Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

article splitting, renaming and loss of all edit view history

On October 24, the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_Border_Xpress was split and the majority of the information (all the history of the project) was moved to a new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plans_for_Tijuana_Airport_cross-border_terminal . All the edit information was NOT moved to the new page and there was considerable discussion on it including issues addressed with the Wikipedia legal department in San Francisco, all issues were resolved, but now none of this is in the new page. I started the cross-border terminal negotiations in 1989, was the main media source, headed the negotiations from 1989 to 2006 and officially worked with both the Mexican and U.S. governments, this information was supplied to Wikipedia legal in San Francisco. I wrote over 90 percent of the article and supplied most of the references. The editor who created the page and who I met here in San Diego, claimed the article was too long and split the article. In that process, all the viewing information and editing was lost, none is included in the new article, and the new title does not correspond to the information in the article. He wrote in the Cross Border Xpress article History section that "After quarter century of plans for a cross-border terminal, construction began at the Tijuana airport in October 2013" and therefore he called the new article he created "<Plans for Tijuana Airport cross-border terminal>" the main crux of the article was NOT plans it dealt with negotiations and events showing how a 2 year project became a 20 year effort with issues from immigration to narcotics that impacted negotiations and created U.S.-Mexico tensions that added decades to the process. I asked that the new article be renamed but he claimed that the word "Plans" covers all aspects i.e. history, negotiations, events. Plans and history are not synonymous words. I have read the Wikipedia pages on Article Titles, Content Forking and Splitting, I admit the article is long, but the content issues involved were very complex and show why relations between Mexico and the U.S. are complex. I am not a Wikipedia expert and much less in Splitting the article, but the new name is incorrect. How can the name be changed to correspond with the contents, i.e. one article "Cross Border Xpress" which contains the general information with a link to another article "Cross Border Xpress History U.S.-Mexico" instead of "Plans for Tijuana Airport cross-border terminal" (which is long and not accurate), and how can the new article created NOT loose all the corresponding edit history as over 90 percent of the edits and changes dealt with the history section all of which has now been omitted from the new page. It makes the new article appear as it is a NEW article with NO background or review process. Over the past year it has had over 50,000 views and since its inception in August of 2014 well over 170,000 views and it has been linked to 58 other pages, but now the new article has NO view history nor 58 links and when doing a Google search on e.g. Tijuana cross-border terminal, "Plans for Tijuana Airport cross-border terminal" does not even appear in the first 10 pages nor 15, as Google searches focus on the first words, not last and the word Plans does not imply to a reader history nor negations. In effect, 90 percent of the article has now simply disappeared and readers are not clicking on the redirect because the the new article title is not descriptive as to its contents. How can this be resolved? Rnieders (talk)

the title has been changed by the page editor, I have been in contact with him. but I still have a question on the edit and viewing history that did not move with the change so that I can better address the issue with the editor. Thank you Rnieders (talk)

Article for deletion

Answered

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Dubrey

I really believe this article is not justified and I can find no reliable independent source to build upon. This article lets down the standards of Wikipedia. I am an arts worker and not too skilled with WP editing so would like an administrator to review this page and make a decision towards its deletion as the steps are not clear to me. Thank you Anna Jones (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I note that a number of previous sources for that article have been removed by you and others because they are dead links. Please be aware that just because a link is not actively linked to an Internet source, or has been linked in the past but has "died", is no reason to remove it, see WP:KDL. Under the Verifiability policy, it is made very clear that reliable sources do not have to be available online. Though there is some question about whether some of those links, particularly the ones about the "St. Ives School" may be questionable, we here at Wikipedia go by what reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia say, not whether we agree with them or not. Now it may be that some of those sources are not, in fact, reliable or may not actually say what they're cited to say, but that's an issue which needs to be worked out source by source. If those sources are restored (to, more or less, this version), it would at least appear on first blush that the article would meet the criteria for inclusion and retention of biographical articles. Finally, while administrators have the ability to delete articles, you're not going to find one who is willing to do it merely for lack of notability unless you go through the proper deletion processes because they're going to want the input of the community, which those processes invite. Note that utilizing those processes is made much easier by installation of the Twinkle plug in from Your Preferences / Gadgets / Browsing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Henrietta Dubrey for my comments on this. I agree the article is a bit weak, but there's no need to remove existing sources and citations (and the cited information). I don't really understand why the article is under attack from so many directions, unless the subject has made a lot of enemies in the Cornwall area. Sionk (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

IP User(s) repeatedly reverting a comment with no comment or explanation

Dominic Selwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Editor,

An IP user (and latterly another one) provided a link to his own tweet as a reference on a Wikipedia biography for a statement about a living person. The statement on the Wikipedia page is: "He is a Freemason, belonging to the Old Wykehamist Lodge". The tweet no longer appears on Twitter.

The IP user then replicated some of the information from the tweet in a wordpress webpage: https://saidinthedarkheardinthelight.wordpress.com//

The IP user is now using this Wordpress website as a reference in the Wikipedia page to support the statement in the Wikipedia page.

This does not meet with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources in a biography of a living person.

Despite numerous explanations in the 'edit summary' box explaining that the reference is inadequate and in breach of WP:SOURCE, WP:IDENTIFYING RELIABLE SOURCES and WP:V, the IP User continues to revert all corrections/deletions.

As the IP User is not a registered user, I am not sure how to engage on the Talk Page to resolve this issue.

I would be grateful for any guidance.

Yours, with many thanks, Berengaria (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Berengaria:, you can address IP users on article talk pages in the same way you would any registered users. Talk pages are added to watchlists at the same time their associated articles are so the IP user should see the talk page in their watchlist when you post at talk:Dominic Selwood. It appears from the revision history that the same text keeps being added by multiple IP addresses so using their user talk page would not likely be useful. In general, however, IP users have talk pages the same way as registered editors do. These IP addresses are registered to Japan, France, Romania, and Poland, making this also a sock-puppet case. I have reported them to WP:SPI. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:, Many thanks for the guidance on the question of IP Users and Talk Pages. Much appreciated. Thank you also for reporting the IP User to WP:SPI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berengaria (talk • contribs) 07:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: IP users don't have watchlists; see Help:Watchlist. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@John of Reading: D'oh!. Thanks for the correction. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

the freeway page is wrong and is in trademark violation

Answered

To Whom it May concern: Hello and good day my name is Steve Kelly AKA (FREEWAY). I will make this short and to the point. this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeway_(rapper) is not freeway and is in trademark violation you can go to http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=4805:6zwg28.1.1 and http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=4805:6zwg28.1.1 it is #57 on the list and it shows that I own the Trademark for the name freeway . 1st I would like his page taken down So I can use the name to give record of the real freeway or 2nd can myself and or my attorney edit his page. I thank you for any advice and help you may have on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FREEWAY-ROCKS (talk • contribs) 01:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Takedown notices should be sent to the address specified here. This forum has no authority over such matters. — TransporterMan (TALK) 03:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Phristina City

I will suggest making some changes on the part of Prishtina City description. First Belgrade is only 365 km north of Prishtina and Second Prishtina is not the third biggest city where Albanians Live, actually Prishtina is a Second after Tirana with 475 000 inhabitants. The number of inhabitants will not be reviled in the latest census 2011 since most of the inhabitants are registered to the neighboring cities due to easier administrative procedures. But the reality is that in Prishtina lives the above-mentioned number. During the day about 200,000 additional people visit Prishtina.

This information are easy to be found on the internet. If you find suitable for my assistance, will be able to help you with additional correct info about Prishtina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.99.20.62 (talk)

(Overwriting message fixed and moved to a separate section, no change in content. GermanJoe (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC))

Hello 46.99.20.62, the best place to discuss such questions is usually the article's talkpage (in this case probably Talk:Pristina). Please note, that Wikipedia can't include information based on your (or my) personal knowledge or research. If you'd like to suggest changes or additions, you should provide a published reliable source like newspapers, journals and books for your suggestion (see also WP:V and WP:RS for more details about this content guideline). Hope these general points help a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of spouse's name in article involving notorious subject

Answered

Dddwwwps (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Brudos

I recently edited an article that reported the spouse of a serial killer with an incorrect name that was derived from a "true crime" book whose author often changed the names of secondary characters. I referenced my change with two quality sources, the publicly available marriage list from the state where the two persons married and a major newspaper that regularly reported on the case.

My change was undone with the assertion that basically said the fake name was all over the Internet so it must be right.

I reapplied my edit and explained that the fake name was from a true crime book and was inaccurate and unsourced.

My change was quickly undone again by the same person who now asserts that BLP applies and the spouse's real name is "sensitive". The spouse was tried and acquitted of the same murders that sent her husband to prison and subsequently, legally, changed her first and last name. My edit only referenced her name at the time she married, not her changed name.

As I am certainly not a Wikipedia expert I don't know what the rules should be for including spouse's names in articles about notorious persons. My quick check of several other serial killers showed spouses listed.

I have no interest in an edit war so I am looking for direction. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddwwwps (talk • contribs)

The other editor has requested discussion on the article talk page. Such discussion is the primary means by which such issues are resolved here at Wikipedia. Please raise the issue there (and you can move the post you left at his/her talk page there) but be aware that you really need to become familiar with the BLP policy. If there's something there that actually applies to this question merely arguing that you don't like it or that it ought to just be ignored or there's some reason other than the policy to do it the way you want to do it isn't going to get you anywhere. Start by asking the other editor to point specifically to the part of the policy which he feels applies and to explain how he thinks that it applies and then discuss from that point whether it does or does not. If you disagree on whether or not it applies after thoroughly discussing it, consider dispute resolution; if there's only two of you in the discussion Third Opinion is a great place to start, if more have joined in by that point go to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but note that no dispute resolution forum is going to be willing to take your case unless it's been thoroughly discussed at the article talk page first. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:TransporterMan Thanks for the advice here. Since this involves a potentially still-living person (and two now-grown children), a name change, and the use of a more widely-publicized pseudonym, I think there's a high degree of sensitivity here. I've actually e-mailed Oversight to ask for a check and a possible revdel. If they see no worries, I'm happy to let edits proceed, but I'm uneasy enough that I think we need to proceed carefully. The former spouse of a notorious serial killer who changed her name and started a new life falls into dangerous territory. Grandpallama (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

V Shantaram ... garbled lines please correct.

Answered

Films status 1997 aktingh brother ram rahim samil khane ke antargat raudi rathaur ki super storiy brot bhagawan das patel storiy filmdh ddfeuj sddqp deeij dob 1997dnejn ddsawjs dndnd nvvfedwss we9e8nvvlx;s cd,dlffklfkokskdidjwi ,flflffkorwnxdffro[qwsx df90jffj)fkm,brunjkl,xvbhbuyjerttooobsxw ddhdeh wpw;dijv ddbfvbsndwnv fgbplqpq,akcv d fvfm bnv dff v n b hfbedwuwwswkw9250trfdhdbdpq=wq5452jnvfjfe vnifje9wqasfofr0odkwd;nfbf ,bmgbngijg fjngurfjkdde38e9o vnbgbmgigijjuhudhedgvfbhj,y9dksx vf,mvkgbnigiht4jrk vfvjioeidjdmc d,vfgjigroekdd, gorkjieossd ,fkfjrirdkslx,sc f,gbgkh Italic text ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.60.152.131 (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. - TransporterMan (TALK) 04:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Facts about Bellmore

Answered

Please google Charles A. Frisch, a very important person in relation to the history of the town dating back to his father being the first post master, and he being a contributing builder of "High Hill" beach, it predates Jones Beach, he ran a ferry to and from before roads or bridges existed, his house built in 1909 still stands restored on Martin Ave. in the town. His father built one of the first school houses in the town, very notable family and should not be excluded.

See "Bellmore man restores historic house" via google — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.36.93 (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Please request an article by following the instructions here - TransporterMan (TALK) 04:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Islamic Prophet Images

Answered

There is thing I want to point out. There are images uploaded that are portayred as the Prophets of Islam. Which is not allowed in Islam and goes against my religious views. Please try to remove the pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.93.234.9 (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

A huge community discussion took place in 2013 and decided that such images will be allowed in some circumstances. See here for details. If you feel that they are not being used in accordance with that decision, make a complaint at the talk page of the article where they are being used. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Consider blocking the images from your own view, per Help:Options to hide an image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Duty to retreat

Answered

Dear Sir or Madam, I have never edited a Wikipedia Article and I would like to edit the Wikipedia entry on the legal concept of: “Duty to Retreat”. When discussing “Stand your Ground” which is the opposite of the duty to retreat doctrine part of the article says: From a human rights and public policy point of view, these laws are highly problematic and typically irreconcilable with international human rights obligations assumed by the U.S.

The Oxford dictionary defines public policy as: The principles often unwritten on which social laws are based. In many U.S. states for a court to consider something to be public policy it has to be an extension of a codified statute. For example a state which says an employer cannot fire an employee in violation of public policy will not allow a supervisor to fire a subordinate because the subordinate threw the supervisor’s keys off a balcony at a restaurant to keep the supervisor from driving home drunk, because there is a criminal statute against drunk driving. For this reason if the legislature has declared by statute the state to be a “stand your ground state” a stand your ground statute cannot be problematic from a public policy perspective. The person who wrote this part of the article also declares his view point to be fact. Elsewhere judges are quoted and it is clear that what is being paraphrased is the judge’s judicial opinion.

I would like the above mentioned text edited to say:

One author published by the Oxford University press has commented that from a human rights point of view U.S. stand your ground laws are problematic.

How do I either edit this article or dispute its neutrality? Thank you.

Respectfully, Seth B. Miller — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.59.156 (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Start by creating an account through the account creation page and only edit when logged-in. Beyond that, take the Wikipedia Tutorial. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Behavioral and content dispute

Hi! Sorry for making this editor assistance request so long but this dispute has about 3-4 previous disputes with the same editors on similar subjects that need to be brought up into this request. I am new to this so sorry if I have violated any guidelines.

I would like you to take a look at the content dispute and the behavior of the editors Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K as well Kuru, the administrator that backs them .

The full content dispute of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pythagoras is found here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=811537461 since a fellow friend editor Dr. K who seems to be a meatpuppet of the editor I am having the dispute with erased my last entry. I would like you to look at the sources I have provided and my analysis on the source he has provided (which leaves out plenty of ancient biographers that state Pythagoras's father was from Tyre) and to bring an objective view into this discussion.

I would also like you to look into this editors behaviors as him and fellow editor friends (Dr K and Khirurg) seem to be meatpuppets as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry. When editor Katolophyromai felt like he was losing the debate he resorted to accusing me of sockpuppeting to his fellow meatpuppet Dr. K which you can look at here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr.K.#ViamarisBalbi_is_back_under_two_new_sockpuppet_accounts

This is the second (or perhaps third) time Katolophyromai and Khirurg has gotten help from his fellow friend editor Dr. K who does not participate in the discussions/talk page in a productive/objective way but is always ready to take their side and game the system as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system to support his friend editors with their edit reversals. The previous time they accused ViamarisBalbi of personal attacks against the editor he was having a content dispute and got him blocked when in reality if you look at his appeal on his talk page he really wasnt making personal attacks. Dr. K always resorts to administrator Kuru who always takes their side and does not seem to care that editors Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K are involved in the edit reversal of sourced contents which is obvious vandalism and POV pushing. You can see previous examples of their meatpuppetry in the following cases:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thales_of_Miletus#Phoenicia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thales_of_Miletus#Trash_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thales_of_Miletus#Ancient_sources_and_19th_century_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Euclid#Arabian_sources_of_Euclid https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euclid&diff=810206844&oldid=810205477 (Here Dr. K supports Khirug act of vandalism in which Khirug puts down a statement from a very legitimate source and adds his own and removes an important blue link in the sentence) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomism&diff=809056910&oldid=808621458 (Here Khirug removed ViamarisBalbi edit that has a legitimate source and later here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomism&diff=810213721&oldid=810211103 Dr. K helps him doing the same Khirug does it again here without a legitimate reason/discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomism&diff=810230721&oldid=810221056

Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K as well Kuru, all edit on similar articles related to Ancient Greece and Greek nationalism. It also happens that their usernames all sound Greek and start with letter K which makes their connection seem a bit too obvious and suspicious. I would highly appreciate your time and help on looking on this. ViamarisBalbi and I believe that legitimate sockpuppeting might be the only way to stop this harassment since filling ISP reports for meatpuppeting sometimes get lost in limbo or take too long to be reviewed and these editors wont stop Wikihouding as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding and continue their witch hunt as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Witch_hunt to prevent ViamarisBalbi and CalinicoFire from making sourced contributions. ThanksCalinicoFire (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)