This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Jon Jones (fighter)

Hi. Per your request at WP:RFPP, I've semi-protected Jon Jones (fighter) for three days. Richwales (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!!PolicyReformer (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop any more MMA deletions ==

I have made a formal request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to ban Newmanoconnor, Mtking and TreyGeek banned from deleteing more MMA pages, any help would be good

ScottMMA — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMMA (talk • contribs) 03:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Will do, although I'm going to cite this note straight off the bat to avoid too much accusation of meatpuppetry. Thanks for letting me know!--Policy Reformer (c) 03:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No-AfD proposal

Consider the background to Mtking and Newmanoconnor immediately agreeing to your no-AfD proposal. Just a week ago they wouldn't have even given you the time of day. The current situation has them very scared and they'll pretty much do anything do anything to fast-track their terrible plan through. This is why they're talking 1-2 week timelines whereas before they've been been screwing with the MMA community for months with an incomplete doc while AfD'ing everything in sight. Of course, short-tracking necessarily means they'll railroad the MMA voices against. If they don't get the short-track, their plan is essentially dead, which is why they'll show a tiny bit of leeway in the short term to get what they want in the long term. What's most notable is that even if they get what they want, it doesn't mean they don't AfD again right after they get approval. Their plan has no brightline rules, and it's vague and open to interpretation (which is why AfD are effective now). The situation after will be no better, but we'll be stuck with it while they're not saddled with anything.

There's basically two choices right now: let them stick it to the MMA community or create a process where they don't have complete control. Please make that choice carefully. Agent00f (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What you read as having "them" very scared I read as them having a desire to move the process forward rather than go back and forth on WP:ANI. When they agree to work towards a resolution, I don't even consider them having another agenda because based on my experience with editors on Wikipedia, there's rarely a need to assume good faith because in most cases, good faith is all there is.

The choices you propose don't exist. They can't stick it to the MMA community. We can't create a process where they don't have complete control (only the community can do that, since we can't create any process without the community). Nor do they have complete control right now. There have been 532 million edits to Wikipedia since it was started. No one has control. Our two choices right now are: (1) make Wikipedia better or (2) don't. Going back to consensus, I know I'm never going to get Wikipedia to be exactly the way I want and I'm very, very glad that's the case. The only way to what I think is best is figuring out what other people think is best and figuring out how my views fit in with their's. At that point, I hope that I can work with them to find a common ground that we all agree is best for the project. I win when we all win.

Could someone derail the process in a few days? Certainly. It might even be me. I might wake up and decide that because improvisational zero-gravity figure skating doesn't receive as much coverage as MMA, we should delete all MMA pages. I have no idea what anyone's going to do tomorrow. What I do know is that it looks like a lot of people today want to work together to resolve this by building consensus.

The tone of your comment makes me feel like you think I'm on your side. I'm afraid I'm not. I'm on Wikipedia's side. I just hope everyone else is too. I'm not trying to promote any one side here. I'm trying to make the project the best it can be. That's how I see myself as an editor here. I also happen to be an MMA fan, so that's the area where I'm putting my efforts, but as many have said, the project comes first. I sincerely hope you can join us in trying to find something we can all agree upon since your view is no more right than my view or any other editors view. Let's stop talking about "us" and "them" and start talking about how we can find standards we can all agree upon.

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh. I can stand along side anyone that stands along side Wikipedia. I can't stand along side anyone who stands against those who stand with Wikipedia. I'm very sorry if this disappoints you. I hope you can come to work with all of us to find a way to get MMA to fit in with the rest of the project. Thanks for your time and efforts on this.--Policy Reformer (c) 09:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the background to this case, but they are somewhat peculiar. You can read about the facts of the case in the ANI, but I'm going to try another approach here. Wiki at its foundation is a volunteer project; editors need to be self-motivated or nothing gets done. The reason why this drama has been going on for months and months is a small group with no stake in the long run is making all the decisions for the contributors who do. This is why of the dozens of regular MMA contributors were part of this at the start, but now there are none. Think about that for a second. We can sit here all day and talk about consensus, but the way it's been going on in this case is fundamentally wrong.

I think the one mistake in the argument above is the assumption this was just like any other wiki consensus with reasonable parties, but it's very unfortunately not. All I'm trying to do is make it normal again by diminishing the influence of 3 people who've driven away ALL other contributors in disgust. Everyone who's approached it before as you are now has been burned; there are no exceptions. This reality won't go away by simply assuming it's not there. The project is not strengthen by taking a step toward people who'll just take a step back. When we assume good faith, we do so because we lack the information to make a better determination. The abject behavior of these three over many months means we no longer have to assume. Agent00f (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. --Policy Reformer (c) 09:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

MMANOT

It certainly isn't hopeless. I'm currently limiting my involvement to policing the actions of the other camp. While the other camp seem to run to ANI as a first port of call, I would prefer to use the board as intended. There have been repeated attempts to muzzle one side of the debate. I'm only interested in informing all concerned parties of credibility issues within the discussion. I'm more interested in adhering to principles of common sense, fairness and parity of parties than the internal policies of Wikipedia. I prefer to reserve my policy arguments for Criminal law in Real life.

Having read your discussion with Agent00f and with MtKing, I'm assuming you no longer want a summary of positions. If there's anything else I can assist you with, in the mean time, don't hesitate to ask. Please note: If I'm satisfied with the eventual resolution of the MMA Notability debate, I'll begin contributing to the pages. Until such a time, I refuse to edit in the space with The sword of Damocles hanging over us. Since I have no desire to eventually become an Admin, I don't feel the need to pretend to assume good faith when it has clearly and pervasively been absent. Logic can live in this space. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar (talk) 04:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, PolicyReformer. 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 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 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, PolicyReformer. 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 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) episodes

the article is a list of episodes of the 1987 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles series. the live action movies are not part of said series, and thus don't belong there. 2601:483:80:5FAC:547:E47E:2AD2:66A2 (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@2601:483:80:5FAC:547:E47E:2AD2:66A2. Agreed. I didn't understand the reason for your removal because you didn't include that in your edit summary. I've updated the page and included your reasoning in my edit. I also added a link to the film series in the "See Also" section so readers can find reference to the films via that link. Hope this is acceptable. Thank you for your contributions. --Policy Reformer (c) 06:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi PolicyReformer. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until {{{expiry}}}. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for thanking me for reverting an edit I made. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to thank me, or any other user, for any other edits of theirs, please consider using the Wikipedia:Notifications/Thanks functionality instead if possible since a "thank you" message formatted like a warning could be misinterpreted as such and discourage new users. Thank you. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@78.28.45.127: My message wasn't actually intended to thank you for reverting your own test edit. It was intended to educate you about the sandbox, as some new users are unaware of the sandbox. It sounds like you are aware of that functionality. The template also was designed to alert other editors about your slightly concerning edit history. It appears you didn't continue the same conduct, so please accept my thanks now for your subsequent constructive contributions. Unfortunately, not all editors are here to contribute and templates like the one I left for you are part of the community's way of both providing information as well as a way to identify vandals. Thanks for reaching out and happy editing!! --Policy Reformer (c) 02:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Shon Hopwood

Thank you for chiming in on my Shon Hopwood troubles. I responded on Oshwah's page, and since I can't copy and paste on my Galaxy S4, I hope you take a look there. Thank you. Vcuttolo (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC) Vcuttolo (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Replied there. --Policy Reformer (c) 01:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

That's it. Thank you for taking care of it! Vcuttolo (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Vcuttolo (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, PolicyReformer, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Editing at My Story (film)

This edit made a number of changes, and I have not checked them all, but there was at least one change which was clearly mistaken, and others, such as removal of one or more sources, which should perhaps have been explained. The change which was clearly mistaken is your changing of the date of the "Use dmy dates" tag from February 2017 to February 2018. The tag was indeed added in February 2017, in this edit. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Apologies. I need to reconfigure Huggle to not combine mult. edits from same user. Of the combined edits, this edit regarding awful reviews, this edit inserting some gibberish, and this edit removing positive review information (and thus aligned with the POV issue from the awful review edit) caused concern over POV editing without summary and gibberish insertion. I concede that the date tag edit was proper revert of the recently prior vandalism. I will be more cautious in the future. Thanks for letting me know! --Policy Reformer (c) 21:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't notice the "(HG)" for "Huggle" at the end of the edit summary. If I had noticed it, my message to you would have been rather different. I haven't used Huggle recently, but years ago I used to use it very extensively, and I know how easy it is to do things like this without realising. Huggle is a very useful tool, but it needs to be used with care. I used to keep a separate browser window open alongside Huggle, and check the editing history in that window before reverting, except in trivial and obvious cases. Obviously, that slowed down my anti-vandal work to some extent, but I think some slowing down was a price worth paying to stop mistakes slipping through. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Bkzaraaa (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Hello Policy reformer,

You recently reverted on of my edits. Your page shows that you are open for debate over misconceptions or errors. Please allow me to tell you that I am in no way affiliated with the charity in question but I have had the chance to donate through them and I chose them because of their level of transparency and accountability that anyone can verify just like i did online when I was looking for a ngo to sponsor an orphan. I also have a wide knowledge of Gulf politics which make me understand why such allegations against charities in Qatar and would invite you to read about the current political climate that makes Qatar a regional target for diffamation (I am not a qatari citizen). The NGO tries to do the best it can to show its transparency and international organizations such as UN agencies would never collaborate them with them if there was a funding to these accusations. QC works with UNHCR, OCHA, the Red Crescent on almost a monthly basis to save millions of lives across 3 continents, and it is so sad to see this work compromised because of rising islamophobia and because wikipedia attracts copiers pasters.

@Bkzaraaa: Thanks for reaching out. It appears that you are trying to edit in good faith, but I am concerned that you seem to be exerting ownership over these articles, which runs counter to the project's purpose. Also, Wikipedia is supposed to present a neutral point of view from reliable sources so its content is verifiable. Since the content you are removing, is reliably sourced, I am concerned that you are trying to push one point of view, excluding others. Wikipedia is not here to promote these charities and whether or not they do good work, but is here to be an encyclopedia. If you would like to review some of these policies that I've linked and let me know why you think I'm incorrect based on these community policies, I'd be happy to discuss. Thanks again for getting in touch. --Policy Reformer (c) 15:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, you may find the guidance on using Wikipedia for advocacy relevant to the edits you're trying to make. Hope this helps! --Policy Reformer (c) 15:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Mark Bonney wikipedia page

Dear Sir/Madam,

All the changes I made to my father's wikipedia page were in alteration of mistruths previously published on the site. My father did not go to school in Cambridge, but went to Northgate Grammar School in Ipswich. The other things I edited were merely things that I deemed to be bad English, syntax or grammar.

I expect to see the edits put in place immediately so as to give a truthful telling of my father's career, as well as maintaining Wikipedia's credibility. I am happy for you to remove the edits regarding 'Personal Life.'

Yours sincerely, Elly

@Ellybonney2: It sounds like you might have a conflict of interest, and in fact may have been adding information about yourself which can make it difficult to present information from a neutral point of view. (Click the blue links to learn more about Wikipedia policies.) I have no reason to doubt your statements, but generally editing when you have a conflict of interest and failing to provide verifiable reliable sources runs against several community policies. Perhaps you can make suggestions on the article's talk page to direct the community to sources that support your statements while avoiding some of the conflict problems? Thanks for your time. --Policy Reformer (c) 21:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Revert of Copy Vio Material

Hi PolicyReformer,

You recently reverted my edits on Juliet Simms. It is quite possible that I got this wrong, however the text is flagged here. The website that contains the copyright material is here. If you still believe I was wrong please let me know where I errored. I am new here and learning.

Best,

Kadane (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kadane: So sorry. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I reverted my edit. As you already realized, looks like Underwaterecho brought in some of the problematic material recently.

@Underwaterecho: Thank you for your work on Juliet Simms as a number of your edits did improve the article. That said, I'd echo (no pun intended) Kadane's message on your page that while working on the project it's important to be aware of adding material that could have copyright problems. Thank you both for your work and sorry I mucked things up. --Policy Reformer (c) 22:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I am working with the wonderful folks on IRC to navigate wiki policies, and one of them suggested I reach out to you. They have been great and so have you. Thanks for your fast response. Kadane (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Happy to help. Thanks again. Happy editing! --Policy Reformer (c) 23:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read more carefully

I do not know why this keeps happening but your recent reversion to Little Boxes because I "did not explain it in an edit summery is FALSE. I most certainly DID explain it in an edit summary and I will now go back and do that once again. PLEASE be more careful in the future. Thank you 116.231.78.79 (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@116.231.78.79: I apologize. My edit summary should've been more clear. Because your statement, "Real information and citations do not force you to allow ANYTHING," in your edit summary was not founded in general community guidance regarding reliable sources, I chose to revert. For example, even sources behind pay walls can be acceptable on the project. I will remove the warning from your page, as the warning was certainly inappropriate. Please accept my apologies. --Policy Reformer (c) 03:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

UTRS Appeal

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

PolicyReformer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22277 was submitted on Aug 04, 2018 23:33:56. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarification for anyone confused by this: I'm presently affected by hard-IP range block. Provided further details explaining reason for need for IP Block Exemption via UTRS. --Policy Reformer (c) 00:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Was out of IP Block for a bit tonight, but now caught again in an IP block. --Policy Reformer (c) 02:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Changes to Joseph Couture bio

Hello PolicyReformer,

Thank you for the gentle reminder about proper citations. However, in the case of Mr. Couture no longer writing for the London Free Press, the problem is sort of highlighted in the changes I made. He simply disappeared from the opinion pages years ago and no one has ever said why. This poses a problem for citation as I am offering his absence as my proof because of the lack of clarity and public knowledge about what happened. I would request you reinstate the changes, or allow me to do so and perhaps find a way to show from the Free Press archives that he is no longer writing for the paper. If you wish, you can search the London Free Press and see he has not published with them for a long time, which proves he is gone, but still offers no reason and no citation. I'm afraid I cannot offer more proof of his absence than his disappearance from the paper.

About the specialty in forensics, that is a matter of public record as he is a published criminologist. I will find an appropriate citation for this before I put the change back.

Thank you guys for maintaining quality standards on Wikipedia as many people count on its accuracy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.171.88.68 (talk)

@209.171.88.68: Thanks for reaching out. Sorry about that. I re-added your edit, but added the {{cn}} template to indicate that your edit could use a citation. Perhaps another editor in the future will be able to add one. Thank you so much for your contributions to the project. --Policy Reformer (c) 00:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Why did you deleted my page?

Tell Me ? Karanshrivastva (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. --Policy Reformer (c) 02:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, PolicyReformer. 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 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Yusuf Alireza

Dear Policy Reformer

We represent Yusuf Alireza and noted a few inaccuracies (and out of date info) on his Wikipedia page:

His current summary states: Yusuf Abdulla Yusuf Akbar Alireza (born August 1970)[1] was the chief executive officer (CEO) of Noble Group, the Hong Kong energy conglomerate, and a Fortune Global 500 company, before being fired in May 2016.[2] He was born in Bahrain.[3]

We would suggest: Yusuf Abdulla Yusuf Akbar Alireza (born August 1970) is CEO and Co-Founder of ARP Global Capital, a Dubai based Investment Management Platform. He was formerly the Chief Executive Officer(CEO) of Noble Group, the Hong Kong energy conglomerate, and a Fortune Global 500 company, before resigning in May 2016. He started his career in 1992 at Goldman Sachs where he spent 20 years. Yusuf was born in Egypt and grew up in Bahrain. He has a dual Bahrain/UK nationality.

http://arpglobalcapital.com/index.php

Please note that Yusuf resigned and was not fired as his current summary states. I've attached a link to the Singapore Stock Exchange Announcement and on Noble's website as the official sources. https://links.sgx.com/1.0.0/corporate-announcements/KQB7O1TJZ29M5QOL/993e90a9fa4a3846890708fe89b54fb2a84a45ffc5045eb8a7daea97b9aadcef http://www.thisisnoble.com/newsroom/1117-sgx-announcement-by-noble-group-3.html

His Career current states: Yusuf Alireza became chief executive officer and executive director of Noble Group in April 2012,[5]succeeding Ricardo Leiman as the head of the Hong Kong-based global supply chain manager of energy and agricultural products. Alireza transitioned the company to an asset-light model and was forced to sell the firm’s Noble Agri business to the Chinese company Cofco Corp after Noble was accused of fraud by Iceberg Research.[6] He was fired in May 2016 after Noble's share price fell by 76%.[7][8] Prior to joining Noble Group, he was co-president of Goldman Sachs's Asia operations, excluding Japan, and a member of the firm’s Global Management Committee.[3] He began working at Goldman Sachs New York in 1992, transferring to the firm’s London office in 1997 and becoming the Head of Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) sales and structuring efforts. He relocated to Hong Kong in 2008, where he managed the Asia Pacific securities division of Goldman Sachs.[9]

We would suggest his career should state: Yusuf Alireza founded ARP Global Capital in June of 2018 with his co-founder Krishna Rao. Both Yusuf and Krishna are former senior partners of Goldman Sachs. ARP Global Capital is a multi-asset investment platform based in Dubai that invests in global public and private markets. Prior to this, he was CEO of Noble Group from April 2012 until he resigned in May 2016 (site sources from the Singapore Stock Exchange above). Yusuf began his career at Goldman Sachs where he spent 20 years working between New York, London and Hong Kong. In his last role before retiring, he was co-president of Goldman Sachs's Asia operations, excluding Japan, and a member of the firm’s Global Management Committee.[3] He began working at Goldman Sachs New York in 1992, transferring to the firm’s London office in 1997 and became the Head of Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) sales and structuring efforts. He relocated to Hong Kong in 2008, where he managed the Asia Pacific securities division of Goldman Sachs.[9] Yusuf is currently on the Board of the National Bank of Bahrain (site link below)and Centre for Contemporary Arab Studies of Georgetown University (site link below). He also serves on the Board of Room to Read, a charity which supports children in low-income communities by focusing on literacy and gender equality in education.

https://www.nbbonline.com/en/about-nbb/managements/management/board-of-directors https://ccas.georgetown.edu/people_category/board-of-advisors/ https://www.roomtoread.org/leadership-board/?tab=board%20of%20directors

Thank you for your help. Putney123 (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Putney13! Welcome to Wikipedia! Although I'd like to help, I think the appropriate process would be for you to post the above on the article's talk page. Specifically, because you indicate that you represent the article's subject, your contributions (or requests for others to contribute) likely mean that Wikipedia's (and the Wikimedia Foundation's) policies regarding paid contributions apply to your edits in this area. This includes Wikipedia's policies on editing when you have a conflict of interest. These policies are in place as it can be hard to edit from a neutral point of view when you have a financial interest in your edits. Also, although your sources are verifiable, typically Wikipedia prefers to direct to reliable secondary sources and your sources appear to be primary sources. With that, perhaps some other more experienced editors could assist. I will cross post this on the article's talk page and suggest that you follow-up there indicating your continued interest in discussing this edit. Hope this helps. Thanks for reaching out! --Policy Reformer (c) 15:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Cross posted here. Thanks! --Policy Reformer (c) 15:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You are now a pending changes reviewer!

Hi PolicyReformer! I've been running into you in recent changes patrolling and I happened to notice that you don't have the pending changes reviewer user rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling and that you consistently view and undo vandalism and bad faith disruption. I believe that the pending changes reviewer rights would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tool. Instead of having you formally request the pending changes reviewer right at WP:PERM, I went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to review edits that are pending approval on pages currently under pending changes protection and either accept the edits to make them viewable by the general public, or decline and revert them.

Keep these things in mind regarding the tool or when you're reviewing any pending changes:

A list of articles with pending edits awaiting review can be viewed at Special:PendingChanges.
A list of the articles currently under pending changes protection can be viewed at Special:StablePages.
Being granted and having these rights does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you (obviously).
You'll generally want to accept any pending changes that appear to be legitimate edits and are not blatant vandalism or disruption, and reject edits that are problematic or that you wouldn't accept yourself.
Never accept any pending changes that contain obvious and clear vandalism, blatant neutral point of view issues, copyright violations, or BLP violations.

Useful guidelines and pages for you to read:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline and tutorial on using the rights and reviewing pending changes.
Wikipedia:Pending changes, a summary of pending changes protection, the pending changes user right, and how it applies.
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy section on pending changes protection and its appropriate application and use by administrators.

I'm sure you'll do fine with the reviewer rights - it's a pretty straight-forward tool and it doesn't drastically change the interface that you're used to already. Nonetheless, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my user talk page if you run into any questions, get stuck anywhere, or if you're not sure if you should accept or revert pending changes to a page, and I'll be more than be happy to help you. If you no longer want the pending changes reviewer rights, let me know and I'll be happy to remove it for you. Thank you for helping to patrol recent changes and keep Wikipedia free of disruption and vandalism - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Oshwah! I appreciate it. --Policy Reformer (c) 12:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Thank you for all of the time and energy you dedicate to Wikipedia. We appreciate it greatly and it makes a difference here! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy...

Hey, PolicyReformer. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, PolicyReformer, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)