Talk:Lumezi District

Lumezi District

Hi there. I noticed that there was an uncited sentence about a particular demography on the Lumezi District article and I simply left a note saying that the sentence does not have a visible citation, which means that anybody who knows where to find it should go and get it and place it where the note is.

After a few minutes, you reverted my edit and in the edit summary, you mentioned "check the Lundazi District edit summary". So, after reading that edit summary, I proceeded to the Lundazi District edit history as requested and when I got there, I saw one of the edit summaries where you wrote "Everyone knows Lundazi has the majority of Tumbuka speakers. Please do research on internet than being childish".

So, if I may ask, you decided to call somebody childish just for putting a WP:CITENEED label after a sentence? And what did you mean by saying Everybody knows? I'm going to assume that those words which were written in an edit summary were meant specifically for me and if that is the case, that is not supposed to be the place for that...

If I remember correctly, there was a time I went to WP:BLP Zambia articles to remove information that was not sourced, due to the Wikipedia policy which states that any article about a living person should not have unsourced or poorly sourced information. You came to my talk page clearly sounding angry as if what I did was not meant to be done (1). Now, I merely added a WP:CITENEED tag after a sentence in the Lumezi District article (I did not remove the sentence; I merely stated that it needs a citation) and you seem offended again? Please tell me exactly what I, me, has done wrong this time. Since when is adding a WP:CITENEED tag after a sentence counted as wrongdoing such that my edit deserves to be reverted?

I'll be waiting for a response on exactly why you believe that me placing a WP:CITENEED tag after a sentence in the Lumezi District article was wrongdoing. As this moment, that sentence about a language demography remains without a citation visible. I'm actually surprised you haven't done the same thing (reverting my edit) in the Chasefu District article, seeing as the same sentence is written there.

GeographicAccountant (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@GeographicAccountant I have moved this topic here from my talk page so that all editors should see this and may help others.

Eveybody knows meant the content is uncontroversy and that you have not done any search.

If you think or feel your edits were not wrong, then probably it is me who is. On that case, I am sorry. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It also came to my attention (and maybe somebody else also noticed this) that you want to dominate all articles about or related to Zambia. So if you notice anyone that looks like non-Zambian adding or removing content, you simply remove what they added without bothering to check on Internet. It is your responsibility to look for sources too. This is intimidating and that's why I said stop being childish. I have seen even on the articles I have created someone being called that because of the same behaviour, not doing an internet search. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tumbuka Arch, Excuse me? What do you mean "anyone that looks like non-Zambian"? I'm not sure it is even possible to tell if somebody is or isn't Zambian (unless it is clearly written on their Userpage like mine is). If I ever decide that something should not be written in an article, then it means "I read the words" first and then decided that "this sentence needs a citation in order to remain here" or that "this sentence is not true" (or "this sentence may not be suitable for Wikipedia"). It has NOTHING to do with the nationality or residency of who the editor is. I can't know that information without making personal contact with the editor and I cannot assume either (that is NOT allowed). Adding or removing a sentence/paragraph from Wikipedia is about "what words are used in the sentence" and "if a citation is there".

If you look at this edit, for example, Where did he get the information that North-Eastern Rhodesia has ever had a capital city (administrative centre) that is not Chipata? Are we supposed to believe it is true just because an official provincial website has it written? Since I knew instantly that that statement is not true, I removed that exact sentence from Wikipedia in the next edit (the North-Eastern Rhodesia article proves it). So, here, are you going to accuse me of having some sort of hatred against somebody I do not know?

If we look at Talk:M3 road (Malawi)#Article Content, I was wondering why somebody would do in mainspace what is supposed to be done in WP:DRAFT mode, as the infobox I found in that article when I got there was "clearly incorrect". An article is not supposed to be made public like that without first making sure that only the correct details are in the article and the wrong details are removed. So, I made it my mission to make sure that what is written in that article is "correct" so that when somebody types "M3 road (Malawi)" on Google Search, they are not taken to a page where wrong information is written. Even if an editor was to come to me saying that "I was planning on editing that article soon", I would still ask them why they chose to publish that article the way it was knowing full-well that some of what was written there wasn't correct (against Wikipedia's rules). I mean, we have Draft Articles for that. If this doesn't show you my true intentions and how much I love Wikipedia, then I do not know what will.

Just so you know, the majority of articles I edit are South African articles. So, I do not understand where you got this idea that I want to be sort-of "selfish" with Zambian articles or any other articles. If you think I did any single thing wrong, report me. Simple as that.

Lastly, the talk page of a Wikipedia Article is not the place to complain about the way "a particular editor" has been doing his/her things and that is why I initially launched this message on a User's talk page. If this is something that "everybody (or simply many people) must read", then let's take it to WP:Teahouse or WP:ANI or somewhere else, as it is clear that what I have written in this exact reply has nothing to do with Lumezi District. Thanks.

GeographicAccountant (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tumbuka Arch,

I went to the Charles Chanda article and realized that it was you who made the article. I think it is only you and me who have edited that article at this point. For some reason, you decided to write in that article that the person has been a Health Minister of Zambia before when there is no single source on the internet to prove it. This means you acted contrary to the WP:BLP policy. The article had citations, but not a single one to support this claim.

I went to the Lazarus Chisela article and realized that it was you who made the article. I think it is only you and me who have edited that article at this point. For some reason, you decided to write in that article that the person has worked before as a councillor, member of parliament and mayor in Chipata when there is no single source on the internet to prove it. This means you acted contrary to the WP:BLP policy. The article had citations, but not a single one to support this claim.

Do you know that it is not allowed to have false information on the Wikipedia article of a living person? There can possibly be Legal Issues and other issues with showing wrong information in mainspace BLP articles. We make sure the information is true and sources exist for it BEFORE we add it to the article. That false information should not stay on Wikipedia for months (or even days), as this is not what people are supposed to read when they come online to read about that person. We don't need the credibility of Wikipedia to be reduced or basically to land our website in trouble.

Just thought I should let you know about something that I have seen you do wrong (with the evidence presented here). Now, it's your turn. Provide evidence on something I have done wrong and also state which "Wikipedia Policy" I have broken in my edits. Thanks. GeographicAccountant (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@GeographicAccountant Good luck editing your SAn articles though it was not worthy to mention it as nobody cares, nor is it my business.

1. Road

- If I used the wrong infobox on the M3 road that was meant to be of M1 road as seen on the talk page, it means that was all I knew then. It means I did not know what else to put or I was new to the whole thing as that was the third article I created about roads then, so it was not perfect. As you can see, all those infoboxes I created by following patterns of other related templates. So, if you are a so-called expert on roads then let that be and don't blame others for the things they don't know that you know. Blaming my old edits or bringing things that have already been discussed is futile. Everyone is trying to move on and start a new chapter.

2. Chanda and Lazarus

- If I wrote that Chanda is a minister of health instead of being something but of politics, then it might have been a mistake as I might have had a hundred tabs open while editing/creating the article. I remember on the same day I created many of them such as Andyford Banda, Charles Chanda, Lazarus Chisela, etc (check their creation history and probably were created within the same hour). I am not connected directly or indirectly to the subject or have no relationship with them, so I take that as the mistake that happened.

-

3. Content

- By default, I very well know that BLP is very brittle and that it does not need any info that is not verified as it damages one's reputation. Also, there is a difference between the creating BLP articles and editing already available BLP article. It is also worthy to mention that you have never created an article about a person on Wikipedia as of today other than only editing them. On this account, you only have created 3 pages: Nchanga (disambiguation), M44 (Pretoria) (with a citation needed tag on top since May 2022) and Nkeyema. On your alt account, you only created roads and constituency stubs which are non-controversy topics. Roads are pre-defined subjects that do not change and do not need much research as one can create an entire road article by just opening Openstreet map and looking at the points and whatever the road passes.

4. Moving on on Wikipedia

- While I appreciate your effort on some articles, I just would like to tell you that you should not be bringing old arguments, mistakes of the past, etc. to the editors. Just as in real life, everyone is trying to move on and forget the past while learning from mistakes. Just like you, when you archived your talk page, you wanted to simply move on, or just did not want that to be on your talk page. Then after this conversation, you brought it back yesterday. Going on the list of pages that I have created and searching for mistakes, or searching for old discussions that talks about one's mistakes that they had moved on is not very constructive.

While reminding others about their past is not breaking any policy, it also good to think about others. We edit Wikipedia when we are all mentally (emotionally) stable. Wikilawyering does not take any of us anywhere.

-

Just you should know, if I don't respond on time, it does not mean I won't or I am wrong\guilty, etc. Be patient and no need for clogging the discussion. Even a single sentence is enough to a wise person. Check my first reply on this discussion.

Thanks.

Tumbuka Arch (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@GeographicAccountant Also, it is not necessary to keep on creating a thread here. Am sure we are all mature enough to let go and focus on other things. Peace. :) Tumbuka Arch (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

But for farther comments, questions, etc., use email. May respond in real time. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)