Talk:Daniel S. Loeb

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I deleted this section.  No objection to discussing the subject's wealth,  but his purported income for three recent years is not notable (and was not supported by citation).  No content to justify a separate section.WebHorizon (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wealth 

message: * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/05/yahoo-deniel-loeb-jerry-yang_n_1077749.html Ottawahitech (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the news 

message: Just curious to find out why the page has been protected so that editors cannot add content to it for a full 48 hours? I see only one editor (who has since been blocked) involved in vandalizing this page. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection was due to request at  WP:ANI. It appeared there may be some sort of coordinated trolling going on, the protection is intended to nip it in the bud. I admit the case was a bit thin but it seemed warranted nonetheless. Note that it is only semi-protection, autocomfirmed users such as yourself may still edit it, and any new or unregiestered user may request edits here using . Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: I think the new edit is much better, however, I would like to know Demiurge1000's justifications for "citation to a reliable source"? Is a legal filing and affidavit not a reliable source?  . 
I understand it is a good faith reversal edit. "(Reverted good faith edits by 124.90.51.54 (talk): Per WP:BLP, not sure that this is a reliable enough source to justify the inclusion of this sort of material. (TW)) (undo)". 
I look forward to any discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.90.51.54 (talk • contribs) 
:Deep Capture is a Wordpress blog. (On its rather lengthy "about us" page, it says "We are no-holds barred, and any and all concerned citizens are welcome to contribute. If you have information to provide, or time to do some digging, you are part of The Deep Capture Team. Deep Capture flips journalistic methodology on its head and pushes limits to uncover the truth ... there are serious crimes underway, there are certain abominations in this world – and we stand against them.")
:Blogs are not reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards, and certainly not for controversial allegations about a living person - see WP:BLP.
:WP:BLP also specifically says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Since he is famous for shaking up companies and now tried to break apart sony, can we call him a vulture capitalist in his description?Duelistgamer (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, as long as your have some RS to back that up. --Malerooster (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if sourced, it's hard to imagine a use of the phrase "vulture capitalist" that would withstand scutiny under the restrictions of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.  Please try it out on editors here, or on the BLP Noticeboard before inserting it into the article. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vulture Capitalist 

message: What's our definition for "encyclopedic content?" Apparently, it does not include material that is sourced and about the subject. Ethnic and religious issues issues are encyclopedic, marriages are encyclopedic, personal wealth is encyclopedic, investments are encyclopedic, but embarrassing public political activities or publicly disclosed involvement in a disgraced infidelity website is not encyclopedic ...and we know that because of which policy? Is this article limited to positive material only? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go ahead and restore the material if there's no further response. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:A140:489C:7FEB:37D5 (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedic content is just that: ethnicity, religion, marriages, personal wealth, investments are all encyclopedic. Membership to a website and jokes someone has made are not. Meatsgains (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Jokes are not encyclopedic? See Michael Richards, the bio of a guy who lost his career over some jokes. I'm sure jokes are mentioned in many other bios.  Where do we find this list of "encyclopedic topics"? And why is it "encyclopedic" to say "Loeb has donated to ... Obama for America," (no source) but  forbidden to say, "After supporting Barack Obama, he switched to supporting Mitt Romney in 2012" (source)? I don't see the logic. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The jokes told by Michael Richards are notable because it was more of an incident. There is nothing notable about the jokes Loeb made. Meatsgains (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedic content?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Daniel S. Loeb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111213231257/http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2011/05/14/3087695/jewish-republican-pro-gay-rights to http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2011/05/14/3087695/jewish-republican-pro-gay-rights
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified