User talk:Salimfadhley

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Before you leave comments or feedback please login! Anonymous comments might be ignored!

Draft for Aldo Arcangioli

Hello SalimFadhley, first of all many thanks for taking the time to review the page. Following your suggestions I have modified and corrected link for references format where needed. Then I have also modified some part of the bio in order to have more enciclopedic result. Please feel free to underline any other action which can imprese the page


Draft:Nakheel Properties

I added history information for Draft:Nakheel Properties with multiple references in major newspapers such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Financial Times. Is this enough for acceptance now? If so, perhaps you could accept it. If not, what more is needed? —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have two reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of this subject. In which case, could you identify them here? --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I believe all the references in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Financial Times reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of this subject. Refs 5–10:
  • Kerr, Simeon (11 May 2009). "Dubai's Nakheel receives bail-out cash". Financial Times.
  • Thomas Jr., Landon (25 November 2009). "Dubai Fund Asks for Stay on Debt Payments". The New York Times.
  • Alloway, Tracy (4 December 2009). "Nakheel and the sukuk legal spook". Financial Times.
  • Bianchi, Stefania; Sleiman, Mirna (31 March 2010). "Dubai Replaces Nakheel Chairman". The Wall Street Journal.
  • Bianchi, Stefania (30 June 2010). "Nakheel Starts Payments to Creditors". The Wall Street Journal.
  • Hall, Camilla (24 August 2011). "Nakheel completes debt restructuring". Financial Times.
Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Nakheel Properties notability

Under WP:SIRS for WP:CORP:

Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Kerr, Simeon (11 May 2009). "Dubai's Nakheel receives bail-out cash". Financial Times. Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article specifically about Nakheel in the Financial Times.
Thomas Jr., Landon (25 November 2009). "Dubai Fund Asks for Stay on Debt Payments". The New York Times. Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about Nakheel debt payments in The New York Times.
Alloway, Tracy (4 December 2009). "Nakheel and the sukuk legal spook". Financial Times. Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article specifically about Nakheel in the Financial Times.
Bianchi, Stefania; Sleiman, Mirna (31 March 2010). "Dubai Replaces Nakheel Chairman". The Wall Street Journal. Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article specifically about Nakheel senior personnel change in The Wall Street Journal.
Bianchi, Stefania (30 June 2010). "Nakheel Starts Payments to Creditors". The Wall Street Journal. Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article specifically about Nakheel in The Wall Street Journal.
Hall, Camilla (24 August 2011). "Nakheel completes debt restructuring". Financial Times. Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article specifically about Nakheel in the Financial Times.
Total qualifying sources 6
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Does this not constitute notability in Wikipedia terms for Draft:Nakheel Properties? Please could you tell me where you disagree? —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think the second item constitutes significant coverage? --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Still waiting for a reply on this. I've looked at the 2nd source on your table. It does not appear to be significant coverage for this subject. Can you explain why you think it is? Salimfadhley (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
To make your argument, you need to argue for most or all of the entries, not just one. I see that Nakheel Properties is now an article with Wikipedia articles in many other languages too. I rest my case m'lud! Happy Christmas! —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Your volunteering for admin run

Thank you. Thank you for helping at #wikipedia-en-help forum. Don't feel bad about the poll feedback. You got some excellent advice from very kind editors in precisely the best positions to know how to help you. Wikipedia will need admins in the future.

Like you, I have had a sporadic relationship with Wikipedia over time, but this year I offered myself for examination in the same poll and was encouraged to run. An admin run was an opportunity for every single thing I've ever written on-wiki to be closely examined. I have a big mouth sometimes. I have learned to listen better ("read better" doesn't convey the same meaning) and show more respect for my fellow human. These are life skills improved here on the pedia. When I put myself forward for microscopic examination by the community I learned that the trust I had acquired over time counted a lot. A large group of self-selecting representatives of Wikipedia, our fellow editors, chose by consensus to give me permission to use the larger toolset. Since then I've had some personal challenges as admin but I'm getting back to being myself. When I did have trouble, I just asked for help. I'm not good at that.

So when veteran wikipedians recommend doing more AFC and NPP, they aren't putting you off or putting you down, they are pointing at the enormous pile of work any editor could do, then instructing you to hit the pile and start shoveling. Both New Page Patrol and Articles for Creation processes teach you an enormous amount about how a good page is constructed. That helps you feel more confident about building pagespace which interests you. (In my case, I'm always looking for an untold story.) When we work hard together, argue together, improve pages together, we learn to trust each other. Doing the work, and finding your voice as a wikipedian, that's what will earn your fellow contributors' support on your admin run if you choose to put yourself forward.

Good luck to you. Thanks for putting yourself forward as a volunteer Teahouse helper. Maybe you can get some credit for the good common sense you dispense to newer editors. Have some fun. Help other new editors to feel as comfortable as you feel. If you need help at some point, please call on me. BusterD (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking the time to reply. I really appreciate it. One thing that I was curious about was indeed the suggestion to look at AFC and NPP. The reason I found this advice so unexpected was that it's precisely what I have been doing. The vast majority of my edits this year have been related to AFC. I'm really curious why it seems that isn't the case.
I tend to be on IRC rather than Teahouse - mainly because IRC (being off-wiki) attracts more abusers, and I generally find myself interested on the side of fighting abuse than creating more content. Salimfadhley (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Volunteers choose their own favorite place to be. This a good thing. You seem a sensible editor and I see no big issues with your pagework, based on a cursory reading. I think an admin candidate should be seen to improve pagespace and demonstrate willingness to edit on a consistent basis. Continue what you've been doing and keep at it. Ask for help when you need it. Give help when asked. Come back as suggested. BusterD (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
You are doing fine work these days. Thanks for the help. BusterD (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Request on 09:28:33, 3 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by LDEN1


Hi, Many thanks for your quick reply on the submission of the article Leighton Denny MBE. I am hoping you may be able to provide more information on the reason for decline - it mentions that it appears to include reference to paid advertiorial features. As far as I am aware, all of the news articles features are standard editorial as none state advert/paid advert/partnership etc. Thanks in advance.

LDEN1 (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to identify your two best sources. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Louise Hampton

Information icon Hello, Salimfadhley. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Louise Hampton, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern of declining Draft:Jelle Sels

This is the question: how can I improve my Draft:Jelle Sels? I see that the draft is declined, however, it's notable, since the guidelines of tennis biographies, they can win at least one ITF final or ATP challenger. However, it was declined. I don't know how, but I would like a suggestion on this decline and get it published. Thank you. Severestorm28 (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I got it wrong. Feel free to resubmit. I'm not a tennis expert. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Severestorm28: Just wanted to chime in actually as I noticed this draft as well and am a member of the tennis Wiki project. He doesn't actually meet notability guidelines, as the requirement is an ATP Tour title or Challenger title, not an ITF title. A vast majority of ITF tennis players are nowhere near notable for Wikipedia. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Much appreciated @Adamtt9. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
If a player can be found to meet WP:GNG, of course an article can be created as that takes precedence to the tennis Wikiproject. However, I feel like the decline due to lack of notability and sources is accurate in this assessment, and the tennis guidelines aren't met either. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Adamtt9: I see now. Maybe I could request the draft for deletion, due to the fact that he did not win any ATP tour level-ATP challenger titles. He has won one ITF title yes, but looking at your comment I can guess that it is most likely not notable for any tennis player. Thanks for reminding me about the notability of tennis players. Severestorm28 (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Adamtt9: Just want to make sure if Draft:Ezekiel Clark is notable. He has public personal life information on the internet, but maybe he is or not notable. Can you help me with this? Severestorm28 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Spire Academy AFD

In regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spire_Institute_and_Academy , There is not a single press release, we've checked every source and not a single one is a 404. They are one of three Official FINA Training Centres in the entire world, are a designated training site for USA Wrestling, the United States Olympic team, and are an official Olympic and Paralympic training site. These sources are the same if not extremely similar to IMG Academy which has no notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMG_Academy Mooneys44 (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Commons-emblem-notice.svg

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Commons-emblem-notice.svg

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hesam Abedini page drafted

Hello "Salimfadhley"(talk) would you please determine "what was the problem with the article you sent it into drafts" ? you wrote me something about referencing issues, but I've scrutinized all the cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fagottii (talkcontribs) 19:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Fagottii, I moved Draft:Hesam Abedini to draft space because I did not think the sources you have referenced were sufficient to show that this subject meets our notability guidelines. Subsequently you submitted the draft for review, whereupon @Robert McClenon declined the draft, presumably on the basis that the article's sourcing had not been sufficiently improved. Salimfadhley (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Fagottii - I declined the draft more because the text of the draft does not satisfy notability. The draft does not appear to address any of the musical notability criteria. It also does not appear to address general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@Fagottii, and I might add that I completely agree with @Robert McClenon's actions. Please feel free to ask any questions you might have regarding our AFC process and your draft. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ankit yadav 529

Ankit Yadav appears to be another of those "Get my name onto WP" people FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 15:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure you know this. When you see a title Draft:Foo 2 then you need to look for drafts Foo, Foo 1, Foo 3 etc. Often they are one or more editors trying to game the system, so it required a little investigation and consideration of starting an SPI, falling for UPE, etc FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. It was immediately suspicious. I did check the undisambiguated title and found that it had not been salted, only expired through neglect, I did not check the alternative spellings of the name. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Salimfadhley (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is under continuous attack by vanity projects, paid and unpaid. The better we all get at spotting and shooting it down the better Wikipedia will be. Sometimes it feels like a distraction from reviewing and writing, but it's a great service we can all do. Also hunting down copyright pictures on commons is very useful FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I did notice that the picture associated with the article was clearly a professional shot, and unlikely to be the editor's own work. Somebody had already dealt with that. TBH, I actually find the anti-spam operation far more fascinating than the main business of Wikipedia. That's one of the reasons I hang around the en-help IRC channel - many of the abusers (including this person) are foolish enough to ask us for help vandalising the encyclopaedia. Salimfadhley (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh bless their little cotton socks! FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:NFOOTY

Hi. Please see WP:NFOOTY, point 1 for players in international matches. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Completely confused

Hello. I am completely confused by your move of my recent article, as every one of its sources were independent and reliable, and the article, as written, is totally in line with album stubs/short articles. Not only that, but I was still adding references from, among other reliable sources, The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Toronto Sun, and Tulsa World. I think you've made a mistake. Please advise. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, it is Junkfuel. Caro7200 (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
My advice would be to submit it via the normal AFC review process. That will give editors a chance to verify that all of the sources are as you say. Just put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the source. Salimfadhley (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Right, but you are not addressing the reasons for your move. Again, every source was reliable and independent, and, cumulatively, addressed the subject in depth. Do you have much experience with album articles? I wish to remain respectful, but this does not seem like AGF. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
On second thought, I will attempt to move this back, and add my other sources. You moved this so quickly that you couldn't possibly have analyzed the many reliable sources I referenced, which is bizarre and unfortunate. If you still have issues with this later, let's talk about it, or involve the community or an admin. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I have moved it back (before seeing this discussion), there was no reason to draftify this (just like many other similar moves Salimfadhley has made). Thank you for you contribution and your patience, and please keep editing! Fram (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Fram and @Caro7200, I moved the article because it seemed like a possibly notable subject that was insufficiently sourced, and was also seemed like a work in progress. The correct place for an incomplete article is draftspace. You are capable of moving the article yourself, and you have done so - so no harm done. Salimfadhley (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Two editors have disagreed with this move, Salimfadhley. Please consider the possibility that you made a mistake and do not be so hasty with moving referenced articles to Draft space. Five of your moves to Draft space today were reversed. Take the time to evaluate the sources yourself. Moving pages around can be disruptive for content creators so they should not be done without a valid reason you can explain to the article creator. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @Liz Salimfadhley (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Article alerts

Thanks for bringing up the article to notice on Afd. You can watchlist the Article alerts if you are not already watching it. Venkat TL (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware, thank you. I'm rather disappointed that editors voted to keep Ketu, which seems like badly sourced nonsense to me,but I shall settle for the ones I did get right. Salimfadhley (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I understand that the article is in terrible shape and WP:TNT would have been a good idea. But it is clear to me, that the AfD participants have voted on the notability of the topic, and not necessarily on the article status. In my opinion the topic manages to pass our notability criteria for Hindu deities (which is rather low). For centuries, Rahu and Ketu have been primarily used by astrologers to scare the bejesus out of people and extort them. I heard their names very early in childhood, even though I had no idea what they were. Every time solar or lunar eclipse happens they are all over the news. I have even seen their statues in some temples and I am sure some coverage in Hindu books exist. Venkat TL (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
You have cultural knowledge of which I am wholly ignorant. Thank you for explaining the role of Ketu!
I totally agree with your diagnosis. Subjects related to Hinduism seem to have been edited by one person who was recently blocked (for excessive copyvivo), as such a vast quantity of very dubious content has been added to these articles. It greatly displeases me. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy to share my knowledge. Indeed, I was surprised to see, how much of fringe junk, a determined, conflict of interest user, can push on Wikipedia without checks and balances on his acts, (until now). He should have been blocked and shut down long ago. It is of some consolation that other wikipedians noticed the copyright violation problem and are now screening & cleaning up the mess. Many articles that do not have substantial copyright violations still need to go for AfD screening. PROD is not being allowed by a few users on this topic area. Venkat TL (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation in the November 2021 New Pages Patrol drive

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For reviewing at least 25 articles during the drive.

Thank you for reviewing or re-reviewing 39 articles, which helped contribute to an overall 1276-article reduction in the backlog during the drive. (t · c) buidhe 12:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Rejection of B. Riley Financial

Hello Salimfadhley,

Two weeks ago, I posted a response at the Help Desk about your rejection of my submission for Draft:B. Riley Financial:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_November_29#23:49:35.2C_29_November_2021_review_of_draft_by_WalksInWelcome

Unfortunately, no one has replied, so I thought I might ask you directly. (For your conference, I also posted the above response on B. Riley's Talk page.) Thank you very much.

WalksInWelcome (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @WalksInWelcome, this draft was rejected because it did not seem to meet our standards for an article about a company. We need to show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in order to show that a company is notable. Notability can only be shown in this way. We cannot use government documents (e.g. SEC), sources which are mainly interviews or documents from sources that are not independent of the subject.
Also the criteria of "significant coverage" also excludes "routine announcements" e.g. articles which consist of little more than X company to buy Y company. These are not significant.
I noticed that some of the sources on the draft fail this criteria. It may be that this subject meets our notability criteria, but this has not yet been demonstrated in the draft. My suggestion would be to eliminate the inappropriate sources and see if you can make a more presentable article based on what remains. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your speedy reply and explanation. WalksInWelcome (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Dear Salim,
Thank you again for your willingness to work with me on this. B. Riley and I are committed to fulfilling Wikipedia's rules about notability and to embracing feedback from experts such as yourself.
On 12/13/21, you suggested that I remove some of the less-notable sources in the draft. I’ve done that, and I’m including both the revised text and specific explanations below. What do you think?
1. Routine Announcements
You’re right that the page relies too much on “routine announcements.” Would removing the following four items remedy this issue?
a. B. Riley Financial is ... known for ... investment banking.[1]
b. In 2015, B. Riley bought MK Capital Advisors, a wealth management firm.[2]
c. In 2017, the company acquired ... Wunderlich Securities, a regional brokerage firm.[3]
d. The combined company was renamed B. Riley Financial,[4] and Great American Group became an operating subsidiary of B. Riley.[5]
We can also change footnote #22 (“B. Riley, Great American Close Merger”), which is a routine announcement, to footnote #24 (“Reversed Course”), which is a profile.
2. Interviews
The page cites one interview (a TV segment on CNBC; footnote #6) to support the claim that B. Riley is “known for investing in small cap companies.”
I propose replacing this interview with a news article from the Los Angeles Business Journal, “Small Caps Boost B. Riley's Growth.”
3. Sources That Aren’t Independent
The page cites two press releases:
a. To document the name change to “B. Riley Financial (footnote #23).
b. To document that B. Riley began trading on the Nasdaq (footnote #25).
Per above, I’ve removed footnote #23.
As for footnote #25, I propose replacing this with a news article from the Los Angeles Business Journal, “B. Riley Jumps to Nasdaq.” Alternatively, we can remove the fact that B. Riley is publicly traded.
4. Government Documents
The 3 links to the Securities and Exchange Commission (footnotes #3-#5) pertain only to revenue and net income. Citing the SEC seems to be standard practice for such metrics (see, for example, Lazard and Bank of America). In fact, many pages employ a lower standard — news releases from the company in question; see Microsoft and Goldman Sachs.
If government documents are nonetheless problematic per se, then let’s remove those footnotes and the numbers they support.
  1. ^ "Barneys enters deal to sell assets to Authentic Brands, B. Riley for $271 million cash". Reuters. October 16, 2019. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
  2. ^ "B. Riley Enters Wealth Management Business With Acquisition". Los Angeles Business Journal. February 2, 2015. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
  3. ^ "B. Riley Adds Wunderlich to Gain Small-Cap Market Edge". TheStreet. May 18, 2017. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
  4. ^ "Great American Group, Inc. to be Renamed B. Riley Financial, Inc". PR Newswire. November 4, 2014. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
  5. ^ "Reversed Course". Los Angeles Business Journal. May 26, 2014. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
For your convenience, I’m including the revised draft below.
Extended content
B. Riley Financial
TypePublic
NasdaqRILY
S&P 600 Component
NASDAQ Financial-100 Component
IndustryFinancial services
HeadquartersLos Angeles, California
Key people
Bryant Riley, Co-CEO[1]
Tom Kelleher, Co-CEO[2]
Websitebrileyfin.com

B. Riley Financial is an American financial services company, known for investing in small cap companies[3] and retail liquidation.[4][5]

Acquisitions

B. Riley Financial has expanded primarily through acquisitions. As a result, its operating subsidiaries provide diverse services. Here are a few of the company's notable mergers and acquisitions:

In 2012, B. Riley acquired Caris & Co., a stock research firm.[6][7]

In 2014, the company merged with Great American Group, a retail liquidation firm.[8]

In 2017, the company acquired FBR & Co., a capital markets firm.[9]

In 2018, the company bought restructuring adviser GlassRatner Advisory & Capital Group.[10]

B. Riley also owns several portfolio companies. These companies include internet legacy brands such as United Online, whose holdings include NetZero and Juno Online Services,[11] and magicJack, a provider of VoIP devices.[12]

History

In 1997, Bryant Riley founded B. Riley & Co.[13] as a stock-picking firm serving California companies.[3][14]

In 2014, B. Riley & Co. merged with Great American Group.[15]

In 2020, B. Riley Financial rebranded its acquired subsidiaries so they all shared the “B. Riley” name.[16]

References

  1. ^ "Riley, Bryant — B. Riley Financial Inc". Los Angeles Business Journal. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
  2. ^ "Co-CEOs Are Out of Style. Why Is Netflix Resurrecting the Management Model?". The Wall Street Journal. July 17, 2020. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
  3. ^ a b "Small Caps Boost B. Riley's Growth". Los Angeles Business Journal. March 7, 2005. Retrieved April 26, 2021.
  4. ^ "There's a science and art to running a going-out-of-business sale. (And business is booming.)". CNBC. April 27, 2018. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
  5. ^ "Retail thought it was facing the apocalypse. Then came the coronavirus". The Los Angeles Times. April 6, 2020. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
  6. ^ "B. Riley Acquires Caris to Add Research as Other Brokers Close". Bloomberg. December 17, 2012. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
  7. ^ "B Riley buys Southern Cal. brokerage neighbor Caris & Co". Reuters. December 17, 2012. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
  8. ^ "Great American to Merge With Investment Bank". San Fernando Valley Business Journal. May 20, 2014. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
  9. ^ "B. Riley Financial to Buy FBR, Beefing Up Brokerage Business". The Wall Street Journal. February 21, 2017. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
  10. ^ "B. Riley Acquires Restructuring Adviser GlassRatner". The Wall Street Journal. May 18, 2017. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
  11. ^ "United Online, Owner of NetZero, Agrees to $170 Million Sale". The Wall Street Journal. May 4, 2016. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
  12. ^ "B. Riley Buys Free-Call Provider MagicJack in Blow to Activist Carnegie". TheStreet. November 3, 2017. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
  13. ^ "16 Wall Street Firms Where Bankers And Traders Really Want To Work". Business Insider. February 7, 2013. Retrieved November 17, 2013.
  14. ^ "Curbing Those Echoes on the Phone". Barron's. March 21, 2005. Retrieved April 26, 2021.
  15. ^ "Reversed Course". Los Angeles Business Journal. May 26, 2014. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
  16. ^ "B. Riley Financial drops FBR name from i-banking unit". S&P Global. September 14, 2020. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
WalksInWelcome (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse host - belated welcome

Teahouse logo
Dear Salimfadhley,

Thank you for volunteering as a Host at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! By joining as a Host, and by following our expectations, you are helping new users to get started here at Wikipedia, and aiding more experienced users who just have a question about how something works. We appreciate your willingness to help!

Here are some links you may find helpful as a Host:

Editors who have signed up as hosts, but who have not contributed at the Teahouse for six months or so may be removed from the list of hosts.

I notice that you added yourself to our 'host' list some while ago, but haven't had a chance to help out much yet. That's fine. But be aware that we do remove inactive hosts from time to time.

Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3ASalimfadhley">here</a> and attribution parties <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salimfadhley&amp;action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="https://www.gpedia.com/terms-of-use.php">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>