Talk:Lemelson Capital Management

1630:

14:57 edit: " I think this article needs a severe pruning, both in its content and its references. Once that's done, we should then consider whether what remains is enough to show if the company is notable enough to have an article." Another example: He writes on July 16, 2014 at 17:13 that all the content on the five specific stocks belongs on the personal page. He then later goes on, of course, to say it doesn't belong on the personal page but on the LCM page. This ongoing process is focused on removing all of the content entirely. So, for instance, if (as he wrote on July 16), the content of those five stocks belongs on the personal page, why is he now removing it there? It's obviously core to both the notability of the firm and the person. As it relates to the personal pages, in fact, here are some examples of other pages and finance leaders that have been handled exactly this way:

1624:, which says: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." This BLP policy also states (second paragraph) that: "We must get the article right." While I've pointed out that removal of substantive content and references and addition of inaccurate content has been inconsistent with this, my comments for the most part linger unanswered on these talk pages. Even now, you'll notice, there are numerous questions and concerns that I've raised on both talk pages that just go routinely unanswered. I have no confidence that the error-ridden section added on Home Loan Servicing would have been corrected. 1809:"issued reports explaining why he thought the company was overvalued and placed fair value ..." is standard investor "talking a book" but I don't believe is defined as activism. Activism is when a direct change in the company is made as a result of pressure by the investor. It's a different level of participation. Lets say you think the CEO of a company should be replaced. You can issue reports explaining your position. Or, you can buy 10% of the stock and demand the board replace the CEO otherwise you will do something that causes discomfort to the board (call a vote etc). The former is what 99% do through OpEds or blogs or PRs -- the later is less common and more significant assuming a change is made. In the case of WWE: 812:. This could either be a misunderstanding of the use of sources/inline citations by the author, or a deliberate attempt to cloud the issues. Two citations were being re-added on the basis they cited Gregory Lemelson was an "activist", while on closer inspection one source didn't mention the word Lemelson at all and the other only briefly reported on something Emmanuel Lemelson had done (no mention of "activist"). In any case, this is about Emmanuel Lemelson not his company, so I'm not going to waste my time fighting over it. Overall there's lots of synthesis of words said here and there to dubiously construct a fact. 1518:

it). Do you have any other source that supports your statement that he owned the stock or for any of the other inaccurate things you've written in this paragraph? The article you reference offers no definitive answer to whether the short position was or was not profitable, and the reporter himself raises the question without answering it. But you took the liberty to answer it, writing the section in a way to conclude that he owned the stock (when the article says repeatedly he was short it) and that he incurred the fee (when the article states that the fee would only be applicable if the stock was owned).

1162:: I'm not familiar with the JOBS Act, but I see no basis in reading about it now for it having any impact on content or references. Like the media from any company or organization, secondary sources (newspapers and other media outlets) are secondary sources and primary references are primary references. And again, there is nothing in any of the site's policies here that suggests that references become less notable or usable by this or that industry or based on the existence of this or that regulation. You seem to have a habit of essentially creating your own policies. 1214:. I think we should be reducing the detail here to what is the standard: generic details about the company, its management, fund size, notes of major events, awards (e.g. awarded Fund of the Year by a reputable source, not not that it just happened to be top in a few months), etc. And if that information isn't confirmed by enough reliable independent sources that are not likely to have been published as a result of a vigorous publicity campaign, then we should AfD it again (I'm not sure either way about that yet). 728:, consensus can determine that certain information does not improve an article and should not be included. I submit for discussion that the precise details of the three interventions (is that the right word?) are not necessary in this article and should be severely pruned. Instead, more information should be provided about the history of the firm and its other activities, particularly what independent reliable sources have said about it - to produce a more well-rounded article. I'm sure there are 439: 415: 1851:– must try that just for the kudos :) Sensibly though: as that article says "a fairly small stake (less than 10% of outstanding shares) may be enough to launch a successful campaign". At its current price WWE's market cap is $ 1.3bn. So even if LCM employed its entire $ 20m fund that would only be about 1.5%, so we're really talking a sub-1% stake. Was that enough to make him noticed by the management, to warrant calling him an activist in this instance? I have doubts. 524: 1713:. That BLP page also states that second and third references are required for negative material. But even if you dismissed that, I read the reference you included and you misread it in about half a dozen ways. I'd call that reckless but use whatever words you prefer, I suppose. I'll also find out where the schools and parents are referenced. I think they were from his online biography. Add citation needed, or remove them, until I can find that source. 449: 536: 263: 1762:

company eg. new corporate policies, staff changes (new CEO) etc.. it is different from causing the share price of a company to change. Activism used by be called "corporate raiding" in the sense of outsiders invading a corporation to force change (like barbarians?). Anyway it has since become respectable and regulated so it has a positivist description "investment activism". I think since this hedge fund has made

50: 1523:

written as facts a good number of things here that are not only unreferenced but are completely contradicted in the reference you cite. I'm going to make the corrections to this section so that the facts in it correlate with the reference you've offered, but the reference itself is so speculative and inconclusive on the underlying facts that I'm not sure the paragraph really warrants any inclusion at all.

102: 81: 192: 174: 2536:, mostly cited to not very good sources (though a primary source is the best for what the subject actually wrote). I've amended the remaining sentence about the SEC to specify the company concerned, as it had got removed. As far as I can see there are no updates on the SEC case so I assume it is still ongoing. I wonder if Ortho (or a clone) will return when it's over... — 1113:

as they take PR format (eg. a section at the bottom with a disclaimer, "About Lemelson", contact info) - further verified by searching on a portion of the text and finding the same article on PRNewsWire. Removed a few dead links which wouldn't have added much even if active. Couple other changes noted in edit comments. In all only needed to add two "cite needed". --

21: 202: 2098:

releases and churnalism) - so it fails RS out the gate, and there shouldn't be a whole section with subsections based on Seeking Alpha blog posts. The RSes note only the company name in passing. This doesn't pass basic sourcing muster. Perhaps there's something recoverable here, but it would have to start from the ground up with the passing RS mentions -

1896:

wonder if we should include anything about GEOS at all. Either we remove it, or we include the full picture to date relying on the primary source. And if we do tell the whole story, then why aren't we including Apple which is the largest holding in the fund? Or the other shares that he's talked about in his annual reports?

2141:, legal disclaimers are not a solid rationale for determining source reliability. Disclaimers are created to protect the company, written by lawyers as a barrier against litigation. Any investment source is going to say the same thing, basically, we don't guarantee the accuracy of our content. Also we call them 1596:

referenced. On the other hand, other editors have repeatedly included flatly inaccurate content. Your comments about the outrageously inaccurate Home Loan Servicing section are not an aberration. They are just the latest in a series of these inaccurate edits designed to depict the subject in a negative light.

1511:

Fifth, you write that he "did not respond" to the reporter's question about whether he was responsible for the fee. But (once again) nowhere in the accompanying reference does it say anything about him refusing to respond. It says that he had not (as of the article's publication date) responded to an

1395:

Umm, the interviewer saying as an aside "by the way, you're also shorting Skechers" at 1m 54s makes it a worthwhile reference? In addition to the text one that's already there? Have consideration for your readers! It's almost as if you want to force people to gaze into Lemelson's hypnotic eyes and be

1221:

Overall, we must aim for balance. If the only coverage is favourable coverage that we know has been engendered by publicity with little or nothing to counteract it, then we shouldn't include the favourable coverage, because we're then presenting an unbalanced view, without telling our readers that it

1517:

Sixth, you write that "there was no way Lemelson could avoid paying the fee." But the article actually says that there's no way to avoid the distribution if you "own" the shares, and the reporter reaffirms like ten times throughout the article that he was "short" the stock (which means he didn't own

1490:

the stock. Are you aware there's like a 180 degree difference between those two things? Do you understand the difference between buying and shorting a stock? Nowhere in the entire article does it state that he bought this stock. What's the basis for you using the verb "bought" when it's not anywhere

1255:

article almost exclusively about the impact of Lemelson's activism on WWE and other stocks: "Lemelson made news earlier this month when the investment firm said pro wrestling firm World Wrestling Entertainment was way overvalued, sending the shares down more than 35%." That statement is important as

1217:

With that in mind, I'm not too sure about your addition of the Forbes thing written by Gara. I didn't mention it above with the intention that it should be added to the article, merely that it was an example of the kind of thing that L wouldn't publicise, thereby illustrating the skewing effect that

1761:

The old activism keeps popping up.. the investment section is partly titled "activism", and previously listed activism for WWE and K&S, but with the recent edit the activism has been removed. Activism is when an investor uses an investment position in a public company to cause action within the

1678:

article is titled "The WSJ's Hedge Fund Priest Has A Terrible Trade Under His Robe" ie. it's a negative article) .. is part of a behavioral pattern typical of someone with a COI. You have been unable to say where you obtained Lemelson's schools and parents' names, which is not public knowledge (see

1209:

Your evaluation of the references makes it easier to move on to the second step which is to consider the effect of the article as a whole: does it read like an advert for the fund? I think it still does because it provides detailed information about how L made money from individual companies, which

1112:

Went through and checked every source and what they cited. Removed redundant sources in most cases as the additional sources added nothing and were usually shorter and less content. A few cases kept redundant sources as each are long and add something. Most of the ValueWalk links are press releases

1972:

from Amvona in Dec '15 has a disclosure saying no positions were held then). LL isn't mentioned in the body of the Fund's reports either. So if LCM hasn't held a position in the company, I don't think it belongs in this article. If it's worth mentioning at all, I guess the best fit would be in the

1817:

That's activist investing. It's unclear though if this phone call resulted in the share price recovering, or if it was the "Attorney General Charles Foti announced that his law firm would begin an investigation into whether WWE had violated state or federal securities law", and how either of those

1629:

Finally, Smalljim seems to have the singular goal of removing content and references (all notable) and then attempting to make an argument that there are insufficient references and content to justify the subjects' notability. In fact, he explains that this is his strategy in his January 13, 2016,

1608:

b.) On January 6, 2016, Smalljim referred to the subject as a "prolific self-promoter." I'm not even sure what that means and see no evidence of it. It's another hugely biased judgment, unless Smalljim knows him personally. And even if he does, the subject seems to function like most companies and

1312:. The source barely mentions in passing the wrestling story as a byline at the bottom of the article. The source isn't verifying anything said in our article (not already verified by the other article). The Fox News video doesn't work in my browser so that's a local problem, can add that back. -- 1176:

Assuming that you're referring to me, I'd rather say that I try to cultivate the habit of considering the important principles that the words of our policies strive to capture. The same is true of GreenC, of course. Your inability to do that is (assuming good faith) just further evidence that you

1895:

This represents a big loss on paper, so it's completely unreasonable that the only content in the article should be about a small short-lived increase – which he didn't take advantage of. BUT I don't think any source has commented on this paper loss (he isn't going to publicise it, is he?), so I

1595:

1.) I have not personally attacked anyone on this or any other page. I have pointed with specificity errors and what I see as a POV-style of editing designed to disparage the subjects. Additionally, since my very first edits, any content that I've added to these pages has been fully and properly

600:

Source 1 and source 3 are quoting a press release from Lemelson Capital Management, so don't really count for much. Source 2 (Seeking Alpha) at least stands by its own statement, so maybe is okay to verify the fact. No need for the other two IMO. On the whole, even if Amvona Fund is a product of

1522:

When I use the word "reckless" in defining your edits, which you challenge above, these are prime examples of the sort of thing I'm referencing. In the rush you and Smalljim apparently have to try to depict the subject negatively, you're apparently very willing to literally invent facts. You've

1269:

I also have great concerns about Smalljim's proposal here that references be removed and then the article's notability assessed. You can't remove major references and then contend the article is insufficiently referenced and/or not notable. That assessment needs to be made with the inclusion of

2064:

could you please reference where on the talk page the deleted content is strongly questioned? We did work through old COI issues to clean it up, but there was never discussion about deleting the whole thing. A lot of careful work and research went into all of that sourced content you deleted.

1661:

Finally, despite all of these personal, POV-oriented attacks on the subject, the inclusion of fundamentally inaccurate content designed to depict the subject negatively, and the removal of core content areas central to the :biographies, I have always been open to hearing and addressing others'

2236:

in Ligand and released an appended 12-page research report questioning the commercial viability of Ligand's products. On August 7, 2014, the financial media outlet Benzinga reported, "Shares have sold off more than 25 percent since Lemelson Capital published its bearish thesis on the stock in

2097:

I found it on a search for advertising material being used as sources in articles. The entire section is to promote the company as "activists", itself a self-aggrandising term for what most people would regard as corporate raiders. The cites are largely to non-RSes (Seeking Alpha posts, press

1416:: If you're going to remove Fox Business News videos as references on this website, you have a lot of work to do. It's a primary financial media source and, yes, it's a broadcast outlet, and that's fine. It should be included as a major secondary reference for the Sketchers section. 1090:. They have two types of content: self-published blogs which anyone can publish who sign up for an account; and "SA News Editor" posts by SA news editors. The first are unreliable, the second are reliable. I removed the self-published blog posts and kept the News Editor posts. -- 1792:!) But it's beyond any doubt that we must avoid giving the impression that Lemelson's actions or commentaries were the sole causes for the price changes, which is what the wording that I removed implied, and which is what Ortho appears to have been trying to do throughout. — 2249:

In February 2018, Lemelson published an open letter to the board of directors of Geospace Technologies (NASDAQ: GEOS) calling for the removal of the CEO and CFO and a sale of the company. Lemelson later disclosed in a May 15, 2018 regulatory filing that it was no longer a

2191:

of WWE shares between $ 8.25 and $ 11.88. By May 2014 the WWE share price had fallen to around $ 11 and LCM announced that it had covered its short position and bought shares at the low price. In Feb 2015, Lemelson announced that it had sold its stake in WWE at $ 16.50.

1047:

This indicates that the flurry of media attention around Lemelson and his hedge fund over the last few years has been generated mainly through his own promotional efforts. The media reporting is therefore skewed in the company's favour, since unfavourable topics (like

1563:

I see no justification for the personal attack-type accusations made here by Orthodox2014. Rubbish, absolutely, that anyone has an agenda to depict firm negatively. I am inclined towards seeking a topic ban for this editor. This most recent of way too many attacks.

1854:

Using the proper definition of the term, then, it seems that the only other company he tried activism on is Kulicke & Soffa Industries, in which LCM appears to have accumulated a larger proportion of the company. May well be a warranted description there.

721:. Barron's is, I believe, reliable and independent enough not to require additional references for the same fact (though I'm not expert in this field so may be wrong). The same is probably the case for many of the other multiple references in the article too. 2122:- their disclaimers immediately fail RS muster, and that's just the start. The "dead link" ones, I couldn't find archives to verify either. If you can find sources that actually pass RS muster for all the claims here, that'll be another matter of course - 1787:

I thought activism was implicit in the wording I used: "issued reports explaining why he thought the company was overvalued and placed fair value ...", but don't let me stop you from changing it if you think that isn't clear enough. (I refuse to be the

1035:

One Boston-based lawyer says he’s seen limited take-up from a couple of smaller managers. “They are two smaller hedge fund managers really trying to raise capital and be more aggressive through press releases, newspaper ads and the media,” he says.

1067:

or his hedge fund ourselves. I think this article needs a severe pruning, both in its content and its references. Once that's done, we should then consider whether what remains is enough to show if the company is notable enough to have an article.

1891:

in August) Lemelson says he's increased his stake in the company to almost 5%, making it the second largest position in the fund's portfolio (see p.3). He says he's waiting for the upturn in the oil & gas industry which will benefit GEOS.

1247:

May I propose, as I did on the Emmanuel Lemelson page, that all the references from this page should be included here for individual evaluation. Before they began being illogically removed in bulk, this version seems to be inclusive of them:

983:

Would you please provide the specific link to whichever reference did not mention him? You are wrong about that. Both mentioned him prominently (one even in the headline) and both referenced his activism on housing-related policy issues.

1846:

OK, yes I agree there is a difference there that I hadn't recognised. But to take it to the extreme, if I bought one share in WWE and wrote an open letter to the Chief Exec asking him to resign because he was ruining the company, I'd be an

1882:

I'm struggling with another issue at present: what should we do about the Geospace Technologies section? There's no doubt that the share price increased in Oct/Nov 2014 as the reference says, but as a look at a graph for NASDAQ:GEOS (e.g.

1899:

It's because of one-sided media reporting such as this that I suggested above that we should restrict the content to broad details of the company, not its dealings (and, I'll now add, especially not open positions). There's an element of

2216:. The stock rose ten percent on the announcement of Lemelson Capital's involvement. Four months later, on August 27, 2014, Kulicke & Soffa announced that its board of directors had authorized a share purchase of up to $ 100 million. 1285:

Notability is not assessed by what's in the article, rather a topic is notable regardless if the source is an article or not. Should it ever go to AfD (and I honestly am not sure if it should) all references are on the table. --

2462: 1039:

Massachusets-registered Lemelson Capital Management is among these firms. Chief investment officer Emmanuel Lemelson says he saw the Jobs Act as an opportunity to speak freely “without having to choose every word carefully”.

1601:

2.) On the other hand, here are some of the hugely POV-oriented, personal attacks on the subject made by Smalljim that point to the broad biases he is bringing to his edits. Are the following indicative of a neutral editor?

1496:

Third, you write that Lemelson was "unaware" of the cash distribution. But the author clearly states that he "speculated" that he was "apparently unaware." Nowhere does it state, as you've written, that he definitively was

1818:

resulted in the share price going UP. There is a certain amount of original research stringing together divergent facts in a way to make it look like Lemelson was responsible. More research needed, I'll take a look. --

780:

All of the foregoing applies to direct sourcing--random web sources or press releases that claim that reliable sources have said such and such are worthless--if we are not getting it directly, then it is worthless.

1967:

And so it goes on... I can't find any evidence that LCM has held shares or shorted Lumber Liquidators (LL). None of the media sources that I've seen say so, not do they include the usual disclosure (in fact

1263:. As a second example of this reckless editing, the Fox Business News reference removed today at 21:19 is removed with an edit note that the link doesn't work. In checking the link, it works fine. See here: 2240:

In September 2018, Lemelson was sued by the SEC for stock manipulation, allegedly making false statements about the company causing the share price to fall and profiting by $ 1.3m from the short positions.

1612:

c.) On January 14, 2016, Smalljim writes, in response to me including a Fox Business News video reference, that I "want to force people to gaze into Lemelson's hypnotic eyes and be swayed by his soothing

281: 2602: 384: 1030:

Under the new rules, managers can talk to the media more freely, engage in discussions on social media and at events, upgrade their websites to provide more information and advertise more generally.

1605:

a.) On December 30, 2015, Smalljim writes that the subject "isn't as divine or important" as I have depicted him. I've never used any adjectives in describing the subject. He has and does routinely.

1203: 31: 1043:“We were getting good results and I thought why don’t we publicise that?” he adds. The firm now sends out press releases on its performance and had secured four interviews with the press that week. 1308:"illogically removed in bulk" .. not only were they not removed "in bulk" they were carefully documented in over a dozen edit summaries + talk page explanations. Regarding USA today, here is the 1942:

As anyone would – but he does stand to make a good profit if GEOS returns to the high prices it has reached more than once before. I think it's right to remove it from the article now anyway. —

1670:- I made a bold edit, you reverted, now we discuss (though nothing to discuss as I won't pursue the section for now per Smalljim, but most of the points can be easily addressed). However your 156: 1218:

a publicity campaign can have. In itself the incident hardly seems worth mentioning and, as far as I know, there was no further commentary about it, unlike the Copeland article in the WSJ.

479: 941:

Well, we had a dispute about two of them yesterday which you were using to support the single word "activist". Neither used the word "activist" and one didn't mention the word Lemelson!

2567: 2562: 1135:

Added a section on the Forbes article by Gara and Home Loan Servicing Solutions. Knowledge (XXG) is agnostic if a trade is profitable or not, only if it's been reported in the news. --

146: 2076:

for Lemelson Capital Management, the opposite of advertising, as you claimed. I am looking forward to working with you through these issues, section by section, source by source. --

1210:

can be seen as an invitation to see how clever he is and how he could do the same for your money. It isn't the sort of detail that's normally included in similar articles - look at

1709:: I also believe in bold edits and hope you can respect my right to edit in that way. But boldness also has to be tempered by a commitment to accuracy, especially as it relates to 2572: 496: 122: 833:

Normally, I would agree about holding back, but with relevant editor, normal does not apply. Full rules apply every damn step of the way to the gallows. Truth, or the abyss--

2281: 875:(used abundantly as a source) has a small amount of editorial oversight. The problem is that sometimes the author of the article is not independent of LCM (i.e. Amvona). 819:, you are correct to say that most of the sources do not say a lot (or anything) about Lemelson Capital Management, which is the main reason I nom'd the article for AfD. 2398:"Lemelson Capital Management CIO Discusses Ligand Pharmaceuticals Prior To Company Issuing Weak Guidance," by Jayson Derrick, Benzinga (Yahoo Finance), November 18, 2014 109: 86: 771:

Any reference to a source that does not have a WP article to be subject to immediate removal, without recourse unless a talk page discussion here decides otherwise.

2385: 1026:(26 Sep - 1 Oct 2014, page 20), Lemelson Capital Management has been one of the few hedge fund companies to sign up to the Act. To quote from the HFMweek article: 2607: 2592: 1592:: I understand, Doncram, that you likely have not the time to review all of the edits of Smalljim on this and the other page, but let me walk through a few facts: 486: 2612: 2597: 1969: 1887:) shows, it was only temporary and the price has since slid from around $ 30 down to $ 10-odd today. In the Amvona Fund half year report for 2015 (published on 1049: 1396:

swayed by his soothing voice :) By the way, it is back in: I'll take it out. (This is temporarily ignoring the big issue of advertising issues, by the way). —

1360:

Orthodox2014, just a quick query on one point for now: the Fox Business News video works here too. Why was it was worth adding to the sentence (or paragraph)

2014: 1812:"Lemelson Capital then called on WWE's Board of Directors to intervene and replace the company's executive management team, or pursue a sale of the company" 1261: 2622: 2617: 1502:

Fourth, you write that this distribution would "wipe out the profit and result in a loss of the trade." But that also doesn't appear in the reference. The

320: 307: 657:? It is not clear to me how these "sources" are materially different from me saying "Barrons, Barrons, Barrons" on my user page here. Kindly elucidate. -- 491: 2437: 2232:

risks, and other challenges so significant that the stock had no intrinsic value. On July 3, 2014, Lemelson announced that it had further increased its

1710: 1621: 1202:(ec) Thanks for looking into this so quickly, GreenC, I didn't expect such a fast response! I don't know if you've looked at the list of refs in 2014's 2138: 2119: 2048:

In the edit summary it is stated "the talk page strongly questions ". Since I have been closely working on this article for over 4 years, along with

2577: 2118:

This is the text in question, I've tagged the sources. I don't think it can be seriously asserted that this text passes RS muster. On Benzinga, see

777:

Any content in this article that is not supported by a source with a WP article, or that has otherwise been agreed on this talk page, to be deleted.

1538:

Assuming that GreenC has already packed up for today, I'll save you the angst and remove it myself. But not primarily for the reasons you set out.

2587: 2582: 2411: 1052:, for example) will be under-reported. This casts doubt on the value of most of the sources used in the article and has led the article away from 224: 2187::WWE) (then trading at new highs of over $ 30/share). Lemelson issued reports explaining why he thought the company was overvalued and placed 1469:

a short trade for Home Loan Servicing." What does that mean? He took out an advertisement? The article actually states that he "publicized to

549: 462: 425: 420: 314: 1270:

appropriate references (which it was when Smalljim originally voted to delete in June 2014. The community rejected that deletion nomination.

1884: 2333: 294: 2145:, the term corporate raider is a pejorative that infers a value judgement, also somewhat dated as explained in the activist article. -- 1019: 2269: 2237:

mid-June." On November 18, 2014, Benzinga reported that the firm had covered its short position at an approximately 40 percent return.

474: 215: 179: 470:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

2228:, a publicly traded company, that concluded there were severe competitive threats to Ligand's key royalty programs, as well as 1206:: Ortho did make some reasonable points about the validity of some of them, though not with the above issue in mind, of course. 1022:(or JOBS Act) that came into effect in April 2012 allows the general solicitation of private funds. According to an article in 2282:"Lemelson takes down World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and brings it back up," by Joel Elconin, Benzinga, September 11, 2014 1644:: All of his activist investing efforts and references included in his "Business acquisition and investment timeline" section. 1264: 288: 275: 61: 837:. TRUTH! VERIFIABLE! Do I really have to wheel out the relevant Jimmy quotes? I (and I hope WP) do not consent to this BS. -- 580: 375: 301: 2373: 2505: 2397: 1575: 2361: 2293: 1461:

I see a number of serious problems with this paragraph you've added, based on the one reference you've included for it.

577: 27: 2200:

On April 22, 2014, Lemelson Capital announced that it had been acquiring the stock of Kulicke & Soffa Industries (

1060: 2310:"Kulicke and Soffa Industries: Large Cash Pile and Activist Involvement," by Alex Gavrish, ValueWalk, April 29, 2014 871:

needs addressing regardless of the AfD outcome so there's always scope for scrutinising the sources. FWIW I think

774:

No primary sources to this entity or any related entity shall be considered reliable with respect to this article.

725: 2321: 842: 786: 662: 1381:

It was used as a reference for the short position of Sketchers. It should be placed back in. Can you do that?

2024: 1930: 1826: 1774: 1691: 1346: 1320: 1294: 1143: 1121: 1098: 718: 623:

Each of these three references (and others not included) independently report on the multiple top rankings by

327: 67: 2345: 2205: 2184: 1766:

activist positions, that those should be described. It's notable IMO and a step beyond (mere) investing. --

1023: 767:

There is edit warring between article creator and other editors (myself included). I propose the following:

49: 2225: 2127: 2103: 1739:. I've not got far yet, hence the 'under construction' tag. Collaborative edits are welcome, of course! — 1718: 1680: 1662:

perspectives on the pages and still remain committed to collaborative edits. 16:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

1528: 1421: 1386: 1275: 1167: 989: 908: 894: 692: 632: 590: 347: 1901: 903:

Specifically what reference failed to mention Lemelson? I used great care in sourcing the references.

223:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

121:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2334:"Kulicke & Soffa jumps; activist discloses stake, calls for buyback," Seeking Alpha, April 22, 2014 2013:

Removal is further justified with Lumber Liquidators in the news again today, the stock is "cratering".

1656:: All of his activist investing efforts and references included as stand-alone sections in the article. 868: 809: 801:

It's at Articles for Deletion. I'd suggest holding back on major clean-up during the discussion period.

2386:"Exclusive: "Emmanuel Lemelson Talks Ligand Pharmaceuticals," by Luke Jacobi, Benzinga, August 7, 2014 2362:"Bearish outlook for Ligand from Lemelson Capital," by Douglas W. House, Seeking Alpha, June 16, 2014 1848: 1650:: All of his activist investing efforts and references included in his "Notable marketplays" section. 1211: 838: 816: 782: 658: 541: 454: 1735:

I've started to rewrite/clean-up this article based on the information I've collected while editing

20: 2017: 1923: 1922:

Lemelson has a history of not disclosing its bad trades/returns as noted by the Forbes article. --

1819: 1767: 1684: 1541: 1339: 1313: 1287: 1251:. As just one example, in reviewing one of the first ones that GreenCardaMom removed today, it's a 1136: 1114: 1091: 583: 2533: 594: 2543: 2479: 2309: 2002: 1984: 1949: 1911: 1862: 1799: 1746: 1553: 1437: 1403: 1371: 1229: 1184: 1075: 743: 438: 414: 2270:"The Short Case for World Wrestling Entertainment," Lemelson Capital Management, March 17, 2014 2213: 2142: 2123: 2099: 2059: 2053: 1974: 1736: 1714: 1570: 1524: 1477:. That sentence should be removed. It's covered more accurately in the second sentence anyway. 1430:

Maybe it's late, but you just made me laugh anyway. Thanks - 'night! BTW it's "Skechers"... —

1417: 1382: 1271: 1163: 1064: 985: 904: 890: 805: 688: 628: 586: 1177:

need to get some more experience, as Doncram suggested to you yesterday on your talk page. —

1053: 340: 2251: 2153: 2084: 333: 207: 1789: 1671: 1667: 523: 2491: 2438:"Lemelson Capital Demands Geospace (NASDAQ:GEOS) Replace Leadership, Explore Company Sale" 2233: 2177: 946: 880: 824: 610: 364: 733: 729: 654: 650: 2548: 2160: 2131: 2107: 2091: 2031: 2007: 1989: 1954: 1937: 1916: 1867: 1833: 1804: 1781: 1751: 1722: 1698: 1638:: All of his activist investing efforts and references included in his "Career" section. 1580: 1558: 1532: 1442: 1425: 1408: 1390: 1376: 1353: 1327: 1301: 1279: 1234: 1189: 1171: 1150: 1128: 1105: 1080: 993: 950: 912: 898: 884: 846: 828: 790: 748: 696: 666: 636: 614: 736:

articles on similar topics that can be compared for compliance with our house style. —

262: 683:

Sure. They are three financial media outlets, secondary in nature, that report on its

2556: 2537: 2229: 2049: 1996: 1978: 1943: 1905: 1856: 1793: 1740: 1647: 1547: 1486:" the stock. In reading the reference, however, it states at least ten times that he 1431: 1397: 1365: 1223: 1178: 1087: 1069: 763:

Proposal to remove all non-reliable sourcing and associated content from this article

737: 467: 2016:

Lemelson's call was a particularly bad one, not that anyone is paying attention. --

1609:

firms do, periodically announcing major developments relevant to its constituencies.

1256:

a reference for the impact of Lemelson's activism on WWE share prices. Link to that

2209: 1565: 1512:

email, but also says that he "politely" asked that the questions be emailed to him.

2146: 2077: 1653: 1635: 889:

I have removed a number of references that, to your point, did seem redundant.

2374:"Ligand Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: LGND): Appendix," Lemelson Capital Management 2188: 1641: 942: 876: 820: 606: 601:

Lemelson Capital Management, this article should concentrate on the reportage

531: 444: 197: 118: 466:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the 1674:

attacks of "reckless" editor, "try to depict the subject negatively" (the

101: 80: 2322:"Open Letter to Kulicke & Soffa's CEO," Seeking Alpha, April 22, 2014 1335: 1506:

article closes with that question, but never states whether it paid off.

1465:

First, the opening sentence states wrongly that Lemelson "publicized in

113:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to 220: 191: 173: 114: 2506:"Lemelson Capital Wants to Toss Geospace Execs | Investor | Business" 2201: 1063:

we must be very careful to ensure that we are not helping to promote

576:

ranking is referenced in multiple media sources, including ValueWalk

282:

Knowledge (XXG):Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies

2224:

On June 16, 2014, Lemelson released a 25-page research report on

2294:"Smack down at World Wrestling Entertainment," by Gary Strauss, 2176:

In March 2014 Lemelson Capital Management announced that it was

2412:"Hedge Fund Priest Sued by SEC for Alleged Stock Manipulation" 2180: 1473:" and that's further defined in the article as having emailed 43: 15: 1888: 522: 2463:"BRIEF-Lemelson Capital Management Says Urging Geospace..." 1222:

is unbalanced. All IMHO, of course – what do you think? —

2254:

in the company and controlled 9.3% of Geospace's shares.

2072:, that clarifies much of the deleted content is actually 2212:

for its shares, which Lemelson said were substantially

2069: 2042: 1361: 1309: 1249: 2603:

Redirect-Class United States articles of NA-importance

2346:"Lemelson commends Kulicke and Soffa on repurchase," 2139:

Knowledge (XXG):Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Benzinga

2120:

Knowledge (XXG):Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Benzinga

2068:

Furthermore could you address the questions noted in

219:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 131:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Finance & Investment

2204::KLIC) and issued an open letter to the company's 2568:Low-importance Finance & Investment articles 2563:Redirect-Class Finance & Investment articles 2056:- I don't recall we ever had that conversation. 1061:Knowledge (XXG) is not a vehicle for advertising 1018:We have a problem with advertising here. The US 1666:Orthodox2014, the nature of Knowledge (XXG) is 1028: 804:One of the difficulties with this article (and 60:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s 2573:WikiProject Finance & Investment articles 1546:see my earlier post – hope you understand! — 134:Template:WikiProject Finance & Investment 8: 321:Category:Company articles needing infoboxes 308:Category:Company articles needing attention 409: 270:Here are some tasks awaiting attention: 248: 168: 75: 1334:"GreenCardaMom" .. it's "Cardamom" as in 507:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States 726:this section of the Verifiability policy 2262: 2041:This talk section is for discussion of 411: 170: 77: 2487: 2477: 2608:Redirect-Class Massachusetts articles 2593:Redirect-Class United States articles 2208:calling on the company to initiate a 1260:article (which was removed) is here: 717:We only require multiple sources for 460:This redirect is within the scope of 346:Help expand stub articles located at 233:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Companies 213:This redirect is within the scope of 107:This redirect is within the scope of 47: 30:on 28 June 2014 (UTC). The result of 7: 2613:NA-importance Massachusetts articles 2598:NA-importance United States articles 2532:In retrospect I agree that this was 2410:Matt Robinson (September 12, 2018). 295:Category:Unassessed company articles 110:WikiProject Finance & Investment 2052:in regards to a COI case involving 1020:Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act 66:It is of interest to the following 2623:WikiProject United States articles 2618:WikiProject Massachusetts articles 510:Template:WikiProject United States 14: 603:about Lemelson Capital Management 137:Finance & Investment articles 2436:Balboa, Elizabeth (2018-02-12). 534: 447: 437: 413: 372:Tag company talk pages with the 261: 200: 190: 172: 151:This redirect has been rated as 100: 79: 48: 19: 2578:Redirect-Class company articles 2388:, Retrieved September 13, 2014. 2376:, Retrieved September 13, 2014. 2364:, Retrieved September 11, 2014. 2352:, Retrieved September 11, 2014. 1620:All of these are violations of 26:This article was nominated for 2588:WikiProject Companies articles 2583:NA-importance company articles 2196:Kulicke & Soffa Industries 808:) are the serious problems of 547:This redirect is supported by 361:Tag company articles with the 236:Template:WikiProject Companies 1: 2181:World Wrestling Entertainment 2172:World Wrestling Entertainment 2032:16:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC) 1973:Social commentary section of 227:and see a list of open tasks. 125:and see a list of open tasks. 2284:, Retrieved October 7, 2014. 2008:11:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 1990:13:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 1955:13:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 1938:05:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 1917:22:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 1868:17:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 1834:17:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 1805:16:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 1782:02:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 1752:00:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 1723:17:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC) 1699:16:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC) 1581:05:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC) 1559:01:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC) 1533:00:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC) 1443:01:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC) 1426:01:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC) 1409:01:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC) 1391:00:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC) 1377:00:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC) 1354:23:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 1328:23:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 1302:23:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 1280:23:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 1235:23:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 1190:00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC) 1172:22:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 1151:22:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 1129:21:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 1106:20:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 1081:14:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 252:WikiProject Companies To-do: 1482:Second, you write that he " 2639: 1889:http://lemelsoncapital.com 649:On what basis do you say " 157:project's importance scale 2549:11:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 2400:, retrieved May 30, 2015. 2336:, Retrieved June 6, 2014. 2324:, Retrieved June 7, 2014. 2312:, Retrieved June 7, 2014. 2300:, retrieved May 30, 2015. 2272:, Retrieved June 7, 2014. 2161:13:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 2132:09:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 2108:09:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 2092:23:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2037:Massive delete of content 994:14:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC) 951:11:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC) 913:21:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC) 899:19:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC) 885:20:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC) 847:20:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC) 829:19:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC) 791:19:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC) 749:23:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC) 697:22:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC) 667:21:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC) 637:21:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC) 615:21:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC) 595:19:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC) 550:WikiProject Massachusetts 530: 463:WikiProject United States 432: 247: 185: 150: 95: 74: 2348:The MetroWest Daily News 2167:Investments and activism 468:United States of America 128:Finance & Investment 87:Finance & Investment 2206:Chief Executive Officer 1014:JOBS equals advertising 567: 2226:Ligand Pharmaceuticals 2220:Ligand Pharmaceuticals 1045: 527: 513:United States articles 348:Category:Company stubs 2245:Geospace Technologies 653:"? And how are these 526: 385:requests for comments 376:WikiProject Companies 216:WikiProject Companies 2461:Editorial, Reuters. 1849:activist shareholder 1212:Category:Hedge funds 542:Massachusetts portal 455:United States portal 1995:I've removed it. — 481:Articles Requested! 2490:has generic name ( 2350:," August 29, 2014 1963:Lumber Liquidators 719:exceptional claims 585:, and elsewhere. 528: 62:content assessment 2546: 2541: 2534:excessive content 2143:activist investor 2054:User:Orthodox2014 2005: 2000: 1987: 1982: 1975:Emmanuel Lemelson 1952: 1947: 1914: 1909: 1865: 1860: 1802: 1797: 1749: 1744: 1737:Emmanuel Lemelson 1556: 1551: 1440: 1435: 1406: 1401: 1374: 1369: 1232: 1227: 1187: 1182: 1078: 1073: 1065:Emmanuel Lemelson 806:Emmanuel Lemelson 746: 741: 565: 564: 561: 560: 557: 556: 408: 407: 404: 403: 400: 399: 396: 395: 167: 166: 163: 162: 42: 41: 2630: 2544: 2539: 2520: 2519: 2517: 2516: 2502: 2496: 2495: 2489: 2485: 2483: 2475: 2473: 2472: 2458: 2452: 2451: 2449: 2448: 2433: 2427: 2426: 2424: 2422: 2407: 2401: 2395: 2389: 2383: 2377: 2371: 2365: 2359: 2353: 2343: 2337: 2331: 2325: 2319: 2313: 2307: 2301: 2298:, March 30, 2015 2291: 2285: 2279: 2273: 2267: 2252:passive investor 2158: 2151: 2089: 2082: 2063: 2029: 2022: 2003: 1998: 1985: 1980: 1950: 1945: 1935: 1928: 1912: 1907: 1863: 1858: 1831: 1824: 1800: 1795: 1779: 1772: 1747: 1742: 1731:Rewrite/clean-up 1696: 1689: 1578: 1573: 1568: 1554: 1549: 1545: 1438: 1433: 1404: 1399: 1372: 1367: 1351: 1344: 1325: 1318: 1299: 1292: 1230: 1225: 1185: 1180: 1148: 1141: 1126: 1119: 1103: 1096: 1076: 1071: 744: 739: 655:reliably sourced 579:, Seeking Alpha 568:Barron's ranking 544: 539: 538: 537: 515: 514: 511: 508: 505: 457: 452: 451: 450: 441: 434: 433: 428: 417: 410: 379: 368: 334:Portal:Companies 276:Article requests 265: 258: 257: 249: 241: 240: 239:company articles 237: 234: 231: 210: 208:Companies portal 205: 204: 203: 194: 187: 186: 176: 169: 139: 138: 135: 132: 129: 104: 97: 96: 91: 83: 76: 53: 52: 44: 23: 16: 2638: 2637: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2553: 2552: 2530: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2514: 2512: 2504: 2503: 2499: 2486: 2476: 2470: 2468: 2460: 2459: 2455: 2446: 2444: 2435: 2434: 2430: 2420: 2418: 2409: 2408: 2404: 2396: 2392: 2384: 2380: 2372: 2368: 2360: 2356: 2344: 2340: 2332: 2328: 2320: 2316: 2308: 2304: 2292: 2288: 2280: 2276: 2268: 2264: 2247: 2222: 2198: 2174: 2169: 2154: 2147: 2116: 2085: 2078: 2057: 2039: 2025: 2018: 1965: 1931: 1924: 1880: 1827: 1820: 1775: 1768: 1759: 1733: 1692: 1685: 1576: 1571: 1566: 1539: 1491:in the article? 1459: 1347: 1340: 1321: 1314: 1295: 1288: 1245: 1144: 1137: 1122: 1115: 1099: 1092: 1086:I started with 1016: 839:Hobbes Goodyear 783:Hobbes Goodyear 765: 659:Hobbes Goodyear 570: 540: 535: 533: 512: 509: 506: 503: 502: 501: 487:Become a Member 453: 448: 446: 423: 392: 389: 373: 362: 238: 235: 232: 229: 228: 206: 201: 199: 136: 133: 130: 127: 126: 89: 12: 11: 5: 2636: 2634: 2626: 2625: 2620: 2615: 2610: 2605: 2600: 2595: 2590: 2585: 2580: 2575: 2570: 2565: 2555: 2554: 2529: 2526: 2522: 2521: 2497: 2453: 2428: 2402: 2390: 2378: 2366: 2354: 2338: 2326: 2314: 2302: 2286: 2274: 2261: 2260: 2256: 2246: 2243: 2234:short position 2221: 2218: 2197: 2194: 2173: 2170: 2168: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2115: 2114:Section as was 2112: 2111: 2110: 2038: 2035: 2011: 2010: 1964: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1879: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1852: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1758: 1755: 1732: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1664: 1663: 1658: 1657: 1651: 1645: 1639: 1632: 1631: 1626: 1625: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1598: 1597: 1593: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1542:Green Cardamom 1520: 1519: 1514: 1513: 1508: 1507: 1499: 1498: 1493: 1492: 1479: 1478: 1458: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1357: 1356: 1331: 1330: 1305: 1304: 1244: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1219: 1215: 1207: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1154: 1153: 1132: 1131: 1109: 1108: 1015: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 887: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 813: 802: 794: 793: 778: 775: 772: 764: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 722: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 642: 641: 640: 639: 618: 617: 569: 566: 563: 562: 559: 558: 555: 554: 546: 545: 529: 519: 518: 516: 500: 499: 494: 489: 484: 477: 475:Template Usage 471: 459: 458: 442: 430: 429: 418: 406: 405: 402: 401: 398: 397: 394: 393: 391: 390: 388: 387: 381: 380:project banner 370: 358: 350: 336: 323: 310: 297: 284: 269: 267: 266: 254: 253: 245: 244: 242: 225:the discussion 212: 211: 195: 183: 182: 177: 165: 164: 161: 160: 153:Low-importance 149: 143: 142: 140: 123:the discussion 105: 93: 92: 90:Low‑importance 84: 72: 71: 65: 54: 40: 39: 32:the discussion 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2635: 2624: 2621: 2619: 2616: 2614: 2611: 2609: 2606: 2604: 2601: 2599: 2596: 2594: 2591: 2589: 2586: 2584: 2581: 2579: 2576: 2574: 2571: 2569: 2566: 2564: 2561: 2560: 2558: 2551: 2550: 2547: 2542: 2535: 2527: 2511: 2507: 2501: 2498: 2493: 2481: 2467: 2464: 2457: 2454: 2443: 2439: 2432: 2429: 2421:September 13, 2417: 2413: 2406: 2403: 2399: 2394: 2391: 2387: 2382: 2379: 2375: 2370: 2367: 2363: 2358: 2355: 2351: 2349: 2342: 2339: 2335: 2330: 2327: 2323: 2318: 2315: 2311: 2306: 2303: 2299: 2297: 2290: 2287: 2283: 2278: 2275: 2271: 2266: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2253: 2244: 2242: 2238: 2235: 2231: 2230:going concern 2227: 2219: 2217: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2195: 2193: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2179: 2171: 2166: 2162: 2159: 2157: 2152: 2150: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2090: 2088: 2083: 2081: 2075: 2071: 2066: 2061: 2055: 2051: 2050:User:Smalljim 2046: 2044: 2036: 2034: 2033: 2030: 2028: 2023: 2021: 2015: 2009: 2006: 2001: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1988: 1983: 1976: 1971: 1962: 1956: 1953: 1948: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1936: 1934: 1929: 1927: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1915: 1910: 1903: 1897: 1893: 1890: 1886: 1877: 1869: 1866: 1861: 1853: 1850: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1835: 1832: 1830: 1825: 1823: 1816: 1811: 1810: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1803: 1798: 1791: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1780: 1778: 1773: 1771: 1765: 1756: 1754: 1753: 1750: 1745: 1738: 1730: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1697: 1695: 1690: 1688: 1682: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1660: 1659: 1655: 1652: 1649: 1648:David Einhorn 1646: 1643: 1640: 1637: 1634: 1633: 1628: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1618: 1611: 1607: 1604: 1603: 1600: 1599: 1594: 1591: 1588: 1587: 1582: 1579: 1574: 1569: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1557: 1552: 1543: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1516: 1515: 1510: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1500: 1495: 1494: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1456: 1444: 1441: 1436: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1407: 1402: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1375: 1370: 1363: 1359: 1358: 1355: 1352: 1350: 1345: 1343: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1329: 1326: 1324: 1319: 1317: 1311: 1307: 1306: 1303: 1300: 1298: 1293: 1291: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1267: 1265: 1262: 1259: 1254: 1250: 1242: 1236: 1233: 1228: 1220: 1216: 1213: 1208: 1205: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1191: 1188: 1183: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1152: 1149: 1147: 1142: 1140: 1134: 1133: 1130: 1127: 1125: 1120: 1118: 1111: 1110: 1107: 1104: 1102: 1097: 1095: 1089: 1088:Seeking Alpha 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1079: 1074: 1066: 1062: 1057: 1055: 1051: 1044: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1031: 1027: 1025: 1021: 1013: 995: 991: 987: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 952: 948: 944: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 914: 910: 906: 902: 901: 900: 896: 892: 888: 886: 882: 878: 874: 873:Seeking Alpha 870: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 848: 844: 840: 836: 832: 831: 830: 826: 822: 818: 814: 811: 810:over-citation 807: 803: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 792: 788: 784: 779: 776: 773: 770: 769: 768: 762: 750: 747: 742: 735: 731: 727: 723: 720: 716: 715: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 651:independently 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 638: 634: 630: 626: 622: 621: 620: 619: 616: 612: 608: 604: 599: 598: 597: 596: 592: 588: 584: 581: 578: 575: 552: 551: 543: 532: 525: 521: 520: 517: 504:United States 498: 495: 493: 490: 488: 485: 483: 482: 478: 476: 473: 472: 469: 465: 464: 456: 445: 443: 440: 436: 435: 431: 427: 426:Massachusetts 422: 421:United States 419: 416: 412: 386: 382: 377: 371: 366: 360: 359: 357: 355: 351: 349: 345: 343: 342: 337: 335: 332: 330: 329: 324: 322: 319: 317: 316: 311: 309: 306: 304: 303: 298: 296: 293: 291: 290: 285: 283: 280: 278: 277: 272: 271: 268: 264: 260: 259: 256: 255: 251: 250: 246: 243: 226: 222: 218: 217: 209: 198: 196: 193: 189: 188: 184: 181: 178: 175: 171: 158: 154: 148: 145: 144: 141: 124: 120: 116: 112: 111: 106: 103: 99: 98: 94: 88: 85: 82: 78: 73: 69: 63: 59: 55: 51: 46: 45: 37: 33: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 2531: 2513:. Retrieved 2509: 2500: 2469:. Retrieved 2465: 2456: 2445:. Retrieved 2441: 2431: 2419:. Retrieved 2415: 2405: 2393: 2381: 2369: 2357: 2347: 2341: 2329: 2317: 2305: 2295: 2289: 2277: 2265: 2257: 2248: 2239: 2223: 2210:tender offer 2199: 2175: 2155: 2148: 2137:I posted at 2124:David Gerard 2117: 2100:David Gerard 2086: 2079: 2073: 2067: 2060:David Gerard 2047: 2040: 2026: 2019: 2012: 1966: 1932: 1925: 1904:here too. — 1902:WP:RECENTISM 1898: 1894: 1881: 1828: 1821: 1776: 1769: 1763: 1760: 1734: 1715:Orthodox2014 1706: 1693: 1686: 1675: 1665: 1589: 1525:Orthodox2014 1521: 1503: 1487: 1483: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1460: 1418:Orthodox2014 1413: 1383:Orthodox2014 1362:you attached 1348: 1341: 1322: 1315: 1310:edit summary 1296: 1289: 1272:Orthodox2014 1268: 1257: 1252: 1246: 1164:Orthodox2014 1159: 1145: 1138: 1123: 1116: 1100: 1093: 1059:Also, since 1058: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1032: 1029: 1017: 986:Orthodox2014 905:Orthodox2014 891:Orthodox2014 872: 834: 766: 689:Orthodox2014 684: 629:Orthodox2014 624: 602: 587:Orthodox2014 573: 571: 548: 492:Project Talk 480: 461: 367:|Companies}} 353: 352: 339: 338: 326: 325: 313: 312: 300: 299: 287: 286: 274: 273: 214: 152: 108: 68:WikiProjects 57: 36:no consensus 35: 2214:undervalued 1654:Daniel Loeb 1636:Bill Ackman 869:WP:CITEKILL 2557:Categories 2515:2018-06-23 2471:2018-06-23 2447:2018-06-23 2258:References 2189:fair value 1642:Carl Icahn 1243:References 1054:neutrality 867:Well, the 724:Also, per 687:ranking. 119:Investment 2480:cite news 2416:Bloomberg 2296:USA Today 2070:this edit 2043:this edit 1672:Bad Faith 1364:it to? — 1258:USA Today 1253:USA Today 230:Companies 221:companies 180:Companies 2528:Comments 2442:Benzinga 2074:negative 1885:on Yahoo 1757:Activism 1707:Response 1590:Response 1497:unaware. 1414:Response 1336:Cardamom 1160:Response 815:So yes, 685:Barron's 625:Barron's 574:Barron's 369:template 328:Maintain 302:Copyedit 58:redirect 28:deletion 2488:|first= 1681:#2 here 1613:voice." 1488:shorted 1024:HFMweek 732:and/or 383:Answer 315:Infobox 155:on the 115:Finance 2510:Scribd 2202:NASDAQ 1683:). -- 1676:Forbes 1668:WP:BRD 1504:Forbes 1484:bought 1475:Forbes 1471:Forbes 1467:Forbes 817:Hobbes 582:, HFG 497:Alerts 365:portal 289:Assess 64:scale. 2178:short 2149:Green 2080:Green 2020:Green 1926:Green 1822:Green 1790:owner 1770:Green 1687:Green 1342:Green 1338:. -- 1316:Green 1290:Green 1139:Green 1117:Green 1094:Green 943:Sionk 877:Sionk 821:Sionk 607:Sionk 354:Other 341:Stubs 56:This 2540:MALL 2492:help 2423:2018 2185:NYSE 2128:talk 2104:talk 1999:MALL 1981:MALL 1977:. — 1970:this 1946:MALL 1908:MALL 1878:GEOS 1859:MALL 1796:MALL 1764:some 1743:MALL 1719:talk 1550:MALL 1529:talk 1457:HLSS 1434:MALL 1422:talk 1400:MALL 1387:talk 1368:MALL 1276:talk 1226:MALL 1181:MALL 1168:talk 1072:MALL 1050:this 990:talk 947:talk 909:talk 895:talk 881:talk 843:talk 825:talk 787:talk 740:MALL 693:talk 663:talk 633:talk 611:talk 591:talk 572:The 117:and 34:was 2545:JIM 2466:U.K 2004:JIM 1986:JIM 1951:JIM 1913:JIM 1864:JIM 1801:JIM 1748:JIM 1711:BLP 1622:BLP 1572:ncr 1555:JIM 1439:JIM 1405:JIM 1373:JIM 1231:JIM 1204:AfD 1186:JIM 1077:JIM 835:now 745:JIM 147:Low 2559:: 2508:. 2484:: 2482:}} 2478:{{ 2440:. 2414:. 2130:) 2106:) 2045:. 1855:— 1721:) 1577:am 1567:do 1564:-- 1531:) 1424:) 1389:) 1278:) 1266:. 1170:) 1068:— 1056:. 992:) 949:) 911:) 897:) 883:) 845:) 827:) 789:) 781:-- 734:GA 730:FA 695:) 665:) 635:) 627:. 613:) 605:. 593:) 424:: 378:}} 374:{{ 363:{{ 2538:S 2518:. 2494:) 2474:. 2450:. 2425:. 2183:( 2156:C 2126:( 2102:( 2087:C 2062:: 2058:@ 2027:C 1997:S 1979:S 1944:S 1933:C 1906:S 1857:S 1829:C 1794:S 1777:C 1741:S 1717:( 1694:C 1548:S 1544:: 1540:@ 1527:( 1432:S 1420:( 1398:S 1385:( 1366:S 1349:C 1323:C 1297:C 1274:( 1224:S 1179:S 1166:( 1146:C 1124:C 1101:C 1070:S 988:( 945:( 907:( 893:( 879:( 841:( 823:( 785:( 738:S 691:( 661:( 631:( 609:( 589:( 553:. 356:: 344:: 331:: 318:: 305:: 292:: 279:: 159:. 70:: 38:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index