Hello, Tometer! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please try to be mindful of our WP:BLP policy. Regardless of ones stance on Mitchell, it should be pretty easy to see that a contextless addition of the word "fraud" is probably not doing a very good job of writing things neutrally. Thanks. Sergecross73msg me13:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is claiming he is not most widely known as a fraudster in itself disingenuous and non-neutral//biased? His "Notable Records" should almost be entirely removed as his records are no longer recognized by any legitimate source, y'know, due to his fraudulent activities. Also, the removal of Todd Rogers from the "See also"? That seems entirely fitting? I sincerely question your decisions. Tometer (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Todd Rogers was removed from the See Also because he's already linked in the body of the article (Under "Disputed Records"), and we don't repeat already-linked terms in the See Also. And whether his records are still valid or not, he is notable for these scores (whether they were legitimately earned or not) and Wikipedia is not going to take a side on the situation absent any factual evidence by expert RSes to validate or discredit the scores (what has been said is not expert RSes for this purpose). --Masem (t) 16:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is not notable for these scores though? Do you need an opinion poll to update the page? He is notable for having lied about scores in corroboration with Todd Rogers and Ex-Twin Galaxy admins in order to build a career off of now disputed scores. The page cannot rely entirely on the Guinness Book of World Records for Mitchell's reputation. Tometer (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to write according to what reliable sources say on the subject. Wikipedia editors are not here to give editorials on the subject, we're reporting on what sources say on it. Want to air your grievances on Mitchell? Go start a blog or something. But when you're here, you need to write in the style of a neutral encyclopedia entry. And please read WP:SEEALSO, which explains why Todd isn't an appropriate See Also entry. Sergecross73msg me17:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no stake either. A editor asked me to help mediate issues there years back, and there only reason I still watch over it is because it's a constant source of conflicts. People who like him claim I hate him. People who hate him claim I'm defending him. I'm completely neutral. I have interest in the world of video games, but I don't care about the competitive scene at all.
That aside, I see you have less than 50 edits to your name, so I recommend you read up on policy more so before you decide to continue to edit controversial topics or living people. You can't go slipping contextless "fraudster" descriptors like that any more than than you can be adding "super awesome human" in front of Kobe Bryant even though you could argue "but it's super awesome to win so many basketball championships" - it's not neutral or encyclopedic writing. We just present the plain facts (the article currently covers this at length, including the controversies and contested scores, if you bother to read the whole thing.) It's up to the reader to decide if subjects are "frauds", "awesome", etc. Sergecross73msg me19:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! Others on Wikipedia are simply not titled "super awesome". List of con artists There are plenty titled "fraudsters", "hucksters", "con man/woman/artist" and the like who sought, or continue to seek, to deceive others for gain.
I am sorry, but your logic is concerningly flawed.
If you're arguing he needs to be convicted by a court on charges of fraud, then maybe I see your point, but then there are far too many who need the title removed from their pages. Tometer (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm tired of arguing with you. If you provide reliable sourcing that show that reliable sources commonly user the term "fraudster", and you write a more coherent context-filled description with it, that's different. But if you just lazily slap "fraudster" in a WP:LEAD again, your account is going to receive a short block for violating our WP:BLP policy. Sergecross73msg me22:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tometer! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Todd Rogers (gamer) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tometer! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Todd Rogers (gamer) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)