User talk:JSquish

JSquish's Talk Page

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, JSquish! Thank you for your contributions. I am Homo sapiens latinus and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Homo sapiens  (talk)  15:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Botanical nomenclature
Hi JSquish, you mentioned that coverage of biological nomenclature is wikipedia is poor, so I just wanted to say that I have a copy of a very useful book about botanical nomenclature, so if there is anything that it might be able to help with, please feel free to add a note to my talk page. The book is Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Requesting Guidance
Hello. I'm new to the Wikipedia community and would like to reach out to more established contributors to collaborate on several pages that could add some basic information regarding synthetic biology. I am aware that this is a very general request and would appreciate any feedback if you'd be able to help out or know of any other contributors who might be interested so that I can send more details. Thanks a lot. Lgkkitkat (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Synthetic Biology
Thanks again for getting back to me. I was off the grid for a couple weeks. I'd like to reconnect with you when I have more research done that could be useful. Is that ok?Lgkkitkat (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I need your advice regarding synthetic biology. There is SO much information I just don't know where to start. It's an amazing development in genetic and bio-medical engineering that is still in it's infancy. Scientists are trying to provide standardized DNA nucleotide sequences to create or modify existing natural biological systems. Biobricks and M.I.T.'s Registry of Standardized Biological Parts are examples of DNA banks that provide genetic codes to build DNA from scratch. These synthetic genomes can begin to design DNA in a cost efficient and timely manner. But with all the good there is always the bad...blueprinting new medicines - good, bio-terrorism - bad. The new sequences have bistablity - meaning some work and some are defective...the uncooperative DNA sequence is bound to show up since these man-made systems are reprogramming cell function - they may not behave or work as intended. Can you please help me figure out a way to write about it...wikipedially? Any response would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.Lgkkitkat (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Lgkkitkat! Sorry for taking so long to respond! I think it is a great idea for you to incorporate those fascinating details about the burgeoning field of synthetic biology into Wikipedia. I would be happy to help in any way I can. I think it might be wise for you to start by taking a look at the Synthetic biology article and just try to clean it up a bit, as well as add new facts that you have found. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with! JSquish (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Other Pages...
There is a recommendation that the Chartis article be merged with AIG's page. I think the Property Insurance page could be strengthened with parts of AIG's page since it shows how current events and emerging trends effect it's regulation by the government. Hurricane Sandy and updated payouts of the WTC are not on the Property Insurance page either - which to me seem to be relevant. Do you think adding more information would be beneficial to the Property Insurance page? If so would you be interested in collaborating what facts should be included? Any response would be kindly appreciated. Thank you.Lgkkitkat (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Congo Free State
Hi JSquish,

First, thanks for breathing some life into the Congo Free State article. As is probably obvious, it rather needs it and your contributions have been very beneficial.

I would, however, advise you to be a bit cautious. I notice you're relying heavily on Hochschild whose work is popular history which rather labours his personal perspective of events without having real academic balance. It's certainly not a balanced source with full scholarly rigour. Quite a lot of scholars have said that he has used their research out of context and that sort of thing. Anyway, sentences like "Nearly all such projects were aimed at increasing the capital which Leopold and his associates could extract from the colony, leading to exploitation of Africans" from your edits are not wrong, but could do with a bit more moderation to avoid seeming WP:POV. Stuff like "expos[ing] Leopold's abuses in the Congo" likewise - don't forget that the frame of comparison is European 19th century colonialism (at its most extractive), and that no-one expected it to be representative democracy!

Anyway, I look forward to your subsequent edits! Best, Brigade Piron (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much; I definitely understand your advice. While it is certainly difficult to remain neutral when dealing with a subject like this one, in some ways that makes it even more paramount to avoid conveying opinions, even those of Hochschild, through the text (especially on a website like Wikipedia, which strives to be as unbiased as possible.) I will certainly take your thoughts into account, and I hope that the "Congo Free State" article (and related articles) become even more informative than they are now. Thanks! --JSquish (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend Acherson's "The King Incorporated" and Pakenham's "The Scramble for Africa" as really good, and quite fun, accounts of the same thing - in a way, Hochschild rather rips both of them off but both are also strictly speaking popular history. Stenger's history of the Congo Reform Association is also good, as is his (I think untranslated) work of the Congo more generally. Good luck! Brigade Piron (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Your edits are great, and a quick summary when saving changes would be very helpful to other editors.

The edit summary appears in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Ibadibam (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Velocity
Hi. Thanks for your recent edits on velocity. One point. Velocity is not the rate of change of position. Position is not a vector. Think of circular or Brownian motion. It should be as in the lead paragraph: 'Velocity is the rate of change of the displacement, the difference between the final and initial position of an object.' You're welcome to delete this note. BlueMist (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Floating Corks
Hello. A passage in Buoyancy I'm marking as inaccurate. Beautiful image, I'm unfortunately not able to make it up myself. Please do a check, thank you. --Askedonty (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Chromatid
Re Chromatid, I think this is correct now. Earlier this was done and reverted. 220  of  Borg 05:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inferno (Dante), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gensis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Opera roles
Thank you for your editorial attention to the lead section of "Tatiana Troyanos"! I can certainly see the case for identifying the operas associated with the listed roles, but wouldn't any material inserted into a quoted passage have to be enclosed in square brackets rather than parentheses, to clarify that it wasn't part of the original text?

see: Wikipedia:Quotations

"any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [square brackets] for added or replacement text,"

For what it's worth ... in constructing the article, I had considered identifying or at least providing Wikilinks for the roles listed in the quote, but I didn't want to unnecessarily clutter the lead or the quote itself with interpolated information, since all of the roles can be found identified elsewhere in the article itself.

I also wanted to avoid any solution that would require, for the sake of consistency, having to say "Carmen ('Carmen')," which seems almost as absurd as citing "Hamlet ('Hamlet')" would be, for example.

In working on this, I referred to guidelines like the following from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking:

"Too many links can make the lead hard to read."

"Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article."

I was trying to follow these guidelines. Admittedly, I'm not sure that identifying the operas in this case really makes the lead "hard to read," or any harder than it was already. I think they are helpful, but the problem with "Carmen" still exists.

Now it's true that even a reader familiar with the operatic literature might be confused by one or two of the roles in question (for example, Jocasta could be in Enescu's Oedipus, rather than Stravinsky's; Giulietta could be Juliet in "I Capuleti e i Montecchi"). Still, I think the quote provides a vivid and specific sense of the range of the singer's repertory even if one is unable to identify every one of the individual roles immediately.

(For what it's worth, I've also considered restoring a full list of her major roles - with identifying information - to the article. This existed previously, but I began deleting roles from the list as they were added to the text.) Hosenrollen (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Hosenrollen! Thanks so much for leaving a message. I must admit that I was moving quickly when I originally made that edit, and I foolishly didn't recognize it was a quote at the time! Carelessness on my part. I recall seeing the listed roles and thinking that it would be nice to easily get to the articles on the corresponding operas from the lead section without having to search through the main body of the article (for instance, if a reader was interested, to use your example, whether it was Enescu's or Stravinsky's Jocasta that she played). Now, however, seeing that the roles are listed within a quote, I'm not certain I would have edited in the same way (perhaps used brackets, etc.) Maybe a compromise option would be to link to the operas while the displayed text is the name of the role? The quote wouldn't have to be altered, at least. Moreover, that would deal with the "Carmen"(Carmen) issue, which I agree is unsightly. I leave it to your discretion! All the best, --JSquish (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm just not sure about using links in the quote, since I tried to avoid it in general.  (If anything, I felt that "trouser roles" could probably use a gloss there [I saved it for later in the article], as well as some key examples of such roles.)  So the issue was well worth raising; maybe there's another solution, if/when I can give it some more thought... Hosenrollen (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Vestigial_response
Hi, according to this edit, you added the claims

1. The formation of goose bumps in humans under stress is a vestigial reflex and 2. its function in human ancestors was to raise the body's hair, making the ancestor appear larger and scaring off predators

with the reference "Darwin, Charles. (1872) The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals John Murray, London" for the first claim.

Could you please specify the page number and a give a quotation from the book regarding the first claim? Also could be please tell whether the second claim is also supported by this references. If yes, please give the page number and quotation. Thanks. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)