User talk:Misheu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Misheu, and Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are some good places to get you started:

float
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes (~~~) to produce your name only. If you have any questions, or are worried/confused about anything at all, you can leave a new message on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to help you. Happy editing, good luck, and remember: Be Bold!

— FireFox (talk) 19:40, 8 August '06

I am reverting all your cat additions (which relate to Turks - I don't know about the rest) - what makes you think that Turks are all Muslims??? Do I subcat Dutch or British under Christians?? Baristarim 23:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful next time.. Baristarim 23:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries - I am sorry, this has happened many times before so I am a bit weary :) I see your point about the 99percent figure, but that is actually kind of an inside joke - nearly everyone is classified as Muslim in Turkish census because of many bureaucratic wranglings. Long story. Well, my only concern is to make sure that only those bios where it is clear that the person is Muslim be classified as such. It is better not to assume - we never can know what a person's true beliefs are.. (for example I also show up as Muslim in Turkish census registry) Anyways sorry if I were a bit strong earlier. Cheers! Baristarim 06:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right again. I'll go back to recategorizing.. Misheu 06:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Brandenberg_cultural_center.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brandenberg_cultural_center.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood Feud

I have undone your move of Blood Feud to Blood Feud (The Simpsons episode) because I don't think it is necessary. I simply don't think its necessary to create a disambiguation for something that doesn't have its own page. A redirect from Blood Feud can be added. -- Scorpion 15:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What?! As I wrote under the Blood Feud discussion page many moons ago: There is an entry Blood feud which talks about real blood feuds. There are links to that entry which have a capital F and get to the simpson's episode. I had gotten to that wrong page many times. I do not understand your reasoning, so please explain why you don't think it's necessary to move the Simpson's page. Misheu 15:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking it over again - I did NOT add the original Blood feud page. It was already there. There are LINKS to it all over Wikipedia. How are you going to deal with all the bad links? Misheu 15:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You do not create a disambiguation page because of similar phrases, you create one because there are two pages with similar (or exact) names. There is a link to that section and that should be enough. -- Scorpion 16:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No. There were TWO pages. Blood feud and Blood Feud. One redirecting to feud one linking to a simpson's episode. I think that's a good enough reason for a disambiguation page aqnd that was my addition. Again, how are you going to deal with all the broken links? Take a look at what links to your simpsons episode now. Misheu 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize they were seperate pages. Why not leave it the way it was? There are also a lot of pages that link to the Simpsons episode too. -- Scorpion 16:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Because there are people who mislink by accident, and since it's very easy to get to the wrong page. I think it's wrong to have two entries which are written so similarly and are about such different topics, but I'm aware that there are so many links to both already. Misheu 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glostrup Terror(ism) Case

Hi Misheu
You created the article Glostrup Terror Case, and I have suggested to exspand the scope of the article, because I belive that the subject does not warrent an article in itself. You can read my suggestions on the talkpage Talk:Glostrup Terror Case
kind regards and happy editing. - Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 02:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed my opinion, I now wish to keep the article, and I left a reply on the talk page. However I still think the article should be moved, I am of ther understadning that terror is a state of fear, and slang for terrorism. so I think the page should be moved to Glostrup Terrorism case and the current article should be a redirect.
kind regards and happy editing. - Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 17:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with doing that. Thanks for the Danish link, I can understand a bit of it. Misheu 20:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
just fixed my spelling errors, I am so sorry. Angelbo Talk / Contribs 20:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Wait.. before you change things. The Danish press refers to it as "terror case". I think that's why I did the same. Google for "Glostrup terror case" and "Glostrup terrorism case" and see. Misheu 20:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I did not see the wait warning, until it was too late. I would guees you do not speak english as a first language, because it is a common germanic language to english translation mistake. Many think that the word terror in danish and other germanic languages is the same as in english. Please see this dictonary [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terror] and [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terrorism].I hope that explains my actions. Best regards Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't follow.. this case is called the "Glostrup Terror Case" by the Danish *English* language press. Again, compare the two phrases using google and see how much you get for each. Misheu 14:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I have sent you an email. - Angelbo Talk / Contribs 17:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the e-mail, I think you shoyld go ahead and make the move of the page. Bedst regards Angelbo Talk / Contribs 10:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zein Isa

I noticed you added him to Category:American Muslims. Are you sure that he ever obtained United States citizenship?

If so, I would also replace Category:Murder in the United States with Category:American murderers, and add Category:Palestinian Americans. --GCarty 12:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

He was American in the sense that he was living in St. Louis. I do not know if he had citizenship. Misheu 13:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism categorisations

Hi. When you categorise biographies of living people as terrorists (as you did e.g. here) , please take care that this categorisation is based on reliable sources asserting that the person in question fits the criteria of Category:Terrorists. We must be very careful not to make any mistakes with biographies of living people. Thanks, Sandstein 13:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is not so clear cut in the case you brought. I removed my categorization. Misheu 14:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on a speedy deletions

I'm crossposting here my reply to your question from my talk page:

(Sorry, this is kind of a long ramble.)

Well, I haven't looked at the talk page comments in very much detail yet (might tomorrow), but I'll recap some of my observations on how the speedy deletion works. The editor who tags the article for speedy deletion is usually blameless for whatever happens; the admin who deletes the article makes the decision on whether or not the article meets the criteria for speedy deletion. People can tag articles how they want, but ultimately, tagging can be inconsequential. I've frequently had to refuse speedy deletions because of knowing better, or when improving the article doesn't really take that much effort (see Finnvox Studios for one of my recent decisions of this kind - used to have one half of a sentence that could have been understood as "spammy" tone =). Obviously, if there's a clear pattern of misusing the deletion tags, continued use of them in bad faith, well, that's bad, and the user should stop doing that - the speedy deletion backlogs seem bad enough without tons of borderline-case material, and this wastes everyone's time. But the general principle is this: If you honestly believe the article meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion, tag it in any case; if the admin rejects that rationale, well, that's a sign the article should stand (at least until Articles for Deletion). If someone in good faith tags the article, it's not a big problem because it's the uninvolved admin that has to do the estimation of the situation and the ultimate decision.

As for an user having agenda - well, we need proof of that, and also to what extent the alleged agenda clashes with our policies. If all you can manage to prove through careful examination of evidence is "the user tags bloggers as nonnotable because, well, they are", it's not bad. If the evidence is "the user tags bloggers with political view X as nonnotable because, well, they are", we're dealing with two separate issues here - the discrimination and the deletion tagging. Tagging people who are nonnotable is still good; pushing for a group of articles to be deleted on political grounds is bad. Regrettably, it's also hard to prove, unless there's clear evidence that there is an orchestrated campaign of some sort going on (I'm thinking of the "war on blogs" that was going on some time ago, and that was a pretty blatant case because they had a noticeboard/article list right on an userpage (has since been deleted), and the Jason Gastrich case, where they had an external web page for rallying the users). I looked (briefly and without digging for much evidence) in the user's contrib history and they tagged only a couple of articles lately (regrettably I can't see the user's deleted edits based on contribution history alone - MediaWiki is a bit awful software in this respect); this is not, in my opinion, indicative of an "agenda" yet, or if it is, it's not indicative of which kind of an agenda. (They could be acting in favour of conservative blogs, trying to help readers by thinning the list to only the most notable ones. They could be just impartial readers who got suddenly interested of conservative blogs, found the articles lacking, and tagged them. It's all entirely possible.)

In conclusion, just chill off and act rationally. If the articles are being tagged for demonstratable lack of notability, {{hangon}} and adding more proof of notability is all fine and good. hangon and accusing the tagger immediately of having an agenda is not productive. Well, you'll get used to it - regrettably, what comes to new forms of expression (be it blogs or, in my case, video games), notability is a very flexible term still and the rules haven't developed well enough in my opinion. Just stay calm, and have faith that eventually, things will be just right. And just to cheer you up, this doesn't look like is anywhere near the most violent debate I've seen - just calm down and do the right things. =) And remember, these notability and sourcing debates are very tiring; I'm trying to distance myself from them for a few days, so I'm glad I could just try giving you some purely theoretical advice. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam in Hungary

OK, I rephrased it a little. I understand it's difficult to quantify a Muslim, but it's not our job to do that - that would be Original research. If there are citations that attest to 60,000 Muslims in Hungary, by all means we can include that. If not, then we should stick with what we can cite from reliable sources. Biruitorul 06:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not original research. The figure 60,000 appears on the MSNBC site, which is a well known news site and applicable source. I will bring up this issue for discussion. Misheu 06:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

hello misheu, i just wanna notify that im a hungarian muslim and i've been to hungary, where i've seen muslims in hungary in great numbers, last time i been there was late 2004 and there was hage numbers of them, nearly every corner have 4 or 6 muslims, many members of wiki are posting unrealiable source on population of muslims in hungary like 3201 or 60,000 or 6,000 well come check this out[1] u wont believe but this sound very much more realistic as it more reliable but still not right afterall many people in hungary admit that muslims in hungary are 10% more than what i've just linked u on.

Hi. I have see this page before, but there are more sources saying 60,000. In any case, I have already argued with people about this issue, and gave up since I see the page is constantly changing between the different opinions. Those opinions are valid, I think, since it's an issue of how you count the Muslims. Do you only count those who wrote so on their census forms? those who feel culturally Muslim? I think it should all be represented, but my attempt to do so was wiped out.

The problem, as I see it, is that everybody wants his own opinion to show up, despite the fact that there are other sourced numbers. Btw, according to an article which used to be sourced on the page, after the communists were overthrown there were barely a dozen Muslims all over the country. Misheu 08:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand brother but those who's posting their own opinion are shamely posting extremist veiws on Islam, which is quite offendable for many hungarian muslims like me who's reading these topic, as you can see i have reverted this topic many times cause im trying moderate it and it's keep getting worst and worst and hatred by some bunch of Anti-Islam members who have no mercy for this topic. btw there was a large number hungarians converting into islam even till now, that's what makes the number so big, im a convert too lol. anyway i found a source somewhere around the website that hungarians are converting Islam in large numbers. i post it to u soon. West Bank Boy 04:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's an issue of posting people's own opinions. You deleted the census results.. this is not somebody's special opinion, but hte official Hungarian census results, which are important. As long as people only want their own opinion to show up and ignore other opinions in this case, this article will continue to bounce back and forth between the different opinions. I don't think it's so simple to say that the number of Muslims is x or y. Different people count who is Muslim differently. Misheu 21:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Special:Whatlinkshere/Asmaa_Abdol-Hamid

Hey, your expansions are great... but will anyone see them? Meaning, can you think of what articles should link to this page? gren グレン 10:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For one, people who are looking her up will see them. I asked to add her to the Template:Next Danish parliamentary election navigation and she could be added to articles about the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and Islamic dress controversy in Europe. I'll try to do it in the upcoming days. Misheu 11:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organized attack and other accusations

Hi Misheu. Let me start out by saying that Wikipedia has a No personal attacks policy WP:NPA, and if you do not cease with your baseless accusations against me, I'll bring it up with an admin. Secondly, are you really stupid silly enough to think it's an "organized attack"? If it were an "attack", don't you think I would have co-ordinated friends/meatpuppets/sockpuppets to vote on the nominations? That is obviously not the case. And, even if I had a political agenda, which I most certainly don't, so what? People creating the entries on these blogs seem to have had political agendas, if you consider the promotive nature of these blogs. I'd be very surprised if you don't have one too - or do you mean to say you're not an avid reader and supporter of these blogs? I, on the other hand, am really quite neutral, just have a look at my previous edits. Mackan 22:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't quote policies on me, and please do bring this up to admin. I think there should be a policy against nitpickers who do not contribute anything beyond their nitpicking. I had taken a look at your previous edits and that is my impression. Maybe you should answer your questions? instead of bringing them up and theoretically explaining to me why this wouldn't be an "attack". If you do, don't do it on my talk page. You don't want me to explain my problems to you on your talk page, and therefore I'm not interested in your explanations. My own policy is to discuss things, but you obviously prefer deleting and reverting and forcing others to run for explanations instead of bothering yourself with it.
I don't agree with you on the entries you are trying to delete now. My "agenda" is that a blog which is important in this field should have a wikipedia entry so that people would be able to know more about what they're reading.
Yes, I'm silly and stupid. Continue calling me names and then you can explain to me how that fits in with wikipedia policy. I do not like your name calling, I do not like your insinuations and I do not like your abuse of wikipedia. There should be a policy for your type of abuse of the system, but sadly I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea if there is or how to invoke it. If you don't mind, I'd like to get back to constructive editing now. Misheu 05:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm an admin. However, I have never blocked anybody in my life, except by accident, and I don't intend to start now. I deal with potential abuse by explanation, and reasonable people understand. People are interested in different sorts of articles. People who are interested in political blogs know what distinguishes a good one, of any side of the fence. if you think that a particular type or orientation of article is being unfairly attacked, the best thing to do is to prepare yourself to defend them. In general, it is now necessary to have specific references from conventional news sources to demonstrate the notability of a blog; I personally think it is unrealistic, and that widespread reference from other blogs and evidence of wide use should count, and I have been arguing this from time to time, patiently, without pushing it; but the consensus at WP does not yet agree with this position. If you want to keep good articles on good blogs, you might consider whether you too want to argue along these lines. I agree in large part with your position as stated above, but it is simply not the accepted rule. Until it is, you will need conventional sources.
Strategically, there is no point in making complaints about political bias. To the best of my knowledge those of every political persuasion are often convinced WP discriminates against them, but this is because there are always things that we know are important but that others don't recognize. Even when it is the case, it works better to defend the individual items as necessary, and hope the unfairness of the attack will become evident. Many people watch AfD, and a really unfair pattern will be noticed. Just keep trying in a positive way and let others be negative. At least, I find that view helpful in defending what I feel necessary to defend. What works here is persistence, a display of reasonableness, and never losing your temper regardless of provocation. Let the other guys lose theirs'. If you need further help, let me know on my talk page or by email. DGG 05:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
(I & several others have also left some relevant comments elsewhere) -- Frankly, there is never any point to blame someone for the way they work at WP, or for anything else. It never produces good results. It is always better to stick to discussing the edits and the arguments. Always. Once you make a personal comment, you will inevitably appear in the wrong, and lessen the chance of future cooperation. If someone insults you, ignore him. To anyone who reads the talk page, he'll appear in the wrong.
As for blogs, there's two questions: what should you have to do, and what do you have to do. What you should have to do to make & defend good blog articles is just what you said to me & it ought to be enough. But it won't be considered enough now, and i regret it as much as you. I have postponed putting important articles on blogs in my field into WP, because I know they will be rejected. The majority of WP people simply do not agree with out position on this. There is no other way to deal with it but by slow gentle persuasion, which can cause policy changes--not over weeks, but over months. The trend is in this direction, I think. The way to persuade people is by supporting only the best ones, agreeing to remove the worst, always being ultra-reasonable, and avoiding all angry exchanges no matter how much in the right. I know that's not what you want to hear, but that's the way it is. Restrictive though the rules may be, the other people will judge by them. I'll be glad to consult with you on particular cases. What it takes now is extraordinary efforts to find published sources that refer to the blogs. In politics, that is sometimes possible. Remember that video transcripts counts. I wish us both good luck with it. DGG 06:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts?

I posted some concerns about the category you created here Category_talk:Palestinian_terrorist_incidents_in_Europe. --Abnn 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Repost of Category:Australian converts to Islam

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Australian converts to Islam, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Australian converts to Islam was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Australian converts to Islam, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Repost of Category:Belgian converts to Islam

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Belgian converts to Islam, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Belgian converts to Islam was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Belgian converts to Islam, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Repost of Category:Brazilian converts to Islam

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Brazilian converts to Islam, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Brazilian converts to Islam was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Brazilian converts to Islam, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject:Terrorism

Greetings,

I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger - I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)