User talk:Joncolvin

Welcome!

Hello, Joncolvin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 07:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2013 Russian meteor event requested move[edit]

Hello,

You may have participated in a prior informal discussion on changing the title of 2013 Russian meteor event.

This discussion has been closed in favor of a formal Requested Move.

You are invited to comment on the formal discussion here.

Thank you. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His Dark Materials[edit]

I reverted you on HDM for a number of reasons. Mainly 'controversies' should only include (sourced) elements that have aroused public controversy. Secondly, I'm not sure that it is an allegory, though Skadi compares inter/circum-cision, clearly she takes a similar attitude to both. I have no objection to a brief mention in the relevant book or in 'Skadi', even if there has been no controversy, it seems worthy of mention. If you can supply book/page ref. that would be good. Pincrete (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC) … … … ps I see that you are a long-term occasional editor, I'll look for page no's myself, but at least you will know why I reverted. Pincrete (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of a dedicated section or page of it's own, The "controversies" section has become a general overview of Pulman's controversial and critical approach to religion in the trilogy (see numerous other paragraphs in this section); so mention of Pullman's critical allegory of (religiously motivated) genital mutilation probably belongs here rather than in the individual book's page. Alternatively it could go on the Philip Pulman page. If you don't object I'll put it back in, along with an appropriate reference: http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=0 Book = subtle knife, page 50 Joncolvin (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realise, it isn't the material that I objected to mainly the need for a ref. and evidence of controversy. No I don't object to your re-inserting, although I'm still not sure that there is evidence of a controversy. Yes, the HDM pages are rambling and undisciplined (to many temp fans who didn't hang around to prune the excesses).

Although your source's title uses 'allegory', this is what is said later on ' It would be absurdly reductionist to regard Pullman’s brilliant rewriting of Paradise Lost as no more than an allegory of genital mutilation, but in view of Ruta Skada’s declaration I think we are justified in viewing the parallels between intercision and circumcision as more than a case of mere applicability, and in seeing what other similarities between the two procedures we can find. There are several key discussions that will make the parallels very clear. '. Clearly the writer is talking about the whole book not being an allegory, but the writer also points later to Asriel comparing intercision to castration.

I may edit to say 'parallels' rather than allegory, since I think that is both more accurate and more in line with the source. If I can think of somewhere better within the HDM, I will also move it there. The observation is a worthwhile one, but I'm still not sure it's an allegory or a controversy, except in the sense you mention. Pincrete (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC) … … ps although the source refers to religion in general, it doesn't analogise intercision with 'religious' circumcision.Pincrete (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the controversy is his "subversive" criticism of (organised) religion in HDM, so the paragraph on the intercision allegory details one part of this controversial approach; and there have been explicit objections (If you look at the snopes post on HDM one of the objections sourced is "If you decide that you do not want to support something like this, I suggest that you boycott the movie and the books. I googled a synopsis of THE GOLDEN COMPASS. As I skimmed it, I couldn't believe that in a children's book part of the story is about castration and female circumcision."). There are quite a few other sources that also discuss the intercision/circumcision allegory (I do think allegory is the best term, rather than parallel). Joncolvin (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back![edit]

Hi Joncolvin, and welcome back. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I hope you decide to stick around. Unfortunately, your recent edit to the page Michel Foucault did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome back! Mathglot (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Fair enough, The Nation is reliable online source, edited to provide a direct quote rather than interpretation.Joncolvin (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Thanks, in both cases, for including a reference. In the case of your most recent edit, please read about why Bare URLs are not optimal in references; the principles behind that essay are in the WP:VERIFIABILITY policy page.

To make it easier to generate a proper citation, see the documentation for the citation templates such as {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, and {{cite journal}}. To generate one manually, you can use this as a starting point, if you want:

<ref name="LASTNAME-YYYY">{{cite web |last1= |first1= |title= |url= |date= |website= |publisher= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |accessdate= |quote= }}</ref>

You can fill them out yourself, or use semi-automated features such as Wikipedia:ProveIt, or the automated feature in Visual editor that fills out a complete citation from abare url. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: please place the <ref> tag right up against the preceding text, with no white space between them. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I see it took a few tries (it gets easier), but just like that. Keep up the good work! See also WP:NAMEDREFS. Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yep it took a few tries :)Joncolvin (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the |quote= param punctuation; (no leading double quote; direct speech inside single quotes; straight not curlies). See Template:Cite web#Using quote, and MOS:CURLY. Mathglot (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Anorgasmia into Delayed ejaculation. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]