From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Please do not add the "submit" template to writings that are not draft articles. The Sandbox is a place for experimenting with editing. If you have communications you want others to read please place them on Talk page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@ 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 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 AfricaItalic text. 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 and Aflis, 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 that, 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-right the sentence in the third paragraph [here] as opposed to [here]. This statement was in agreement with [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.

Once more, I appreciate your help. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)