User talk:Mansoor Ijaz

Archives

1

Please add constructive comments here --

@FreeRangeFrog: Good early morning to you. Just a short note to say that the Sandbox is now complete from my input standpoint. Hopefully you can find time to review and then let me have one last look before we move the re-developed article to mainspace -- thanks. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mansoor Ijaz,

I would just like to inform you that the WikiProject Good Article Recruitment Centre project has been but on hold until further notice. The decision comes after it was noticed that there was a lack of commitment from some of our recruiters as well as the recruitees. We will be working on revising to the program in order to make it more efficient and productive so we can teach user interested in reviewing Good Article nominations better.

I am telling you this because I see that you have added your name to the waiting list. If you are still interested in being recruited at some point in the future, please leave your name on the list, however, if you are no longer interested, I ask you to remove it or contact me on my talk page. Thank-you.--Dom497 (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mansoor Ijaz, I am going to review your article Timothy M. Carney for GA if you are still around - or if you have an actively editing friend on-wiki who can help. I almost always ask for a few fixes and changes, so, as I see you haven't edited since May, can you or somone else who watches your talk page let me know if this article has any active editors? ThanksMontanabw^(talk) 20:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: Thank you for letting me know. I am indeed still around and will be happy to answer questions or conduct as I can fixes etc. I hope it fits the criteria. Thank you for taking the time to review it. Best, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Montanabw -- Montanabw (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

The article

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sasuke Sarutobi -- Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

The article Robin Raphel you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Robin Raphel for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sasuke Sarutobi -- Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have had to fail this, but given the attention that the reported investigation into Amb. Raphel has brought and the resulting activity to the page, the article could no longer hold up as stable or NPOV. In the meantime, I've also placed a request for the page to be semi-protected while the media activity passes. I hope that you consider my recommendations in the GA review and renominate the article after addressing these. Please feel free to contact me if I can help. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the flip-flop, but given that recent activity isn't as bad as I'd first perceived it to be, I'm looking to re-open the review, at the suggestion of another reviewer. Would you be able to drop me a line either here or on my talk page if you wish for the review to proceed? Thank you — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article

The article Timothy M. Carney you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Timothy M. Carney for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Montanabw -- Montanabw (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

The content under Hussain Haqqani and memogate scanda is being debated in the talk page for the lack of credibility. You contribution and suggestion to the content is highly recommended as you are one of the prime witness in the whole episode. Kindly come on the talk page of Hussain Haqqani for review — Preceding unsigned comment added by VisionHawk (talk • contribs) 08:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VisionHawk: Thank you for your request. Unfortunately, as the legal case in this matter of the Memorandum is still technically open and ongoing, it is not possible for me to directly comment on the changes being made to the Husain Haqqani article. I have noted this conflict of interest problem on the article's Talk page before, as you will see. I can only recommend that the main Memogate article and the version that was passed in an intense editing of my own Wikipedia article are accepted as factual and accurate, and should therefore essentially appear in the same manner in the Haqqani article as well for consistency of content and objectivity. Hopefully this helps. I'm sorry I cannot directly contribute more than that. Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content relating to Hussain Haqqani has again been reverted to its old form despite serious concerns being raised by a number of commenters regarding its biased nature, likewise content relating to Ayesha Jalal has again been inserted despite protest which I believe are in a direct violation of Wiki BLP rules when it comes to your very own integrity like wise the inserted content also go against Wikipedia OR rules. I in my capacity have tried to revert the content to restore it to its original agreed upon form but such attempts have been thwarted by Kautilya3. I humbly request you to take notice. Thankyou --GreenBeret65 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I have been told, with warnings of a block, I fail to understand why all the sources given to highlight the true neutral picture are ignored and a specific point of view suiting a few individuals is being pushed, kindly take note of what I was told:

@GreenBeret65: I heard you fine the first time. Wikipedia is written using reliable sources, as per WP:RS, and the editors' opinions are irrelevant. Mr. Ijaz, being part of the subject of the article, has conflict of interest in the subject and his views will be completely ignored. He can only raise objections based on WP:BLP violations concerning him and, if we can't resolve such issues on the talk page, they will be referred to WP:BLP/N. Any reverts you make to the article edits have to be justified on the grounds of Wikipedia policies. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC) GreenBeret65 (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenBeret65: I have raised my objections with administrators at the living persons/Noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Husain_Haqqani_.28segments_of_article_dealing_with_Mansoor_Ijaz.29). Feel free to comment there as required -- there is no question that as written presently, the section defames me and in my view, violates BLP criteria as the burden of evidence rests with the editor. Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I can't remove the party affiliation, because Ebyabe already removed it. Secondly, I don't understand your concern about "Pakistani-American", because our Pakistani Americans article says Pakistani Americans are Americans whose ancestry originates from Pakistan or Pakistanis who migrated to and reside in the United States. I don't see how there's a difference between "Americans whose ancestry originates from Pakistan" and "an American of Pakistani ancestry". Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I thought perhaps there was some difference between Pakistani-Americans and Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans, etc. that I was missing, so it helps to hear back from you. Nyttend (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mansoor Ijaz. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thinking of updating the article: I understand that you're still in acute grief, and if our places were switched, I'd never think of contacting you about updating my Wikipedia article. I've added your mother's dates to the infobox, although not to the main body because the text merely mentions her quickly; the dates aren't cited in-article, but I provided a link to the obituary page on the Roanoke Times website in my edit summary. I didn't see anything in your father's article that needs an update, although of course if you can show me something that does need an update, I'll get it.

Prominent physicists, like prominent scholars in other disciplines, will pass the

Obituaries aren't a good source for most purposes, but nobody's going to object if we use it to cite her death date. The online obituary page says that it was posted on 11 January, but could you tell me what days the print edition of the Times included her obituary? I'm uncomfortable relying on the newspaper's website (just because obituary pages tend to get taken down before long), but as I now live in Lynchburg (an hour's drive east of Roanoke), I can likely find a printed copy of the days you specify and thus cite the print edition. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mansoor Ijaz. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mansoor Ijaz. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]