Talk:Lux Capital

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Private Equity

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Private Equity, a collaborative effort to improve the depth of quality and coverage of the private equity and venture capital industry and related topics in Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This project seeks to collaborate with the following WikiProjects:

Private EquityWikipedia:WikiProject Private EquityTemplate:WikiProject Private EquityPrivate Equity

Portfolio

This is excessive and unreferenced. Only notable inclusions should be allowed.--BelBivDov (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lux Capital. 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/20100127033922/http://mycrains.crainsnewyork.com/40under40/profiles/2003/40 to http://mycrains.crainsnewyork.com/40under40/profiles/2003/40

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first.

It seems that someone has added a criticism section, which is not adequately referenced and based on conjecture. The user is an IP address. Can you please get this reverted as it doesn't belong on our company's page? I didn't attempt to change it and wanted to get other editors on this case for fear of violating Wikipedia's guidelines. FloobunIP (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please specify "not adequately referenced and based on conjecture". GoldRomean (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoldRomean, thanks for responding. Here are the reasons for why we beleive it should be reverted: - They made accusations about anti-Arab discrimination -Poor referencing to ambiguous articles hidden behind paywalls - There were also unreferenced statements - The tone used in the edit was unencycolpaedic FloobunIP (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since we posted this, they have added more references but please read the content of those references and you will see that 1 is crunchbase, which isn't typically used on Wikipedia and the second one is businessinsider and that article doesn't support the claims they are making on this page. FloobunIP (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Please establish a consensus with editors engaged in the subject area before using the {{Edit COI}} template for this proposed change. Seems like a controversial change, I would like to see consensus. GoldRomean (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited the IP to discuss. GoldRomean (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New user

It's pretty clear that employees from Lux or Wolfe himself has registered a new account to be able to delete any news about criticism of him and the firm. See the most recent edits. 2603:7000:2400:1A0B:255D:3475:FF5B:B6F4 (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]