Talk:Ravil Mingazov

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

As a courtesy to other to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries?

Another contributor removed an image I consider appropriate and relevant from this article, with the edit summary: "No good reason given for the inclusion of this images into this and further biographies off Guantanamo detainees - please find consensus first".

This other contributor has stated their objection to this image before -- IIRC they called it "misleading propaganda". In response to this claim I requested them to be more specific. Our article on propaganda further breaks down propaganda into types of propaganda. If the image was really being used as "propaganda" it should have been a trivial matter for them to identify what kind of propaganda it was.

Appropriate and relevant images make articles easier to read and easier to understand. I agree some articles have too many images. I believe one appropriate and relevant image per screenful works best.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Rasul v. Bush was one of the most significant events for the 600 or so captives who remained in Guantanamo in 2004. The reading of this notice to the captives is one of the most significant events for the captives. It signalled that they would no longer be held without explanation. It signalled that they would be informed of some of the allegations that lead to their captivity (other allegations remained classified). It signalled that they would have an opportunity to try to refute allegations that lead to their captivity.

This other contributor has also objected to the use of this image, on the basis that no reference has been provided that the captive in the image is the one having the notice read to them. To this I responded that the caption doesn't claim the captive in the image was the same captive the article was about -- but we know that all captives who had a CSRT review had this notice read to them.

I also responded by talking about my work on the Flower class corvettes. Several hundred of these WW2 corvettes were built. At the time I worked on those articles we had individual articles on less than two dozen of the vessels. And we had two or three images of the corvettes, showing both the original configutation, and the extended forecastle retrofit. I added those images to the articles on the remaining vessels. The captions stated it was an image of a sister ship. I felt it was appropriate to add these images to the other articles. I didn't expect anyone to object to the use of a sister ship on the articles on those vessels. IIRC no one did object.

Similarly, I think it is apropriate to use this image, on this article, and other articles about Guantanamo captives who we know went through a CSR Tribunal.

IIRC this contributor has also stated, as if it were an accepted fact, that this image should only be used on a single article -- Combatant Status Review Tribunal. But they didn't offer a meaningful, substantive, policy based reason why this image shouldn't be used elsewhere. I have asked whether they would object to using an image of the periodic table on the individual articles on the 100 or so chemical elements.

Frankly, since I don't remember the contributor who is objecting now to the use of this image on this article offering any response to my counter-points I had assumed that they were tacitly agreeing with me, or at least had decided the issue wasn't serious enough to pursue.

If this contributor believes they have meaningful, substantive responses I encourage them to state them. Geo Swan (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has been discussed and there was no consensus to add these images to further articles. No good reason given for the inclusion of these image to all Guantanamo biographies. Please do not start another edit war and work towards consensus. You may ask for a third opinion. IQinn (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Iqinn legacy

The individuals who used the Iqinn wiki-id became known for unrepentant edit-warring. This edit warring triggered an escalating series of blocks of increasing duration. In the end those individuals were unwilling or unable to comply with our civility and other policies, and they were indefinitely blocked.

My contributions were the primary target of the individuals using this wiki-id -- about 80 or 90 percent of their 20,000 edits were either to material I originally contributed or were about material I originally contributed. While Iqinn did engage in talk page discussion, and discussions in other fora, their comments there routinely degenerated to leveling accusations against those who disagreed with them.

Among the activities of this wiki-id was the frivolous application of editorial tags they would refuse to explain.

Among the poorly explained edit-warring they engaged in with this article was the removal of an image of the 2004 notice being read to a captive, informing them that they would be informed as to why they were being held. I restored this image. Geo Swan (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ravil Mingazov. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]