Constructive discussion very welcome
Guffydrawers, thanks for your comments in response to my edit request relating to the Mansoor Ijaz article and for removing the video link. I will follow up on this separately.
The main issue with the content as it stands is that the information which you submitted on 15 and 16 January in relation to the Quantum/Lotus F1 deal is out of date. News reports which suggested the deal had fallen through were countered by the Lotus team chairman the following day - see article http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112169
Whilst I appreciate you cannot keep track of every page that you edit, the rapid change in this situation has left a semi-protected Wiki with misleading information. Given the credibility that is placed in Wikipedia this position can potentially interfere with a transaction that is still ongoing; hence my earlier suggestion that it is negative information.
Since Mr Ijaz's page is semi-protected I do not have the authority to edit it personally. If you could make the further changes that I have requested in relation to the Quantum/Lotus F1 transaction that would be appreciated and I will of course amend my edit request to simply state that the information needed updating.
Finally you are spot on re the clue in my username and yes I am professionally connected to the subject. It was felt that using the edit request would be faster and more appropriate to resolve the issue.
I am the subject of the article "Mansoor Ijaz". I do not know who User:Ryuichinaruhodo is (perhaps he/she are one of my lawyers who routinely review my Wiki page for accuracy and content, but I really don't know) but I am thankful for the intervention as I had written directly to Wiki editor John Reaves to contact you about your editing of my article. You will appreciate that each edit you make, given that this article is the first hit on any search engine under my name, can create a level of concern within the financial institutions I deal with based on inaccurate information (or better, information you are quick to enter on one day but do not take the time to follow up with and reverse or revise the next if information flow requires it).
I am writing to you personally to ask that you correct the inaccuracies of your edits. We can do this one of two ways -- I can identify the problem, and you can then do your own edits in language that is similar to what is already in the article (grammar, style, etc) or I can provide what I would hope would be non-biased edits for your consideration either here or via some other form of communication, and you can take it from there. In this case, I will simply suggest an initial non-biased edit in the hope that your comment to the previous editor about not having an axe to grind with me is factually accurate and truthful.
In the current context, it is absolutely wrong and inaccurate to say the Lotus talks with our Quantum consortium are dead. You revised the article's introductory paragraph (that is supposed to remain general and not get into details anyway) as follows: "Ijaz headed a consortium of investors that in 2013 announced its intention to acquire 35% of the Formula One team, Lotus F1 Team Limited but failed when Lotus terminated the relationship because the funds were not received."
"but failed when Lotus terminated the relationship because the funds were not received." citing the interview  with Gerard Lopez is no longer accurate because of subsequent information from an interview conducted by senior F1 journalist Jonathan Noble with Andy Ruhan, a senior team executive (executive co-chairman of the board of Lotus) (please see: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112169).
May I suggest that you revert to: "Ijaz heads a consortium of investors that in June 2013 announced its intention to acquire 35% of the Formula One team, Lotus F1 Team Limited."
and then clarify down in the Formula One section what exactly happened -- that Lopez said talks were dead, but Ruhan clarified that talks were ongoing albeit under a different configuration than originally envisaged etc etc. I have a proposal for simple language that will clarify that point as well, but I suspect that we would then have violated Wiki rules for living persons editing their own articles. I simply seek to get your consent to correct your own edits with proper information from the necessary articles.
I set forth one more article below, which I am sure you have seen since you seem to have taken such keen interest in my Formula One activities. It may help give proper context to your edits in the future. http://grandprix247.com/2014/01/20/mansoor-ijaz-separating-truth-from-fiction-on-lotus-and-formula-1/
Thank you for your note. Indeed, no one wants this all to be over faster than I do. I would ask you to understand that the reason we needed to correct the record promptly was to insure any compliance reviews ongoing as we wind through the final stages of our efforts would not turn up dated information that inaccurately reflected diametrically opposite facts. I have been called a lot of names -- none of it fair -- during this process when in fact the financial partners we assembled are the ones whose complexities created the delays. I will accept any critique from anyone as long as it sticks to the subject at hand and does not unfairly attack my person or my integrity. That, I defend with great vigor.
I hope you will continue to take interest in my article and keep it up to date and accurate. I welcome you to query me before making future edits so you can know factually and verifiably what the latest situation is. Be well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mansoor Ijaz (talk • contribs) 21:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if I can ask you to work with me on a section edit of my page, and perhaps doing some consolidation (as the article seems to keep getting longer, not remaining brief as it once was). There is an entire part of my work in international negotiations, namely the peace effort I made in Kashmir, that has not been covered in the article at all. Many of the links are now dead, but if there was a blind email address to which I could send the copies of old articles (dating back to 2000 and 2001), you would then have all the reference materials you needed. This article sums up the entire effort http://gulfnews.com/news/world/pakistan/architects-and-wreckers-of-the-kashmir-plan-1.287347, but the others (in Times of India and the International Herald Tribune) are also of historical importance and value. This was an integrally important part of my life's citizen diplomacy efforts that never received any mention in the article, while some things that were not even truthful did.
I also have an architectural idea for how to incorporate this into the article so it reads into the section on International Negotiations with one section devoted to the bin Laden matters and my intervention in Sudan, and another section devoted to Kashmir. Evolution of these types of articles, with different people coming in at different times, leads to a bit of a mish-mash that sometimes needs clarification, synopsis and clarity -- and for data left out -- completeness. That is the spirit with which I make this request.
Finally, there are some external links to video-taped interviews that I feel are both credible and offer detailed insight into the Memogate issue and other matters with which I was involved in my lifetime. I have put these herein below for your consideration to add to the section captioned External Links:
CNN Fareed Zakaria's Global Public Square http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/05/zakaria-interviews-mansoor-ijaz-about-memogate/
Hi there. I noticed your comments on the sock puppet investigation of Bettifm, and I was very happy with what you said :)
The issue I have with this is because it *looks* bad, which is what you said too. There is someone who removes an AFD notice, which is wrong, yes, and they get a 1 week block. The 1 week block is probably fair enough. Then, after a discussion on the blocking admin's talk page, a CheckUser is performed, which uncovers a second account using the same IP range, and then both accounts are indefinitely blocked for sock puppetting.
The problem is that the second account admits to being, well, a "sister editor" of Bettifm. Now, I for one don't know what "sister editor" means. If it means that it is a role account, perhaps that needs to be explained properly. If it is Bettifm's actual sister, and they live in the same house and use the same computer, then that needs to be explained too. But certainly it can't be said that they were in any way trying to hide their relationship. And the only abuse seems to be that Tamaora, the "sister editor" of Bettifm, edited Wikipedia in a normal way while Bettifm was blocked for 1 week.
The reason that I commented on this is because it looks to me like the blocking admins just rushed this a bit, and they didn't check the facts as well as they should have. Yes, Bettifm is, as they say, a "novice editor", but he is not a deliberately disruptive editor. Twice Bettifm went for an RFA, to try to become an administrator. He wants to contribute good things to Wikipedia. If Tamaora is in fact his sister, which I think is the most likely scenario, then we aren't just upsetting one person: we are upsetting two. I am seeing a lot of evidence of good intentions here, and I for one don't think that an indef ban should be for people who are trying to do the right thing.
Look at the removal of the AFD in isolation. Let's assume that he was a good editor besides that, who did nothing else wrong. He saw that there was a really poorly thought out AFD request, so he removed it. Unless you know the rule about not removing AFD notices, you'd probably think the same thing. He even said in his edit summary why he was removing it. There was no malice there. The AFD was speedy closed, and was either a bad faith nomination or at the very least a hasty decision to nominate it.
Looking at his contributions, Bettifm has been trying to contribute to Wikipedia. He hasn't vandalised, he hasn't been aggressive, he hasn't been disruptive. He has added, for the most part, pages that were needed for Wikipedia.
The issue is that his spelling is bad and he isn't generally taking the time to learn how to do it properly. So a lot of people are becoming frustrated at having to clean up his errors.
I am all for a 1 week block in this case, and, if the blocking admin really does feel that this, his 2nd block, indicates the need for a lengthier block, then by all means stretch it out to 2 weeks or even a month. But indefinite seems overly harsh. Just because they can't be bothered helping him? What kind of message does that send?
My concern is that this is going to get someone who is presumably a young editor to hate Wikipedia. Maybe he is 14 or 15 years old. Maybe his sister is 13. They are going to say that Wikipedia is horrible. Then when they move out of home and get their own ISP and IP address they will likely get new accounts and edit Wikipedia again, but this time doing it deliberately badly, in revenge.
Indef bans, I think, should be for people who are enemies of Wikipedia, not for people who are trying their best but are just not quite good enough yet. I think that the blocking admins were over the top with this. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)