Talk:Andrea Muzii

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Andrea Muzii at the IAM World memory championship 2019 in Zhuhai, China.jpg

combined rankings
I made some research on the internet but I was not able to find any reference mentioning this 8th and 4th place. It seems that this combined ranking was just created here but wikipedia is not self-referential.

There is another big problem with these statements. Here overall scores are simply compared but the standards of the 2 federations are different (meaning the way the overall scores are calculated). In fact if you go to the wmsc score calculator and put Muzii's results of the french open 2021 you obtain a different score, about 9k which would be #1 also in wmsc, not #4.

These differences of the standards are one of the reasons why results of the 2 associations are not compared (in addition to the most important thing: there is not source about combined rankings and comparison between iam and wmsc)(and there's also one discipline which is different).

I can also notice that the edits seems 'hate' oriented ('false champion', 'people must know!') and not knowledge oriented like they should be. It's totally fine wanting people let know something (in this case the fact that there is another association that in 2019 had better results) but you must respect encyclopedic guidelines and cite an external reliable source that talks about that specific claim. If your concern is that people should be aware of the other association, you are right, and you can notice that it's specified 'iam wmc' and on the wikipedia wmc page there are these informations of multiple world champions.

I will make examples of events worth mentioning about memory sports but that unfortunately are not on wikipedia because they just miss reliable sources:

-wmsc has been suspected of fake scores more than once (some of them were factually proved)

-wmsc does not make their competition open to everybody anymore (you can see that there are basically only asian competitors from 2020 on)

-there is zero transparency on the way they carry on the sport

That's why iam was born. And that's another reason why the community tend not to compare the two associations. They are just 2 different associations operating in different ways and they do not compete against each other.

Resources about these events can mostly be found on fb and aom but they are not reliable sources accepted by wikipedia so these facts are not mentioned here.

I anyway suggest to read this fb post ( https://www.facebook.com/groups/123077091106550/permalink/4593519754062239/ ) about the wmc development of recent years. You can also see the opinion of the community about these facts. As well as the post that explains why iam exists: ( https://www.facebook.com/groups/123077091106550/permalink/1036960996384817/ )

Open to further discuss the topic if necessary :) Franisko (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I made some research on the internet but I was not able to find any reference mentioning this 8th and 4th place. It seems that this combined ranking was just created here but wikipedia is not self-referential.
 * There is another big problem with these statements. Here overall scores are simply compared but the standards of the 2 federations are different (meaning the way the overall scores are calculated). In fact if you go to the wmsc score calculator and put Muzii's results of the french open 2021 you obtain a different score, about 9k which would be #1 also in wmsc, not #4.
 *  Response: I plugged in Muzii’s score and only find 8028, not including the images event, not 9000. On the other hand, I plugged Ryu’s score to IAM and find 8483, without images event, and Muzii’s highest score without of 8069 in the 2019 IAM WMSC would have only been 7096 with the images event having been removed (no standards adjustment for this event in IAM since the 2019 WMC). Current WMSC #1 (Tamir) would be 7093 without images event in IAM and this is lower than Ryu’s score aforementioned but she’s displaced Ryu in WMSC rankings. 
 * My proposed explanation for this discrepancy is WMSC’s calculator is not quite up-to-date with perhaps the National standard (shortest of three time formats, the other being Internstional and World event standards) being outdated and any scores inserted is inflated and so somehow Tamir has displaced Ryu and Muzii’s score is 8028 with images event removed in WMSC’s calculator.
 * For future comparisons, I propose scores from WMSC are plugged into IAM’s calculator and not the other way round.
 * Images can be found here:
 * [Https://ibb.co/8rSq7cL https://ibb.co/8rSq7cL]
 * [Https://ibb.co/qRxpKpD https://ibb.co/qRxpKpD]
 * https://ibb.co/5Bcd13J
 * Feel free to plug in the numbers in the calculator for yourself (in case of any suspicion of photoshop on my part or blunders during the insertion of scores).
 * These differences of the standards are one of the reasons why results of the 2 associations are not compared (in addition to the most important thing: there is not source about combined rankings and comparison between iam and wmsc)(and there's also one discipline which is different).
 *  Response: They are not compared but they can be compared and there is nothing wrong with it because in this sport players don’t go head to head. The images discipline can always be left out.  Response: I plugged in Muzii’s score and only find 8028, not including the images event, not 9000. On the other hand, I plugged Ryu’s score to IAM and find 8483, without images event, and Muzii’s highest score without of 8069 in the 2019 IAM WMSC would have only been 7096 with the images event having been removed (no standards adjustment for this event in IAM since the 2019 WMC). Current WMSC #1 (Tamir) would be 7093 without images event in IAM and this is lower than Ryu’s score aforementioned but she’s displaced Ryu in WMSC rankings. 
 * I can also notice that the edits seems 'hate' oriented ('false champion', 'people must know!') and not knowledge oriented like they should be. It's totally fine wanting people let know something (in this case the fact that there is another association that in 2019 had better results) but you must respect encyclopedic guidelines and cite an external reliable source that talks about that specific claim. If your concern is that people should be aware of the other association, you are right, and you can notice that it's specified 'iam wmc' and on the wikipedia wmc page there are these informations of multiple world champions.
 *  Response: These are neutral words. You have interpreted them through your own prism and is no fault on my part. They are ‘knowledge oriented’ because they are to inform the readers of Muzii’s status as a false champion. 
 * Can you tell me which ‘encyclopedic guidelines’ have I violated? With the images above, I think I have proven with an “external reliable source that talks about that specific claim”.
 * I will make examples of events worth mentioning about memory sports but that unfortunately are not on wikipedia because they just miss reliable sources:
 * -wmsc has been suspected of fake scores more than once (some of them were factually proved)
 *  Response: Not picking sides, and in your words “they just miss reliable sources “, but can you provide more details on this? Presumption of innocence is the right course until concrete proof is shown. 
 * -wmsc does not make their competition open to everybody anymore (you can see that there are basically only asian competitors from 2020 on)
 *  Response: Where’s the proof? One cannot rule out that the possibility of only Asian players present (I couldn’t find this on the WMSC statistics site so I couldn’t verify if this is true) due to non-Asian players not voluntarily signing up rather than being rejected at the door. (Again, I take no position among WMSC nor IAM.) 
 * -there is zero transparency on the way they carry on the sport
 *  Response: I’m not sure what this means. Transparency in terms of which aspect? 
 * That's why iam was born. And that's another reason why the community tend not to compare the two associations. They are just 2 different associations operating in different ways and they do not compete against each other.
 *  Response: We are only concerned with scores and rankings here and not the how the operations are run and the scores show Muzii as a false champion. It has been mentioned in previous edits that scores are comparable in this sport because it is not a 1v1 sport. 
 * Resources about these events can mostly be found on fb and aom but they are not reliable sources accepted by wikipedia so these facts are not mentioned here.
 * I anyway suggest to read this fb post ( https://www.facebook.com/groups/123077091106550/permalink/4593519754062239/ ) about the wmc development of recent years. You can also see the opinion of the community about these facts. As well as the post that explains why iam exists: ( https://www.facebook.com/groups/123077091106550/permalink/1036960996384817/ )
 *  Response to post https://www.facebook.com/groups/123077091106550/permalink/4593519754062239/ : Mr Teo Kim Foo has already clarified this in the comments section. Muzii’s post is dated 13 December 2021. In his first paragraph, he mentions ‘One week before the championship’ whereas there are two posts on the WMSC site (https://www.worldmemorychampionships.com/update-on-the-world-online-memory-championship-global-finals-2021/, https://www.worldmemorychampionships.com/9055-2/) dated Oct 2, 2021 and Oct 29, 2021. My explanation is that someone has not bothered checking the WMSC site due to his vested interested in promoting IAM as he knows he had no chance to promote himself as a ‘World Champion’ had there been only one association and this is associated with his possible loss of fame, glory, and fortune and so he’s trying to stir up emotions of the masses. 
 * In his third paragraph, he mentions ‘It was not even on their website and it's still not in there’. This is again wrong as refuted above.
 * In this fourth paragraph, “As always is not possible to compete in 90% of their "tournaments" because they are never announced, they are announced few days before or, more often, they are announced afterwards.” = Please specify which event for me to look up if it has been posted on the site and not, again, Muzii has not checked properly because, yet again, his fear of the associations ever reunifying and so the chances of him becoming a ‘World Champion’ go with the wind.
 * In the same paragraph, he also mentions “Same happened last year with their "online wmc"”. This is again wrong. Refers posts (https://www.worldmemorychampionships.com/draft-29th-world-memory-championships-to-be-held-online-due-to-coronavirus-2/ and https://www.worldmemorychampionships.com/world-online-memory-championships-2020/ )dated Sep 16, 2020 and Nov 4, 2020
 *  Response to post https://www.facebook.com/groups/123077091106550/permalink/1036960996384817/: Again, as stated in one of the previous points above, ‘We are only concerned with scores and rankings here and not the how the operations are run’. 
 * Looking forward to your response, amigo. :) 2001:D08:2298:1837:288C:DB3:9493:14B1 (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are discussing the topic with different points of view makes it already a non-factual statement. In fact there are no sources that mention this 8th, 4th place and comparison between associations.
 * The fact that there are different ways of comparing the scores (IAM standards, WMSC standards, old and news standards, with/without images) makes it clear that it's a subjective statement since you can choose the one you prefer. You even wrote "I propose scores from WMSC are plugged into IAM’s calculator". You can't propose, you have to pick objective external statements and in this case there are none.
 * There's also another mistake that was not mentioned: when we talk about #1 IAM ranked we are talking about the IAM ranking that works in a completely different way (average of best 3 scores of the last years). Instead what you are doing is taking the WMSC all time best. They are different kind of rankings and here they are compared.
 * Let's also add that recall time for some disciplines is higher in WMSC so it's one more reason why they can not be objectively compared. Lucio Scatola (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are discussing the topic with different points of view makes it already a non-factual statement. In fact there are no sources that mention this 8th, 4th place and comparison between associations.
 * The fact that there are different ways of comparing the scores (IAM standards, WMSC standards, old and news standards, with/without images) makes it clear that it's a subjective statement since you can choose the one you prefer. You even wrote "I propose scores from WMSC are plugged into IAM’s calculator". You can't propose, you have to pick objective external statements and in this case there are none.
 * Response: You must have plugged the scores into the calculator and found my statements to be true and that Ryu indeed has a higher score than to your false champion. (No IAM WMC since 2019 so the standards have not changed) :D it’s not a subjective statement as all scores are objective. Scores are plugged into IAM due to errors in WMSC’s calculator proposed by Franisko. This is also objective.
 * There's also another mistake that was not mentioned: when we talk about #1 IAM ranked we are talking about the IAM ranking that works in a completely different way (average of best 3 scores of the last years). Instead what you are doing is taking the WMSC all time best. They are different kind of rankings and here they are compared.
 * Response: The best of WMSC can be compared with the single best of IAM.
 * Let's also add that recall time for some disciplines is higher in WMSC so it's one more reason why they can not be objectively compared.
 * Response: The recall time was identical in 2019.
 * You guys have to come to terms with the fact that your countryman is a false champion and false #1. 113.211.104.9 (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Random person from Malaysia thinks he can create his own way of comparing rankings choosing rules as he wants lol.
 * You are missing the crucial point: you can't invent/propose something. You can do it in a blog, not on wikipedia. There's ZERO external reference about combined rankings, 8th, 4th...
 * Even if it is true you can't put it by your choice. 213.233.18.205 (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that the person is trying to put 4th in ranking is even more ridiculous since the ranking system is different. "The best of WMSC can be compared with the single best of IAM." You can't decide on your own how to compare them if the system is average of 3 best scores in recent years. Lucio Scatola (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Franisko@Lucio Scatola
 * I will upload the spreadsheet tomorrow showing the combined rankings using the same millenium standards.
 * I have finished the combined rankings for 2019 WMCs. With everyone’s images component removed, Muzii is indeed 8th but with images component included he would have been 5th (due to the fact that it’s the third year of IAM in 2019 and the images standards was lower than its corresponding component in WMSC, the abstract images event).
 * I am also working on the current rankings (previously stated as 4th) and this is more complicated due to the fact that WMSC’s calculators are faulty. Care has to be taken to ensure the highest score of any individual player on the WMSC rankings is indeed their highest (not 2nd, 3rd and so on) due to the faulty calculators.
 * Both rankings, with and without the images component, will be provided for transparency. However, to ensure fairness, the final cited position on Muzii’s page will be the one without the images component.
 * All will be uploaded and cited when the protection on this page is removed in 3 days.
 * I look forward to your refutation on Muzii being a false champion and false #1.
 * P/S: If any admins happen to see this, do take note that opposing edits seem to all be coming from the country of Italy. They may be biased in motives and not contributing with a neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Having “conflict of interest” (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) in editing goes against “Wikipedia behavioral guidelines”. 2001:D08:1B92:D3DB:A033:EA6B:C93A:636C (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't get the point. Even if you create these spreadsheets, they will be removed because they are not a source. A spreadsheet from a user is not a valid source. I suggest you to read the guidelines about that. And the fact that you are deciding on your own to remove a discipline from the decathlon is absurd, as well as that you want to compare single scores when the iam ranking system works differently. The fact that the page was protected against your edits should make you understand. And if you keep doing it, it will keep being removed and the page will receive protection again and again. And the problem that you are raising doesn't really exist because it's always specified that we are talking about IAM rankings and championships. And this shouldn't even be done in the first place because competitors of different associations do not compete against each other. Franisko (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Franisko
 * You don't get the point. Even if you create these spreadsheets, they will be removed because they are not a source. A spreadsheet from a user is not a valid source. I suggest you to read the guidelines about that.
 * Response: These are score plugged into calculators. They are objective and they are not my opinions so this cannot be disputed as a poor source. Anyone is free to dispute if there is a misstep in the calculation or reasoning.
 * And the fact that you are deciding on your own to remove a discipline from the decathlon is absurd
 * Response: It is removed because you cannot compare apples with oranges. If necessary, if can be included which will still show Muzii as a false champion and false #1.
 * as well as that you want to compare single scores when the iam ranking system works differently.
 * Response: This is logically possible by comparing WMSC’s players single highest score with IAM’s players single highest. On iam-stats, it’s called All-Time Best (https://iam-stats.org/all-time-best.php). More on this when it is uploaded. (Spoiler: his current ranking is not 4th, much worse)
 * The fact that the page was protected against your edits should make you understand. And if you keep doing it, it will keep being removed and the page will receive protection again and again.
 * Response: The score objectively show Muzii as a false champion and false #1. Your side’s points of the Millenium Standards being different will be put to rest after the spreadsheet is done. On the other hand, it seems that your side has a vested interest in promoting Muzii because he is your countryman.
 * And the problem that you are raising doesn't really exist because it's always specified that we are talking about IAM rankings and championships.
 * Response: The points exist to inform readers the true champion and true current #1 when both governing bodies’ scores are considered.
 * And this shouldn't even be done in the first place because competitors of different associations do not compete against each other.
 * Response: Certainly they don’t as refuted in previous edits but it can be done because this is not a 1v1 sport and so the scores can objectively show which players has the higher scores. The points exist to inform readers the true champion and true current #1 when both governing bodies’ scores are considered.
 * P/S: If any admins happen to see this, do take note that opposing edits seem to all be coming from the country of Italy. They may be biased in motives and not contributing with a neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Having “conflict of interest” (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) in editing goes against “Wikipedia behavioral guidelines”. 2001:D08:1B95:AEE6:D5CF:6C0:A716:CF73 (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You said that. "You can't compare apples with oranges". That's what you're trying to do, by picking data to be adjusted to your core idea of "false champion", which is totally misleading. It's about iam and wmsc champion as it's mentioned in the page.
 * That in fact has zero external refernce, like the combined rankings. They simply do not exist. You are trying to invent them based on your ideas.
 * And where and edit come from is not relevant at all, I'm not even from Italy if it's not enough.
 * What's relevant is that all the edits of this idea come from a single person in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Zero consensus from anybody else. And I wouldn't be surprised if you now create new accounts to fake this consensus.
 * Don't you question why they protected the page? Vandalism and hating.
 * Regarding the source, it's clear that you don't understand what a source is.
 * And one last thing: it's not a 1v1 sport but it's a 1 vs other competitors in THAT competition. You can't compare scores of different championships. They were litteraly not compeating against each other. Different championships, different dates, different modalities, different opponents to look for. Franisko (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Franisko
 * You said that. "You can't compare apples with oranges". That's what you're trying to do, by picking data to be adjusted to your core idea of "false champion", which is totally misleading. It's about iam and wmsc champion as it's mentioned in the page.
 * Response: Only one event which is different is removed. The rest of the data is not picked but the scores of the players.
 * That in fact has zero external refernce, like the combined rankings. They simply do not exist. You are trying to invent them based on your ideas.
 * Response: My spreadsheet of the combined rankings which will be provided is the reference. They are adjusted to a single association’s calculator so the refutation given in Edit History can be put to rest. These are score plugged into calculators. They are objective and they are not my opinions so this cannot be disputed as a poor source. I did not invent the ideas, merely putting them to a standard calculator. Anyone is free to dispute if there is a misstep in the calculation or reasoning.
 * And where and edit come from is not relevant at all, I'm not even from Italy if it's not enough.
 * What's relevant is that all the edits of this idea come from a single person in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Zero consensus from anybody else. And I wouldn't be surprised if you now create new accounts to fake this consensus.
 * Response: All previous IP (non-registered user) edits came from Italy. All registered users (you, Scatola, …) had Italian-sounding names. Everyone (including you and your team) knows Muzii as the false champion. People were wowed by WMSC scores. There’s even a thread and discussions on AOM but no one talked on Muzii’s 2019 WMC scores.
 * Don't you question why they protected the page? Vandalism and hating.
 * Response: The point given in Edit History (different Millenium Standards) was right. That’s why it was protected. My spreadsheet (free for anyone to check for errors) will be the refutation to any previous reason given. This is not vandalism nor hating. The points exist to inform readers the true champion and true current #1 when both governing bodies’ scores are considered.
 * Regarding the source, it's clear that you don't understand what a source is.
 * Response: These are score plugged into calculators. They are objective and they are not my opinions so this cannot be disputed as a poor source. I did not invent the ideas, merely putting them to a standard calculator. Anyone is free to dispute if there is a misstep in the calculation or reasoning.
 * And one last thing: it's not a 1v1 sport but it's a 1 vs other competitors in THAT competition. You can't compare scores of different championships. They were litteraly not compeating against each other. Different championships, different dates, different modalities, different opponents to look for.
 * Response: The only way for your side to refute this is players may play safer if they thought they had clinched the title (this was a point provided in one of the previous edits in Edit History). But to assume this would be making an assumption so the best course would be to assume everyone gave it their all and achieved the best possible scores. The dates are not relevant, the modalities (am I getting this right?) can be adjusted by removing the images component, the opponents don’t matter because they don’t go head to head and so all they needed to do was to give their very best in the events.
 * XXXXX
 * The work on current rankings is also finished. It turns out that he’s not actually 4th currently, much worse at (all scores considered have had their images component scores removed). This would make sense as his highest score is the 2019 IAM WMC and his true rank there is 8th and so his current ranking can never be go higher than 8th. The reason he was incorrectly referred to as 4th is due to WMSC’s Millenium Standards having been raised after the impressive scores in 2019 and so any WMSC players scores at World events on current rankings have been pushed lower. By going through this, you have made his current rankings worse.
 * XXXXX
 * P/S: If any admins happen to see this, do take note that opposing edits seem to all be coming from the country of Italy. They may be biased in motives and not contributing with a neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Having “conflict of interest” (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) in editing goes against “Wikipedia behavioral guidelines”. 2001:D08:1398:2952:9829:7BF2:96B1:B983 (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not gonna lose more time on that Lucio Scatola (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lucio Scatola
 * Sure you won’t. Everyone in the community and those outside who follow the game (including you and your team of people) know this (that Muzii is a false champion and false #1) for a fact.
 * It can also be stated simply that he is a Non-Champion and Non-#1 without stating ‘8th’ and so on.
 * Do me a favor and inform Muzii on these edits and replies. :) 2001:D08:1380:AB32:41F:204C:4E92:5ACB (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I was saying it's useless to discuss it because you just keep going on your line without understanding. What you are saying is completely not true, in fact that are zero statements of that. It's actually true the opposite, all the community knows that.
 * My last message. Anyway the statements will be removed because a spreadsheet from a random user is of course not a source. Lucio Scatola (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lucio Scatola
 * Not at all. I was saying it's useless to discuss it because you just keep going on your line without understanding. What you are saying is completely not true, in fact that are zero statements of that.It's actually true the opposite, all the community knows that.
 * Response: Why don’t you refute my statements? Because you couldn’t.
 * My last message. Anyway the statements will be removed because a spreadsheet from a random user is of course not a source.
 * Response: “This has been responded previously: They are adjusted to a single association’s calculator so the refutation given in Edit History can be put to rest. These are score plugged into calculators. They are objective and they are not my opinions so this cannot be disputed as a poor source. I did not invent the ideas, merely putting them to a standard calculator. Anyone is free to dispute if there is a misstep in the calculation or reasoning.” An account can always be created so that I am no longer a “random user”. Worst case,, as mentioned in the previous response, it can also be stated simply that he is a Non-Champion and Non-#1 without stating specific positions like ‘8th’ and so on.
 * XXXXX
 * P/S: If any admins happen to see this, do take note that opposing edits seem to all be coming from the country of Italy. They may be biased in motives and not contributing with a neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Having “conflict of interest” (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) in editing goes against “Wikipedia behavioral guidelines”. 2001:D08:1B99:6E56:2CB3:3A0A:8EE4:8062 (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't believe it's still going. Nonsense claims, no sources, deciding your own system... and doing it wrong: once again, if you put Muzii highest score (French Open 2021) in the wmsc calculator (approximating images) you still obtain the highest score (about 9k). If you put in the same calculator Tenuun's result (which is wmsc #1) you obtain 8600.
 * Do your calculations again.
 * And beside that, even that shouldn't be mentioned because competitors of different associations don't compete against each other: they are of different associations. Our calculations here are not a source. The fact that there are multiple ways to do that (with/without images, iam/wmsc standards, single/average...) already makes it not objective because you can obtain different results by chosing different ways of comparison.
 * Peace Franisko (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Franisko
 * Can't believe it's still going. Nonsense claims, no sources, deciding your own system...
 * Response: It’s not nonsense claims. Your side asked for a combined rankings using a common Millenium Standards and it will be provided when the protection is removed. The spreadsheet is the source. I am not deciding my own system, merely plugging objective scores and formulas into the calculator, then ranking them based on descending order.
 * and doing it wrong: once again, if you put Muzii highest score (French Open 2021) in the wmsc calculator (approximating images) you still obtain the highest score (about 9k). If you put in the same calculator Tenuun's result (which is wmsc #1) you obtain 8600. Do your calculations again.
 * Response: This has been responded above. Did you miss it? You may CTRL+F to find this response above. For your convenience, I will paste it here; “ I plugged in Muzii’s score and only find 8028, not including the images event, not 9000. On the other hand, I plugged Ryu’s score to IAM and find 8483, without images event, and Muzii’s highest score without of 8069 in the 2019 IAM WMSC would have only been 7096 with the images event having been removed (no standards adjustment for this event in IAM since the 2019 WMC). Current WMSC #1 (Tamir) would be 7093 without images event in IAM and this is lower than Ryu’s score aforementioned but she’s displaced Ryu in WMSC rankings.
 * My proposed explanation for this discrepancy is WMSC’s calculator is not quite up-to-date with perhaps the National standard (shortest of three time formats, the other being Internstional and World event standards) being outdated and any scores inserted is inflated and so somehow Tamir has displaced Ryu and Muzii’s score is 8028 with images event removed in WMSC’s calculator.
 * For future comparisons, I propose scores from WMSC are plugged into IAM’s calculator and not the other way round.
 * Images can be found here:
 * [1]https://ibb.co/8rSq7cL
 * [2]https://ibb.co/qRxpKpD
 * https://ibb.co/5Bcd13J
 * Feel free to plug in the numbers in the calculator for yourself (in case of any suspicion of photoshop on my part or blunders during the insertion of scores).”
 * And beside that, even that shouldn't be mentioned because competitors of different associations don't compete against each other: they are of different associations. Our calculations here are not a source.
 * Response: As mentioned previously, certainly they don’t but it can be done because this is not a 1v1 sport and so the scores can objectively show which players has the higher scores. The points exist to inform readers the true champion and true current #1 when both governing bodies’ scores are considered.
 * The fact that there are multiple ways to do that (with/without images, iam/wmsc standards, single/average...) already makes it not objective because you can obtain different results by chosing different ways of comparison.
 * Response: The correct way to do it is of course removing the one event which differ and using a common Millenium Standards (IAM’s since WMSC’s calculators are faulty) and picking the single best score (on iam-stats, it’s called All-Time Best (https://iam-stats.org/all-time-best.php). More on this when it is uploaded.). When all these are done, the scores can objectively show which player scored higher. Worst case, as mentioned in the previous response, it can also be stated simply that he is a Non-Champion and Non-#1 without stating specific positions like ‘8th’ and so on. This can never be disputed.
 * XXXXX
 * P/S: If any admins happen to see this, do take note that opposing edits seem to all be coming from the country of Italy. They may be biased in motives and not contributing with a neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Having “conflict of interest” (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) in editing goes against “Wikipedia behavioral guidelines”. 2001:D08:1389:F6D0:2862:6E2D:2599:E01F (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It has been 24 hours since my response. It seems that opposing side has not been able to refute my points.
 * XXXXX
 * P/S: If any admins happen to see this, do take note that opposing edits seem to all be coming from the country of Italy. They may be biased in motives and not contributing with a neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Having “conflict of interest” (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) in editing goes against “Wikipedia behavioral guidelines”. 2001:D08:2294:8DE5:55A4:F5A1:5B53:B386 (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Response: As mentioned previously, certainly they don’t but it can be done because this is not a 1v1 sport and so the scores can objectively show which players has the higher scores. The points exist to inform readers the true champion and true current #1 when both governing bodies’ scores are considered.
 * The fact that there are multiple ways to do that (with/without images, iam/wmsc standards, single/average...) already makes it not objective because you can obtain different results by chosing different ways of comparison.
 * Response: The correct way to do it is of course removing the one event which differ and using a common Millenium Standards (IAM’s since WMSC’s calculators are faulty) and picking the single best score (on iam-stats, it’s called All-Time Best (https://iam-stats.org/all-time-best.php). More on this when it is uploaded.). When all these are done, the scores can objectively show which player scored higher. Worst case, as mentioned in the previous response, it can also be stated simply that he is a Non-Champion and Non-#1 without stating specific positions like ‘8th’ and so on. This can never be disputed.
 * XXXXX
 * P/S: If any admins happen to see this, do take note that opposing edits seem to all be coming from the country of Italy. They may be biased in motives and not contributing with a neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Having “conflict of interest” (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) in editing goes against “Wikipedia behavioral guidelines”. 2001:D08:1389:F6D0:2862:6E2D:2599:E01F (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It has been 24 hours since my response. It seems that opposing side has not been able to refute my points.
 * XXXXX
 * P/S: If any admins happen to see this, do take note that opposing edits seem to all be coming from the country of Italy. They may be biased in motives and not contributing with a neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Having “conflict of interest” (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) in editing goes against “Wikipedia behavioral guidelines”. 2001:D08:2294:8DE5:55A4:F5A1:5B53:B386 (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

On “Conflict of Interest” in Wikipedia editing
There are now two organizations hosting World Memory Championships - WMSC & IAM). Some ‘combined stats’ rankings is necessary to give readers a better perspective. Citation is provided for reference.

Previously, it has been stated that Millenium Standards are different between associations and this is indeed correct after the calculations have been done. Muzii’s current ranking is actually 7th (down from 4th) when a common Millenium Standards is used and the images events component having been removed. Opposing side’s only argument has now been put to rest.

These are score plugged into calculators. They are objective and they are not my opinions. I did not invent the ideas nor am I deciding my own system, merely plugging objective scores and formulas into a standard calculator using the same Millennium Standard, then ranking them based on descending order. Anyone is free to dispute if there is a misstep in the calculation or reasoning.

Scores can be compared because this is not a 1v1 sport and so the scores can objectively show which players has the higher scores. The points exist to inform readers the true champion and true current #1 when both governing bodies’ scores are considered.

Worst case, as mentioned in the previous response, it can also be stated simply that he is a Non-Champion and Non-#1 without stating specific positions like ‘8th’ and so on. This can never be disputed.

If any admins happen to see this, do take note that opposing edits (all IP edits seem to originate from Italy when queried on IP location sites whereas all registered users had Italian-sounding names) seem to all be coming from the country of Italy. They may have a vested interest in promoting their countryman, may be biased in motives and not contributing with a neutral point of view (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Having “conflict of interest” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) in editing goes against “Wikipedia behavioral guidelines” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines#Behavioral). 2001:D08:229B:A62E:492C:C817:ADD8:9013 (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The reasons why your statements are wrong were already largely explained but you seem to just don't understand.
 * That's why we stopped replying, certainly not bacause you "won" the argument.
 * Regarding the conflict of intrests, I really can't understand where do you see it. The country were the edits come from is not relevant at all, plus Francisko already said that he is not even from Italy. And it's normal that a lot of edits come from italy, the subject is italian. On the other hand you are the only one supporting your argument.
 * In fact, the page was protected against you.
 * It's funny how you now put just non-champion, non-first because you understood your spreadsheet plan was not making sense (and he's still #1 ranking as demonstrated). Well, it still not making sense.
 * You're just trying every way to do your hating. Lucio Scatola (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The reasons why your statements are wrong were already largely explained but you seem to just don't understand.
 * That's why we stopped replying, certainly not bacause you "won" the argument.
 * Response: I have refuted your side’s statements whereas you couldn’t refute mine and that will explain why you stopped replying. The scores objectively and clearly show Muzii as a false champion and false #1.
 * Regarding the conflict of intrests, I really can't understand where do you see it. The country were the edits come from is not relevant at all, plus Francisko already said that he is not even from Italy. And it's normal that a lot of edits come from italy, the subject is italian. On the other hand you are the only one supporting your argument.
 * ''' Response: It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that your side is not happy with the objective fact that he is a false champion and false #1. Even if Franisko is not Italian, he likely has Italian ancestry. In the case he doesn’t, the rest of the edits (except him) has Italian background. I may be the only one here supporting this point but everyone within the community knows this and the scores objectively demonstrate this fact.
 * In fact, the page was protected against you.
 *  Response: This has been responded. It was protected because your side did have a point in that the Millenium Standards is different. This will be put to rest by either combined the rankings with a spreadsheet or simply stating ‘Non-Champion’ . 
 * It's funny how you now put just non-champion, non-first because you understood your spreadsheet plan was not making sense (and he's still #1 ranking as demonstrated). Well, it still not making sense.
 * ''' Response: I’m not quite done with my spreadsheet yet and it may be too complicated for some to understand. If you’d like to see the calculations and reasoning. I will provide the link here tomorrow (or two days from today the latest). The scores and numbers do check out (all WMSC players’ scores in the combined rankings in my spreadsheet match their score in the statistics site) and it is clear as day that Muzii is the false champion and false #1.
 * Regarding your side’s point that he is #1, it has been explained that WMSC’s calculators are faulty and so scores are to be inserted from WMSC into IAM for comparison purposes and not the other way round. Did you even bother inserting Ryu’s (2019 WMSC Champion) scores into IAM calculator, in your words, as demonstrated? If you did, you should see that she has a higher score than Muzii (images component included) even without her abstract images component included. '''
 * You're just trying every way to do your hating.
 *  Réponse: You’re just trying every way to promote your countryman.  45.128.198.14 (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that you’ve been banned for the sockpuppet offense! You mentioned “And I wouldn't be surprised if you now create new accounts to fake this consensus” but it turns out that you’re the one creating duplicate accounts! Oh, the irony!
 * If you’d (or anyone) still like, hit me up below (with an IP address since you’ve been banned) and I will provide the link to the spreadsheet! All WMSC players’ total scores in the combined rankings spreadsheet using 2019 WMSC’s Millenium Standards do 100% match their total scores in the statistics site. This proves that the correct Millenium Standards have been used and can accurately reflect a combined rankings scenario. 45.128.198.17 (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Pillar no. 2 of “Wikipedia:Five pillars” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars) explicitly states that “Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view”. Pillar no. 3 states that “Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute”. Taken together, the opposing side’s persistent attempts in censoring information potentially unfavorable to their countryman has directly gone against these policies. This disrupts the free flow of information and obstructs readers’ right of knowledge to the fact that another memory sports governing body that hosts World Championships exists. Further violation can all be found here at “Wikimedia’s Founding principles“ (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founding_principles) and here at “Wikipedia:Core content policies” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_content_policies).
 * The scores are verifiable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) and cited as citation no. 3 & no.4 in the References section of the article. The scores objectively prove the statements that opposing edits are attempting to remove and they are not my personal subjective opinions. 45.128.198.17 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Pillar no. 2 of “Wikipedia:Five pillars” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars) explicitly states that “Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view”. Pillar no. 3 states that “Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute”. Taken together, the opposing side’s persistent attempts in censoring information potentially unfavorable to their countryman has directly gone against these policies. This disrupts the free flow of information and obstructs readers’ right of knowledge to the fact that another memory sports governing body that hosts World Championships exists. Further violation can all be found here at “Wikimedia’s Founding principles“ (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founding_principles) and here at “Wikipedia:Core content policies” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_content_policies).
 * The scores are verifiable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) and cited as citation no. 3 & no.4 in the References section of the article. The scores objectively prove the statements that opposing edits are attempting to remove and they are not my personal subjective opinions. 45.128.198.17 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2023
The following informations are not sourced (if you click on the source you can't find the mentioned statements, in fact it's a ranking of another association whose rankings work differently) -(8th-best in 2019 World events) -(4th with WMSC rankings considered) -(currently 4th with WMSC rankings considered) -(8th-best in 2019 World events) -(5th with WMSC rankings considered in September 2021) -(3rd with WMSC rankings considered in October 2021) -(8th-best in 2019 World events) -(WMSC record: 8206) The list is presented in the order they appear on the page (some of them appear more than once) Eppili (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * That is why I removed the specific numbers on 27 August 2023 (the one with edit note starting with “Removed specific numbers. To admins: Opposing edits seem to all be coming from the country of Italy…”) for all the points given by Eppili above before an admin restored a version from 11 July. The other association’s top player has a clear and marked lead over Muzii’s top score. This cannot be disputed.
 * There are now two organizations hosting World Memory Championships - WMSC & IAM). Some ‘combined stats’ rankings is necessary to give readers a better perspective.
 * Scores can be compared because this is not a 1v1 sport and so the scores can objectively show which player has the higher scores. The points exist to inform readers the true champion and true current #1 when both governing bodies’ scores are considered.
 * If any admins happen to see this, do take note that opposing edits (all IP edits seem to originate from Italy when queried on IP location sites whereas all registered users had Italian-sounding names) seem to all be coming from the country of Italy. They may have a vested interest in promoting their countryman, may be biased in motives and not contributing with a neutral point of view (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Having “conflict of interest” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) in editing goes against “Wikipedia behavioral guidelines” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines#Behavioral).
 * Also, do note that this account (Eppili) is created on 24 August 2023 (Special:Log/Eppili), 4 days after Franisko’s account (Special:Log/Franisko), currently banned as a sockpuppet of Lucio Scatola (Special:BlockList/User:Lucio Scatola, Special:BlockList/User:Franisko and so is potentially another sockpuppet account of his/someone on his behalf.
 * My proposed edit request is to restore to the version on 27 August 2023 (the one with edit note starting with “Removed specific numbers. To admins: Opposing edits seem to all be coming from the country of Italy…”). 45.128.198.26 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ as below. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2023
World Memory Sports Council’s (abbreviated as WMSC, the original governing body with its first World Championship in 1991) 2019 World Champion, Ryu (http://www.world-memory-statistics.com/competitor.php?id=7078), has a clear and marked lead over Muzii (https://iam-stats.org/competition-competitor.php?id=WMC2019&competitor_id=15150), the 2019 International Association of Memory (abbreviated as IAM with its first World Championship in 2017) champion. This is widely (universally, actually) known within the memory sports community.

Thus, it can be stated simply that he is a Non-Champion and Non-#1 without stating specific positions like ‘8th’ and so on. This is to avoid the complication involved in calculating IAM-adjusted scores for WMSC players using IAM’s Millenium Standards and the necessity to recalculate Muzii’s true current world ranking every year (or rather, after every championship). This is objective and can never be disputed.

Suggested wording: This first edit (8th-best in 2019 World events) should be applied to the three places it appears in the article.

It can also be done by restoring to the version on 27 August 2023 (the one with edit note starting with “Removed specific numbers….”).

Thanks to whoever who will be fulfilling this request. :) 45.128.198.26 (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Further elaboration separated from the main section above:
 * There are now two organizations hosting World Memory Championships - WMSC & IAM). Some ‘combined stats’ rankings is necessary to give readers a better perspective.
 * Scores can be compared because this is not a 1v1 sport and so the scores can objectively show which players has the higher scores. The points exist to inform readers the true champion and true current #1 when both governing bodies’ scores are considered.
 * As seen through the World Memory Championships Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Memory_Championships&action=history), the “Non-Champion” description has been in place since 5th of June, 2022 with no disputes on it.
 * If any admins happen to see this, do take note that opposing edits (all IP edits seem to originate from Italy when queried on IP location sites whereas all previous registered users had Italian-sounding names) seem to all be coming from the country of Italy. They may have a vested interest in promoting their countryman, may be biased in motives and not contributing with a neutral point of view (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Having “conflict of interest” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) in editing goes against “Wikipedia behavioral guidelines” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines#Behavioral).
 * Pillar no. 2 of “Wikipedia:Five pillars” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars) explicitly states that “Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view”. Pillar no. 3 states that “Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute”. Taken together, the opposing side’s persistent attempts in censoring information potentially unfavorable to their countryman has directly gone against these policies. This disrupts the free flow of information and obstructs readers’ right of knowledge to the fact that another memory sports governing body that hosts World Championships exists. Further violation can all be found here at “Wikimedia’s Founding principles“ (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founding_principles) and here at “Wikipedia:Core content policies” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_content_policies).
 * The scores are verifiable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) and cited as citation no. 3 & no.4 in the References section of the article. The scores objectively prove the statements that opposing edits are attempting to remove and they are not my personal subjective opinions. There is no controversy in this.
 * Also, do note that this account (Eppili) is created on 24 August 2023 (Special:Log/Eppili), 4 days after Franisko’s account (Special:Log/Franisko), currently banned as a sockpuppet of Lucio Scatola (Special:BlockList/User:Lucio Scatola, Special:BlockList/User:Franisko and so is potentially another sockpuppet account of his/someone on his behalf. It also seems that this is the first edit from this user(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Eppili), casting more doubt on the neutrality of this “user”. 45.128.198.26 (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ Stale request - there's no way anyone is going to wade into this personal-attack-ridden wall-of-text and agree to restore edits that are known to be contested. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2023
On the template it still says he's 23 years old. He's 24. 87.19.199.192 (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Occupation(s) line: He is also not a student anymore. More like Memory athlete, Youtuber, Speaker. 87.19.199.192 (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I've put the birth date and age back in a template, which was part of the problem with the age not updating. As for occupation, what's the source for him having graduated and not pursuing any further degrees? —C.Fred (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This video (I don't know if it's a reliable source or not). 87.19.199.192 (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2023
Another request. Multiple times in the page it's mentioned a "(8th-best in 2019 World events)" and "(4th with WMSC rankings considered)". From a memory sports prospective this doesn't make sense and the cited sources are just blank pages or pages without this information. Also by searching other sources on the internet I couldn't find anything mentioning these results. I suggest removing them.

I also suggest to add at the end of "Speedcubing and memory sports career" this:

On November 2023 he declared that because of personal issues he would take a break from competitions. 87.19.199.192 (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed the 8th-best and 4th-best, as archived versions of the source contradict it. However, I can't understand the video, so I will leave this open for another editor to implement the second portion. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see that there are another 2 unsourced statements similar to the former in the Speedcubing and memory sports career section:
 * "(5th with WMSC rankings considered in September 2021)" and "(3rd with WMSC rankings considered in October 2021)" 87.19.199.192 (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * that as well. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)