User talk:Ndandulalibingi

@Aflis (talk) Its good for me to know that you have received the book. I have had to open another account because I forgot my password of Libingi (talk) and therefore I cannot login. Unfortunately I do not seem to have given an email address for resetting the passwoed. I knew it would be difficult for you to use the book. Personally I feel it was not professionally done, with references given at the end and not pointing to any paragraph in the text body. However, your comparison to the summary at http://www.mbundakingdom.org/Mbunda%20Origin.htm which show research references in the text body might be helpful. Infact the revised 2013 edition we have now concluded is based on that principle. I will send you another copy once printed. I totally agree with your suggestion for an initial format similar to the "Ovimbundu" article, and we can then develop it. Remember how difficult it was with Mbunda language but ended up with a fairly acceptable contribution. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@:Ndandulalibingi: After a whole year of ups and downs in my health conditions (I have had medical treatment in 11 (eleven!) Lisbon hospitals...), it seems I am at present stabilizing. Which means i.a. that I shall do some modest editing in different versions of Wikipedia. I congratulate you on the work on the Mbunda you have been doing. If you agree, I shall make use of some parts for articles in the Portuguese version. -- Aflis (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aflis (talk) Well, well. We thank God for your comeback in good health. It is naturally painful to learn of your health condition that saw you in eleven hospitals. Thanks for the compliments on the Mbunda work, it hasn't been easy. I owe it to your guidance and arguments with kwami (talk), which helped us to tell the Mbunda story to the world academicians. I agree, you can use parts of your choice in the Mbunda articles for the Portuguese version. Looking forward to more of your valuable guidance. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, I shall try and do some editing on the Mbunda in pt:WP. However, you should not count on this to be done quickly. My health is improving, but I am still far from "good health". Best -- Aflis (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Angola (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Kingdoms, Lunda and Luba
History of Angola (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Kingdoms, Lunda and Luba

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

salience of information on Mbunda

@Libingi: although I am still far from fully operational, I have lately at least been able to look at what is going on in Angola related articles. I have thus noted that in some of them you have introduced some information on the Mbunda. In principle, this is of course positive, given the fact that such information had been lacking almost totally. However, sometimes a sense of proportion is called for: presenting the Mbunda in such a way that they get more attention than more numerous ethnic groups and/or historical political units canot be justified, and will sooner or later be corrected by some qualified WP user. -- Aflis (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Aflis (talk, I am grateful to know that you are getting stronger, though not fully operational. I always value your advice and thank you again. I therefore totally agree that a sense of proportion is called for, but at the same time, I am of a humble opinion that Angola history especially for its numerious ethnic groups should continue to be researched and written. It is therefore prudent that those numerious ethnic groups, that have researched and have come to know their history should bring it forth and be challenged by the qualified like you. The Mbunda appreciate your contributions on some reliable sources to our history. We pray for God to continue giving you strenghth. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I did not make myself clear. Of course the research of the history of Angola must go on, and in this context the research on the history of the different peoples who have come to settle in Angola. And yes, it is desirabl that historians from each people assumed an important part of this task. However, the point I was trying to make is simply this: if one writes an encyclopedic article, the weight of the different parts has to be proportional with regard to the importance of these parts. To give an example: In an article or section on the hittory of Angola, one or two sentences may be enough for the khoisan, while the history of the Bakongo has to be developed in considerably more detail - and the weight of the Mbunda would have to figure somewhere between these two extremes. NB: Each major people should f course have one or more article of its own - and that is exactly why I maintain my intention to develop an article on the Mbunda which fits into wikipedia. -- Aflis (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Aflis (talk), I get you crystal clear and totally agree. May be it is they way I put it which was ambiguous.

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Menongue may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ref>René Pélissier, ''Les Guerres Grises: Résistance et revoltes en Angola (1845–1941)'', Montamets(Orgeval: Éditions Pélisier, 1977</ref> and later because of the impact of the [[Angolan War of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Menongue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moxico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mwene Mbandu Kapova I of Mbunda

Hi, I just noticed the new article you created for Mwene Mbandu Kapova I of Mbunda and thought it was excellent and would like to nominate the article for Wikipedia:Did you know (DYK). Did You Know is a part of wikipedia that highlights new articles and displays them prominently on the front page of English wikipedia for tens of thousands of people to see. Although the article is good, it needs some improvements to be ready for a DYK nominattion: 1. it needs better citation (at least 1 per paragraph), 2. some copy-editing, which I can help out with, and 3. some other issue which other editors might highlight. Either way, if you have the interest in this process, I will be willing to help you out and to handle the nomination process to get this page some more attention. There are only a couple of days after an article is created where it is possible, so let me know soon. Keep up the editing. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've been doing a bit of copy editing & wikifying of this article, but since I know next to nothing about the history of Angola I hope I did not make this article worse. -- llywrch (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AbstractIllusions (talk) Thanks for your interest in the article. I am willing to go all out with you to handle the nomination process to get this page some more attention. Sentiments by @llywrch (talk) above might be taken into consideration as we progress. The history of Southeast Angola is not fully researched, therefore your contributions are more than welcome. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool, so I'll be doing some copy-editing of it (please don't feel afraid to edit over me if I make a mistake--my Angola background is probably equal to Llywrch). But to get it ready for DYK, the citations need to be made more rigorous. The DYK guidelines suggest "A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." Since I don't have your references, this is going to require you editing the article and adding the appropriate references throughout. Once this is done, it should be ready for DYK. Also, we'll have to figure out a good hook. If @Llywrch, you or @Aflis have an idea for an interesting hook from the article, we could run with that. My own proposal (which would need a citation) is that: Did you know ... that King Mwene Mbandu Kapova I of Mbunda became known as the "extinguisher of flames" for his military victories? But there may be other better ones (shorter than 200 words). AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how good I am with hooks; I've had mine criticized as not being good enough, although I've seen some truly awful ones over the years. That said, I think AI's works--although I'd add something about Angola in it. One change I made to the article was adding back a number of links to articles that don't exist (aka "red links"); they don't keep an article from being chosen for DYI, & their presence encourages others to create needed articles--they build the web.--llywrch (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mwene Mbandu Kapova I of Mbunda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chokwe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambundu / Mbundaland = Same?

Is Ambundu the same as Mbunduland? If so, I thought it might be helpful to share this "link" Twillisjr (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


@Twillisjr (talk), it is actually articles like these on internet that are confusing the world: Mbundu/Mbunda and Mbundu (Ambundu Trip Down Memory Lane. They mix Ambundu, Ovimbundu and Mbunda people who are distinct groups and neighbors in Angola. I guess this is lack of knowledge about Mbunda people and Mbunda language which is also being confused with Ngangela language. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Read WP:IMAGELOCATION and MOS:IMAGES. You have been reverted by two different editors, so you should understand that there is a reason for that. Don't revert again, thank you.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of The Rulers of the Mbunda Kingdom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Moxico, Luena and Chokwe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Mwene Mbandu Kapova I of Mbunda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Lunda, Herero, Ovambo and Chokwe
Rulers of Mbundaland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Kasai and Kwilu

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

math

Actually, no. 3,000,000 plus 100,000 is 3,000,000, not 3,100,000. That's because 3,000,000 means somewhere between 2,000,000 and 4,000,000, and adding 100,000 to that makes no significant difference. — kwami (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • kwami (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC), you surprise me with your arguments. When you are quoting census figures it would be for the benefit of every one to stick to accuracy than using unnecessary formulas which would in the end be assumptions. It would not be beneficial for us all to cite official figures and write what is not applicable. Mind you, I once disclosed to you that I know more accurate facts about Mbunda than your text book theories. You will soon come to understand that! Ndandulalibingi (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then please provide a source. And read significant figures. — kwami (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

kwami (talk), off course I provide source in all my articles. However, using words like bad math and silliness belongs to rude people and not professionals. Using provocative words is not only stupid but uncivilized. Bad math means my calculations are wrong, but to the contrally, all you should have done is cite significant figures as you have done. Anyway, this is insignificant, our defense for your Ngangela that it is not being a language but a tool to erase Mbunda is what matters, and that is where it pains you most. I hate sarcastic people. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being sarcastic. Citing significant figures was evidently not enough, as you continued to edit war.
I have no idea what you're talking about with Ngangela. You've gone on about this again and again, but I don't see the point. Is there anything that you're actually objecting to? — kwami (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that you have now used the right method for significant figures. However, I do not agree with you for denying the Ngangela issue because on 27th October 2011 at 20.39, you created a page claiming that Ngangela is a language. You went further to claim that Ngangela is also called Nyemba. As it has so far been established, Ngangela is an Umbundu describing the people of the east, or Ngangela is a generic term for peoples east of the Central Highlands, ref: José Redinha, Etnias e culturas de Angola, Luanda: Instituto de Investigalção Científica de Angola, 1975 and it has a slightly derogatory meaning when applied by the western ethnic groups, ref: Alvin W. Urquhart, Patterns of Settlement and Subsistence in Southwestern Angola, National Academies Press, 1963, p 10 but in a narrow sense is used specifically for Nyemba ref: Achim von Oppen, 1993, Terms of Trade and Terms of Trust: The History and Contexts of Pre-Colonial Market Production Around the Upper Zambezi and Kasai, p 31 ff'. Obviously Nyemba is not on the east of the Central Highlands.

Secondly, Missionery Emily Pearson tried to concoct a Ngangela language in his English-Ngangela Dictionary, reading this dictionay clearly shows that their is no specific Ngangela language citated. He gives meanings in several languages of Mbunda, Luchazi, Nyemba and others he chose to convince and confuse the reader. This scheem has worked, since Mbunda language has been replaced by Ngangela as a National languge, when it is not. This is our actual objection, as you ask. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made those changes based on the sources that you provided at the time. If you've now decided you want something else, you'll need to say exactly what. You're just contradicting yourself above. Also, if the name "Ngangela" is used for the national language, then it's our responsibility to reflect that. Perhaps we should redirect from Nyemba to Mbunda? — kwami (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, redirecting it is one way to expose this linguistic fraud. We spoke to a former Government official an Anthropologist and an Umbundu, Mr. Virgilio Coelho of Luanda, who agrees with us that this is a fraud and it is up to us to fight it. The contradiction is caused by the same fraud which has also confused sources, but the truth is that Ngangela is not a language. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "us", does he mean himself? He needs to first fix it as the official name of the language, or get published explaining what it means. As for "fraud", I seriously doubt that's what it is. There are thousands of language names which came from neighboring languages, such as German and Eskimo, and while some are dispreferred, none are called "frauds". — kwami (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I did not make myself clear. By "us", I meant he agrees with the Mbunda positon on Ngangela. He however went on to say this has been going on for a long time, since the Portuguese colonial era and therefore correcting an error starts with a step. He can neither fix nor publish what it means because, while as he was the Deputy Minister of Culture, he no longer holds that position of influence. I understand you, "fraud" might be too strong a word to used but that is how the Mbunda feel, something stolen from them. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I redirected Ngangela to Mbunda and gave Ngangela as an alt name, added a hat note to redirect the reader to Nyemba, and tagged that article as needing a ref that in official use "Ngangela" means Mbunda rather than Nyemba, which is how it's used on Ethnologue. — kwami (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and agreed. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't note that you gave an alt name for Mbunda as Ngangela. This name is despised by the Mbunda because it is derogatory. They will never accept that, Mbunda is Mbunda from inception no one can give them another name without their approval. In this case, the redirect is fine but not an alt name, it cannot be there without the explanatory edit which you reverted. I suggest its removal because it justifies a non existent language.Ndandulalibingi (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. If Mbunda is "nonexistent", then we should delete the article. If people call it Ngangela, then it's appropriate to give that as an alt name. Otherwise how will people understand why they were redirected there? If it's derogatory, then we can note that. — kwami (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry kwami (talk), I think your response above is already overtaken by recent communication. This chapter is closed, my contention was that Ngangela is nonexistent not Mbunda. However, progress is on my today's comment under Ngangela bellow. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rulers of Mbundaland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luena River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ngangela

Sorry, but you can't come here every few weeks insisting that we change A to B because A is a fraud, then that we change B back to A because B is a lie, then A back to B again, and then B back to A. You don't appear to have any coherent concept of what's going on, so I will no longer take your opinion seriously. I will delete all references to Ngangela apart from what I have in my sources. — kwami (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

kwami (talk) It is indeed your choice not to take me seriously, but you will agree that I have presented a strong argument with facts and sources. It is only that these are new issues to you and they contradict what you know. Relying on your sources only is a deception. Sources clearly say Ngangela is a term applied to tribes of Eastern Angola, why should you stick to a concoction of saying Ngangela is Mbunda or Nyemba? Others say Ngangela is Luchazi! Why mislead the world? Check Emil Pearson Dictionary, where is Ngangela there? And yet it is called English-Ngangela Dictionary. Can you see the deception there? Who speaks Ngangela anyway? The truth is that it is nonexistent. Our war continues with the authorities, one day you will accept what I am telling you. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you contradict *yourself*. I just made a bunch of edits, based on your objections, that you agreed to, and the next day you changed your mind *again*. I will now revert to the linguistic sources I have on-hand. If you have other recent linguistic sources to provide, I will consider them too, but I will no longer take your personal objections seriously. — kwami (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kwami (talk), no hard feelings that looks better. Please let us work together in building and correcting. I will still rely on your linguistic knowhow, but let us not call a spade a big spoon.

I was going to say I'm glad we agree, but now you've gone and changed your mind *again*. I've reverted two claims: that Ethnologue leaves Yauma unclassified (not true; that was a editing error in the previous edition) and that the Angolan government changed the Mbunda language, which is a language, into Ngangela, which is a people. (Just yesterday you insisted, "Ngangela is a people not a language".) That makes no sense. — kwami (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

kwami (talk) thanks. We have argued over this for long , let us leave it at that and progress in other constructive issues. The way I and fellow Mbundas understand this is different from your understanding. I am glad the way it is, I will only edit on something new. Have a good day. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


kwami (talk), for interest's sake, these are the research facts that strengthen my argument on the Emil Pearson deception that made the world believe in Ngangela: [1], [2], [3], [4]. This is what makes me believe what you think are my contradictions. I need your comment.

There is no deception! Unless it's in the first ref, which I can't access. All I see is a cultural/geographic term which covers most of the languages close to Luchazi. One source says it's pejorative, but the others use it without comment. There is no single Ngangela language, and the Ngangela "group" would not appear to be a valid linguistic node, but it's a term that has been frequently used in the lit. In that way it's much like Bantu: many linguists are of the opinion that "Bantu" as traditionally conceived is not a valid linguistic unit, but we wouldn't say that it's a "fraud" or that the Bantu languages "don't exist".

Thanks kwami (talk). It is a pity that you cannot access the first ref, but it quotes a well renowned linguist on page 178; Robert Papstein in his 'Central African Historical Research Project', it reads: "Pearson a missionary who lived in Eastern Angola for nearly forty years, did not want to translate the Bible into each of the languages of the region and thus created the Ngangela language by mixing Mbunda, Luchazi, Luvale, Lwimbe and perhaps elements of the other languages. It is a remarkable story about a dictionary for a language which does not exist. The Mbunda Dictionary will be the first attempt to systematically sort out this linguistic (and by implication, historical) confusion. We are also hopeful that a Luchazi Dictionary will complement and expand the linguistic and historical insights provided by the Mbunda Dictionary". Ndandulalibingi (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's interesting, and worth adding to the article. I wouldn't call it a fraud so much as an attempt at an interdialectal standard, not dissimilar from Runyakitara. Also, when people talk about the Ngangela group of languages, they're not talking about Persion's project. — kwami (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added to the family article, and when I went to copy the citation info, I found that I can read that first source after all. — kwami (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ A Place in the World: New Local Historiographies from Africa and South Asia edited by Axel Harneit-Sievers
  2. ^ Theory of African Music, Volume 2 By Gerhard Kubik
  3. ^ The Creation of Tribalism in Southern Africa edited by Leroy Vail
  4. ^ Tusona: Luchazi Ideographs : a Graphic Tradition of West-Central Africa By Gerhard Kubik

Ndandulalibingi (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mbunda people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moxico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mbunda people may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mbunda people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moxico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Mbunda Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Lunda, Moxico, Herero and Ovambo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Mbunda Kingdom

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Ndandulalibingi, thanks for creating Mbunda Kingdom!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Reviewed. Issues found.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Information icon Hello, Ndandulalibingi. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Mbunda Kingdom, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


@ ukexpat (talk) I quote Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk)'s unfortunate statement which exposes his motive: "If you google, you will soon find out that the so called association is nothing more than an organisation driving a political agenda, advocating for recognition of political rights for the Mbunda people and Wikipedia is now being used to create 'bulk' content to exaggerate the size and importance of the population". This is total harassment. If he didn't know an ethnic group called Mbunda and the Mbunda Kingdom, he should have asked the Angolan authorities. History is about continuous research. If a group was never covered in a research he knows and it is brought out in a later research, why should it be questioned if reliable sources are cited? His other statement that "questions have been raised about the editor's methods and his claims about the validity of oral tradition as history". Yes these questions were raised because of mixing Mbunda language and Mbunda people and the issues were strange to them as they seem strange to him. However, these issues were argued and agreed upon which resulted in working together with those scholar editors and came up with polished articles. Getting hold of the Mbunda History book, will show that it contains oral research without much source references. However, my articles give many reliable source references to validate the oral history as urged with other editors. The pictures or drawings referred to of the Kings are our photographs and drawings which other websites have copied from us through Wiki Commons. We have proof of original drawings we scanned from. It should be noted that a lot of ethnic groups in Angola are not researched and the door to research them is not closed, and the history of Angola is far from being complete. The Portuguese wrote very little about Angola and mainly along the coastline and therefore sociolinguistic scholars agree that more research should be encouraged. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' Noticeboard

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give you a final warning — if you continue in your current actions, you will be blocked from editing, and the block will continue until you convince us that you can participate in encyclopedia-building in line with our policies. After reading the discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, as well as sections elsewhere on this talk page, it is clear to me that you are editing in contravention of our conflict-of-interest standards, as well as frequently misusing sources and repeatedly preferring primary sources to secondary sources. Let me first remind you that individuals with conflicts of interest, such as officials of advocacy organisations, may not edit in order to advance the purposes of their organisations: among other things, you may not write about yourself (e.g. Mbunda Kingdom), and you may not edit-war against established sources to make your organisation look better, e.g. the discussion with Kwamikagami in the "Ngangela" section above. Finally, encyclopedias are written based on secondary sources, not primary sources: oral histories are highly useful (I've depended on them in my professional life), but because they originate from the individuals in question, they're clearly primary sources, rather than secondary sources that are distinct in time and place from the primary sources. Encyclopedias rely on secondary sources to interpret the primary sources, and you must not persist in giving the primary sources preference over the secondary sources. If you're interested in learning more about our standards, I will happily help you, and if you're willing to edit in line with them, I'll do my best to help, but if you continue working to advance your organisation's standing on Wikipedia and/or continue using unencyclopedic sources, you will not be permitted to continue editing. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Nyttend (talk) Thanks for your advice, I really appreciate it. As mentioned before, my differences with kwami (talk) were at a time when I was new with editing on Wikipedia. I since found his advise together with Aflis (talk) very helpful and have worked together, taking their advice in bringing some Mbunda articles to acceptable Wikipedia standards [here] and [here]. It is a pity Kwami is on recess, I know he would have chipped in at one time or another in what I considered harassment from Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) who is using old issues, which were resolved with other editors and taking advantage of them, in trying to stop or discourage me from editing on Wikipedia because he is an experienced editor. However, if you feel otherwise, I am willing to abide by your advice and look forward to helpful tips from you. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome. Little tip — for a talk page link, just do [[Talk:Mbunda language|here]] to get here. I left the warning after reading Rui Gabriel Correia's statement at the administrators' noticeboard and after investigating some of your edits, but I understand that I hadn't gotten your point of view — I was tempted to block you without warning, but the fact that I'd not heard from you was a big reason that I didn't, since I wanted to understand your perspective. I'm open either to hearing your response to RGC's statements or to hearing your comments on other matters, or simply to hearing your questions about what to do. Please either respond here and link my username (as you did), or leave a note at my talk page; I'll have a harder time noticing any response if you don't do either of those. Nyttend (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ Nyttend (talk) I am impressed. Just when I was about to give up on Wikipedia, I get words of your wisdom, and thanks for the tip, I tried using it but it is not working, it is turning out this way [[Talk:Languages of Angola|here]], where am I getting it wrong?. Its is not everyone who is biased after all. Those are the qualities of an administrator. Because of the final warning, I didn't want to respond to RGC's last observations [here], lest I was accused of representing the interests and aspirations of the Mbunda people, and earn myself a blocking. Now that you want to hear my side of the story:
  • RGC's motive has been clear from the time he started reporting me, without corresponding with me on my talk page. He wanted me blocked and all my Mbunda articles and contributions to Wikipedia deleted as can be seen from his blocking recommendation [here]
  • I didn't threaten to report him to the Mbunda Council for trying to stop me from rewriting history, as he has even failed to cite the threat like other numerous claims he has managed to cite. Out of his disrespect for the Mbunda Monarch, I mentioned that the King and Angolan authorities will be informed as stated in response to my first reaction on his report to Wikipedia [here], where he deliberately chose to use an earlier media report (one year after coronation)[here] ignoring what is obtaining in Angola currently [here] yet he lives in Angola and reads these media reports, aiming at deliberately provoking my feelings as he builds up his case against me.
  • Some of the sources he is accusing me [here] of using like J. Redinha's book was not introduced by me but other editors. The Urquart source remained there by mistake after several edits overtime. It was meant to show that Gaungela is a term applied to the tribes of eastern Angola as shown here Alvin W. Urquhart, Patterns of Settlement and Subsistence in Southwestern Angola, National Academies Press, 1963, p 10, as I tried to argue that Gaungela is not a language though it replaced Mbunda.
  • His accusation that I am elevating Mbunda above others over conquest is not of my making but from independent sources cited [here]
  • It is naïve to accuse me of preferring Primary sources to secondary sources and claim that I am an official of a semi-political organization representing the interests and aspirations of the Mbunda people in Southern Africa. What is obtaining is that very little is written on several ethnic groups in Angola and therefore it takes an individual in possession of such primary source to expose it to academicians for scrutiny, as you indicated above relying on secondary sources to interpret the primary sources. And as I indicated elsewhere, my handicap was knowledge of Wikipedia policies as I started editing, resulting in uninformed arguments with kwami (talk) and Aflis (talk) , the two editors who have continued to help me tremendously. If the two were like RGC, I would have been blocked long ago and the history of the Mbunda people wouldn't have been exposed to the academicians.
  • It is evident, now that I cannot defend myself, he has been all over editing over my edit contributions over Mbunda articles, even what had consensus with other editors and disqualifying "Dr. Robert Papstein" as not a source, only to be stopped in his tracks by another editor as shown [here] and [here]
  • An Angolan Government source [here] cited to show that "Instituto de Línguas Nacionais (National Languages Institute) established spelling rules for Mbunda to facilitate teaching it in schools and promoting its use" which convinced Kwami and Aflis for the first time [here] has been suspiciously pulled down and RGC has taken advantage of that to re-write the sentence in the third paragraph [here] as opposed to [here]. This statement was in agreement with ethnologue.com [here], which he claims "Ethnologue confirms that their information is wrong" [here]
  • Yes I regret the COI part of it but it wasn't intentional, and since it has been brought to my attention I will try my best to comply with Wikipedia policies.
  • I am however still convinced that this is harassment as given [here], accept that he is an experienced editors and as a result he new how to cover himself.
  • Please guide me. Wll response to numerous edit reversals being done on my Mbunda articles like [here] by Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia without discussing on talk pages (talk) be regarded as violation of Wikipedia policies?
Once more, I appreciate your help. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Papstein

Hi Ndandulalibingi. Please see my note aon the Mbunda talk page concerning the use of Papstein's work. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit other people's comments on the talkpage

I don't know what you wanted to do [1], but please don't. It is one of the most serious violations to touch another editor's contributions, except where a gross mistake is corrected for clarity, and even then, an explanatory note is added. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you think of me, but I have not edited other people's comments on the talk page. These are my comments I was making clear and correcting the spelling mistakes. Please let us argue over facts and give sources as I have given. Let us not falsify issues. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luchazes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moxico. 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) 11:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bunda is not Mbunda people

Bunda is a city of Angola, plese do not link to Mbunda people. Hhmb (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hhmb (talk). I am not aware of the Bunda city in Angola. However, there is Bundas municipality of the Mbunda people in Moxico, Angola. There is also Bunda people in DRC Congo, an empirical evidence of Mbunda people migration into Angola. I believe this is how Bundas as a category not Bunda was linked to Mbunda people. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please, this is not the issue. You can not embrangle an article about a people with the articles about the cities inhabited by that people. Also, Wikipedia no longer uses direct links to articles in other languages​​, but it uses the Wikidata system. In Wikidata you can see that the city of Bunda has different links that Mbunda people. Please follow the parameters of Wikipedia - Wikidata. Thank you. Hhmb (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership Pages for Template

Hello Ndandulalibingi, the template featured here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Angola_state has a few layers of leadership missing. As you are quite knowledgeable about this area, I was hoping you could help fill out the rulers section for the following:

Much thanks in advance! Twillisjr (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Twillisjr (talk), I have no information on your inquiry, but I have added Mbunda Kingdom with all its rulers if you like. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On request that I made to you

Hi Ndandulalibingi. I have proposed to an editor that he approach you about the suggestion that I put to you about testing your theories and sources by exposing them at bigger articles, such as Bantu migration. I do believe this is a fair approach and let the community speak. You can see my request here. Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Challenged

Kindly point out which edit of mine has been challenged. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) Why don't you respond on the same talk page for transparency's sake? Please do so and I will give you the challenge. In law we don't jump from one branch to the other but follow the lead on the same argument. You claim I am thump-sucking, I am not dear.Ndandulalibingi (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly answer the question - which edit was challenged? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) You cannot just instruct me without acting on my suggestion above. Mutual respect is important, you challenged me on a specific fora and that is where subsequent arguments should follow. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I quote myself from higher up on this talk page: you may not write about yourself (e.g. Mbunda Kingdom), and you may not edit-war against established sources to make your organisation look better. This edit, by itself, is a violation of that, not to mention older ones, like this one where you both violated what I said and used a deceptive edit summary. Once this block expires, you're welcome to edit constructively, but any further editing of this sort will result in an indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pélissier

Hi Ndandulalibingi. I am a bit confused about this referenc that you used in a number of places: [REF:]René Pélissier, La révolte des Bunda (1916-1917), pp. 408 - 412 (French for "the Mbunda revolt"), section footnotes citing sources: Luís Figueira, Princesa Negra: O preço da civilização em África, Coimbra Edição do autor, 1932.[Ends REF]. Can you please explain what you mean by combining the two sources? Could you please explain what you mean by £section footnotes citing sources"? Kindly respond here so we can keep the discussion in one place. Thank you, regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk). The references were introduced by Aflis (talk). He might have read the books. He will be more helpful than me. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt reply. Yes, I did contact Aflis, he suggested I contact you. He says he 1. merely indicated the reference to you, 2. that he had no control over how it was used and 3. that it was reduced, showing only the part about the Mbunda Revolt, which is not the name of the book. He further says he has no idea how "Luís Figueira" got mixed up into the ref, says he does not even know who Luís Figueira is. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ndandulalibingi, it is really odd that you claim that the references were introduced by Aflis. I have found the following were introduced by yourself, matching the mixed up reference:

Ans the following correct references were also introduced by you:

Which tells us a number of things:

  • You are dishonest
  • You are now trying to blame someone else for it
  • You go as far as to stab in the back the only single person that has really helped you and stood by you
  • You have been using sources that you have never read
  • You have further falsified the sources and adulterated them

I guess this should really make the Mbunda people and King proud, to know that their history is being built on deceit. Over and above all this, in the process I also found out that you copy pasted dozens of pages straight from the Mbunda site, word for word. In the case of the Mbunda Kingdom, you pasted in 183,883 bytes Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Libingi: For health reasons, and although I am overall better off, I am still far from being fully operational, and my activity in wikipedia is extremely limited. As to the above remarks by Rui Gabriel Correia, my own option would be to help you overcome your quite evident shortcomings, and assume that you are basically of good faith. Unfortunately, I am still not in a condition to offer the systematicalo help you obviously need. Best Aflis (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ndandulalibingi. This serves to inform you of the admin intervention that I have asked for here. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk), I am at a loss at your remarks above. You ask me for my opinion and you call me dishonest. It is either I have a complete misconception of Wikipedia or someone is hell bent on my being indefinitely blocked and have my articles deleted completely. I thought Wikipedia works on the basis of editors introducing articles and others working together to develop those articles!

I hereby reproduce my discussion with Aflis (talk) on the references referred to above here. It is a pity I have to drug him in all this given his bad health. I honestly apologize to you Aflis. Please note his comments above. I understand them as somebody who has always made an effort to help me overcome my shortcomings in Wikipedia editing, which I appreciate very much. I am not an I know it all. I have therefore as a consequence used these references where the Mbunda revolt following the abduction of Mbandu Kapova Lyothzi is mentioned in the articles or claims you have highlighted above. Regarding my king you referred to in your preamble, he knows whatever I have written as truth from the "The History and Cultural life of The Mbunda Speaking People", which he possesses and read thorough rally, though I now know from our previous discussions that this is oral research, but the honest question is; Should it be discarded completely? That is not for me to answer but a choice of Wikipedia editors and administrators. My aim was to expose Mbunda History to academic scrutiny and I believe this is what is happening. I have tried to avoid editing since my last block except where clarification is requested or I am requested, like in the current case. I regret if this honest edit is going to earn me a block. Copied to Nyttend (talk). Ndandulalibingi (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it should be pretty clear to anyone reading this that the comment about being "dishonest" refers to:
  • 1. the fact that you claimed you never used Pélissier as a source and instead said someone did it, whereas within minutes I found out that that was not the case. Therefore you lied, and if you lied you were being dishonest.
  • 2. The fact that you are inseting sources to make the article look good — full of sources — when in fact you have not even read the sources. That is dishonest and there is a WP polciy on that somewhere.
  • 3. Now and also before you have been proven to add sources that do not support the text you are adding, that is dishonest
  • 4. You manipulate the information in the sources and write it the way it fits your vision or your objectives, when that is not what the author intended to say. That is dishonest.

On oral sources, of course they are important. All information starts off as oral or personal observation, personal experience etc. Then if it is found to be good it goes through a process of verification. To cite one example, your oral history tells you that the Mbunda in the DRC interacted with the Luba and and Lunda states. But did you verify the oral tradition? If you had, you would have found that he Luba Kingdom did not come into being until the late 1500s and the Lunda Kingdom not until the mid-1600s. The same goes for trusting one single source: If you have one source that says the sky is red, but 25 that say it is blue, I think it is best to question the one that says it is red. I am referring to your fanciful day-dreaming about the Mbunda coming from Axum in Sudan. For the record, the source you used was not even taling about colour of the sky - you deliberately manipulated the information to make it look as if it said in black and white that the Mbunda came from the Sudan. Both Kwamikagami and Aflis soon got annoyed with you, both warned you about the way you did things, both threatened to have you blocked. In one case, an article of yours was nominated for speedy deletion three times, despite Aflis asking to stop putting it back. Did you listen? No! Aflis has a good heart and he wants to give people a chance. But for long? You have been here (first as Libingi), from 18 September 2012 - that 34 months. In that time, what have you done to fix the articles that you created, as you promised to do to Kwami, Aflis and Nyttend? Nothing. Your priority was on flooding the WP about what you thought was important, REGARDLESS of what the article was about, whether it was language, people, culture, monarchs - you added the bit about the king being abducted to 12 different pages!!!! You added the bt about Ganguela being a fake laguage that displaced Mbunda to 8 or 9 different pages!! Aflis way back asked you not to do it. He has been at your side and how do your repay him? By doing as you want and ignoring what he is trying to teach you. By snubbing him, you undermine his credibility and his integrity. So, what do you want me to do? The only thing I can thing of if to do what I proposed - crop the articles and find you a tutor to work closely with you. For the record, I have not asked for a block. The adminsitrators do as they think is just on the strength of the facts presented. Nor did I ask for a block last week, but that is what you got because that is what you deserved. Admins also have to live up to the post they occupy. Imagime a judge sentencing a murderer to two weeks in jail - how would they ever be taken seriously? So, let's move forward and follow the rules. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome and I am more than willing to work with you. There is lots that can be done. We can even include some of the Mbunda oral history PROVIDED we keep it to one place, and it is clearly labelled as such and is balanced by facts. You could create a section on beliefs, customs, ceremonies, We could even create a new separate article on Mbunda culture, using good examples to guide us, such as Culture of Japan and Culture of the Cook Islands. It is all about working within the framework and there are enough people willing to help. You yourself should start looking at developing a few disciples so you are not the love Mbunda voice on the project. Later you could look at creating the Wikipedia Zambia Chapter. Ndapandula. Uteke uwa. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed excited by you calm tone of friendship. I will start working on your suggestions. This is how we started with Aflis and Kwami. I am sure with your guidance and others, something will be achieved. I have tones and tones to share with the world academicians. Njina kandeleleko, ukale muamuvua. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of the Mbunda people

Dear Ndandulalibingi. I would like to invite you to take a look at Culture of the Mbunda people. This is what I could think up, but naturally you would know better what should be included and what not. What we need to remember, is that this is about the present, so each section must start about the present, but we can obviously refer to the past. For example you could say that most Mbunda people live in this or that type of housing, in small groups or villages etc, BUT that this respresents a change from when they did it differently before. Naturally, the second portion would require a RS. Basically anything that anyone might query or dispute requires a RS: if you say they eat rice and meat, that is fine, if you say that eat grasshoppers, then that would require a source. I am looking forward to working with you on this and the other Mbunda articles. Kala po nawa. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) Chimene cacivua (Good morning). This is interesting and sets a tone for us to work together. I will start working on it and invite others also to register with Wikipedia and start contributing. Njambi akuvethzikithe (God bless you). Ndandulalibingi (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aflis (talk) and Nyttend (talk), I sincerely find continued and unfounded allegations by reviewer Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) against Dr. Robert Papstein here, somebody he doesn't know and what he calls for the Mbunda Cultural Council to be very unfortunate. He alleges that Papstein is an entirely unknown fringe writer, who writes on commission, including for the Mbunda Cultural Council to embellish Mbunda history. My question is: Can he sustain that allegation or he might be cited to be a reviewer with hidden interest towards Nganguela, introduced by Missionary Emil Pearson, whose foundation in South Africa is flooding Angola with what I can term a interlingual language? We intend to contact Dr.Robert Papstein to defend himself against these unproven accusations. We indicated earlier in our submissions that Dr. Robert Papstein did not only edit the Mbunda work but also helped the Luvale and others in Zambia.
Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk)'s proposal above followed by my response to participate, I thought was done in good faith, but these continued attacks are to the contrary. We are now in position of the book: Luís Figueira, Princesa Negra: O preço da civilização em África, Coimbra Edição do autor, 1932 which was introduced to me by Aflis (talk) as per our discussion here. It is a pity, English is not my mother language and therefore I indicated as though Aflis (talk) introduced the book on Wikipedia. Please note the last sentence, if Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) did not note it clearly, suggesting how I can use it.
Since this book is in Portuguese, it is being analyzed in Angola and we will be able to quote from it authentically sooner or later. If René Pélissier, La révolte des Bunda (1916-1917), pp. 408 - 412 used it as a source, we would be interested to know how the reviewer Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) will discard it as such.
I therefore regret that as long as unfounded attacks continue from reviewer Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) I will not be able to cooperate and contribute effectively to his proposal based on our primary sources which he intends to now accept to a certain extent in his proposal. I sincerely welcome the argument of the use of primary and secondary sources, I also appreciate the argument about the large volumes of information I introduced to be suitable for the a book but not an encyclopaedia, but not unfounded allegations to support an argument. There is ardent: "Two Wrongs Cannot Make A Right".
I equally note with regret that I have been introduced and subjected to very unrespectful and insulting language from some editors held in high esteem in Wikipedia. That does not augur well with a respectful organization. That is my advice. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Libingi: I am still not in a condition to do substantial work on WP, but at least follow my watchlists in several versions and exercise my brains by occasional minor edits. This is how I stumbled upon your complaint above. I confess I am very much surprised and disappointed that, contrary to my expectations, you and Rui Gabriel Correia have not succeeded in establishing a constructive working relationship. I shall not take any position on this, mainly because to do so would mean reading all the exchanges of niceties between the two of you which have taken place on several pages. Instead, and for the time being, I shall just make the following remarks: (a) As I am myself professionally rooted in the international network of (university based) social science research in African Studies, I have been picking up bits and pieces of information about Robert Papstein. My conclusion is that, like most of us (myself included), he is not an outstanding figure in the network, but a serious scholar whose work - especially on the Luvale (including the Lunda - Luvale interaction), more recently on Eritrea - is appreciated by his peers. I have found nothing that would justify imputing him unacademic behaviour in his cooperation with the Mbunda research group. (b) I am not sure you have fully understood what, some time ago, I tried to excplain with regard to the scientific standing of oral sources. Let me repeat: Oral sources are no doubt a valuable and legitimate source for historians, anthropologists etc.. And in the Mbunda case, the fact that a coherent narrative has been constructed on the basis of an oral tradition held alive by a considerable number of its bearers, is of exceptional interest. However (however!!), oral sources even more than any other kind of source, can never (never ever!!) be taken at face value. They can, of course, be cited/quoted/published, under the condition their nature is laid open. But they cannot be accepted as reflecting actual facts unless and until they are confirmed by other sources. Here is an illustration: Mbunda tradition speaks of a chief Kapova who was abducted by the Portuguese etc. etc. Not being aware of this tradition, a French historian, René Pélissier, finds (mostly primary) Portuguese written sources which tell the same story. Thus we can conclude that on this specific point the coincidence of sources justifies considering the facts in question as proven. This is then what you (or somebody else) has to do: take the narrative laid down in the book edited by Papstein, and provide other kinds of sources for at least the most essential points. --I sincerely hope these remarks are of some use. All the best Aflis (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aflis (talk), I dearly value your analytical advice. I have always found it as mature and to the point. Despite your professional standing, you do not carry yourself to be all knowing. Your advice and that of Nyttend (talk) is the more reason I said above that: "I sincerely welcome the argument of the use of primary and secondary sources, I also appreciate the argument about the large volumes of information I introduced to be suitable for the a book but not an encyclopaedia". However, the spirit of character assassination and insults exhibited in my complaint should be checked by administrators. I wish you a steady recovery. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Libingi Nyttend is an administrator of the WP in English.Aflis (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contact

Hello, Ndandulalibingi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Aflis (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Ndandulalibingi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Aflis (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ndandulalibingi: did you receive the emails I sent you???? --79.168.79.111 (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC) PS: Sorry, I forgot to log in before writing: old age, I suppose... --Aflis (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

..Ohoo! It is always nioe for me to hear from you. However, I have not received your email. Please resend it on mbundakingdom@yahoo.com Ndandulalibingi (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

As I said several months ago, stop the disruptive editing on the subject of the Mbunda, or you will be blocked indefinitely. You have continued this disruption, so the promised block has been levied. You can still edit this talk page, so you can request an unblock, but it will not be granted unless you can convince us that you will not again disrupt Mbunda-related topics or make personal attacks against other editors, e.g. accusations of hatred. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ndandulalibingi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Nyttend (talk) I respect your position and action of blocking me. I saw the blocking notification the same day. However, I had to sober up and reflect in the past days. I regret having to learn the hard way. I acted out of tremendous pressure from a fellow editor and I have resolved never to respond to anyone challenging me on Wikipedia, if I am ever given the chance to edit again. To you as a respected Administrator from the time I started interacting with you, allow me to express my humble feelings that, in my opinion both reasons given for my blocking (disruptive editing and attacks against other editors are reviewable, as I will detail this out later. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have read and re-read this message, and I do not see anything in it that could be considered to be an explanation of why you think you should be unblocked, nor is there any indication of how your editing will be different in future if you are unblocked. Therefore, there is no unblock request to consider. I shall also say, however, that for three years you have edited, using two accounts, persistently refusing to accept Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and persistently being unable or unwilling (I can't tell which) to understand the reasons that other editors have patiently explained to you over and over again why what you are doing is considered unhelpful. It is difficult to believe that after all that you are suddenly going to change now, so even if you can manage to write an unblock request which actually requests an unblock, it seems unlikely to me that unblocking you will benefit the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.