Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:02, 31 May 2012

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, KenThomas, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jojhutton (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Indecent exposure appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. W☯W 19:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

W☯W, I will assume good intents here as a matter of custom. However, I wonder if you really have thought about this. While my edit was certainly intended as "bold," the previous version blithely asserted a variety of things about 'indecent exposure' which are true only from the Point of View of certain social contexts, primarily in the US-- exactly what NPOV warns about. I have relativized, taking into account other points of view, and certainly, debunking the notion that 'indecent exposure' is a universal term that can be defined in the voice of G-d. KenThomas (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. FYI, "alleged to violating" is not proper English. Why do you keep removing "deliberate"? "Public indecency" is not just alleged to be violating standards; it IS doing so (and is "likely to be seen as" doing so). But what those standards are, varies, based on locale. E.g. in California, full nudity in public is legal; see this edit I made. In some countries, a woman's display of bare arms in in public would be considered Public indecency. Agreed?--W☯W 06:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, as well. 'Alleged to be violating' would be what I meant.

In regards to your other points-- I don't see that there can be anything, but an 'alleged' violation, which may or may not be valid depending on Point of View. In Berkeley, for instance, there are those who 'allege' that the Naked Guy, or various naked couples, are violating standards of decency regardless of statute; that it to say, that while there is a legal-juridical definition of these matters, the legal-juridical definition (and state of current "Law" in any "Jurisdiction" does not fully define or determine the "concept."

In the end, what we are talking about is a concept, a theoretical entity, a cultural and political assertion that a certain kind of behavior or act, constitutes (in this case) 'decency' or 'indecency'. Such an assertion is quintessentially a "Point of View." The article should reflect that.

I have tried to push the article towards a more anthropological language to describe the concept, which is a) somewhat 'debunking' in a way that may not be fair, and, of course b) yet another point of view-- but one which I hope moves closer to neutrality. And "Neutral Point of View," of course, is also another Point of View!

The example language in the NPOV FAQ uses completing scientific theories, and does a rather good job of stepping back and treating them "objectively." In the case of a legal-political-cultural concept such as this, it seems to me much harder to find a language which deals with the 'concepts' as objective, independent things and does not 'adopt their point of view' and 'advocate for it.'

Yes, public nudity is 'legal' (in the sense that there is no law against it) in parts of California, and has been illegalized in others (I can't keep up with what Berkeley has done, this week). But this does not mean that nudity is "public indecency" in some parts of California, and not in others. It simply means that there are laws against so-called "public indecency" in some parts of California, and there are not laws against it in others, and people continue to discuss and dispute what it is or isn't, or whether it is a valid, true, useful, concept at all.

In framing an article, just as with a scientific theory, we should reflect this difference of held opinion, neither adopting the Point of View of those who hold that 'public indecency' exists and is a valid way of thinking about matters, nor those who question it; but do something like accurately and succinctly reporting that this spectrum of opinions exists, without holding ourselves "above" and presuming that our 'neutral' point of view, is itself somehow 'superior' instead of a sort of rhetorical position, adopted for the pedagogical purposes of the Encyclopedia.

Is that immediately easy to do? Here, I don't think so-- and throughout Wilipedia, I think there is a tendency to report cultural concepts and entities with "is" in English, when "is a term used to describe" would be far more accurate under the terms of NPOV. (This is, for instance, a classical error in philosophical translation: "What is Philosophy?" has been used in English, when the question Heidegger posted was more like, "What is Called Philosophy?")

Regardless, a more fully neutral language-- one that does not assert the validity of "public indecency," nor endorse or advocate for it or its validity, but simply reports that the concept exists, and describes it-- is exactly what is called for, and what we should be moving towards.

And we should probably move this, to the Talk page on the Article. KenThomas (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nashville, Tennessee population

Would you please cite a source for your additions? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a brief source and will further update & add to talk tomorrow. Thanks. KenThomas (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

3 revert rule warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Kaldari (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted twice. You've reverted twice (before me). You're causing an edit war via destructive reverts instead of edits, and not taking it to talk. Please stop. KenThomas (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm stopping and taking it to talk. Let's discuss this rather than edit warring. Kaldari (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Larry Kirshbaum

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Larry Kirshbaum. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Larry Kirshbaum

The article Larry Kirshbaum has been proposed for deletion because, under Misplaced Pages policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Larry Kirshbaum for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Larry Kirshbaum is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Larry Kirshbaum until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MBisanz 03:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: Use of ActivePol Template on AMLO page

First of all, I am aware of that rule, I'm not a noob here. Secondly, the rule applies at 4th revert not at third, and you may be blocked as well. Third, you have not reverted me. Fourth, the template itself says it "is intended for use on article talk pages only". Fifth, you've been told why the template doesn't belong to the article. So no, I'm not going to take it to the talk page as there is nothing to take at the talk page. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)