User talk:GeographicAccountant

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Connecting

If you are interested, there is already a community of users who are roadfans or who edit articles about roads, just like you! Stop by any of these WikiProjects—WP:HWY (worldwide), WP:AURD (Australia), WP:CARD (Canada), WP:HKRD (Hong Kong), WP:INRD (India), WP:UKRD (United Kingdom), or WP:USRD (United States)—and contribute. If your interest is in roads in the United States, there is an excellent new user's guide. There is a wealth of information and resources for creating a great article. If you have questions about any of these WikiProjects, you can ask on each project's talk page, or you can ask me!

If you would like to chat with other editors, you can join the Wikimedia Community Discord server. Here, there are several editors who are willing to answer your questions.

Happy editing! Signed, Imzadi 1979 → 22:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi 1979 → on 19:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GeographicAccountant Hello and greetings! It is good to see you working on Zambian articles and other Southern African topics. Congrats! But wanted to know if we could work on other wikis too such as Nyanja Wikipedia and Tumbuka Wikipedia. I am a sysop in those wikis and I would love to have someone to help out create or translate some articles there. I am the only active member there unfortunately. I hope you speak or know Nyanja, huh. And some sort of Tumbuka..? Thanks. Zikomo kwambiri/ Yewo chomene. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tumbuka Arch, Unfortunately, the only language I "speak' and "understand" at the moment is English from all languages in the world. GeographicAccountant (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GeographicAccountant Noted. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GeographicAccountant, If you see contents that are not verified in an article, best way is to drop some templates such as "Citation needed" (aka "Prove it"), "when", "verification failed" and other related templates. This helps or encourages some editors to look for some sources that may support such claims. The way you do it, it looks like you believe unsourced content should not exist at all.

Wikipedia does not depend on one's own personal knowledge, for example, I know Mr X in my country is not known by this name so I will change it to how I know them. We use names that the media use. Instead of removing content just because you can't see them in the citation, you should be looking for them on the web. It is easy to take from an article than to give to it. Best--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tumbuka Arch, Well, sorry to disappoint, but Wikipedia "raised me" to treat WP:BLP Articles differently. That is why I did not go around those WP:BLP Articles leaving tags on every sentence or paragraph. That is why I did not hesitate in removing information that was not supported in those Zambian articles (if you are certain that "nothing wrong was added", then please "revert my edits" AND add the citations already; do not forget the citations please).

The WP:BLP page states:

Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

So, as we can see here, we must not allow these WP:BLP Articles to have contentious material. That is why I have used the word unverified (whoever added them to the article has not made it clear where they got it from; whether it's from a source or the person him/herself) and according to WP:BLP, we should not wait to remove such information from the article. Me removing that information is basically me challenging the content and since you have noticed that, why don't you go ahead and check if I actually removed something that wasn't supposed to be removed? (remember; they can't be re-added without verification)

My favourite words are the ones I wrote on the Talk:Charles Chanda page, which are: "We shouldn't allow articles with untrue or not-properly-written information to spend many months on Wikipedia, as this is not what we want people to read when they search the person's name on Google Search". The fact that he is the UPPZ President is true but the statement about him being in the industry of Health was not correct and so, I removed what was untrue & left what was true, as per WP:BLP. Here, we do not add tags; we remove the false or unverified information immediately.

On the Lazarus Chisela page, the fact that he is the ZUSD President is true but the rest? One could have easily sent the article to deletion but I merely removed what I was sure sources do not exist for & left what was verified there (A mere one sentence); I left the citations there (moved them to the introduction) because they support the ZUSD presidency & but the unsupported sentences had to go. It's the same for any other page where I have removed content (& I'll remove again if somebody adds unverified information to any existing Zambian BLP Article without waiting). One more time, Wikipedia "raised me" to treat WP:BLP Articles differently.

You mentioned something about using the name that the media uses. That is exactly why I changed the name of "Ndola Central Hospital" to Ndola Teaching Hospital & "Kitwe Central Hospital" to Kitwe Teaching Hospital. I'm assuming this is what you are talking about and again, I am sure "I have done nothing wrong" here. (these titles with the word Teaching in the middle are the WP:COMMONNAMEs of these Hospitals; They have been the names of these hospitals since somewhere within Edgar Lungu's presidency; a search can verify this).

I think I have explained myself on everything. If there is something I have forgotten, please state it here. Thanks.

GeographicAccountant (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GeographicAccountant Noted and no problem. While it may not be that related much, it's also worth spending time to see what is written here, as it says Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't. Instead of removing content from an article or reverting a new contribution, consider:

• Requesting a citation by adding the {{citation needed}} tag, or adding any other appropriate cleanup tags to content you cannot fix yourself
• Formatting or sourcing on the spot
• Tagging it as necessary
• Adding another point of view to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced
• Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself
• Repairing a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located
• Fixing errors in wikitext or formatting

And no, I had nothing to do with those hospital names you changed. Best-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tumbuka Arch, Quick question... Are we talking about WP:BLP articles in particular or about all types of articles on Wikipedia? I'm asking because these are the types of articles that I have been editing since yesterday morning (GMT+2) (they are obviously the ones that led you to my talk page). The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy page is the exact page we should be reading in order to know how to treat Biographies of living persons. Sorry to say, but a WP:BLP Article is not the type of article where I am going to let contentious material sit there for a few months (or even a few days), whether it has a "citation needed" tag or not, whether it has a "failed verification" tag or not. That information must be removed immediately. I'll ask one more time, is this argument about WP:BLP articles or a different type of Wikipedia article?

GeographicAccountant (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed her full name from the Infobox was that it seemed superfluous and an unnecessary repetition. Her full name already appears twice within the body of the article and her known name Chidimma Adetshina appears at the heading of the Infobox. In my experience the use of birth_name in the Infobox is the when a person is commonly known by their married name, nickname, or stage name, and not their birth name. That is not the case here. MrArmstrong2 (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks. GeographicAccountant (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]