Misterdiscreet

Welcome!

Hello, Misterdiscreet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  --Ghewgill 06:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Douglas (footballer)

As a deletionist, I would like to see your opinion about that player. I know that may be you will not support delete, I just want to know why this article must be kept. He has never played in senior's national team and plays in a weak amature league. Just a note, if that player is kept (which seems so) all the players in the world will be accepted in this wikipedia.--KRBN 10:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Macauplus

Hello Misterdiscreet! Since that the revised version of the article Macauplus has at least 2 references and these are actually the report of 2 important media in Macau, this has proved the importance of Macauplus. Can this be the reason for keeping this article? Thanks a lot b.cx(talk) 03:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

June 20008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Thank you. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

FA nomination of Habari

Misterdirect, your FA nomination of Habari was pointy and disruptive. There are a lot of decent articles nominated and a small number of reviewers; your placing a nomination such as this may mean that someone else's article doesn't get reviewed because the reviewer actually read your bad-faith nomination. I'm oing to delete the nomination, and I strongly warn you against further acts of disruption. Karanacs (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So much for WP:AGF Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you actually bothered to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, you'd see that one only needs to assume good faith when there is not strong evidence to the contrary. You nominated an article for deletion, primarily for a lack of notability, and also claiming poor sources, violations of WP:NOR, WP:COI, and WP:TRIVIA. Then you turn around and nominate it for featured article, because it "establishes notability better than almost any I've ever seen." That is more than sufficient evidence to stop the assumption of good faith. AGF is not a blanket prescription for naiveté. Pagrashtak 20:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? User:Morydd is quite persuasive. He won the Afd and I lost, so obviously, I must be wrong and it would behoove me to repent Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD is not a "win-or-lose" process. Frankly, I find this rather pointy as well. You'd do well to forget this and move on. And regarding this, I will assume good faith and simply tell you that a user with under fifty edits will not be successfully promoted at RFA. At Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, the first thing listed under "What RfA contributors look for and hope to see" is a strong edit history. My advice there would be to withdraw that. Pagrashtak 05:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Cyberman

Cybermen
Doctor Who race
The 2006 redesign of the Cybermen.
In-universe information
Type	Cyborgs
Affiliation	Cyber Empire (original series) Cybus Industries (2006 series)

It is my opinion that Misterdirect is a Cyberman sent from the future to delete our current knowledge. He is often seen nominating numerous articles for deletion for the sake of it. Ash-Fox (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Samples of his deletions can be fond through out the wikiverse:

I am Rich Nominated for deletion, the consensus wound up being to keep it. Not to redirect it but to keep it. Then, the nominator, having failed in his attempt to delete it, merges it, despite consensus to the contrary, into App Store. Later, another user comes along and deletes it, saying it's "not important" = http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=App_Store&diff=238484696&oldid=237711348 .

The same Cybermen then nominates Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heavy_Metal_(Terminator:_The_Sarah_Connor_Chronicles) for deletion and fails in his attempt. This Cyberman does not give up and changes his tactics yet again into merging the article, save that one.. Into Talk:List_of_Terminator:_The_Sarah_Connor_Chronicles_episodes.

With these methods the Cyberman is able to initiate backroom methods achieve total deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash-Fox (talk • contribs) 13:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw a comment on Slashdot about this matter, and I came here to check and, eh, to deliver justice if necessary. However, I see that the deletion was deciced at Talk:List_of_Terminator:_The_Sarah_Connor_Chronicles_episodes#Episode_articles, so it seems that Misterdiscreet's deletions were actually warranted.

I also noticed that, picking one of the deleted episodes at random, they appear to have been articles of low quality, full of plot details and theorizing about in-universe stuff [1], and that they were still low quality after some editors removed all the WP:OR [2].

If you want to argue that the episodes should stay at wikipedia, then I suggest that you go at the page I linked above and explain why they are good-quality articles and why they are not just plot summaries, using reasoned arguments and addressing the concerns raised by editors (and, if posible, not accusing people of deletionism, since many editors will just discount your arguments from start if you start accusing people of stuff, ok?). Other option is registering an account and creating in your userspace a version of that article that doesn't actually suck, trying to follow the style of the "Heavy Metal" episode article. Cheers. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I was unable to find the commentary again :( It was the exact same text as the IP posted above. Maybe it was deleted by the poster. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Article merge

Can you point out where you listed I Am Rich on WP:PM? I can't find it, which is probably because I'm hopeless at visual grep. Incidentally, I was unaware of the trollish comments above - I'm mildly irritated that I'm effectively feeding them, but I still don't think merge-and-redirect is a useful outcome for that particular article. Orpheus (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to reference the location that information on WP:PM, I myself cannot find it. What I can find is evidence on the mergers themselves and previous discussions on the merger (quite easy really, just check the history of the articles). I'm sorry that you see my comments as 'trollish', but I wouldn't be able to continue pointing these things out if I didn't have a bit of humor. Ash-Fox (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

My request was directed at User:Misterdiscreet, actually, but we cleared it up on the article talk page in the meantime. Orpheus (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my talk page... I don't know.. it's been under siege, today. Someone blanked it, then that blanking was reverted, and my own User page has had the subst:afd1 tag added to it. I don't know where this is coming from. One of the edits said something about /b/. That's 4chan. Maybe I'm being targeted by them? Misterdiscreet (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD discussions

Please keep things civil at AfD discussions. Because deleting articles is a contentious issue, it's important to hold ourselves to even higher standards than normal during discussions on the topic. This comment is pushing the boundaries of that a bit. It also adds nothing to the discussion, being a weak restatement of WP:NOEFFORT. Take this as a helpful hint, not criticism. Orpheus (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that AfD is not a vote. Your comments are taken into consideration by the closing admin even if they're not prefaced by delete. This, by the way, is also why it's not really polite to reply to each keep individually - say your piece, move on and let others have their say. Again, just offering a suggestion - no criticism implied. Orpheus (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Interesting topic that. Obviously I have not participated in many of these; I find it difficult to articulate my arguments as well as others, so that's a bit of a hindrance for me. I will probably stick to observing things in the future. DP76764 (Talk) 19:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:JUSTAVotE

I think that you rely to heavily on WP:JUSTAVOTE to try to discount those who disagree with you. (this theory is supported by taking a look at your edit history with AFDs). That clearly does not apply to my input on the AFD, as I gave several reasons as to why I felt the article should be kept. But apparently you overlooked all that somehow. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Another thing that you should know: Neither WP:POKEMON or WP:JUSTAVOTE are actual policies. They're essays written by editors that reflect a way of doing things, and are neither enforced or necessarily shared by all or most editors. Please stop treating them like policies. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And I would suggest that YOU read WP:CIVIL. It's generally not a great way to work with other editors if you're constantly attacking, belittling and undermining them. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just me. Looking through your edit history, you have a bad habit of trying to discredit and debase anyone who disagrees with you, never trying to work through conflicts in a way that would compromise anything of what you believe. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of essays, you might find WP:TRUTH helpful to read. Remember - what we do here is all about making a better encyclopedia. Orpheus (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Alodia Gosiengfiao - we might agree on an AfD for once! Looks like it's been long enough since the last one. Orpheus (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Habari

Then find a serious reason to nominate it for deletion, or you will be disruptive, & treated accordingly. Feel free to consider this a serious warning about your behavior. -- llywrch (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. First you nominate this article for deletion because "I don't like it". Then you claim you can nominate it because "Consensus can change". Do you have any serious complaint about this article, or are you just trying to annoy me? -- llywrch (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, those two unnamed people can change their minds. And sure, my friends on this side of the monitor think I'm doing a fine job on Wikipedia. That's not the point: find a serious reason to nominate this article for deletion, or find something else you can do that will improve the quality of Wikipedia's content. -- llywrch (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you had a string of sensible nominations, but have lately taken to nominating things you just do not like. I'll gladly support nominations of vanity pages and spam. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I think a fellow admin said it best at the deletion review:

sustain and renominate in 3 or 4 months is not improved. I think insisting on an overturn instead is a little pointy. The assumption in closing is that after discarding non-arguments, the consensus view will be the correct one, and that any neutral admin would agree. Thus there is in theory no difference between closing per the majority and closing per the strongest argument. But when there is a real dispute on what argument is relevant, the closer is not to decide between them , but close according to what most people in the discussion say. If he has a strong view on the matter, he should join the argument instead of closing, and try to affect consensus that way. Both I and stifle have closed keep when we personally would have preferred delete, and vice-versa. The keep arguments were not absurd or irrelevant: there can be a genuine dispute over the strength of the sources, which is often a matter of judgment--and there's no way to settle that except to see what the community thinks. If I wanted a place where my view of proper content would prevail, I'd start a blog or become an editor of some conventional publication.

— DGG

If you want to change consensus, then please wait another month or two and re-nominate it for the discussion and deletion process. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point, after 4 nominations have been closed successfully, I think it appears to be safely notable. In fact, 3 nominations in 6 months, all closing with keep seems to indicate a very clear, ongoing consensus that Habari is a notable product. Looking over the history of the article in the past two months, I can see significant improvements and updates, especially with additional citations, and therefore it is likely not to be deleted anytime soon. There are lots of odd stuff and fringe theories on Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

After all is said and done, Habari is notable according to the people who make Wikipedia. Consensus here works a bit like common law or any other unwritten law. The law is what judges say, or are likely to say, about an issue. I am an inclusionist - by that I mean I have no problem with marginally notable articles on Wikipedia. Daily runs the struggle between enlightenment and ignorance. Due to the inherent biases of the way administrators are picked, they tend to be either inclusionists or "get along" type of people - or both. Deletionists want to get rid of things here - "fluff" or "cruft". Both inclusionists and deletionists have to pick their battles. That being said, an often-heard complaint is that this is a cabal, but I have not seen that in the years here. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

about tagging

Just a reminder--when you nominate for deletion, whether CSD prod or afd, you must indicate this in the article summary, so that authors, and other people (including us overworked admins) can easily find the edit. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Brothers Group

I removed your speedy, because there are lots of Ghits, including news hits. See [3]. If you still want it deleted, take it to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mini Viva

Hi. I notice that you nominated this article for deletion, but didn't explain why. Could you come over to the debate and leave a rationale? Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

for the record, no reason being given, and it being apparent to everyone who commented that the band was quite notable, it was closed as a speedy keep )not by me, buyt by another administrator) . We have enough problems here with getting rid of the many actually unnotable articles, without indiscriminate nominations. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Inquiry

• Howdy Misterdiscreet, I don't think we've crossed paths before until a few recent AfDs. You've made some wacky noms, thinking particularly of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (3rd nomination). What's your AfD philosophy? Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response. My own opinion is that wikipedia is no different than any other large organization. Idiocy, mediocrity, brilliance, and randomness abound. Rules are means to ends, and are rarely enforced uniformly anywhere; the only thing on which one can hope to rely is the good word and good faith of others. Outside of unverifiable articles, hoaxes, vandalism, attacks, and spam, anything of interest to more than a few people is rather sticky in the long run. But there are 3.2 million other articles to play with and waiting for improvement, and many more waiting to be written. And if you're like me, you enjoy wikidrama for entertainment purposes, and then, back to the project!--Milowent (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Latest edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (3rd nomination)

I've reverted your last edit, as the discussion has closed. If you do not think this AfD has been handled appropriately, you can submit an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Arguments to avoid

Have you had a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions recently? In particular, WP:WAX. I've spotted a few AfDs you've posted where the only rationale was an appeal to previous AfDs. Orpheus (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

really? which ones? maybe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002 Tampa plane crash? maybe you missed the part where i said "per WP:NOT#NEWS this is no more notable than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Orlando shooting"? let me quote the first two words again. "per WP:NOT#NEWS". and that is not something i added after your message to me - that was there in the beginning in all my afds. see [4] [5] and [6]. and if people like you are going to ignore what i write then maybe i should do the exact opposite of what you suggest - maybe i should just say I don't like it since it is not as if anyone will ever read what i write anyway Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Isotopically_pure_diamond, for example. Orpheus (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing comments is inappropriate - you should strike through if you wish to retract a comment. Orpheus (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

i will keep that in mind although at the time no one had responded so it is not as if my edit suddenly made replies (of which there were none) off topic Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well actually, I was attempting to respond to your original post when you changed your post which resulted in a edit conflict and considerable subsequent confusion. Our subsequent discussion strongly resembles this discussion. Boghog (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We could use your help dealing with these articles!

Explodicle (T/C) 20:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Misterdiscreet,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)