User talk:AssegaiAli

Look I'm just going to drop this block issue as I have seen lots of instances on this project of people who disagree with you and just refuse to co-operate. However for future visitors only-note this page [] which shows that there is actually no connection identified between my IP address (which is not exclusive to me anyway) and this User:CIS fellow but the CU clerk just went ahead and blocked it anyway (so much for good faith assumption) and then User:jayjg tied that into its own assumption that it could block me too. Anyway I know when to quit and that seems to be now--AssegaiAli (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

 

WPZW
The current Collaboration of the Fortnight is the Pioneer Column. Please improve it to the best of your ability. Even a bit of copy editing helps. Also, please make sure that the Notice Board is added to your watch list so that you are kept up to date on WPZW issues. Welcome Mangwanani 15:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Not a problem. You deserved it. Mangwanani 19:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Zimbabwe
Just so you know, Im going for GA on Zimbabwe again. Think i addressed all the points raised last assessment now. Mangwanani 20:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Flags in the Nobel lists
Since you responded that you'd like to see the flags kept in the Nobel lists in the RFC, could you respond to a related thread about this? Thanks! –panda 02:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Prince Edward Island
Just to let you know of a new WikiProject Prince Edward Island that has just been created. As you have shown an interest in the creation and editing of Prince Edward Island articles, you are cordially invited to join.SriMesh | talk  04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(Copy of) Instrumental temperature record
You have reverted my edit earlier today at the above; one was for a false link (which you have now restored so that it is false again!) and the other was to correct the bad grammar of connecting "since" with the present tense. Please undo your revert--AssegaiAli (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Try to be a bit less confrontational: "false link" indeed. But you're right, the link to CET is correct, I've restored that. As for the grammar, I care little, as long as the science is correct. Feel free to correct it, as long as you don't imply exactitude over the start date William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well, but some people might say that the one who reverts without checking or discussion is being confrontational .......As it happens 1850 is the (exact) start date for the Climate Research Unit's global marine and land surface temperature series based on a paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 2006. This updates their previous series that began in 1856. I shall back this up when time permits later--AssegaiAli (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's only one data set. The starting point depends on one's judgment and other data sets differ; e.g., GISS begins in 1880. There's no justification for any specific year beyond a general range of mid-late 19th century. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The question at issue isn't "when does GISS begin" but "A quasi-global record exists since ... when?". Look at the GISS coverage: its thin in 1850 and slowly gets better. There is no one time when it becomes "global"; its a matter of judgement William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair point......but not altogether relevant though. As far as I understand GISS does not collect data itself. It uses the GHCN stations which are judged by a set of criteria that are set by the network. There are stations that are perfectly legitimate but not part of the GHCN. In adddition GISS has chosen 1881 not because of a lack of data previously but because of the breadth of GHCN coverage. The CRU uses its own data network that does not depend only on the GHCN. Most importantly the J. Geophys. Res. also obviously made use of its own judgment (thanks to peer review) on the validity of the data series. I think that they deserve to be taken seriously. (I am not in any way connected to CRU, etc.)--AssegaiAli (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing my point. It doesn't matter whose particular compilation you use. As you go back through the years, the coverage declines. There are *some* stations as far back as 1800. B ut at some point you say "this record isn't really global any more". There can be no sharp cut-off for deciding it, though William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not missing any point-the fact is that J. Geophys. Res. and the CRU are both an authority on this matter and therefore a legitimate series of global data exists from 1850.--AssegaiAli (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. You're wrong. You're mistaking the global-t-series, which of course exist, with a series that represents global T. I think I've said this as clearly as I can William M. Connolley (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmmm....If that's the clearest you can make it then I certainly hope you aren't a teacher-because you would get fired. Every point I have made you have smudged by responding with side issues so I am going to leave this discussion. Thanks anyway--AssegaiAli (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Isomers of butylene and butyraldehyde
Just so you know, I have reverted the changes you made to these two articles. If you want to rename an article, you can't just cut-and-paste from one title to the other. You must use the "move" button found at the top of the page. Please see WP:MOVE. Also, I think it is best to get consensus for this change before you do it. Please suggest these moves at WikiProject Chemicals first. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Project Chemicals page is not a discussion page: it is a list of tasks. The discussion page of the article is for that is it not? - which is where I tried to gauge opinion. Sorry about the cut and paste, though. I did think it was a clumsy way--AssegaiAli 15:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Bitis gabonica
Hi AssegaiAli, No hard feelings regarding my reverts of your recent edits to this article (I assume they are all yours), but many of these were spelling alterations and grammatical modifications that were uncalled for. The only addition of substance was in the Geographic range section ("The Gaboon Viper is generally found in parallel environments ... does not bite even under these circumstances"), but even though you did give this a reference (albeit an incomplete one), it was more about habitat, appearance and behavior: aspects that should be, and already are, described elsewhere. I don't want to discourage you from contributing, but I do ask that you maintain the same level of accuracy, add your information in the appropriate places, not alter existing text without good reason and always cite your references. Cheers, (PS -- Please answer here, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * Thanks for your message, I have looked more closely at the article and I see that the spelling changes I made were a result of the (wrong) impression I had that some of the words were out of step with the convention of the rest. Grammatical modifications, however, are not "uncalled for" - that is your view and is not necessarily better than mine - "may possibly" is colloquial (one is redundant anyway) amongst others.
 * I don't think that my contributions were inaccurate partly because I have immense direct personal knowledge of African snakes (do you?) and if there are better places to insert the information then I am happy to appraise them further.
 * You have used the excuse of reverting someone's vandalism to revert my edits as well and you should not be doing that-my intention is not to make the article the way I like it but to help it to keep improving-you do not have the right to assume (as you should well know) that my contributions are subject to your veto. Please do not remove my additions as anyone can do the same to you as well so I am returning the article to its state before the vandalism (minus above)and you can tell me what you don't like as you should have at the start--AssegaiAli (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I had reverted your same edits before. But, if it's that important to you, I will take the trouble to give you a more detailed explanation:
 * "In appearance, the snake shows impressive size and markings." The size of this species is discussed in at length in the first part of this section, while this paragraph is about the color pattern (its markings). So, the sentence is superfluous: it may look nice, but it adds nothing.
 * belly, venter... it's the same thing. But, we'll leave it your way.
 * "The Gaboon Viper is generally found in parallel environments to its close relative the Puff Adder, (normally found in more open country), with which it shares an attractive pattern of markings." Where did this information come from? The rest of the paragraph is is from Mallow et al. (2003), and now it looks like your information is from their book as well. I doubt this is the case. You must include separate references for all the information you add: I've worked very hard to make sure all of these articles include references for everything, so I must insist you do the same. Common names are only used in a few places in each article, and then in lower case. Lastly, "Puff Adder" links to a disambiguation page.
 * "Attacks from snakes are usually after being trodden on due to their sluggishness and unwillingness to move when approached. Nevertheless, it often does not bite even under these circumstances." Snakes do not attack: they defend themselves. The term you use here, "snakes", is too general. Which snakes? How about "these snakes" or "this species"? The convention is to put this kind of snakebite information in the Venom section, even though it's a behavioral aspect. Oh, and please pay more attention to your reference (format, number of pages in the book and its publisher).
 * Non-aggressive/unaggressive? Again, isn't this the same thing?
 * "and an antivenom must be used immediately to save the affected limb if not the victim's life." This is probably not from Spawls & Branch (1995), even though it now looks like it is. Please add this statement separately with your own reference. If you have no reference for it, don't add it.
 * So far I've removed only the first of these edits ("In appearance, ..."), but I'll wait for the rest and give you a chance to reply first. --Jwinius (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well yes it's important to me; why should it only be important to you? Yes the size and the various dimensions of the animal are presented in unmissable detail but I inserted the phrase about impressive....etc., because there is no sense anywhere in the article of the gaboon viper's power to amaze. I assume you have seen a gaboon viper and a puff adder-have you? Almost everyone who beholds one (even in captivity) says "Wow" or something similar-no one would guess that from this article. My sentence may "add nothing" but you seem to have forgotten that the purpose of this article is to inform and communicate knowledge effectively, not to bombard the reader with an avalanche of facts and measurements. Statements that are consistent with one another do not have to be individually referenced because this is an encyclopedia not a specialist journal. Almost no articles follow that rule because the resulting text is too turgid to interest a casual reader. Perhaps this is reflected in the use of unnecessary technical language-"venter" is an opaque specialist term that even doctors avoid; jargon should never be used in place of specific English words. Similarly the negative prefix in English is "un"; "non" is a Latin prefix for Latin words (or certain English nouns that have no negative form - such as non-stop) otherwise is stylistically poor. I shall attend to the references nevertheless as you ask--AssegaiAli (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is it important to me? Perhaps because I'm responsible for almost all of this article and the fact that it has GA status. I'm also currently the lead author for the entire Viperidae series. I've worked very hard for the past two years to raise the standard of these articles and I now find myself maintaining them to prevent them from degrading (that's just the way it works at Wikipedia).
 * One of the things I've always tried to limit is the use of superlatives; they're cheap and species like this are always sensationalized in the media anyway, so we need to let the facts speak for themselves. Yes, I am familiar with this species -- I even briefly took care of one once -- and, yes, they are amazing. However, that's no excuse to lively up articles like this with colorful language: a road that almost always leads to exaggeration (certainly at Wikipedia). If you have a problem with this and feel that the result feels too much like "an avalanche of facts and measurements", that's unfortunate, but so far you're the first to say that.
 * As for my insistence that all facts be referenced, I'm simply following Wikipedia policy. Perhaps I've taken it more to heart than most editors, but that's precisely because I recognize that WP is not a specialist journal. It's because WP is open to public editing that our articles are in more need of good references than other sources of information in order to seem at least reasonably credible. By the way, articles with unverifiable statements often get tags with "This article does not cite its sources" slapped on them. I'd rather avoid that.
 * Finally, your references: you must do better. I removed the unreferenced statement in the habitat section, which I also think needed better clarification (parallel environments?), while the "Snakes of Rhodesia" reference has no author (Longman is the publishing company). --Jwinius (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't ask why it's important to you LOL - I said "only" to you. (I always thought it was) Colourful language can still be completely accurate - it does not lead to exaggeration normally, it leads to stimulation and it is a good skill to demonstrate. Just out of interest I checked one (only one) reference, the curious one from the Catholic encyclopedia [8] and found that it has been misquoted [It's very old text, the style is recognisably 1900 or so and it uses 12 deg east of Paris not 12deg E as in the article - the system superceded in 1885 although retained for a bit by the French] The fact that I'm the first to say "avalanche", is not necessarily significant but I gave the Description section to my 18 year old chemistry students to read through slowly once and then answer 6 questions on - none of the 12 got more than 1 right. By comparison, the texthere got more than half with all 6 very similarly formatted questions, admittedly not directly comparable but then thermometers are much more boring than snakes-note no tags on this article with 1 reference because everything is internally consistent. Nevertheless - I shall keep away from "your" articles in future, good luck with future GAs--AssegaiAli (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it seemed like it, so I gave you an honest answer. If you were to walk a mile in my shoes, you'd probably end up feeling the same way about "your" articles. It's probably a common state of mind among heavy contributors. Regarding the description for B. gabonica, that information is specific to the species. If you want more general descriptions, see Bitis, Viperinae, or Viperidae. What I find unfortunate about many WP species articles is that they are short on the specific detail that they should contain and long on general information that is the same for the entire genus or family.
 * Perhaps your students would be more interested such articles if they were presented like this: Giant Helicopter Damselfly. The Encyclopedia of Life offers a new approach that I find very interesting: articles that can be accessed at different levels of detail. Obviously, WP doesn't have that. What we can do is make sure our articles have good lead sections. --Jwinius (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Adwa
Hello -- I don't understand your objection to the existing wording in the second or third paragraph of the section "Aftermath". The sentence that you seem to think is not well-expressed -- "Many answers have been offered." I don't see how your version -- "In the context of the prevailing balance of power, the emperor's crucial goal was to preserve Ethiopian independence" -- is better. Your point that the war preserved Ethiopia's independence is undisputed; if it has been omitted, there are better, more prominent places in the article it should be mentioned. The point of this paragraph is to discuss the question posed at the beginning -- why didn't the Ethiopian drive the Italians into the sea -- something many different historians have asked & have offered a variety of answers. Your preferred sentence, IMHO, weakens the logical flow of this paragraph. Thanks in advance for your response. -- llywrch (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that it does not inhibit the logical flow at all. In many ways the question being posed is misleading because it assumes that it was ever a serious option. The Italians occupied a coastal base that Ethiopia had lacked control over for nearly 500 years despite it continually being used as a route of attack. Ethiopia repeatedly defended itself by fighting invaders in the highlands. Winning a battle and winning a war (or vanquishing an enemy permanently) are 2 very different things.

"Many answers have been offered." suggests a genuine puzzle - things were somewhat simpler than that. The Italians were a serious threat but there were advantages to reaching a peaceful accommadation with them. That was an option that was never offered by Ethiopia's Muslim neighbours and Menelik was well aware that ending the war was a better guarantee of Ethiopia's future independence than continuing--AssegaiAli (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wetman
You are not alone in this. If you read earlier in his talk page, you'll see what I mean. - Denimadept (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wetman is also a big fat hypocrite mister. Look at what he did to the BC setting at this [|here] LOL --79.66.234.177 (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Renaming chemistry articles
Before renaming any more chemistry articles such as methyl butyrate and propylene, please get consensus for these actions at the chemistry wikiprojects. It may be better to use "butanoate" rather than "butyrate", but it needs to be decided by the community first; and it doesn't make sense to move just one butyrate article and leave the rest - this just creates inconsistency. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits to the Banknotes of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe article (just a note, not a warning)
Hi, it may have been an accident, but the recent edit you made to Banknotes of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe caused parts of the article to end up in the References section: don't worry because I have now repaired it... and besides, adding quite a lot of detailed citations over the last month was indeed hard but that is what makes a good Wikipedia article. Thanks for helping to improve the article. --Marianian (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP vandal on Compass
The school IP vandal has been blocked for another week. Cheers, --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Another country outline draft has been moved to article space!
I noticed you are a member of WikiProject Zimbabwe. Here is something that improves organization of and access to that subject on Wikipedia...

Topic outline of Zimbabwe is completed enough that it is now in article space. It still needs images and some bluelinking, and is undoubtedly missing some relevant links.

Please take a look at it. You will no doubt spot things you can easily fix that I overlooked.

For the rest of the pages in the set, see User:The Transhumanist/Country list.

The Transhumanist 20:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Bvumba Mountains
Yes, I agree with most of your statements. However, the hills/mountains on the Mozambique side are part of the same topographic feature and are also officially known as Vumba mountains, and are of some notability, given the world heritage listing. Babakathy (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Major factories of Tabriz
Nope, it's a prod - you don't reinstate those things, I'll instead send it to AfD. Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Antananarivo
Please see my response to your query on my talk page. Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User: CIS
I would like someone to explain to me why (without any notice or query) I have been blocked for connection with someone I have never heard of. There has definitely been a mistake--AssegaiAli (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Contests
User:Dr. Blofeld has created WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list