Noremacmada

the challenge in portaying an accurate representation Bushwick is in balancing the neighborhoods obvious upside along with its obvious downside. A key will be in using autentic source presenting the area in an unbiased light.

Neighborhoods

I appreciate your contributions to the Bushwick, Brooklyn article. You brought attention to its history, after which I got interested in and tried to elaborate on. And I saw you edited East Williamsburg, Brooklyn as well.

I know you're getting used to the hang of Wikipedia. But you also have to look at the tone and presentation of the other neighborhood articles. Mentioning the main commercial district is OK, but types of stores are not usually discussed. Also, if a book as a whole is used as a reference, like James Goodman's Blackout, you can just cite the book (see Wikipedia:Citing sources); page numbers are unnecessary. These are only two of the clues I'll give you for now.

But don't let these things discourage you from contributing. Just keep in mind the style of writing in the encyclopedia. And as long as your edits are verifiable, you don't do original research, and you write in a neutral point of view, you'll be fine. Tinlinkin 06:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Images

Next time, if you want to reply to me (or to any other user), you leave a message at my talk page (at User talk:Tinlinkin). You can also access it by clicking on my username, click on my discussion page, and click on the + button on top to add a message.

I've never uploaded any images. But you can read Wikipedia:Uploading images and also see the Upload file link on the left navigation bar.

I will also say that I can't qualify your claim of the "valley of the projects." I don't find the term on Google, and there's 1 unrelated entry in Yahoo. Also, please don't introuduce speculation (see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball), as with your statement, "building like these with average rents of $325 per month ensure that East Williamsburg may well continue to remain an impovershed and blighted area." The statement also assumes that since the rents are so cheap, those tenants must be poor or disadvantaged with no chance of advancement, which is not a neutral POV. Tinlinkin 10:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Knickerbocker ave shopping.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Knickerbocker ave shopping.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

recent edits

Some comments and questions about your recent edits:

Bushwick, Brooklyn:

• The Wikipedia:Manual of Style is the guidebook to the style of Wikipedia. Read it as freely as you like to get to know Wikipedia's standards.
• I have formatted your pictures so they don't take up so much space. Please add captions at the end of the image line, between the last "|" and "]]", as:
  [[Image:regishdls.jpg|thumb|left|300px|This is a sample caption.]]
• I think you are over-subsectioning the article. While your titles are descriptive, a good section will have several good-sized paragraphs before subsectioning is required. See Harlem for a nice example of the use of sections. Also see the format of other substantial articles, like Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince where the plot is not divided into sections, or Miami, Florida where there is a substantial history section and a more detailed History of Miami, Florida that warrants its creation (that is a featured article, amongst the highest quality articles in Wikipedia). The Bushwick article is not like Harlem or Miami at this moment, so I suggest you remove the subsections of the history for now, and revert to the format that I had in this edit.

East Williamsburg, Brooklyn:

• What is your rationale for using {{fact}}? Are you disputing the statements in the article? Do you need me to provide sources for those statements? See Template:Fact before you give me your answer. I use the template whenever I see a statement that I cannot qualify (by myself or with other sources) and I am an expert (or at least know enough) on the subject. For myself, I raised the flag to question whether it is Graham Avenue (or as you prefer, Avenue of Puerto Rico) or Bushwick Avenue that residents within East Williamsburg separate calling themselves Williamsburgians or Bushwickians.
  • When I saw the reappearance of {{fact}}, I felt that you are questioning a lot of the claims in the article. I will tone down the "gentrification" claim by saying it is proceeding slowly and I will agree with the template to use for the statement of rising rent prices, because at least I cannot confirm that. But I will keep the tone of changing demographics. They will not be confirmed until at least the 2010 Census, but in what I read, I feel it.
  • Search for "East Williamsburg" in the New York Times and there are quite a number of results and interesting articles for it.
• I could care less whether the Morgan Av./McKibbin St. area calls itself Bushwick or East williamsburg. But the fact that there is contradictory evidence amongst residents of that area warrants a discussion of East Williamsburg that's separate from Bushwick. Besides, I treat this area as concurrent with both names; there is no one name over the other. Therefore, I reject the argument that the area east of Bushwick Avenue should only be called Bushwick instead of East Williamsburg and Bushwick. However, I do state Flushing Avenue as the separation between the two neighborhoods because of community board and police precinct boundaries, and geographic differences with the grid plans on either side of the street.

Without revealing too much about myself, I live in Wyckoff Heights, a section of Bushwick near Wyckoff Heights Hospital near the Queens border. I've lived there and in Ridgewood almost all my life. I didn't want to get involved in this B/EW debate, but since no one has raised it, I decided to do something to address it. I hope to hear what you think. Tinlinkin 10:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:District_34.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:District_34.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Re hello

I don't have time to respond as fully as I'd like, but I'll get to some points. First, I posted a message at Talk:Williamsburg, Brooklyn to try to get more people to see the East Williamsburg article and review it.

Secondly, I sympathize with you, by your admission of your age, as I would almost be in the same boat. But if you think that East Williamsburg (henceforth as EW) will gentrify faster on account of Wikipedia, I think that's ridiculous. Bushwick itself is getting the same attention as EW in regards to artists, hipsters, and people like you and myself. But the broader picture is that in NYC, regardless of any gentrification issues, it's perfectly acceptable to have some communities be part of larger communities, and to have overlaps.

Finally, I have spent considerable time in Barnes & Noble researching references to EW. Many maps and books don't mention the name, and that's understandable. But in other sources I found the name as I expected, within the boundaries as I say in the Williamsburg talk page. Also, in the neighborhood map in my nearest station, DeKalb Avenue L station, the name East Williamsburg appears in the Morgan Avenue area (and as it so happens it is in the map of Bushwick). So I think there's no doubt that the name exists, and I say keep the article as it is for now.

A final note: I'd still appreciate it if you can write the captions for the pictures you uploaded for Bushwick. Thanks. Tinlinkin 10:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Grahamave.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Grahamave.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bushwick

I noticed that you added "As Bushwick further gentrifies this group will be pushed to the side." to the Commmunity Organizing section of Bushwick. I may be mistaken, but to my understanding, this would be considered original research. Is this true? or did you get this from some source? ArtsyNani 02:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the previous statement is not cited (as plenty of the article isn't), it refers to past and current initiatives that can be cited if the time is taken to look it up. Your statement is completely your opinion. If however, you would like to make a statement about gentrifications effect on the demographics of a neighborhood in general, then perhaps it can be better phrased. Maybe something like ... "current trends with gentrification, have be shown to cause the demographics of areas to change and as a result community organizing becomes more difficult" ... just a suggestion ... what do you think? ArtsyNani

Bushwick AGAIN

So I guess this is your user page. Next time sign your posts, in regards to the talk page of Bushwick. So you may think I am a blanquito and promote whats been going on of late in my neighborhood, but you got it twisted. I'm born and raised in Bushwick and have lived there my almost my entire life. So additions that I make to the article have nothing to do with hipster or gentrification or whatever you want to call it. Put simply this is wikipedia, not your pet project. There are guidelines and standards to be met. I've already told you about WP:OWN and WP:LEAD, but you probably haven't looked at them. You apparently did see WP:3RR yet still chose to revert. Also I'm not the only person to object to your fanciful ideas, as per your talk page and the article talk page. Well I do hope you mature. Like they say; if you love it let it go (that's in reference to the article). Also what assertions are you referring to?

• "its a reversion war, and if it escalates, guess what! I'm coming with a nightlife, a census 2010, and restaurants section, and mad pictures of white women walking around the neighborhood at night. You have 2 days to find facts for your assertions"

And after rereading your comment on the talk page I can't even imagine what spews out of your mouth, if when writing these are the things you type. Good luck to you, you'll need it.--El Mayimbe (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bushwick, Brooklyn. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Problems with upload of File:WeymouthMA 2010 AFF.pdf

Thanks for uploading File:WeymouthMA 2010 AFF.pdf. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Almost bedstuy.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

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) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Flooding map.jpg

The file File:Flooding map.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned map.

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Looks better than it really is.jpg

The file File:Looks better than it really is.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, unclear use/purpose

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. Zinclithium (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)