Talk:Building 19

message: Building #19 has moved from Hingam location. It can now be found in Weymouth on Rt. 18
* Thanks for the info! DocSigma 23:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Store moved

message: The article appears to be indexed with businesses started in 1964, but no date of founding the business is given in the article; the first date mentioned is 1980. Mulp 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: founding date

message: As a resident of southern New Hampshire and a frequent customer of Building #19 1/15 (the one in Nashua, NH), I am pleased to confirm that Wal-Mart's plan to take over the Nashua location is, for all practical purposes, dead (although Wal-Mart still denies that it has given up). When the plan first appeared in the news, it met with strong opposition among locals. Also, this particular location is on a wetland, so any construction there would be subject to a variety of legalities. Mannyram24 00:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Wal-Mart in Nashua 

message: Wouldn't "Building number 19" be a better title for this article? At least that's pronounced the same way. It seems more intuitive. --Ketsuekigata 01:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: The article claims that most of the goods in the stores are damaged, but much of it isn't considering a lot of it comes from insurance companies selling off things like overstock and goods written off during a claim (that vast majority of which is undamaged).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.145.28 (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Damaged Goods? 

message: Most of the information in the Corporate Culture section is lacking citations and seems to have been written by someone with an axe to grind. I suggest that it be removed or rewritten and cited. In fact, I've gone ahead and removed the offending material. Re-posting it here for consideration:
B19's legendary laxness with their vendors and books made headlines a few years ago, when a buyer and warehouse worker from B19 were indicted on charges of stealing millions from the salvage specialist over several years. Apparently a rug vendor generated phony bills of lading and invoiced Building 19 for rugs they never received. These invoices were paid, and the rug vendor split the money with the two inside guys.
The television news program "Chronicle" recently did a story about Jerry Ellis, the founder and CEO of Building #19. In the story, Jerry's legendary frugality was highlighted. Many of the items used to furnish his homes came from Building #19, which specializes in damaged and/or salvage merchandise. What was missing from the story, however, was Jerry's (also legendary) actual real estate holdings. Most of Building #19's stores and warehouses are owned by Jerry, and leased back to the company. In addition, Jerry and his wife Elaine own several multi-million dollar homes that they spend their time in. 
Reliable sources within the company put Jerry's net worth at between $75 million and $100 million. Jerry's son Bill, according to Massachusetts land records, lives in a townhouse in downtown Boston assessed at over $3 million. The Ellis (really Elovitz) family is notoriously private and secretive about their financial success. Much of this is attributable to the fact that they pay their store and warehouse associates the bare minimum that the law will allow. Handicapped and special-needs people are employed in their stores not out of a sense of altruism or philanthropy, but because they can pay them very little.
Omehegan (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point Of View / Missing Citations 

message: While I admit that I am a newbie the section on Corporate affairs doesn't seem to have any content. Not Sourced and could be folded in with the Corporate Culture section in my opinion.  Please let me know if I am incorrect Hasteur (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate affairs 

message: While this isn't exactly the most objective look at the chain, it does provide a look at the wares and decor of a Building #19 store. Atypicaloracle (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Short Film About Building #19 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Building 19. 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/20140110161200/http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/x1679446961/Jerry-Ellis-of-Building-19-still-loves-a-bargain-after-all-these-years to http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/x1679446961/Jerry-Ellis-of-Building-19-still-loves-a-bargain-after-all-these-years
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Most of the links to this article are as Building 19 although a handful are written Building #19. Is it proper to refer to this entity without the #? Should those links (and associated non-wikilinked second references in the same articles) be adjusted, or is it OK to talk about this entity as "Building 19"? jhawkinson (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and has been done - somebody beat me to it! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , sorry, I phrased this question poorly, as a compound with opposing senses. But either way, I cannot figure out your answer. If you mean Yes links should be adjusted, and someone has beaten you to it, then that's not the case. Walking down the first four of 23 in What Links Here, there are numerous "Building 19" references in Ocean State Job Lot and Spag's, and I imagine that would be true in several of the remaining nineteen (ha, ha). If you mean Yes, it's proper to refer without the #, then I'm not sure how "somebody" could have beat you to it, but the John Hancock Tower link is piped as "Building #19," and not recently edited either. Thanks for clarifying. jhawkinson (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I thought you meant references *in* this article - I didn't notice that you were talking about links to this article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should links here be piped "Building #19"?