Talk:Angolan Civil War

Wikipedia 1.0 — (talk) FAQ — To do
Release version tools Guide — (talk) — (stats)
Article selection process (talk) Version 0.8 bot selection Version 0.8 feedback
IRC channel (IRC)
Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
Version 0.8 release (manual selection) (t)
"Selection" project (Talk) schools selection Offline WP for Indian Schools
CORE TOPICS CORE SUPPLEMENT Core topics - 1,000 (Talk) (COTF) (bot)
TORRENT (Talk)
"Selection" project for kids ((t))
WORK VIA WIKI PROJECTS (talk)
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
Static content subcom.

This is the Version 1.0 Editorial Team page.

General background

Article ratings assessment scheme

In late 2003, Jimmy Wales had proposed making an offline release version of Wikipedia. This group was formed in late 2004 to meet this challenge. Our work involves identifying and organizing articles, and improving and maintaining a core set. Our work does not hinder the existing wiki process for creating and editing articles, but rather it supports that work by providing additional organization. We aim to produce collections that can be used in places where the internet coverage is expensive or non-existent. Our early collections were distributed via DVD; now these are shared via download, then distributed on hardware such as a Raspberry Pi. Originally, only a fixed selection was available, but there is now much flexibility in how selections can be made. This project is now mainly one point in a network of groups who collect and distribute open educational resources from the Internet in an offline form.

See these more detailed related articles:

• Guide to Wikipedia Release Version tools
• Wikipedia 1.0 FAQs
• Wikipedia 1.0 Release Version Criteria
• Broad overview of Wikimedia's Offline Project

How you can help

Main page: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/To do

You are encouraged to join us and help out with one of the projects, or to discuss Wikipedia 1.0 on the talk page. A significant part of our work centers around maintaining the assessment scheme, which is now used on more than seven million articles by over 1000 active WikiProjects on the English Wikipedia. It is also being used on other language projects. Generally work on this team is sporadic – periods of hectic activity followed by long periods of waiting! Often work is long and tedious – checking through a list of 22,000 instances of profanities one by one, organizing 10,000 keywords taken from category names, or dealing with technical bugs when the assessment bot fails for no apparent reason. However, it is all worth it in the end.

Our strategy has been intensely debated, but the group has reached a consensus. We elected not to follow the German model. Instead we chose to start with a core of quality articles on key subjects and expand from there. We have produced three test versions: Version 0.5, Version 0.7, and Version 0.8 with the goal of releasing better collections of articles in due course. The next general release is generically referred to as "Release Version" while our first "official" comprehensive release will be called Version 1.0. These collections are then made available for offline use using a reader such as Kiwix, which was chosen as Sourceforge project of the month. The project was on hiatus for several years because of the loss of our main developer. However, as of February 2016, a new group of developers has begun work on upgrading the code and the process, in order to start producing new collections again, especially collections for schools.

Current needs

Although we have much of the requisite system automated, there are still some outstanding tasks:

• Preparation of a reliable index. If you can write code and you're interested in how to map category trees into a useful index (not as easy as it sounds!) please contact Walkerma.
• Reviewing manual nominations. Whenever there is a new release being planned, we need volunteers to review a few articles and process them.
• Propose useful "guide" pages to be added, such as lists and disambiguation pages.
• Check for vandalism in the selected version-IDs of the articles.
• Develop nice pages for navigation through the content, such as subject portals.
• Test the reader software, and find and report bugs.
• Help with distribution, especially in remote areas without Internet access.

Please let us know on the Talk page if you can help with any of these.

A page read offline in Kiwix

Status

At present, the main activities are:

• The assessment scheme, which is used by WikiProjects for organizing their content, using talk page tags and the WP1.0 bot. The bot was updated with completely new Perl code in 2020–2021, and it is currently maintained by User:Audiodude. Technical problems with the bot should be reported here. Related to this work is the WP1.0 server (previously called "Release Version Tools) which provides ways for WikiProjects to analyze article lists and data relating to their work.
• Collaborations to produce offline collections are done in collaboration with various people from Kiwix and Internet-in-a-Box. Please contact Walkerma if you wish to help.

To select articles, we are mainly using a bot-assisted selection process based on assessment by individual WikiProjects, where articles are selected automatically based on quality and importance project rankings.

RevID selection

Based on discussions (at the 2017 Potsdam hackathon and since), we plan to reactivate RevID selection. Previously code based on WikiTrust was used in Version 0.8, and this appeared to produce a largely vandalism-free collection of articles. This worked by scoring each RevID based on the edits remaining in it, and choosing the most "trustworthy" recent RevID based on the WikiTrust algorithm.

Wikipedia 1.0 projects

Active projects

If you would like to start a new project, please discuss it on the talk page first before adding it here.

Wikipedia 1.0 Projects
Name	Summary of overall strategy	Coordinator	Description of activities
School selection	Put together selections of 1–10 GB sizes for use in high schools and elementary schools	User:Walkerma and others	Uses new code that starts with a seed and works out, guided by the WP 1 selection ranking to guide it
Work via WikiProjects (WVWP)	Use "networking" to mobilise our existing subject specialists	User:Walkerma	Organise and facilitate compilation of article lists from the WikiProjects and seek to identify important topics within each WikiProject's area of expertise. Locate important topics that are currently not being managed by projects. In conjunction with WP:COUNCIL, the project serves as a link with the editing community, and may later help locate expert reviewers.

Past releases

Past Wikipedia 1.0 Projects
Name	Summary of overall strategy	Month of release	Description of activities	Website	Next release
Version 0.5	A test release prior to release of Version 1.0 above.	April 2007	A test release designed to pave the way for Version 1.0. Used manual nominations and approval based on importance and quality. Approval was by only one person, from the review team.	Okawix	Version 0.7
Version 0.7	A test release of automated article selections, prior to release of Version 1.0 above.	Early 2010	A test release designed to pave the way for Version 1.0. Used SelectionBot to make an article selection based on importance and quality. Vandalism prevention used a script, with manual checks, which delayed the release significantly. [1]	Kiwix reader, ZIM download	Version 0.8
Version 0.8	A test release of automated article selections, prior to release of Version 1.0 above.	March 2011	A test release designed to pave the way for Version 1.0. Version 0.8 used bot-assisted article selection, with manual adjustments based on feedback from WikiProjects. Used as a test of the WikiTrust revisionID selection code - this worked well.	Wikipedia:Version 0.8/downloads.	Version 0.9
2006 Wikipedia CD Selection (previously called "Test Version")	Work with release version done off site that was coordinated by BozMo	April 2006	2000 articles with content filtered/selected for use by children (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection).	No longer available - see 2008/9 release below	2007 Wikipedia CD Selection (below)
2007 Wikipedia CD Selection	Work with release version done off site that was coordinated by BozMo	May 2007	4655 articles with content filtered/selected for use by children (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection).	No longer available - see 2008/9 release below	2008/9 Wikipedia CD Selection (below)
2008/9 Wikipedia CD Selection	Work with release version done off site that was coordinated by BozMo	October 2008	5502 articles with content filtered/selected for use by children (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection).	http://schools-wikipedia.org	Not yet known

Inactive projects

Inactive Wikipedia 1.0 Projects
Name	Summary of overall strategy	Coordinator	Description of activities
Authoritative Editions	Gives experts in each field the tools to review suitable articles in their area of expertise and give their okay to particular revisions.	Sj, Jeff Keller, Gnp	Allow editors to propose new groups; for example: "Featured Article review" or "American Physical Society peer review". Each blessing group would have a set of review guidelines. Each blessing group would consist of this set of guidelines, and a set of users who could bless a revision of an article as satisfying them. Articles with blessed revisions would display icons or links to last-blessed revisions.
Featured Articles First	reviewing older or problem FAs to ensure that quality is maintained, ready for inclusion of these articles in Wikipedia 1.0.		(Now a standard part of the FA system)
Geography project	to produce a descriptive gazetteer of the world for publication.		This could include an atlas, continents, countries and major cities. This would serve as a test bed for publishing Wikipedia 1.0, but could also be a valuable stand-alone product.
Three Level Editing	Users participate in a three part editing process to assure that pages are up to quality standards.		The first level is just a general check, the second level is a factual check, and the third level is a last "just in case" check. This process would assure that articles would be up to standards without putting too much responsibility on one user.
Biographies	Improve and assess biographical articles		Focus especially on the 200 Core Biographies, in conjunction with Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. .
Dynamic Pocket Cyclopedia	Lists most important FAs, FLs, and GAs.		An evolving list of no more than half of Wikipedia's most important featured articles, featured lists, and designated good articles.
WikiSort	Integrate the sifting process into the Wiki.		Aims to use data from the planned user rating scheme to provide rankings of articles, such that important quality articles can be automatically identified for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. This project has been rendered obsolete by WikiProject-based assessments (see above).
Article assessment	To assess articles		This project has been rendered obsolete by WikiProject-based assessments (see above).

Publishing steps

The process of generating an offline version of a sub-selection of Wikipedia article is multistage. It needs many dedicated and singled-purposed operations. The following chart show how the WP1 project envisioned things in 2010.

The general process for producing an offline release

Even if this chart is still, to a large extend, valid; we practice and envision things slightly differently nowadays. One of the most important paradigm change we had to make is to remove as much as possible human based manual activity because the amount of work is simply too high to be achieved in a reasonable amount of time. We tend now to automatize as much as possible the whole process. As a consequence the project is now predominantly focused on technology.

Technical approach

Support Wikiproject assessment effort

The first software created to support the WP1 project has been the User:WP_1.0_bot. First written in Perl by User:CBM and then slighly modified and maintained by a few other volunteers. In 2020 the bot has been totally rewritten in Python following modern development standards (API, automated tests, etc.) by User:Audiodude. The code base is available en developed on Github.

The WP1bot had and still have three traditional purposes:

• gather assessments (via categories introduced on main namespace articles talk pages),
• upload on Wikipedia logs & stats
• provide key information & tools to Wikiproject on a dedicated Web service. The data can also be accessed through an API at api.wp1.openzim.org

Select article titles

...

Select article revision

...

Scrape selected articles for offline usage

...

Orchestrate periodic and multiple scraping

...

Publish and distribute offline snapshots

...

Statistics

The WP 1.0 bot tracks assessment data (article quality and importance data for individual WikiProjects) assigned via Talk page banners. If you would like to add a new WikiProject to the bot's list, please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot.

The global summary table below is computed by taking the highest quality and importance rating for each assessed article in the main namespace.

All rated articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low ??? Total FA 1,566 2,476 2,391 1,917 180 8,530 FL 180 671 774 703 104 2,432 A 363 681 789 578 85 2,496 GA 3,195 7,254 14,637 19,247 1,742 46,075 B 16,766 32,490 53,704 67,030 21,406 191,396 C 16,719 53,541 133,790 302,409 86,595 593,054 Start 18,486 92,143 413,762 1,596,524 400,728 2,521,643 Stub 4,216 31,595 278,472 2,789,626 758,989 3,862,898 List 4,809 16,984 53,486 191,212 67,113 333,604 Assessed 66,300 237,835 951,805 4,969,246 1,336,942 7,562,128 Unassessed 127 497 1,282 19,140 433,372 454,418 Total 66,427 238,332 953,087 4,988,386 1,770,314 8,016,546 About this table

Related pages

General

• Jimbo's proposal, Chicago Meetup - Jimbo's Oct 2004 ideas on how to get to 1.0.
• Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0 Early discussion page for brainstorming ideas, before this team was created.
• meta:Wikipedia 1.0
• meta:Static content group

Assessment and validation

• Wikipedia:Article assessment
• meta:Article validation and Wikipedia:Pushing to validation - argue the benefit of article validation and possible implementations
• Wikipedia:Flagged revisions (similar to the older "stable versions")
  • Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions
  • Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Quality versions
  • Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/reliable revisions
  • Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Checkpoints and grading
  • Demo version of flagged revisions
• Wikipedia:Footnotes
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Request for comment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check

Wikipedia books

• Wikipedia:Books & meta:WikiReader - Wikipedia books are collections of articles from Wikipedia on a certain topic, in the form of PDFs published for download and intended to be printed, and also to be sold in printed form.
• The Book Tool, and Wiki to print, a collaboration between the Foundation and OSI/PediaPress.

Article selections

• Wikipedia:Vital articles
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles - Filling the gaps.
• Wikipedia:Good articles
• Featured Articles
  • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
  • Wikipedia:Featured articles
  • Wikipedia:What is a featured article
  • Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates
• Wikipedia:Stable versions

See also

• List of online encyclopedias - compare Wikipedia with other projects

Flag

In the info box, should the South African flag be the current flag or the flag at the time of the conflict? --Danny Reese 14:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be the one that was flown at the time of the conflict-- 12oct06 Sponge1354

Problems with the picture

Wow, that is a horrible photo to use. First off, most of the writing is in Chinese. Secondly, Cabinda, which is formally part of Angola, is not included as such in the picture. Ouch. I say delete it.-Thomas.macmillan 02:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fnlaflag.gif

Image:Fnlaflag.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

The article has many problems. For one thing it is incoherent by refering to persons without explaining who they are or their role. The timeline is jumps back and forth. Som attempts to begin to correct this was reverted: [2] Please explain, there are many other things unsourced and these statemetns are not controversial and a necessary introduction.Ultramarine 14:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material

Please explain this deletion of sourced material: [3]Ultramarine 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

1. You are not adding sourced material. 2. You are moving events that took place in the 1970s out of the 1970s section. 3. Your previous statement on this talkpage indicated that you were only interested in causing disruption. Perspicacite 15:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I were extensively adding sourced material, like "On January 15, 1975, the independence treaty was signed. Elections were to to be held within nine months and full independence were to be proclaimed on Novemver 11, 1975. 400,000 Portuguese departed during February-June 1975. Tensions quickly emerged and the coalition government collapsed on August 14." 2. Give example please. 3. What statement? Ultramarine 15:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The example you just provided demonstrates why this content should not be added: it's vague, misspelled, and does not follow the reference style currently used. The international agreement is the Alvor Agreement. You misspelled "November." You did not mention either the author or the publication date of the book you are citing. Your grammar is also incorrect: "independence was to be proclaimed" not "were to be proclaimed." The statement I was referring to is immediately preceding this section. Perspicacite 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Spelling or reference style can be corrected. The exact details of the source could be easily found by clicking on the link. I can cite it in full details in this article if you prefer. If your only objections are spelling and reference style, I will correct these before adding back the material. Considering this, any objections to adding back the sourced material? Ultramarine 15:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Post what you wish to add here with spelling and grammatical corrections and the same reference style. Provided it meets that burden I have no problem having it added to the article. Perspicacite 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

See here: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox3. Any objections to changing to this? Ultramarine 16:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes... you have the same content in the introduction as in the separate section "The Civil War." I also do not understand why there is a separate section with that title, as the article deals solely with the civil war. Perspicacite 17:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The introduction is a summary. It is supposed to repeat some of the material in the body. I changed the title to "The factions in the civil war"Ultramarine 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I feel like I'm beating a dead horse. You still have basic grammatical errors in the text. "were" instead of "was," missing periods, etc. Perspicacite 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you point them out, I will correct them. That is not a reason for excluding material.Ultramarine 17:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point I'm going to have to suggest getting a third opinion because I truly do not see the point of adding the proposed content. Perspicacite 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Another point, you said the Caetano government was quickly replaced by a Democratic government, but the National Salvation Junta ruled Portugal for two years. Perspicacite 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Junta quickly declared the intention to restore democracy and held elections in 1975. But we can certainly clarify this. Any other concrete objection? Ultramarine 17:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Made some corrections to clarify as per above. Anything else? Ultramarine 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

GAC Review

1. Broad: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Neutral POV: Pass
4. Images: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-written: Pass

Well written article all in all. Pass.Mitch^contribs 22:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I don't believe this article received an adequate review. It doesn't appear to meet the GA criteria. For that reason, I am nominating it for review at WP:GA/R. Please feel free to participate in the discussion there.

Some of the issues I noticed in scanning the article:

• Years in dates need to be wikified for user date preferences.
• Copyrighted image needs a fair use rationale.
• References need to be formatted according to WP:CITE with all available information included. LARA♥LOVE 19:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Regards, LARA♥LOVE 19:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I, Perspicacite, am reposting the following note originally posted on WP:GAR:

Angolan Civil War:

Angolan Civil War (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I don't believe this article received an adequate review. There is a copyright image which lacks a fair use rationale and a movie poster that is inappropriately being used in this article (the copyright on the image clearly states it is only appropriate for fail use when it is used to provide critical commentary on the film in question or the poster it self; additionally, the fair use rationale for this image should be specific to each article in which it is used, not a blanket FUR for all uses), the years are not wikified in full dates and some dates are not wikified at all, it's very stubby in places with many one-sentence paragraphs, there is a main article link to a redlink article, there are inconsistencies in formatting voting results (ie. 54-22 vs. 12/91), I believe the use of dashes needs to be corrected, it is in need of a good copy-edit, and the references are not consistently formatted correctly. LARA♥LOVE 19:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist per nomination. The footnotes/citations in particular are a mess. Drewcifer 04:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is a problem with the movie image then it should just be removed - it's not important. Are the other images acceptable? The years I disagree with you on. There seems to be a drive to link to every year every time it appears an article. I linked to years the first time they appear in the article. If there's a specific requirement in the GA standards for linking to years please point it out. I'll remove the main article dead link. There is no inconsistency in the voting results. The second example you provided, 12/91, is not a vote. It's the name of a law: "Law 12/91." What's wrong with the dashes? Which sections need copy-editing? Up until I began converting the refs to Cite book a minute ago, all refs had the same formatting. Perspicacite 06:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the movie image and replaced the main article link. Perspicacite 06:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

First, in response to your comment on my talk page, it's not delisted; that's the nomination at GA/R and the first !vote (not actually a vote, more of a recommendation).

Okay, on to the article:

• There is a copyrighted image (not the poster, which needs to be removed) that needs a fair use rationale.
• The years need to be wikified for user date preferences. Some users choose to have their dates displayed as 2007-09-04, but the code is broken if the year is not wikified or if it is a piped link.
• I corrected the dashes. Dashes between years and such should be N dashes.
• The lead needs to be expanded to summarize the article. Currently, it's more of a definition.
• As for the votes, I understand now. I thought it was saying the law was passed by a vote of 12/91, so disregard that.
• A good copy-edit would condense the stubby paragraphs throughout the article. A sequence of one-sentence paragraphs doesn't look good.
• As far as USD $ vs. US$, please see WP:$.

Good luck with the article and best regards, Lara♥Love 16:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues have been addressed. Article will remain listed. Thank you and best regards. Lara❤Love 06:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"ANC" involvement in Shaba I

I intend to remove the reference to "African National Congress" because I've seen no evidence for the involvement of the South African anti-apartheid movement which is now the ruling political party in South Africa in the conflict. There is no evidence that the African National Congress ever conducted any military operations in, or from, Angola. I admit that there may be a reference in sources to "ANC" but, in this case, it refers to the Armée Nationale Congolaise, the Congolese armed forces from 1960-71, some of whose elements (especially the former Katangese gendarmerie) opposed to Mobutu moved across the border into Angola after he became President of Congo-Kinshasa. Kahuzi 17:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I mentioned it on your talkpage at the time, but in case I never did... yeah, that was a really stupid mistake on my part. Perspicacite 12:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image

May I just ask, what is an image of a Croatian T-55 doing in the lead of the Angolan Civil War article? Bogdan ^що? 00:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Spaniards assure me it's a Cuban-owned tank fighting in Angola. Perspicacite 01:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I guess it is possible that the originally Croatian tank (see here) was sold from the Croatian defense council to Cuba. Bogdan ^що? 01:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Bogdan, you were right, and I was wrong Spanish Wikipedia was wrong. Moved from User talk:Dynaflow and User talk:Perspicacite:

Hi, I saw you removed the infobox image on Angolan Civil War. While you are correct in that the tank is Croatian, the picture is of combat in the Angolan Civil War. Cuba bought many tanks from Eastern Europe which it used in the 70s and 80s when it invaded Angola. Would you mind restoring it? If there is any question as to the accuracy of its placement, see the Spanish Wikipedia article - they also use it in the infobox there. Jose João 06:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because it is of a Croatian T-55 at Barbara Range, an SFOR drive-around-and-blow-stuff-up area near Glamoč, in Bosnia. There is no apparent connection between that picture and the Angolan Civil War. --Dynaflow babble 06:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? How do you know the tank was in Glamoc? I added it based on what I found at the Spanish Wikipedia. Jose João 06:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The winter-weight, rather un-Cuban-looking uniforms and the residual snow at higher elevations on the hillsides tipped me off, and the summary on the image page (Image:HVO Army T-55 Glamoc firing MG.jpg) confirmed it. I've also gone and removed the images from es.wikipedia. --Dynaflow babble 06:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Inexplicable reverts by User:Perspicacite

Is there a justifiable reason for removing the conversion template (that converts metric measurements to US measure amongst other conversions) from our article?

These are the two (unexplained) reversions: [4] and [5]

Normally, I would ask the reverter, but he consistently removes my questions without appropriate response (eg: [6]) and I really don't wish to engage in an edit war. Equally I can not imagine what is controversial and unacceptable about providing alternative measurements. Alice.S 16:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The edits by Alice.S seem bonafide to me. --Ezeu (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions for User:Perspicacite

Your very first edit upon returning from a 48 hour block for edit warring was to revert your fellow editors again with an edit summary of: "rv, mix of vandalism and unexplained removal of references (also vandalism?)".

Please would you now quickly tell us exactly

1. which references were removed (use the <nowiki></nowiki> mark-up to precisely specify here)
2. what the "vandalism" was
3. why you have removed the conversion template (that converts metric measurements to US measure amongst other conversions) from our article again? Alice.S 22:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see...

• Number one, you are one person so you should not be referring to yourself in the plural.
• Number two, you shouldnt be editing this article because..
  • a. You clearly are unfamiliar with Angola and Angolan history
  • b. You followed me here to harass me.
• This was vandalism.[7] Do you really want to dispute that that's vandalism? Really? Jose João 22:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please would you answer the questions so that we can progress. Either references were removed or they were not. If you do not address yourself to the 3 questions I posed, it must be assumed that your edit summary was false and you will then require alternative justifications for your revert(s). Alice.S 22:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from restoring vandalism to Rhodesia and using a sockpuppet to vandalize Angolan Civil War. If you continue, you will be blocked. Jose João 22:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please answer the questions so that we can progress. Either references were removed or they were not. If you do not address yourself to the 3 questions I posed, it will be assumed that your edit summary was false and you are just attempting diversionary tactics. You have made a request for the Arbitration Committee to examine my behaviour and if I have indeed been engaging in the sins you describe, they will deal with it. Until then, if you can not answer any of the three questions I posed above you will require alternative justifications for your revert(s). Alice.S 23:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You really should have been banned when you knowingly restored vandalism to Rhodesia. If you get away with it here, I will eat my hat. Jose João 23:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of knowingly restoring vandalism on our Rhodesia article. Now would you please stick to this article and your reversions and please answer the questions so that we can progress. Either references were removed or they were not. If you do not now address yourself to the 3 questions I posed, your edit summary was false and you are just attempting diversionary tactics. You have made a request for the Arbitration Committee to examine my behaviour and if I have indeed been restoring vandalism , they will deal with it. Until then, if you can not answer any of the three questions I posed above you will require alternative justifications for your revert(s). Alice.S 23:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite not being able to provide any justification for damaging and inexplicable reverts, edit warring has continued today: [8] Alice.S 18:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Jose João 18:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite alias Jose João: That template is not intended to be used on article discussion pages (or for regular users either). Please specify exactly what the vandalism was that you believe you were countering when you reverted here again and why you keep removing relevant cited information and useful conversion templates. Alice.S 18:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)