Talk:Ronn Torossian/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

The recent edit adding Pamela Geller

While the discussion above did indeed clarify the relationship between Geller and Torossian, the way it has been added to the article makes no sense at all. The association of Geller and Torossian was specifically in the context of the campaign against the New Israel Fund; without explaining that, the paragraph is meaningless. Also, there is no reason that this should be in the "Career" section of the article.

If we want to include the Geller/Torossian link, the proper way to do that is to add a section about Torossian's activity in the field of political advocacy. The section should include quotes from Torossian's many oped and opinion columns, which are syndicated in a number of publications, including the New York Post, the Jerusalem Post, Huffington Post, and elsewhere. Among right-wing commentators, Torossian is published moderately widely.

At one time, there was such a section in this article, but after lengthy and somewhat rancorous discussions about his notability as a commentator, the section was removed. I think there is certainly justification for such a section, and would like to see it restored - especially in light of the fairly wide publicity that the anti-NIF campaign engendered. However, if we do not decide to reinstate the section, the Geller-Torossian link is without context and should be removed. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think his political activism should also be added to the article. I once wrote up a well-sourced section which was removed by Drmies who declared it was "all puff", "really irrelevant stuff", "newspaper mentions are trivial", "sourcing weak", despite every single sentence being properly referenced, after Torossian came here and shouted in ALL CAPS. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Only for the talk page - I would add to this a few points.

In 2015, Torossian brought two clients together with New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio to help mend relationships between City Hall and the New York City Police Department., and

Torossian penned an oped in the New York Observer about Vladmir Putin ability to outmaneuver President Barack Obama in politics and PR,. That piece was then picked up by a Russian media outlet called Sputnick.

These are significant and should be included. The older material should be reassessed as time goes on. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the relationship with Geller could be folded into a "politics" section. I also think that we need a better explanation about the removal of content by Drmies that FireflySixtySeven points to. Certainly some of that is notable as long as the sources pass muster. The same goes for the information provided by Engelmayer. PPX (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Recent Changes

The facts of his writings and so called punditry are facts regardless of whether they are widely adhered to. He has been writing on these topics and that is known. Whether or not quality third party sources quite him is irrelevant. The New York Observer, where he writes, Wired Magazine and the like are real and independent sources. Also, Torossian is divorced. Veggies 2 (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Veggies 2: It looks like you seem to have misunderstood a lot of the discussion that went on in above threads, but I apologize for not explaining myself clearer. A couple of things;

1. The sources you provided don't tell us that Torossian brought the parties together, simply that he attended. If you can find a reliable source that says as much, by all means, include it.
2. What I meant was that, you can't make a claim that Torossian does commentary, and use those same commentary pieces as source. To establish notability of his commentary, you have to provide a source that's independent of his own writing.

Anyway, you'll see from the discussion that Torossian has tried to argue past these points but wasn't able to gain consensus. I ask that you don't do the same thing, and build consensus with other editors before including those edits again. Thanks. Mosmof (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mosmof: Would this count for third party? I am not sure what it would take to show that he helped... It says, http://observer.com/2015/12/pr-power-50/#slide30, PR is dead. Long live PR. By Michael Kaminer and John Bonazzo • 12/16/15 10:00am, "He also brokered an unlikely peace between Mayor de Blasio and client Sergeant’s Benevolent Association." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggies 2 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 21 December 2015

Schmaybe? I tend to take "Best of..." slideshow/list articles with a grain of salt because by their nature, they're going to be sympathetic to the subjects they cover and aren't entirely neutral sources. And part of what makes writing this article difficult is that Torossian seems to work hard to get himself into news stories and it's hard to tell which sources are completely independent. That said, I'm sure there are editors who will disagree with me. My instinct is to keep it neutral as possible, use the wording from the NY Times and Daily News articles and describe Torossian as having attended the meeting without getting too far in the weeds about his role in arranging the meeting. Mosmof (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mosmof: I don't want to get too caught up on this article, as it seems to be more contentious than most. I would say that it is not for us to decide which articles this subject - Torossian - "seems to work hard to get himself into" because there are likely thousands of articles on people who do the same, but we just do not know or care. The Observer is a real media source and the reporters who covered this "best of.." seem to be genuine reporters. You can keep it neutral if that pleases the majority here, but you cannot ignore it simply because "we" here in Wikipedia circles do not like or approve of the methods. You asked for a third party source, and one was provided, only to be told that the source was good, but the way it was provided to the reporters "may" have been through some coercion. For Torossian, it seems little it good enough proof, yet he has a real business that has grown since early 2000s that many have tried to de-legitimize as a result of his politics and mannerisms. Not liking the guy isn't a reason for not being fair and consistent on the forum Veggies 2 (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree. My editorial aside, if a reliable, third party source says it, it's good to go. I'm just expressing my reservation, given how much Ronn (or at least his people) tried to influence this article. But I appreciate the discussion here. Thanks. Mosmof (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

While it is a matter of debate and contention whether Torossian's punditry has received significant independent coverage, his political activism has certainly received coverage in tens of third-party sources. The coverage being from several years back doesn't negate their importance or relevance. In fact, those are more relevant and reliable than the coverage Torossian gets these days by drawing attention to himself, and as User:Mosmof, points out above, "work[ing] hard to get himself into news stories and [so] it's hard to tell which sources are completely independent". How about reinstating the politics section? FireflySixtySeven (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ronn Torossian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140228212346/http://www.prweekus.com/5w-public-relations-agency-business-report-2012/article/256567/ to http://www.prweekus.com/5w-public-relations-agency-business-report-2012/article/256567/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2016

A user added a point about an arrest in 1993 or so. With all that has gone on on this article over time, how is this relevant and permitted? Please advise and have a permitted editor make the proper reversal. Thank you Lebraunjames (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC) Lebraunjames (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done The information is reliably sourced and, more than the fact he spent a night in jail itself, the reason for his jailing is important in connection with his political views and the lenghts to which Torossian went in furthering those views. Forward found it significant enough to mention it decades after the fact. In fact there have been persistent efforts to scrub the article of reliably-sourced coverage of Torossian's political advocacy; if anything, we should expand that aspect and not just cover it as something in his "early life" section. Huon (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree here. Normally I would grant that, but here, it seems the only times most editors wish to raise new issues on this article is when there is the more "salacious" details to add. An arrest from 1993 is the latest. If someone suggests that the best representation of Torossian is by Jeffrey Goldberg from 2008 or this arrest in 1993, it gets endorsed by bulk of the editors who follow this article, but of someone suggests more recent and more "routine" information that suggests the Torossian of 2016, it gets rejected. I would say yes, this piece should has balance as to the issues involved, but to say that the one edit on an arrest 23 years ago is good because it is sourced and valid does not make it encyclopedic. Be honest about this and sure, add what is right, but look at what is added and try to go deeper and see the nature of how some are suggesting Wikipedia be used.Lebraunjames (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Far from being new, this was part of an extremely well-referenced section on Torossian's politics that was removed wholesale without explanation or discussion (despite the edit summary!) a year ago. As I said, we should likely expand our coverage of that aspect.Huon (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Anup [Talk] 15:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Personal Life

While interesting, Torossian is known for his work, his career and his company. His personal, on its own, would not merit a page, making it lower on the Article Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The same could be said about, say, Albert Einstein, yet the early life tends to be covered early in biographical articles. Huon (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Edits by Sustain42

I have reverted edits by Sustain42, which deleted material other editors consider relevant, and which has been the subject of considerable discussion on this talk page. @Sustain42:, if you feel your edits were justified, please discuss them here before reverting. Ravpapa (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Updates

Updates to be considered: Mentions 150 employees and clients including Wendy Williams, SAP and 43K square foot office: https://commercialobserver.com/2016/12/wendy-williams-pr-firm-inks-43k-sf-deal-at-helmsley-building/ JetSmarter: Torossian has joined JetSmarter as Chief marketing officer and board member - the company is valued at 1.5 Billion. Should be a new sub-section: http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2016/12/13/another-south-florida-startup-is-officially-a.html http://www.hautetime.com/haute-livings-michael-j-fox-cover-launch-with-hublot-and-jetsmarter/80465/

Would like to add a section on JetSmarter which reads: JetSmarter Torossian serves as Chief marketing officer and a board member of JetSmarter, a Florida based private jet company which has been called the "uber of the air." The company is valued at 1.5 Billion Dollars as of December 2016. Richardereroiul (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

None of that strikes me as particularly relevant. Two of the sources are passing mentions; the third does not mention Torossian at all. I don't think his business' address is of any relevance whatsoever to Torossian the person. The mention of Torossian related to JetSmarter in the source is shorter than what you make of it. There's no indication that three-letter job is a significant part of Torossian's professional career. Huon (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Torossian as head of marketing, partner and board member for company valued at 1.5 Billion dollars is relevant to the mans professional career.

More sources: http://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/7632/2016-09-28/dujours-binn-joins-jetsmarter.html http://www.sohh.com/jay-z-funded-private-jet-company-achieves-billion-dollar-valuation/ http://hauteliving.com/2016/10/five-fascinating-stories-from-private-jet-company-leader-jetsmarter/622150/ Odwyers is leading trade magazine for his industry and used as source in nearly every pr bio on wikipedia. How would you propose we have others comment on this matter? one would think its hard to argue with a straight face that a businessman who is a partner and board member of a billion dollar company isn't notable for that activity but that he "teamed up" on an article with someone is relevant. Regarding business address, I agree however would propose to add the clients named in the article including SAP to his client list in the bio. Richardereroiul (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

If "Torossian as head of marketing, partner and board member for company valued at 1.5 Billion dollars" is relevant, where are the sources discussing its relevance? O'Dwyer's is reporting on JetSmarter hiring someone else, mentioning Torossian only in passing (and not mentioning the $1.5 billion, for example). I see no indication that SOHH is reliable. And Haute Living is a "strategic partner" of JetSmarter, not an independent source about the company. Huon (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Jetsmarter

Torossian has been involved with Jetsmarter as more than their PR company through his firm, but personally as a board member and employee. It is part of his career. This is not a COI for me to enterJuda S. Engelmayer (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Addition

Perhaps someone can add, from this NYT article, that he was born in Midwood, Brooklyn.

And that raised in a middle-class family in Riverdale, in the Bronx.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/nyregion/thecity/brash-pr-guy-grabs-clients-ink.html

Thanks.--2604:2000:E016:A700:4005:61FE:7A3A:5E69 (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that information is already included, even if not at that level of detail. [[PPX]] (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent Additions of Content

Among the issues added by the editorPPX is something that was hashed out on the Ronn Torossian talk pages years ago. This same user added something in using the talk pages as his guide, this should be followed as well. (unsigned by Judae1)

Judae1 -- Thanks for directing us to the conversation about the Agriprocessors conversation. Looking through more of the archives I came across this RFC [1] which concluded with the view that the information should be included.

The decision was "Keep merge but re-add selected material as suggested by DGG"

DGG's suggestion was "I would return almost all of it to this article , except the list of clients in the first paragraph..."

Another notable view in the RFC was Ravpapa's: "5WPR is Ronn Torossian; its clients are his clients; its scandals, even if he was not personally involved in them, reflect on him. Therefore, information on 5WPR's client base and activities are indeed relevant to Ronn Torossian, and should remain in the article."

Nowhere in the RFC was there an opinion that the Agriprocessors should be excluded from the article.

The RFC, I would note, took place in 2014, while the conversation about Agriprocessors that Judea1 linked to was from 2011. (And there were also two editors then who made the case in 2011 that the article is only notable because of the Agriprocessors story.)

With respect to Geller:

Please take a look at this [2] conversation we had (in which Judae1 participated) about including this content. Why would one delete that without engaging further in the conversation? The information is clearly well sourced and notable.

Judae1 may feel differently given his connection to the subject, (about which he has been admirably open). But isn't that all the more reason to hash it out on the talk page before deleting the content?

Also with respect to Geller, one other thing to note: I noticed that Judae1 stripped that content out in an edit [3] where the description of the edit only referred to the unrelated content included but not to the content removed. My hope is that this was a good faith error -- that Judae1 at that time removed the Geller content by accident when adding in the other edit.

I would really like us to use this opportunity to have a conversation about this content. With respect to Agriprocessors, is there a reason why the 2014 RFC no longer applies? Is there a case based on wikipedia policy to not include what was reported in news articles with respect to the Torossian-Geller relationship? [[PPX]] (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason to not include that except Mr Torossian's desire to keep his personal activism separate from his business. What I find interesting is Mr Engelmayer's edit summary that "Neither NIF or Geller merit mention in the multitude of client matters 5W has dealt with over the years". It was my understanding that Mr Torossian strongly denied that Geller was a client of 5WPR in the first place; see for example here. Judae1, are you saying that 5WPR did represent Ms. Geller despite Mr. Torossian's denial? If so, can you provide a reliable source for that assertion? (As an aside, I would advise you not to edit an article about your (former?) boss; you should be well aware of WP:COI.) Huon (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

With absolute certainty, Geller was never a client of the firm or personally in any way. What I wrote was really to ask why this issue is so relevant to this wiki article above anything else Torossian has ever accomplished?Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is it relevant? In my opinion his political activism is significant and his associations are a part of that. The connection with Geller (whether as client or otherwise) was notable enough for a news article in the Jewish Journal, a Reliable Source. Torossian's statement to the effect that she was not a client was included in the text removed. This content has been restored to the article. But if there is a case to be made for excluding it, please lay it out here. [[PPX]] (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I am going to try and express this as best I can. It is true that there are those who have had issue with the firm's approach to PR, and of course, to the subject of this article, but consider this - the firm is 14 years old, has achieved $23M in revenues or more, has had thousands of clients, from major brands to well-established business people and businesses, firms and startups, and for some reason, Pam Geller is such a major issue to the editors here. Just because a news outlet writes something does not make it encyclopedia-worthy. So what that it was alleged that someone was a client, it's not fact, but allegation. Also, IT IS FALSE, but regardless, why does that person warrant attention at all in this small paragraph on the achievements of the firm in this BLP on the subject here? Additionally, the Agri issue occurred ten years ago, and the subject of this piece was not really the person the issue focused on. I have said it before and I will say it again, the people who lean a different way than this individual, try hard to keep bringing up the issues that they feel mark the "significance" of his life and career. If the only issues are "scandal" then Wiki should be Page Six rather than an encyclopedia. I am no longer on staff there, but have known him well for a long time. He is charitable, philanthropic, loyal, savvy, entrepreneurial, and if Wiki is to be objective, those parts would be there as well. It is not a place to simply etch every negative piece of news that ever ran under the guise of "but it was in a paper..." Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I have largely lost interest in this article, but I always wondered: political commitment and concerted action to promote his political beliefs has always been an important part of Torossian's public life. At one point, I even thought he was considering a career in politics. Why, then, has he been so adamant about keeping these things out of his biography in the Wikipedia? @Judae1:, perhaps you can shed some light on this? Ravpapa (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

He was never running for office, nor did he ever suggest he was. While he has a genuine love for Israel, his business is hardly about that, as the client list is vastly beyond any political issue, and deep into technologies, businesses, startup, fashion, consumer goods, etc. This Israel agenda is not significant in 5W and the fact that some here seem to want to make it so, boggles me. If Pam Geller is important to any 5W list, TalkingRain and the success of Sparkling Ice from a very small company to a major brand should be there. One of the biggest big data companies in the world is 5W's too. This focus on these minor matters is just intended to steer the readers and not truly educate them. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

But the article is not about 5W, it is about Torossian. And Torossian's political activities have always been high profile - he has never been shy about voicing his support for Israel nor for acting on it. If the article was about the PR company, I would agree with you, but that is not the case. So, I still wonder, why is Torossian so upfront in public about his politics, yet so shy about them when editing the Wikipedia? Ravpapa (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

In fairness, the 5W article was merged with this one. Looking back at that conversation is why I think it's Ok (even if it's not ideal) for the article to talk about 5W as much as it does. [[PPX]] (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

whether he is shy is not the question; the question is why is Pam Geller so important to this? These are mentioned in the career section as it's a major part, and I still can't fathom why. If you put equal time to other issues, I would not spend so much time here. No one else advocates for him, and with the amount of people insistent on just using negative comments on his from Jeff Goldberg 10 years ago, or from Nolan whose Gawker no longer exists, while there are so many current and more prevalent comments. What is the issue with the lopsided insistence that these issues stay and nothing newer or more pertinent can be added. That is my only question. Please have a real conversation rather than just asking whether he is shy or not. Please help explain how these issues are the most pressing for Wikipedia.Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I can understand Judae1's desire to sweep under the rug information that he or Torossian find undesirable. But I find a need to respond. First, whether the subject or an editor likes a fact or not is not the standard we go by. We need Reliable Sources. (Yes, "but it was in a paper..." is part of how Wikipedia works). Second, Wikipedia is not a newspaper; it's an encyclopedia. If something happened 10 years ago that makes it less newsworthy today but no less important for an encyclopedia. Third, we saw plenty of accounts advocating for Torossian. That so many of them were puppets or otherwise acted underhandedly should be cause for vigilance about undue puffery.

I have always been upfront on my Wiki edits and issues. You say, "Second, Wikipedia is not a newspaper; it's an encyclopedia." and I agree, but not every news article or third party source, fact or rumor is worthy of being entered here. If it were, every time any subject of a Wiki article would have every single mention ever made put in here. You and I both know that does not happen, and we only choose what is "Wiki" worthy. So I ask again, why are the issues you are choosing so worthy of this? If there is a good reason, then so be it. But it is just to define one aspect of this subject and nothing else. Not even sure why PG has her own article... That said, does Wikipedia make mention of every person and every subject that Jeff Goldberg said something about (as long as they have articles here)? No. More to the point, does Wiki make use of all of H Nolan's comments throughout his career? There are exactly 35 references to Nolan on Wiki, some are photos and most are part of talk pages on this article. So why is he the go-to source for this? At least Jeff has his own Wiki article and more the 250 mentions throughout. I'm just saying, be objective here and not merely intent on expressing your POV.Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

With that said, I'm wondering if the place to contextualize the Geller association is in the politics section proposed by FireflySixtySeven. One the one hand it would further distance it from 5W, but on the other hand it seems to be borderline synthesis. (We have a source that says "works with," and we know that a part of the collaboration was his distributing her press materials. These point to it being a professional matter). Thoughts? Other suggestions? [[PPX]] (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

I do not see consensus in the section I edited. Rather, I see conflicting claims made by two opposing camps... Torossian's supporters and detractors. Each insists that their own point of view MUST be represented ad-nauseum, or the page won't be accurate or complete. The reader would be better served by simply telling them that he is a controversial figure and why.
My edit sought to temper some of this (to me) ridiculous back and forth, which I found to be patently unencyclopaedic. In fact, my first thought was simply to remove the entire "Reception" section, but I didn't want to remove or have to re-orient all those references. Sustain42 (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

sustain42, "discuss on the talk page" does not mean posting a comment on the talk page and then repeating an edit which removes material about which there has been extensive discussion and consensus. I am reverting your edit for the second time. Please wait for other editors to respond to your opinions before repeating your removal of documented material which is relevant to the subject. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Specifically to the point you raise: "consensus" in this context does not mean consensus among the commentators quoted, as you suggest. It means consensus among the editors of this page. Obviously, there is no consensus among commentators about Ronn Torossian's methods and personality; on the contrary, there is intense disagreement. That disagreement is unquestionably relevant to a presentation of Torossian's personality. That the controversy over Torossian is relevant is a matter of consensus among bona fide editors of this page, and that is why it is there.

If you think the article as written is "ridiculous" and "unencyclopaedic" you should wait for other editors to chime in with their opinions. If no one is interested, you can always initiate a request for comment, which will invite other editors to express their opinions. But you should certainly not simply repeat the deletion because you don't like it. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Politics section?

I once wrote a well-sourced section on Torossian's political activity, which was moved to the talk page for a "discussion" that never reached a conclusion. Thoughts on restoring it, in full or at least in part? FireflySixtySeven (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the appropriate mechanism for this is BRD. You took the first step by boldly creating the section. It's unfortunate that the entire thing was reverted until it could be discussed, rather than using reverts to improve what needed improving.

At this point however, looking at that discussion (and discounting all of the comments by TorossianRonn ,a banned sockpuppet), you have a few changes that have been suggested in the discussion.

In my view the most significant comment was made by Dweller about length. And this was echoed by Huon. Take a stab at making it shorter -- and at accommodating any other comments from that discussion -- and then, by all means, you should BOLDly re-post the section. Then, we should all expect reverts and discussion. [[PPX]] (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Revenue 2017 appears to be 27+ Million. Possibility of updating http://www.odwyerpr.com/pr_firm_rankings/independents.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyuuuuuuu (talk • contribs) 12:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Real Estate

Luxury apartment $30 Million torossian purchased. ~~ https://nypost.com/2018/05/02/latest-millionaire-buyer-at-posh-park-ave-tower-revealed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiikiikiwiki11221 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)