User talk:Downtown Boy

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Gothic_fetishists.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Gothic_fetishists.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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Tribeca
Please review WP:Verifiability, which says, in part: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material . (emphasis added)" You cannot add information which you know of your own knowledge, that is a violation of our policy against original research. You cannot use a source to support information which is not included in the source. You cannot change the facts provided in the source because (of your own knowledge) those facts are "wrong". You cannot provide two sources and combine the information in the two to create a new piece of information that is not directly supported by either of the sources -- that is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS.

Thus, if the reference hat you provided says that TriBeCa came about because of legal papers involved in a zoning "dispute" (as it does), you cannot provide another source that says it wasn't a dispute unless that source connects directly to the original reference. Since the original reference gives no further information about the dispute, there is no way to connect it to the "study" which you claim is mentioned in the second reference you provided. (Providing 100 pages of newspaper copy as a reference is not acceptable either.)

Please keep these things in mind for the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All that article in the second reference says is "Of immediate concern is the Washington Market area, also known as TriBeCa (for "Triangle below Canal") where an illegal community of loft dwellers, much like the early Soho, has recently surfaced." What are you using this in support of?  There's no mention of a "study" as opposed to a "dispute". If this is supposed to be the newspaper reference that got it wrong, there's no way to tell that from the article itself, another third-party source would have to cite is. In short, the second refernce you provided has no function in regard to the text in our article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

SoHo, Manhattan
Please stop confusing the neighborhood and the Historic District. If you look at the "Geography" section, you'll see that there are two sub-sections, one for the boundaries of the larger neighborhood, and one for the historic district, which is smaller and included inside the neighborhood. You're adding to the neighborhood section information about the boundaries of the district, and referencing it with source which are about the district, not the neighborhood. Such information is already in the historic district section and does not belong in the neighborhood section. Since the boundaries of the neighborhood are set by common usage, if you have a source which refers to the boundaries of the neighborhood as being different from those in the article, you can add that information with the source, but what you're doing now is incorrect, and disruptive. Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

IF you had actually read the lengthy NYT 1974 article that I have referenced here, one of the earliest ever written regarding SoHo, you would have seen that in the very 3rd paragraph SoHo is defined as "stretching from Houston to Canal Streets between West Bdwy and Lafayette." Lafayette Street, not Crosby, not Bdwy, but "Lafayette". This reference predates any other reference in this article! The newspaper of record has decided.
 * Please stop thinking that I or other Wikipedia editors are stupid. Do not cite an article from 43 years ago which described what SoHo was then' as a reference for what SoHo is consider to be now''. Neighborhood boundaries are not set by the city, and they change over time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

BMK: "Please stop thinking that I or other Wikipedia editors are stupid." Please observe Wikipedia guidelines: Insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot  A reasonable person would extend this to include  accusing someone of thinking all Wikipedia editors are stupid. Do not ever assume to know what I am thinking or whom I believe is stupid or an idiot.

"Neighborhood boundaries are not set by the city, and they change over time": Not set by the City? Really? Ever hear of the Little Italy Special Zoning District which clearly maps the area. Or the Hudson Square Rezoning? Or the multiple Greenwich Village Historic Districts.

Or how about the very boundaries of NYC itself? NYC and NYS set those boundaries, don't they, not popular opinion, or newspapers or real estate folk?

Enough! Downtown Boy (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Downtown Boy
 * Those are zoning districts which are not the same thing as neighborhood boundaries, and in most cases are less inclusive then the neighborhoods they are in, just as the boundaries of historic districts are not necessarily the boundaries of neighborhoods. The fact remains that the city does not define neighborhoods, although it may define other areas -- such as zoning districts and historic districts -- for other purposes. Neighborhood boundaries are determined by usage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Zoning and landmark districts are one of the factors that define a neighborhood. These districts exist within neighborhoods and determine what and where a neighborhood is. Such districts cannot exist outside the neighborhood they help define and they DO not exist outside the neighborhood.

So If a zoning and landmark district encompasses a specific street, that street is within that neighborhood, obviously. E.g. Lafayette/Centre Streets within the SoHo H.D. Extension or Zoning Map  cannot be said to be in Nolita or Little Italy, can it? That is self-evident to most people. You? I'll let you argue with the Oxford dictionary, which lists both words as synonyms. ://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/neighborhoodhttps://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/neighborhood

And when you're at it, please look up "enough".

Hello
Given that you gratuitously dropped an inaccurate attack on me on my talk page, I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are  required to  by Wikipedia  policy . If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Please also observe our policy on personal attacks from now on. Thanks. El_C 00:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack? Whom did I attack and what was the precise nature of this alleged attack? And would you be so kind as to identify your role in Wikipedia. Thank you. Downtown Boy (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Downtown Boy