User talk:Beepsie

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Punkmorten 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Nzinga Mbande

From your comments back in February it seems like you may know about how this name should be pronounced. I have tried to put it into IPA as requested, but the English orthography version is not clear to me. Is it "zhin-ga" with an 'n' AND a 'g', or "zhinga" with a 'ng' as in 'sing'? In IPA [ʒɪngæ} or [ʒɪŋæ]?

Thanks in advance for your help --Slp1 13:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Plea for some help

I've been working on a number of pages in Wikipedia, mostly relating to pre-1900 Central Africa, which has been my speciality for over 30 years, and on which I can claim considerable expertise from reading all the relevant primary materials in all the relevant languages. I've authored two books on the Kingdom of Kongo and probably 30 articles and I teach African history at Boston University.

I want to make the Wikipedia treatment of this area as good as it can possibly be, since I realize that it so widely used as a resource by students across the world. I used to write entries for print encyclopedias and handbooks which began proliferating in the 1990s becasue I believed it was important to get African history out to students in particular who had access to limited resources. Wikipedia promises to do what none of these resources could do, and so I have abandoned the print media. So much for the emotional introduction!

My current concern is with the kinglist of the kingdom, and I am really not able to fix what I see is a problem. I created a kinglist for Kongo, which appears at the bottom of the main article, and also on a second site called "List of Manikongos" (or approximately that) that is cross referenced in the other links section of the main article on the Kingdom of Kongo. This other list, which was created before my interventions in the development of this section, is, I believe not as accurate as the one I have generated, but it is set up as an "African royal family" and has the nice feature at the bottom of each entry that has "predecessor" and "successor" sections, that allow someone purusing the thread of successive kings to go from one reign to the next.

I would like to substitute my kinglist for this one, so that I can gradually fill in content in the kings under the correct names and with correct dates, etc. However, I cannot do that with the present list because it is incorrect, uses French forms of the kings' names and does not always have the right names in the right order.

How can I fix this or what do I have to do and can anyone help me with the mechanics of doing this? I have tried to be respectful of the work of others who edit this site, and am reluctant to just try overthrowing the older king list, but at the same time I feel frustrated in trying to make the site work and be strictly accurate.

It is problematic I think to have several competing versions of the king list, unless there is a real controversy about the topic among those who have studied the documents, and even then it needs to be gathered under one roof or clearly labeled. There may be issues that could be controversial in this, but the controversial issues are not the ones that make the other king lists inaccurate.

Beepsie 14:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Speedy Deletion Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Pedro I of Kongo) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 18:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

War of 1622

Hi, beepsie. you may not remember me, but we talked a while back. I was wondering if i could get your help on something. I'm currently doing a massive edit of the Kingdom of Kongo article. Check it out if you get some free time to see what's been done lately (found the kongo coat of arms, added table). Right now i'm trying to put references in for the page and i'm having trouble verifying some of the info during the war of 1622. You made an edit on May 15 of this year that Pedro II of Kongo defeated the Portuguese and their Imbangala allies in or near Mbanda Kasi. I'm a newbie to Central African history so generally I take your word for it in matters such as this. However, when scouring the net and my own impressive library of african history books, I couldn't find any info regarding a Kongo victory during this conflict. Online I found one reference saying Pedro II did declare Angola an enemy and marched out to meet the force. The source also says the portuguese got wind of this and vacated Kongo territory before any battle took place. Can you please fill me in or where you learned that Pedro fought and won a battle against the Portuguese and also your info on where this battle took place. I know the edit took place a while back, but i'd really appreciate your help. I wan't to make the Kongo page as excellent as possible so my references must be air tight. Thnx in advance.Scott Free 20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Kimpa Vita

Thnx for bringing that to my attention. I just fixed it. don't know why some people got to be so stupid. thnx 4 finally getting back with me. did u ever come across the source for that battle i asked about in 1622. I've been working every weekend on the kongo page (i haven't put any edits up just yet tho) and have amassed a huge amount of info. You're welcome to it, just hit me with ur email and i'll send u my PDF files (I have JSTOR articles i get from my university). When you get a second, check out the Kongo Civil War page I put up. It probably still needs some tweaking but I think its a good start. Holla back.Scott Free 15:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Mbanda Kasi

Hi :) Just read your comments on the Kongo talk page. I just want to say you are a Prince among Princes, my friend and thank you for your contributions. I can't wait to pick up the book. I tried to order it like a month a go from my local Borders but they said it wouldn't be available to like september. Thnx for filling us in on the battle. Feel free to put that section back into the article if you haven't already. I'm not even close to finishing the makeover (30% done). At this rate and with your help tho, the Kongo page may just surpass the Mali Empire page. Take care and god bless.Scott Free 15:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Kandas

Just finished looking at the kanda page. Looks good to me. Thnx for ur contrib. I also appreciate the heads up on the changes. But please, don't fill obligated to tell me. You've proven you more than know what ur talking about. Plus I have the page on watch along with all articles i'm messing with. I'm not sure if ur new to wiki, but in case u are, u can click the watch tab above any article so u can observe any changes to it. Also, make sure to sign your comments. Just click the "Scott Free 16:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)" link below where it says "Sign your username". That makes it easier to get back to u. Once again, thnx for your contribution. You've made the page far better than I did. I just wanted to provide a jump off point. There's so much Kongo history to work on! Take care and keep up the good work :) Scott Free 16:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Other Kandas

Hi its me again. It looks like u've already hit up the other kanda articles (Kimpanzu, Kinlaza, Agua Rosada) which is great as i'm swamped with work right now. While i'm online I did have one question for u. There is a page for the House of Nsundi and I plan on moving the page (or title) to the name of the kanda. I am confused however on whether that should be Kinkanga or Kinkanga a Mvika. Which one is more accurate? Please hit me back ASAP.Scott Free 16:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Kanda names

A lot of issues here. We'd like to standardize terminology and all that, it's a fascination we have these days. But folks back then were not as concerned about it--look at all the various ways that things were spelled in the 17th century, not just in English, where there are a dozen ways that Shakespeare signed his own name, but in most other languages. Kongo writers compounded this because they usually wrote in Portuguese. Anyway, our best guess for the third of the contesting families, geracoes, makanda, etc. is Kinkanga a Mvika. This name is used for the house in Bernardo da Gallo's account of Kongo history written in 1710. It is also the Kikongo name of Pedro II, founder of the house/kanda, so it makes sense as a lineage name. But in modern traditions, for example the one in Nkutama a Mvila za Makanda (published first in 1934--BTW, this amazing book is available as a free download on line, although I have not taken the time to figure out how to link these resources to the articles, which is a plague on me). In this account, repeated now as a proverb, it is just called Kinkanga. So it's take your choice.

The names of lineages are in various forms today, some take the two element name of the founder (that would be a given name, plus father's given name), others only the given name element. Still others, however, might take a title (Mfutila, Kapitau) as their name. This latter was true in the 16th century, for in a letter to the Kongolese factor in Sao Tome, Rodrigo de Santa Maria, Pedro I (now overthrown and living protected in a church) wrote to note that Diogo I was chasing down and persecuting everyone of "our family (geracao) of Quibala." Quibala (Kibala) is not a given name, but derives from the Kikongo word mbala, meaning royal court. Beepsie 14:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Beepsie

Hi. I ran across the kibala kanda as well a while back. What i've been trying to figure out for the longest is what was the kanda of the early kings. Were they all of the Kibala kanda? If so, what was the kanda of Diogo I. I'm assuming it was not Kibala from Pedro's protestations. I've managed to track down and cite the kandas of most pre-civil war (before 1665) awenekongo (List of rulers of Kongo. Could really use your help on the early kings. I was at first under the impression it was a kanda called Nimi. Then I found that there was a Mwene Lukeni represented at the royal court representing the founder (Lukeni lua Nimi). I'm gonna be safe and just remove the Nimi kanda and put back "Early Kings" until we can get this hammered out. Holla back. And thnx for all ur work! Scott Free 14:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

HI Scott, sorry to take so long to get to this. I'm guessing that you've read my article on elite women in early Kongo. I think the problem is that the kandas, as in dynasties descended from a common ancestor really didn't come up in Kongo until after Mbwila with the emergence of the Kimpanzu and Kinlaza. Before that the lineage and descent groups were very flexible and thus resistent to long term naming. The problem you identify, that is the two kandas in contestation in 1550 when Diogo had the inquest into the plot against him by Pedro Nkanga a Mvemba is indeed a problem. Mwene Lukeni is presumably the leader of a descent group, while "nossa geracao de quibala" also seems to relate to a descent group with a name. But I don't think these names were very long lasting, and as you point out were formed by rivals from the same general descent group, often in the same generation. This is not the way the Kimpanzu and Kinlaza worked, for the groups had hardened, and this is what makes the post Mbwila civil war different from the pre civil war Kongo. So I think it's a good idea not to try to organize the kings into lineages before the Kimpanzu-Kinlaza split.

A second question concerns the House of Coilo and the House of Sundi reported by Mateus Cardoso in 1624. These are clearly ancestral units to the Kimpanzu and the Kinkanga a Mvika of Bernardo da Gallo's account, or the three stones tradition which was current in the 20th century. The fact that the three are remembered in tradition tells us that they clearly had legs and when they became fixed in tradition even Kinkanga a mvika, which da Gallo said "fa totalmente a terra" (went totally to the ground) was included. I think these were really intermediate kinship organizations, though notice this, their orientation is geography (Kwili vs Nsundi) rather than kinship, even though their basis was not geography.

Here's what I think. These questions are on the leading edge of thinking about Kongo and right now there is not scholarly opinion on them. So I would say, keep the organization into Houses (for the early sevneteenth century) and Kandas for the late seventeenth through twentieth centuries, and leave the early kings without membership.65.96.237.238 (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Beepsie: Allegations of sockpuppetry can be devastating and hurtful on WP, so it might be an idea to clarify both here and on the user page of 65.96.237.238 that you were using that IP for some editing (either intentionally or accidentally and only if you were, of course...) Alice^✉ 22:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done!

I hope you won't think it an impertinence if I compliment you for the calm and conciliatory way you are approaching reversions on our Kingdom of Kongo article.

I wish you success in obtaining a compromise position and the answers you seek! Alice^✉ 22:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Deflated

I am feeling rather dejected that my revisions on the Kingdom of Kongo article, including my new footnotes and expansions of the 18th century portions are being constantly reverted. I do not see that this work needs to be deleted.Beepsie (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Try not to feel dejected; if your edits were properly sourced then you may wish to start the WP:DISPUTE procedure. Perhaps there are some admins with a special interest in African topics that may be able to assist? Alice^✉ 23:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You may also be tangentially interested in some of the comments that have been made here; you'll need to be rather quick though, since sections in this very busy page that have not received a comment for more than 23 hours are archived. Alice^✉ 06:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Kongo

Hi, Beepsie, I reverted you because you gradually reverted my edits - all of them - and I thought they were pretty uncontroversial. I know you reverted me because you removed all of the references I had added. See that the "diogo" reference on my version disappeared. Perhaps this was an accident? The organization in your version of the article is not the problem. The problem is that your changes violate a number of stylistic rules - improperly capitalizing subsection titles, repeating references in entirety without ref names, etc. A number of your references have 20 pages listed as the source for one sentence. Is this because they are from JSTOR? In that case, please login and find the specific page you are looking at before inserting the reference. Either that or just use the book without the page number. Another problem is the use of passive voice which should be avoided whenever possible. I kept most of the content you added. Jose João (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

José: I do not think that reversion of a fairly substantial modification of an article, along with its references on stylistic grounds, that is the use of passive voice or capitalization of subsection titles is a productive way to proceed. You could easily have made those changes yourself as no doubt all of us have to edit an existing article.

I did no reversion on 15 December, though I did eventually revert your reversion which cancelled so much work. I did edit while reorganizing the article, and that included changing sentences that I felt to be in error, or which I felt might be extended or changed. If I changed the substance of anything you wrote, please bring it up specifically here, or on the talk page of the article and we can discuss it, as Scott Free and I did with regard to the 1566 war between Kongo and Ndongo that has appeared in Diogo's reign. If you inserted that section, refer to this discussion and if you are still unconvinced by the logic, then by all means we can find a way to include it.

Your statement that you kept the substance of my work is not correct. All the changes I made to the 18th and 19th century section are gone in the present version of the article, as well as smaller changes here and there, including references. THe organizational changes I proposed are also effectively gone, though you say you have no objection to those. The best procedure, I think, is to return the article to the 15 December version, insert your additions and changes that were lost in the reorganization, and if warranted discuss those, and then proceed.Beepsie (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That proposal would certainly have at least 3 advantages:

1. it would demonstrate that P is not the edit warrior and spasm reverter that others take him for
2. it would put the hard graft where it righteously belongs - with the more experienced editor who should not have reverted in the first place
3. it is the easier of the options

Again, I compliment you on having the maturity to attempt to discuss proposed edits in advance rather than post facto, Beepsie. Alice^✉ 20:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your in-depth knowledge on matrilineal succession and the chibadi. I'd appreciate it if you moved my mis-applied references in Kingdom of the Kongo to the correct entries under South East Africa, specifically Mwenemutapa and surrounding kingdoms in today's Mozambique and Zimbabwe. Markwiki (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

7 July Edit of Article

Greetings, B. It's good to hear from u again. Your message must be a good omen, as I just started working on a book I'm writing about Kongo last night. I'm unsure exactly what edit u are talking about. Are you talking about the Manikongo article or the List of rules of Kongo article. I looked at the histories of both articles and could not find any edits I made around July 7th. Let me know if I'm looking in the wrong place. I have done quite a bit of editing on the List of rulers page but not much on the manikongo page. Holla back when u can and keep up all the good work.Scott Free (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you'll forgive the impertinence of correcting a minor typo, but you edited the List of rulers of Kongo article on 14 July 2007. Alice^✉ 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Taguzgalpa

The article Taguzgalpa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence. Possibly just the region thatgave its name to Tegucigalpa

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Garifuna people is on my watchlist. I just reverted an edit of yours where you removed cited text and gave no reason. I now see that you never use edit summaries. These are vital in the collaborative that is Wikipedia in order to communicate with other users. I know that where there is no edit summary, if I don't understand the reason I usually revert. Please read edit summary. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Miskito Sambu

If you feel the copvio is in error please go ahead and remove it. I can't verify that the info was or wasn't scraped, I can only verify that it appeared when I google searched the subject within two minutes of the article's creation at wikipedia. That, obviously, in and of itself is not copyvio evidence, but I placed a "possible" copyvio tag on the page just in case. I suggest addressing the issue directly on the talk page of the article under my comment so that there is a good record of your dispute of the claim close to the article itself. That might help clear up future confusion.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

thnx

Thnx 4 the heads up. let me know if i can help. Scott Free (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Beepsie. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page.
Message added 00:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You may be interested in this conversation. Airplaneman ✈ 00:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hausa states

I saw you made improvements to Kingdom of Kano and now to Zazzau Emirate, which is great. I started them because I felt there should be at least some basic information in Wikipedia, but am acutely aware of how little I know - and how limited the online sources are. Question: The Hausa kingdom of Zazzau was taken over in the Fulani jihad, and its former ruler set up a new state at Abuja, now confusing called Suleja, but kept the title Sarkin Zazzau. Would it make sense to have three articles, one for the earlier Hausa state and one each for the two successor states? Somehow, to me, the history of the earlier Hausa kingdom and the more recent Fulani emirate do not belong in one article. Thoughts? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your initial effort. The problem with Zazzau is that there is very little available in the primary record, just a bare bones kinglist with a chronology and virtually no events. Only Queen Amina has something, and that is not in a Zaria source but in Muhammad Bello and the Kano Chronicle (I've updated her entry) also. The record gets thicker in the more modern period. Also it seems there is no secondary literature written on this period after 1986! (3nd edition of Ajayi and Crowder). And still very little or no archaeology!

As to your question, I think for now it's best to make entries for all three, and use cross references to bring back to the main article, which I think should be Zazzau. But that's just my thought.Beepsie (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have moved it to Zazzau, which seems reasonable, and separated the history of the Hausa kingdom and the later emirate with headings. After thinking about it, a change of ruling family is not a reason for two articles, but Suleja Emirate does seem to be a distinct subject. The articles cross-link, so nobody should have trouble finding them. I wish there were more sources about the old Hausa kingdom. As for recent history, I am not too concerned. The current emir may well deserve a bio, and more could be added to the article Zaria describing recent developments, but I suspect there is not a lot to say about the modern emirate as an emirate. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Mali

Thanks for being nice enough to contact me regarding the Mali article. I really think its the best it can be at this time, but help is always appreciated. The article doesn't belong to me, and I will keep any interference to a minimum. Thanks for caring about the article enough to do some additional digging. Let me know if there is any way I can help. Good luck and sorry it took so long to catch up with u. Scott Free (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Kongo

Hi. I reorganized the Kongo article along kanda lines, because the article had no organization at all. I figure something is better than nothing, and the kandas were a definite factor in the policies of the kingdom from at least Afonso I's reign. I am down with any approach that keeps to some kind of chronological sequence. However, it is common for European kingdoms of the same period to be contextualized along dynastic lines. I see no good reason why Kongo, which was heavily influenced by European states of the same period, doesn't follow the same neat example. This is done for benefit of the reader. I strongly urge we keep to this method rather than make a section for each monarch from Afonso I onwards, especially since not every monarch did something of sufficient import to merit their own section. Scott Free (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I just saw your edits in "Kongo (People)", appreciated them very much, and decided to consult you as a reaction to questions posed by students of mine. I should add that I am an Africanist, but not a historian; my field is political science/sociology. What I should like to ask you is how you see the parts related to the 19th & early 20th century in the article on the Kingdom of the Kongo, and which are in your opinion the best sources for that period? Thank you in advance -- Aflis (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick answer. Your overall assessment of the treatment of the period in question confirms the impression I had when reading the text, but then I thought "Mas quem sou eu...". I am certainly looking foward to your rewriting that part. -- Aflis (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Honduras

I've checked the Honduras contribuitions you made. However the page is like a portal about HONDURAS, it is not about the history of the Miskitos or slavery. The page is supposed to be a SHORT SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL EVENTS (It has to be as short as possible). It would be greatly appreciated if you start a page or add your knowledge in a separate page, were you can expand as much as you possible can. This way you can share knowledge with everybody. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC).

Honduras part II

23:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC) I've done all of the research for this page. I'm trying to put it together, the same way I did in Spanish. Once I'm done I expect the wikipedists to correct all the mistakes so that it looks good. I understand what you say about NOT BALANCED!! but believe I wish I could put a lot stuff in it, but it not possible. That's why, it is better to write a separate article about what you know, rather than putting it all together in ONE PAGE. Besides when a page is long, people don't read it. Short and sweet is better!! (talk)

Beta, see my comments on your talk page. Beepsie (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Honduras part III

I've read your message, but as right now, I give up on contribuiting to English Wikipedia. I will concentrate on Spanish articles. Some idiots here think they know everything. Most if not all, of the stuff that I put here, is writing from historians. It is not my own stuff, and they have the guts to be critics of well known english writers.(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC).

Beta, I've put a comment on your talk page about changes I'm proposing. Beepsie (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cuyamel Fruit Company

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Cuyamel Fruit Company requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The article got deleted. I read it (using my administrator privileges), decided that it probably did have notability but that you hadn't really shown this, did some research, restored the article, and added some more data. There you go; it's back. DS (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Kongo

Could you please join the discussion on the talk page? There's been some edit-warring and sock puppetry over the chibadi bit, which still looks relevant to Kongo from what I read in the source and quoted there, but the whole section needs enlarging in any case. I really don't want to get involved more in editing the article, I was only there because of the section blanking and edit warring. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Nkisi and Nkondi

Many, many thanks for the noticeable improvements and citations you added to Nkisi and Nkondi, as both articles were in desperate need of fixing. Your work on central African history - both on Wikipedia and in the academic world - is very much appreciated and admired. Chiwara (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Kissi penny (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sande, Bandi, Loma, Mandinka, Mende, Gola, Kpelle and Kru

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Krumen people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grebo (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) 10:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Link regarding Ghana Empire

Thanks for the information. I didn't want to rush into editing the page up, considering I couldn't find a second source. I guess I need to start looking for some more, and will try to when I get the chance. I'm skipping all through out the Middle Ages! LeftAire (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Nganga

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nganga , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Alexandrathom (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

George I (Moskito)

A tag has been placed on George I (Moskito), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

File permission problem with File:Betsy Thornton.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Betsy Thornton.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

==Reply

I took this picture of Betsy Thornton and it has not been published anywhere else.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Beepsie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Beepsie. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kingdom of Kongo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mpemba. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Western Caribbean zone for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Western Caribbean zone is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Caribbean zone until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)