User talk:ButtonwoodTree

Sources for Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc.

Hello, good work on Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc., and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. What websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc.? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP 04:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, got it. I added a total of three sources, one of which is Wikipedia itself. How will that be received, do you think?

Welcome

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp.

Welcome is a good place to start.
Wikipedia:Tutorial runs through all the basics.
Wikipedia:How does one edit a page gives editing help.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style gives formatting info.
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines tell about the principles we operate on. It's important, but don't try to read it all now.
Wikipedia:Help covers a broad range of useful topics.
Wikipedia:Help desk is a place to ask questions.
Wikipedia:Show preview explains how to double-check your edits before saving.

You should also feel free to drop me a question on my talk page. I'll answer if I'm here.

Happy editing,

--Kmf164 05:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas E. Dewey, Jr.

Can you please add sources for this article as well, and any other articles you create? Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-6 05:47

Brian, source is Dewey's bio, located at link provided, www.deweydk.com. ButtonwoodTree 05:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Strauss

Hi! I appreciate your desire to take this tiny article on a very important person and make it into a more complete thing, but you can't just cut and paste material from another website into here unless we have evidence that the author of that material has authorized it for release under the terms of the GFDL or has released it completely into the public domain. Otherwise it is incompatible with Wikipedia's copyright policy and may in fact be copyright infringement, which we of course don't want. One way to get around this is for you to read over the other web page, take notes as to the main points, and then re-write the article yourself from the notes, with a link noting the page which was helpful to you in composing it. In effect, you'd be converting what was previously copyrighted material into material which was free for the world to use, because under U.S. law the ideas of a text cannot be copyrighted but the actual text itself can be. Anyway, I hope that makes sense to you, let me know if there are any questions that you have. See our page on Wikipedia:Copyrights if you have any confusion over our licensing policy. --Fastfission 04:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Weill

Your accusation of NNPOV regarding the Sanford Weill article is unsubstantiated, and, frankly, rude. If you have evidence to substantiate a claim of nnpov, please provide it. Otherwise, your comments are well outside of the norms of comity and respect due to fellow wikipedians. Additionally, as Weill is a living person, the burden is on editors wishing to include information, rather than on editors removing information. You have failed to demonstrate that Weill fufills the definition of a philanthropist and to label him such without substantiation is potentially libelous. --Cjs56 (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Sanford I. Weill shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Cjs56 (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ButtonwoodTree, you wrote, "I'm not sure what his religion has to do with it. J.P. Morgan isn't identified as a Protestant." ANSWER: Actually, it has a lot to do with it. For example, at the turn of the 19th/20th century, there was an unofficial ban on jews working in banking and the insurance industries because of the jews' history. Should this also not be talked about? Well, it should be talked about. And it should also be talked about that jews are not only allowed into banking and insurance today, but they run a lot of the largest institutions (Weill at Citicorp, Jamie Dimon at JP Morgan Chase). What's wrong with tracking this? It was acceptable to track that jews were NOT in banking a hundred years ago, so what's wrong with tracking who's running things now? Same goes for politics - I mean, just look at the jews in the White House - they are running the place - jews are crawling all over the White House - but this never gets mentioned in the press (just as the reasons for 9/11 are never discussed - other than that Mohammed Atta et al did it "because they envy our freedom" (that's what Bush said) and because "they envy the way we live" (that's what Cheney said). No mention is made of Israel or the role of jews in the U.S. promoting American support of Israel. In the White House, the Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, he's jewish. Dick Chaney's Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby (now departed because he got indicted) is jewish. Chaney himself isn't jewish . . . . but his resume states that he was on the Board of Advisors of the "Jewish Institute for National Defense" (gee, I wonder if he might be pro-jewish?). Bush himself became a born-again Christian/Christian zionist in order to control his alcoholism, so he's fervently pro-Israel. Forrmer Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz - the architect of the invasion of Iraq - he's Jewish (he's now President of the World Bank, where he replaced James Wolfensohn who is jewish). Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bernancke - he's jewish - and of the 6 candidates that Bush considered for the job, 5 were jewish. And before Bernancke, we had Greenspan (who is jewish). And under Nixon we had Arthur Burns - who is jewish (basically, the job of Chairman of the Federal Reserve is now a jewish job). And with Paul Wolfowitz at the DOD, we had Douglas Feith (he's jewish). And Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, while a Christian Scientist, he made his money with Goldman Sachs, so one would expect him to be pro-jewish. And in the Clinton administration, the Treasury Secretary was Robert Rubin, is jewish (and he's now Vice-Chairman of Citicorp - fellow jew Sandy Weill brought him in). What's wrong with tracking who is jewish? When they were NOT in banking, they complained loudly that they were not in those industries. Are we not allowed to talk about them BEING IN those industries now? And that they are also running the White House, the Federal Reserve, and the World Bank (amongst other institutions). What? Are they embarassed to say that the are jews? Or do they not want it pointed out that they are running key parts of America these days? This is easily talked about and acceptable to point out in Europe, but over in America, it is not politically correct, apparently. That's why you Americans end up doing stupid things like that idiotic peace treaty that got signed under the "Camp David Accords" - you Americans got bamboozled into PAYING Israel $2.5 billion a year under that treaty - that's right, Israel wouldn't sign the peace treaty unless they got PAID. And who did the paying? Why, America of course. Why not Europe or, say, Japan? Because if that had ever been proposed, there would have been a huge outcry - we don't pay jews (or anybody else, for that matter) money to sign peace treaties. The Japanese would have laughed at you if you had asked them to pay money to Israel to sign a peace treaty. So you have to pay it. And there is no sunset provision on it - you have to pay them that money forever. WHA-HA-HA-HA!!!!! Suckers. That isn't to say that there isn't a jewish lobby over here in Europe - just look at Spain - the Spanish public overwhelmingly opposed participation in the Iraq invasion - but their gov't (with a jewish lobby pushing it) sent troops anyway against the public's wishes. So, what happens? The muslims blow up the Madrid train system and the Spanish public took to the streets in protest - NOT against the "terrorists", but against their own gov't for taking them into a war that they opposed from the get-go. Berlusconi has also recently cut the number of Italian troops in Iraq because it is causing him political problems due to the overwhelming opposition to it by the Italian public. Then why did Berlusconi do it in the first place if his country didn't want to get involved? Answer - the jewish lobby in Italy. Same thing here in Britain - we had the biggest mass demonstration since WWII against the invasion (82% of the public opposed it), but Blair went and did it anyway? Why? Look at his outside advisors - Lord Levy (jewish), tax lawyer Martin Paisner (jewish), etc. Over here in Europe, we know why they are doing it, because we know who is jewish. You Americans don't know that your country is being run by jews. Why? Because it is politically incorrect to identify people as jewish. Hell, you can't even identify Sandy Weill as being jewish on Wikipedia. But the jews will always remind you that they were excluded a 100 years ago. And they will tell you that there was a limit on the number of jews allowed into Ivy League schools in the 1920's - but they won't tell you that they are about 20% of the Ivy League student population these days, and that they are on the admissions committees and let each other in. Anyway, you Ameicans go right on ahead an spend another trillion dollars on a "war on terror" (in Europe, we consider it a "war on muslims", that there are no such things as "terrorists"). And you go on and do that without knowing why, without being told why you're in that war to begin with. You go ahead and continue to believe that Mohammed Atta did 9/11 because he "envied" you. Idiots, he hated you. Gee, I envy the Swiss and their neutrality - I guess I'm gonna consider flying an airplane into one of their buildings because of my envy. Suckers. You have got to be the biggest idiots to believe what your government has told you. The whole thing - 9/11, the "war on terror", the invasion of Iraq - the whole thing is jewish, and it's been directed by the jews. But you don't know that, because you don't even know who is jewish at the top of your country. You are not allowed to talk about it, or point it out. WHA-HA-HA-HA!!!!! Suckers.

Another reason why the protestant religion of JP Morgan is not a comparable situation - the history of the jews. The jews allegedly got thrown out of the Middle East because they controlled all the capital and lived off interest while everybody else worked. The protestants never had that history. Banking, and being bankers, is an integral part of the jews' history. But you don't want it pointed out that the top bankers are jewish again.

ButtonwoodTree, are you jewish?

Shocking, this troll should be banned

I am shocked at what the troll at 80.41.24.77 just wrote. Please spare other users your ad hominem attacks. I think this diatribe should be deleted.

Kuhn, Loeb links to other German-Jewish investment banks

Anyway, I wanted to continue a discussion that indirectly came up in Kuhn, Loeb. You say in that article "In its early years, intermarriage among the German-Jewish elite was common. Consequently, the partners of Kuhn, Loeb were closely related by blood and marriage to the partners of J & W Seligman, Speyer & Co., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Lehman Brothers and other prominent German-Jewish firms." You cited Stephen Birmingham's "Our Crowd."

I have now had a chance to read "Our Crowd" and have to say, it certainly filled in a lot of gaps in my knowledge of investment banking history.

However, I continue to think that your statement about the links between Kuhn Loeb on the one hand, and Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs is misleading, or at least overstated. The former two banks cooperated closely in their early history, but for nearly all of the period covered by "Our Crowd", banks like Kuhn Loeb, J&W Seligman and the Warburgs clearly occupied one strata - as near equals to Morgan who financed railroads, nation-states and heavy industry - and Lehman and Goldman - as commercial paper dealers, bond dealers and financiers of merchants and retail - occupied another, much lower strata. There are numerous statements to this effect in Our Crowd.

The fact that all these banks were German Jewish houses meant that some marriages must have inevitably occurred between persons somehow affiliated with either side of this divide during this period, and perhaps in the post-War period which the book does not really cover. And it is also the case that since the 1970s, Goldman in particular has risen to the pinnacle of investment banking, and Lehman bought the faded Kuhn Loeb. But these late developments do not support the general implication of your statement that all German Jewish investment banks were in league with one another, or had material interrelationships through marriage. This is in distinction to the Warburgs and Kuhn Loeb, who were to some degree in league with one another through intermarriage at the highest levels of the bank.

It is ironic. One of the implications I thought you should avoid (because in this case it is inaccurate) was a suggestion that all Jewish banks were somehow in league with one another. And then I come here to your talk site and, lo-and-behold, I see some nut job with exactly that sentiment. I created a separate user talk page for 80.41.24.77 in case anyone has comments. I did.

In any event, thanks for your numerous valuable contributions in the area of investment banking history. They are useful for a student of the field such as me.

Cbmccarthy 18:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Weill Bibliowicz

A tag has been placed on Jessica Weill Bibliowicz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please write {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. •Elomis• 21:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Express NavBox on Lehman Brothers

Hi ButtonwoodTree. First, let me thank you for the your wikipedia contributions -- you're one of the few editors who is very active in improving financial services articles, an area that's pretty lacking on wikipedia. And your perseverance on the Sandy Weill page is impressive, I certainly wouldn't be able to keep it up, and it's helping to keep the article NPOV.

I see that you reverted my addition of the American Express NavBox on the bottom of the Lehman Brothers article. I have a feeling it may be a case of seeing it on your watchlist, clicking on the diff, seeing that an american express template has been added, and reverting it for being out of place, without getting a chance to look at the template itself.

If you take a look at the template, what I've done is add a section for companies that were once part of American Express: Ameriprise Financial, First Data Corp., Lehman Brothers, American Railway Express Agency, and RiverSource. The idea is that each company has a shared history with American Express, that for instance you can't talk about American Express without talking about Ameriprise, and you can't talk about Ameriprise without talking about American Express. While they are no longer the same company, they're interrelated, and I think it's clear from the way it's stated in the NavBox that they're no longer a part of american express. But if you think there's a way to make it clearer, please let me know.

With that in mind, would you reconsider your revert? For readers, I see no downside in having the box there, it can only aid them in exploring related topics. It's at the end of the article, after all of the text, so it doesn't get in the way of the article. Thanks!

-- Crocodile Punter 08:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City Bank-Farmers Trust Company Building

We do not allow "fair use" images of buildings that still exist since it would be posible to create a free alturnative. Aditionaly if you are haveing problems with your upload tags I can help with that.Geni 01:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source for your claim that the picture is not under copyright.Geni 15:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relivant law or statement from the new york authorities? Many matters of public record are subject to copyright.Geni 18:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IMGP0617.JPG

I have restored Image:IMGP0617.JPG. Please go to Wikipedia:Image license tags#For image creators and select the license under which you want to release the photo, and tag the image description page accordingly. Thanks! —An gr 20:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:City Bank Farmers 2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:City Bank Farmers 2.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 11:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Companies Based on Long Island

Fair use rationale for Image:Audiovox Logo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Audiovox Logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 03:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hain celestial logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Hain celestial logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 03:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for [[:Image:]]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to [[:Image:]]. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to [[:Image:|the image description page]] and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 18:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Griffon Logo.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Griffon Logo.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 20:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "speedy" tags

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from articles you have created yourself, as you did with Griffon Corporation. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. HalJor 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, I've removed the speedy deletion request and replaced it with {{underconstruction}}. I'll check back in 24-48 hours to see if any expansion has occurred. I've also gone through your image uploads and provided fair use rationales where needed. In the future, you may simply copy and paste these rationales to new image uploads and modify them as necessary. This will insure images comply with policy, saving them from deletion. - auburnpilot talk 21:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help AuburnPilot. It is very much appreciated. ButtonwoodTree 13:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved off of the main userpage)

Buttonwood, I realize you feel you're an expert, and maybe you are, to a limited extent, but to the family you're still an outsider.

It's not hard to find connections between Thomas R. Kuhn and George W. Bush. They're all over the internet. Thomas was a Bush Pioneer. There's your start.

Unsubstantiated?

Do your homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonesman322 (talk • contribs) 15:15, August 24, 2007

German Jewish

^{Superscript text} I am surprised why you want to omit the fact that the Lehman brothers are of German-Jewish origin. Please explain, thanks marfan8

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ITT Logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:ITT Logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plainview TB sanitarium

The site you highlighted is the center for drug and alcohol addiction. The 1535 OCR site was a VA health center, but before that was a TB center. The house behind it was where the administrator lived on site, as the practice of a facility admin living on site was quite common through much of the 20th century.

Please provide your informational sources regaridng the highlighted site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.191.103 (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have made a mistake. The building located at 1535 OCR was a part of the county facility located in that area and was a part of the sale made to Charles Wang, however, the tuberculosis facility, which dates to the 1930s, was located behind both 1535 and the administrator's home. For a number of reasons the assertion that 1535 was the sanitarium would seem to be incorrect. Without identifying each, please review the 1976 NY Times article which I cited. This article correctly identifies the facility at 1425 OCR as being the sanitarium. It further indicates that the sanitarium included five "Georgian style buildings", located "well off Old Country Road". A picture of one of these Georgian style buildings is in the article. The building located at 1535 is neither Georgian in style (it was clearly built after the sanitarium), nor is it "well off" OCR, indeed, it is on OCR. In addition, you will note that the administrator's home is Georgian in style, lending itself to the argument that it was built at approximately the same time as the rest of the sanitarium, which again, was in the 1930s, when TB was still a major killer that required sanitariums, not the 1960s, when TB was largely under control and not likely to necessitate the development of a new building (which, based on the architecture of 1535, appears to be when it was built). Having said all of this, it is conceivable that when 1535 was built, it was actually used for TB patients (as opposed to general county office space), however, there is no evidence to support this and in any event, when people refer to the sanitarium, they are referring to the 1930 complex identified above.

Bravo! Well documented research and convincing evidence. Thanks. I will see if I can find anything more regarding 1535 OCR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.191.103 (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bethpage Purchase

Hi - I've started a new article - Bethpage Purchase. I welcome your input on details, insertions, deletions, etc. --JimWae (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At some point we'll have to deal with duplication between articles - but I think this article needs to go up to Old Bethpage getting its own post office (1965) - though not every event until then - but showing the development of the communities. Probably need to include Plainview/Manetto Hill & Plainedge a bit more too. I do not think the story can be properly told when it hacked up to fit each separate hamlet article --JimWae (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Rim of the Woods" purchase is generally poorly documented & may have been included in maps as being part of the Bethpage Purchase. Additionally, some sources seem confused by the deed signing being so much later than the purchase & at least one source has interpreted that as the "Rim of the Woods Purchase" --JimWae (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was refreshing to work on an article that was not linked to - I was able to start from scratch on a few topics - but I think it is pretty nearly ready for prime-time & linking now --JimWae (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So give me the inside scoop on Lehman

They are going down right? (you can reply on this page) Lotsofissues 04:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Gair Gair Conason Steigman and Mackauf

I don't understand the reasons why this article was flagged ? Please advise so that appropriate corrections can be made Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpittet (talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Perecman & Fanning

An article that you have been involved in editing, Perecman & Fanning, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perecman & Fanning. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastlaw (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lehman Brothers

There is no consensus to include this material and per WP:NOTDIR and a whole host of other guidelines governing the inclusion of lists in articles, this material does not qualify to be included here. Wikipedia is not an almanac, nor is it a corporate directory. This material is unencyclopedic and does not inform the reader about the subject of the article. It will continue to be removed. Any revisions from this point must have a source cited since I suspect you are not editing in this article in accordance with WP:NPOV. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchel AFB

It's difficult to copyright historical facts, so I'll just rewrite the portions of the article (which is mostly origins) which needs rewriting so there isn't any issue along those lines. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Division Avenue HS Logo.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Division Avenue HS Logo.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its the Cookie Monster (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Help me write an article

I started Ronald Kramer (business) but within 2 minutes it was threatened with speedy deletion. Kramer is CEO of Griffon Corp. You edited Griffon about 50 times or so. Thanks. User F203 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empire State Building Antenna height

Hello.

From where did you learn, that the Empire State Building is 443m (1454ft) tall by pinnacle height. The information on the buildings homepage is not true. Skyscraperpage.com and ctbuh (and many others) say its 1,472ft /448.7m tall. The antenna height has been increases from 443m to 448.7m in 1984. --Jerchel (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understood. But why says ctbuh.org and skyscraperpage the other way around? Did the ESB get a completely new antenna in 1984? I belive that only the antennas tip has been increased in 1984. Perhaps the NY-Times mistaked this. However, the building information page at skyscraperpage says: 448.7m (increased from 443.2m). Jerchel (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely you are right. But often the websites are not true, for example wtc.com says that 1 World Trade Center will open in 2011, although 2013 is correct. But why should they shorten the antenna? I whould increase it to over 1,500ft. Have a look at the John Hancock Center in Chicago, its 1,500ft (457.2m) tall by pinnacle height, although its roof is only 1,127ft (344m) tall, 37m shorter than the ESBs roof. If you´re right, its in fact so, that the ESBs pinnacle has the eqal height as the Willis Towers roof. Jerchel (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20 Exchange Place

Hello ButtonwoodTree, thanks for contacting me. You can move the article into 20 Exchange Place. Now I know that there is NO STOCK in the buildings name. It was because there was a mistake in the German Wikipedias list of NYs tallest buildings. So I created the article in German (with the STOCK). Now I know that this was false. Greetings from Germany, Jerchel (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I´m not sure to 100% of the Empire States height, so I will start a new section on the discussion page. I will tell you if nessecary. Please move the article 20 Exchange Place into the right name, without the STOCK!

One question: Are you from the U.K or the U.S.? Greetings from Germany.

I dont know an administrator here. Perhaps you can contact one (if you know). Re: I wrote an E-Mail to skyscraperpage.com (about the Empire States height). But there is no reaction until now. At this page, several information are false, another example is, that they don´t count the spires on 200 Greenwich Street and 175 Greenwich Street as a part of the actual building, so skyscraperpage.com says thy´re only 1,270ft / 387m and 1155ft / 350m tall. But thats false (here the diagramm link: NYs tallest buildings, inculding the Empire at 1,472ft / 448.7m). I wrote twice to them, but without an answer. Greetings, the U.S. are my favourite country, but unfortunaly I never have been to the U.S. Jerchel (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You´re right with the official websites. But a few additional sources are useful, too. But it is important, that those sources are credibly. Greetings, Jerchel (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Appreciate you catching the eternal Mitchell/Mitchel error. And there is no "A" in Olmsted, and Rudolf Anderson is spelt with an "F", not a "PH"! These are chronic misspellings I try to correct... :) Mark Sublette (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Mark SuletteMark Sublette (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Securities Investor Protection Corporation

Thank you for your contributions on Securities Investor Protection Corporation. I have done as much as I can about Concernedinvestor, including a warning welcome and a comment on the user's talk page. Perhaps this user has some valid points, but right now I do not have time or energy to untangle the edits made. The user should be allowed to make edits which preserve WP:NPOV while questioning SIPC policy, especially if they are backed by inline citations from reliable secondary sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you and am happy to help. Sorry this is such a struggle. This article is very weak and replete with sophomoric editorializations. Some of its statements are so misleading and incomplete, that they border on reckless and irresponsible.

I worked on getting a list of the directors of the SIPC from their web site, and the best I could do was the Annual Report for 2009, dated April 30, 2010, with a letter from the chairman and a page with the other six directors shown with photos and with affiliations, but no mention of who appointed them, or what their terms are. The President of the US appoints some of them, and I don't know who appoints the rest. Only one, Michael S. Barr, seems notable enough to have his own article, and the link to him on the US Treasury site doesn't work. <sigh> Maybe I will get back to this some day. Not before next year. I have done articles on federal government agency appointees (See J. Thomas Rosch), but I am not sure I am up for the challenge of getting enough detail to create articles on the SIPC people. ( This is an important organization. Investors and the public should know more than we have from their annual report or what is currently in the article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry M. Rubin

If you do not believe the Harry M. Rubin page should be a wikipedia page proceed with deletion. Don't continue editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotamayor (talk • contribs) 02:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaaaaahn!

He is labeled in multiple photos of that day and the New York Times coverage of the event mentions him and his carriage. A professional rider was used during the race, but I am sure it is Kahn posing for the pictures, you can see the racing driver in the second image. See http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9905E2D9163DE633A25755C2A96F9C946296D6CF --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New socks for Christmas?

Based on your comments at my talk page, I filed a new SPI report, located at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RabidMelon. Feel free to provide any additional evidence there. Thanks for the heads-up! --Jayron32 14:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMGP0617.JPG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:IMGP0617.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cowen Logo JPG.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cowen Logo JPG.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Liz Krueger may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

pieces of legislation during the 2013 session. None were passed, for a success rate of 0%. <ref> [http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/sponsor/krueger?filter=year:2013; http://www.nysenate.gov/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 731 Lexington Avenue may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

portfolio/property/731-lexington-avenue/10/overview vnony.com:731 Lexington Avenue] </ref> <ref> ]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/nyregion/09tower.html?pagewanted=print NYTimes:To Find 1 Beacon
09/nyregion/09tower.html?pagewanted=print NYTimes:To Find 1 Beacon Court, Better Ask for Bloomberg] </ref> is a {{convert|1400000|sqft|abbr=on}} glass [[skyscraper]] on the East Side of [[Midtown

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plainview, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Better Off Dead. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Plainview, New York may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brill Building, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Latin music and Buddy Lucas. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20 Exchange Place error

Sorry about the "Clutch Plague", that's my fault. I have a Google Chrome Extension that changes a phrase to that (as well as others). I usually double check to make sure that my extensions don't screw up my edits, but this one seems to have slipped under the radar. Oops... Thanks for catching it. Paris1127 (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ButtonwoodTree. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PC Richard Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PC Richard Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ButtonwoodTree. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:NBTY Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NBTY Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Marchon Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Marchon Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adams Express Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, ButtonwoodTree. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old Bethpage

Hi Buttonwood-This edit is 12 years old, however I have a question about it, haha. Do you have proof that the sanatorium, after closing, was "a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center [established] in 1976?" Thanks. NYCDOT (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Renaissance Logo.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Renaissance Logo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 02:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:One William Street.JPG

The file File:One William Street.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, appears to have been taken from https://a860-gpp.nyc.gov/downloads/dz010r087?locale=en

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]