIS LINK, as well as your blanket assertion that the content isn't relevant. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- We have a dedicated article to the high score competition. We can point to that. Just because it was included in this article in the past doesn't mean it was appropriate, particularly given that the more recent events have more WEIGHT for inclusion. --Masem (t) 03:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Masem: Yes, I agree with everything you say in that comment, but I'm formally challenging the blanket removal of all of this content related to the record progression. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- We have a dedicated article to the high score competition. We can point to that. Just because it was included in this article in the past doesn't mean it was appropriate, particularly given that the more recent events have more WEIGHT for inclusion. --Masem (t) 03:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Masem: As explained in my edit summary, I hadn't finished cleaning up the content when it was blanked, and I'm open to removing much of it, including the names of most of the past recordholders. The record progression has been included in the article by many editors over many years, though, and I'm formally challenging the blanket removal at THIS LINK, as well as your blanket assertion that the content isn't relevant. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@Masem: At the very least, I'd say the article should include both the current world record performance and the August 2010 performance by Steve Wiebe that broke Mitchell's most recent (claimed) world record. If you, Wallyfromdilbert, and I can agree on some version of that, then as far as I'm concerned, this dispute can be over. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- It is fair to say that Mitchell lost the record to Weibe and that others since broke it, but that's as far as it needs to be said on this page. --Masem (t) 04:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- The information about other people after Weibe is really not relevant to a biography on Mitchell, especially when its being sourced to a Twitch stream, the Guinness Records website, and an article about one new record being set. I don't even think mentioning Weibe would be relevant except that their history is obviously a large part of Mitchell's public life now. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- At least to me, saying that after Weibe there were others (without specifics) is enough to know that people have kept on beating Mitchell's record, Weibe didn't fluke it once and that was it. Ideally, just one article to say that would be nice, but I don't see one article (but I could replace that with two Polygon articles 2016 that hits many previous attempts and then the 2018 one that points back to the 2016 article so it's clear there's no OR making up that chain (all from same source). --Masem (t) 06:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- If you also think it should be mentioned, then I'm not going to push it, although I think it is still unnecessary to Mitchell's biography. I shortened it to remove the redundant phrasing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- At least to me, saying that after Weibe there were others (without specifics) is enough to know that people have kept on beating Mitchell's record, Weibe didn't fluke it once and that was it. Ideally, just one article to say that would be nice, but I don't see one article (but I could replace that with two Polygon articles 2016 that hits many previous attempts and then the 2018 one that points back to the 2016 article so it's clear there's no OR making up that chain (all from same source). --Masem (t) 06:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- The information about other people after Weibe is really not relevant to a biography on Mitchell, especially when its being sourced to a Twitch stream, the Guinness Records website, and an article about one new record being set. I don't even think mentioning Weibe would be relevant except that their history is obviously a large part of Mitchell's public life now. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
A bare-bones overview of the Donkey Kong world record progression seems obviously relevant to Billy Mitchell and obviously necessary to avoid lowering the quality of this article. Unsupported claims that it isn't relevant or necessary are essentially no more than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I'm fine with removing the "All except McCurdy ..." sentence, and I've offered a further compromise above, but no one here has provided any actual explanation of how removing three concise sentences of accurate information improves the article or benefits Misplaced Pages's readers. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- I’ve re-protected the page. I warned you to stop reverting and edit warring in the section above, and yet you continued to do so through these discussions, managing to get reverted by three separate editors. Sergecross73 msg me 11:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: I'd formally challenged a blanket removal of longstanding content, and Masem continued to repeatedly remove that content without seeking a consensus. I thought he was the one violating Misplaced Pages policy. If I was violating policy, it wasn't intentional. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Since your return a couple days ago, you’ve repeatedly reverted Chaleel, Wally, and Masem. In the section above, I mentioned that more reverting would lead to page protection. You responded to this comment, so you must have seen it. But the reverting continued. In the section above, you also confirmed you’re the same person who has edited by IP here in the past, who has been blocked countless times for edit warring before. The more times you’re warned and block for something, the less “chances” you get, and the faster action happens. Put it all together, and the page is locked again. You’re free to keep discussing and make WP:EDITREQUESTs, just not edit war anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 11:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: I'd formally challenged a blanket removal of longstanding content, and Masem continued to repeatedly remove that content without seeking a consensus. I thought he was the one violating Misplaced Pages policy. If I was violating policy, it wasn't intentional. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Masem: I'd opened this section on the talk page and formally challenged a blanket removal of longstanding content HERE. Without a consensus to remove the content (or even a substantive discussion), all or most of it was removed again HERE, and HERE, and HERE. In the edit summary HERE, you say I've had at least three different people remove the content. Who would you say those three people were? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Stop wikilaywering and listen to what long-term editors are telling or you will be blocked. This is beyond disruptive now. --Masem (t) 05:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Masem: Yes, we agree that this is beyond disruptive. Who would you say were the "at least" three different people who removed the disputed content related to the record progression? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (sports and games) articles
- Low-importance biography (sports and games) articles
- Sports and games work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Florida articles
- Low-importance Florida articles
- WikiProject Florida articles
- C-Class video game articles
- Low-importance video game articles
- C-Class Esports articles
- Esports task force articles
- WikiProject Video games articles
- C-Class Food and drink articles
- Low-importance Food and drink articles
- C-Class Foodservice articles
- Low-importance Foodservice articles
- Foodservice taskforce articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles