Talk:Furkat Yusupov

responsible use of tags
The edit summary of this edit says: "The source does not say that he has been "convicted of terrorism offenses" - change it's position, remove it, provide a quote or change the sentence"

Is this edit summary calling upon the authority of an MOS? Geo Swan (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the problem you added sources to "...convicted of terrorism offenses" but your sources do not verify that he is convicted of terrorism offenses. This is misleading IQinn (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All of those sources back up that he is a citizen of Uzbekistan. Some of them back up that he was convicted.  I repeat are these tags you keep placing backed up by the authority of a manual of style?  If so it is to one, or a section of one, I am unfamiliar with.  Is there any way you could see your way clear to name the section of the manual of style, or other wikidocument you think justifies this tag?  Geo Swan (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your sources are misleading they do not back up that he is "convicted of terrorism offenses". There is no need to place eight sources in a misleading way. Just click on the tag i have edit and it will bring you to the right place IQinn (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The instructions for Not in source are at: Template:Not in source. After reading the (brief) instructions, I question whether your use complies with the instructions.  I have reproduced the "Use" section of the instructions below.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Use
 * Use


 * "Use this tag only if a source is given, you have checked the source, and found that the source says something other than what is contained in the text. Explain in detail on the talk page.


 * }
 * When the text says multiple things I suggest it is perfectly acceptable to use one reference to substantiate one aspect of the assertions and use another reference to substantiate another aspect. I suggest it is only apropriate for you to raise a WP:VER if the article contains assertions that aren't substantiated by any references.  Now maybe there is some assertion that requires a further reference, that I am innocently overlooking.  Fine.  Then please be collegial, follow the instructions in Template:Not in source and "Explain in detail on the talk page".  Geo Swan (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, i will explain it again for you even i have done this already above. Your text says "...convicted of terrorism offenses" and about 8 of you nine source added to this sentence do not verify that. They do not mention at all that he has been convicted of terrorism offenses. IQinn (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And, how does that comply with the instructions for the use of this tag, which I quoted above? The tag you used redirects to WP:VER -- and that is only appropriate when there are assertions that are not verifiable from any of the given sources.  I have asked you which assertions you are concerned aren't verifiable from any of the existing references.  And you haven't named any.  Forgive me for concluding this is because you can't.  If you can find an unverifiable assertion, you should calmly just quote that assertion, and say what aspect of it is unverifiable from any of the existing references.  If you can't specify an assertion which is unverifiable from any of the existing referencces, then you simply should not be using that tag.


 * You seem to be trying to suggest that there is something wrong with a statement that says multiple things, like (1) Yusupov is an Uzbek citizen; (2) Yusupov was convicted, and uses some references to substantiate one assertion in the statement, and uses other references to substantiate other parts of the assertion. Some of the references, which substantiate, among other things, that he was an Uzbekistan citizen, are dated to when he had been arrested, and charges were pending, or when he had been charged, and the trial was pending, or to when he had pled guilty, and the sentence was pending.  You, loosely, assert that only one of the references substantiated that he had been convicted.  Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant.  But it is not, in fact, true.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How about this article Where you added 54 sources to an statement but none of then full verifies the statement. To add 53 single sources to verify that there are 53 sources does not really makes sense to me. There could be even more. :)) Your methods are a bit strange sometimes. And I still full disagree with you and instead working with me together to solve my concerns you filibuster about policies. The statement is still misleading and should be changed as the 9 links at this place suggest more substance in the sources than there is. You are not addressing the problem. IQinn (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First I request that we use Talk:Furkat Kasimovich Yusupov to discuss the Furkat Kasimovich Yusupov article. Please don't make comments on other articles to avoid answering my civil and pertinent questions.


 * You assert: "The statement is still misleading and should be changed as the 9 links at this place suggest more substance in the sources than there is. You are not addressing the problem." As I have explained below that assertion is completely off-base. Geo Swan (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I used it as an expample and there is nothing wrong with that. Looks more like you do not want to answer my civil and pertinent questions. IQinn (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing nothing off-base here. You do not take my concerns serious and you have only added your explanation recently. I had a look at it and i still have strong concerns. I will have a closer look at it and write my response to it. The issue is still misleading. It would be nice when you could agree that we add the misleading tag again to the page until we have cleared that up and found consensus. Can we? IQinn (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

responsible use of the misleading tag
The misleading tag, when instantiated, directs readers to the talk page to see which aspect of the article triggered the concern of the contributor who placed the tag. The contributor who placed that tag hasn't explained the tag placement. I plan to remove that tag. Geo Swan (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are edit warring. Do not remove tags that are about ongoing discussions without consensus. The explanation and issue is discussed in the posting above IQinn (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You have an obligation to explain this tag. What you wrote above does not fulfill your obligation.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I fulfilled the obligation absolutely. I have added it only after my first posting here. It speaks explicit about what is misleading. IQinn (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Whow! I just saw that you have removed the tag without consensus. Without even waiting my reply. Starting an edit war over an tag. Put it back and fix the problem and wait for consensus. Cheers IQinn (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * May I remind you that the wikipedia is not a battleground. You have an obligation to clearly specify your concerns.  You have an obligation to seek compromise.  I have that same obligation.  Now, because your stated intention was to get this article deleted, it could be argued your edits were questionable, and I had no obligation to seek out a compromise with you in this specific case.  Nevertheless, I changed the wording of the one sentence you had complained about.  Take a closer look at:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * "Furkat Kasimovich Yusupov (b. 1980 (age 28–29)) is a citizen of Uzbekistan who was arrested for, charged with, and tried and convicted for terrorism offenses in 2004."
 * "Furkat Kasimovich Yusupov (b. 1980 (age 28–29)) is a citizen of Uzbekistan who was arrested for, charged with, and tried and convicted for terrorism offenses in 2004."


 * }


 * Let me parse that for you:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Furkat Kasimovich Yusupov (b. 1980 (age 28–29)) is a citizen of Uzbekistan who was
 * arrested for, 
 * charged with, and
 * tried and
 * convicted for terrorism offenses in 2004.
 * convicted for terrorism offenses in 2004.


 * }
 * Your claim -- your justification for placing your tags, was that some of the references to the original wording "Furkat Kasimovich Yusupov (b. 1980 (age 28–29)) is a citizen of Uzbekistan who was convicted of terrorism offenses in 2004." did not substantiate his conviction. I responded that all the references substantiated either that he was a citizen of Uzbekistan, or that he had been convicted.


 * Well, all of those references substantiated both that Yusupov was a citizen of Uzbekistan, and at least one of his:
 * arrest;
 * charges;
 * trial; or
 * conviction.
 * I frankly thought the justification for your original tag placement was very questionable, nevertheless I replaced the wording you objected to with a compromise wording. Do you really think you could find a single contributor who would agree that any of your tags were appropriate after I placed that compromise wording?


 * I strongly suspect that you let your dander get up, and you simply didn't read my most recent edit to the document closely enough to notice I replaced the one sentence you objected to with a compromise wording. Geo Swan (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all let me fully assure you that i am and i have not been annoyed or angry. When that is what you mean by "danger up". Secondly i absolutely saw the change in the sentence that you did. You have also changed it multiply times before by adding sources. I have closely followed all of them. Even you did not explain it in the ongoing talk page discussion.


 * Unfortunately your changes do not solve the problem. The nine sources that directly follow the words. "...convicted for terrorism offenses" are misleading. Convicted of terrorism is an exceptional claim and it requires high-quality mainstream sources to verify it. In addition this article here is a BLP and for BLP's we have even the stronger requirement that these sources should be multiply.


 * Despite carefully checking all the nine sources i can not say that these requirement is fulfilled. Could you please list all sources here that you think verify this claim. IQinn (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for those who expressed a delete opinion to edit an article during its afd?
This article, was recently nominated for deletion, here. Following nominating the article for deletion, the contributor who made the nomination, then subsequently made a series of edits to the article:, , , , , , , , and.

In their last comment here the contributor who nominated the article for deletion has told me: "You are edit warring.".

In my experience it is rare for those who have nominated an article for deletion, or who have voiced a "delete" opinion, to subsequently edit the article before the afd has been concluded.

It has always seemed to me that the nomination for deletion, or the voicing of a "delete" opinion in the afd, implies that the contributor realizes they have gone on record that they think the article is hopeless -- that they can not imagine a way for the article to be improved to the point it merited being kept. It seems to me anyone who can see a way to improve the article should not voice a "delete" opinion, or nominate the article for deletion.

Having gone on record that it is not possible to fix the article I am mystified at what kind of meaningful justification deletion nominators, or deletion voicers could have for their edits. Your deletion opinion means you have given up on the article, so please, let me suggest you let those who think the article merits inclusion, and who think it can be improved, spend the seven days of the afd process trying to work at improvements, without your "help".

In particular, if you think the article should be deleted, what possible justification could you have for adding tags indicating the kind of improvements you think the article needs? You already explained, in the afd, your justification for stating that the article could not be improved, didn't you? Why not just leave it at that? If new concerns with the article occur to you, add them to the afd. There are contributors who are viewing the article, so they can consider whether they want to voice their own opinion on the afd, and so they can consider which opinion they want to express. Please, let them see the version that represents the best efforts of those who believe the article should be kept, a version without your "improvements".

Of course if the closing administrator concludes with a "keep" or "no consensus", those who voiced a "delete", who feel they can make contributions, while respecting our policies and the afd closure, should then feel free to do so.

Of course if someone who voices a "delete" sees that a vandal has left an truly unambigous slander, they should feel free to remove the slander.

Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any policy that says i can not improve the article during AfD? Your posting just accuses me of bad faith. What is absolutely wrong! It I would suggest you concentrate on contend issues instead of personal attacks. Cheers IQinn (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain your purpose in continuing to edit an article you are on record as being committed to delete?


 * You wrote above: "Your posting just accuses me of bad faith." For the record I dispute this assertion.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The posting above is self evidence. Here are some policies you might review Civility, No personal attacks, Harassment.IQinn (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the references leave any doubt that Furkat was convicted
I don't believe the references leave any doubt that Furkat was convicted. So I reverted an earlier excision of that info.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Conviction of terrorism offences" needs multiply highly reliable secondary sources for verification. I spent quite a time to read all the sources that you have attached, i do not see that as given. Please provide me with the quotes from at least two reliable secondary sources that verify that he has been convicted. Thank you IQinn (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you know of the Uzbek justice system? It is a country notable for the routine use of torture.  A few years ago the British ambassador resigned, and spoke out about Uzbekistan's use of torture.  We know Furkat (1) confessed; (2) and pled guilty -- in a country where being convicted following being charged was a foregone conclusion.


 * Could you please explain your justification for not accepting the existing references which confirm his conviction? Geo Swan (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We had that in the discussion above: "Convicted of terrorism is an exceptional claim and it requires high-quality mainstream sources to verify it. In addition this article here is a BLP and for BLP's we have even the stronger requirement that these sources should be multiply. Despite carefully checking all the nine sources i can not say that these requirement is fulfilled..." So could you please list the sources with quotes here on the talk page? I do not see that you have multiply sources that confirm his conviction. IQinn (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Furkat Yusupov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061004050208/http://www.uzbekistan.de/en/2004/e_n0803.htm to http://www.uzbekistan.de/en/2004/e_n0803.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Furkat Yusupov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://enews.ferghana.ru/article.php?id=525
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1054045.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2005/05/13/UPI-Intelligence-Watch/UPI-28961116021748/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.press-service.uz/en/content/letopis_nezavisimosti/2000-2008/2004/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://agonist.org/story/2004/7/26/92125/4528
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://agonist.org/story/2004/8/20/114445/322
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.why-war.com/news/2004/03/29/terroris.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071204203434/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/ARB_Round_1_Factors_000394-000494.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/ARB_Round_1_Factors_000394-000494.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-10009326_ITM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)