Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1leftarrow.png Help:Contents
Editor Assistance: Requests
  • The description of the issue with which you need help should be concise and neutral.
  • If you are asking about an article that was deleted, please provide the exact title so that we can check the deletion log.
  • Please avoid copying large quantities of article text to this page.
  • Remember to sign your posts.
  • Please click here to post your request. As always, please do not include an e-mail address or other private details.
  • Discussions related to content disputes might better be addressed at the dispute resolution noticeboard.
  • If you would like quick access to some advice for the most common questions and issues, this can be found in the Editor Assistance FAQ.
  • Resolved, stale and other old discussions are archived, but if you need to return to an archived discussion, you can start a new section and note the old discussion. You may search old discussions using the search box in the Previous requests & responses section adjacent to this pages contents index.
  • Assistants: Please tag old requests using the appropriate templates, e.g. resolved, answered, unclear, unresolved, stale, moved or stuck, after approximately five to seven days of inactivity. These templates and notes on their usage may be found at Template:Ear/doc. A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days.


Other links

article splitting, renaming and loss of all edit view history

On October 24, the article was split and the majority of the information (all the history of the project) was moved to a new article . 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)

Articles getting deleted over again

I want to become a Wikipedian from India on Media and Olympian resources - and started with an article creation on Rashtriya Hindi Mail. With multiple edits and help from few Wikipedians got it corrected and that got published - but, I see a user keeps on deleting this article even after publishing instead of editing/supporting. Is there any control on the users/contributors?MyeraMishra (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles do not have any "right to exist", as it were and proposing an article for deletion processes is not a violation of any policy or guideline. Even if an article is accepted through the Articles for Creation process, that is no guarantee of continued retention. A few things to note: articles are not worthy of being included, subjects are. A subject is generally considered "notable" for our purposes if it has significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The objections to the article are basically that the subject is not notable or that you did not include enough evidence to show that it is notable. I'm making no judgment on whether your article meets those guidelines, only that there is no reason to ask for "control" on those other editors. Since you've already made your case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashtriya Hindi Mail, it will be taken into account by the administrator who closes that discussion. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Process question about renaming articles and related activies; Aleksandr / Aleksander / Alexander example

The article Aleksandr Torshin was renamed from "Aleksander Torshin" without a redirect created. Is that proper? Should it be changed (back) to the more common translation/usage, such as "Alexander Torshin" (a common translation from Russian in both wikipedia and the press)? X1\ (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The policy on article titles says Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). This is particular to the individual. If English sources most commonly use Alexander, then so should we. I would, as a practical matter, advise raising this on the appropriate talk page before inadvertently creating a move war. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, I used a redirect until I chose a new course. X1\ (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Advice needed on how best to handle a new user

A new user:Calavj is adding extensive material at open border and free migration that reads to me as partisan [even though it accords with my personal values!]. The material relies heavily on single sourced, non-notable authored, academic papers and publications. I believe that it is in wp:good faith but I've never come across such a case before. It doesn't help that the editor does not respond to my invitation to discuss the edits, whether at the talk pages or at user talk:Calavj. Advice please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the concern, but it is not a single source being used, the information changes use multiple scholarly articles and University published books. Please review the totality of the sources. Thank you for your care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calavj (talkcontribs) 07:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, notability, I believe, refers to the creation of a new page and whether the topic page is notable; i do not believe notability refers to the author within a page being used for information. All of these sources are from notable universities or journals, but again, I do not believe the sources must be notable, just the page, which was already established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calavj (talkcontribs) 07:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
It is now clear that this was a non-problem that escalated because the user was unaware of talk pages and how to use them. Peace has now broken out. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Malaysia's second largest city.

Hello everyone, I have a new question to ask everyone. As we all know, Kuala Lumpur has the largest population in the country. It is undoubtedly the largest city in Malaysia. However, what I want to ask today is whether the second largest city in Malaysia is or is not George Town? 2010 Malaysian census data show that the population of Georgetown is a bit more than Johor Bahru, but now it has been eight years now. Are you sure George is the second largest city? If you read all the major newspapers in Malaysia, you will find that they are all writing Johor Bahru is Malaysia's second largest city. You will not find them writing George Town as the second largest city. This shows that Wikipedia runs counter to the real world. If editors continue to use old data from 2010 as content, this is dangerous and can cause people to stop believing in us! Besides, there are nearly 800,000 people in Johor Bahru this year (at least 780,000) [1]. However, according to the Penang website, there are about 720,000 people in Penang Island [2]. Moreover, according to the documents of the CIA of the United States [1], the population of Johor Bahru is larger than that of Georgetown. If there is a big gap between the development of the two cities, I can accept that cities with better development will continue to maintain their rankings and will not be surpassed. But today's situation is different. If you compare, you will find Johor Bahru growing even better. If it is the first three years, I forget, but now has been eight years so long, you can be sure that George Town will not be beyond the Johor Bahru? Where is the evidence? I wrote it here first and I will continue to write more proofs that George Town is not the second largest city. If you are a responsible Wikipedian, you must pay attention to this issue and prevent any sensitive words about 'second city' from appearing unless you wait until the 2020 census data is released! ! ! Wiki-Leader — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-Leader (talkcontribs) 10:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ E8% A8% 825% E5% B9% B4% E7% 99% BC% E5% B1% 95% E7% 9B% AE% E6% A8% 99-% E6% 8F% 90% E5% 8D% 87% E6 % 96% B0% E5% B1% B1% E7% 82% BA% E5% 9C% 8B% E9% 9A% 9B% E5% A4% A7% E9% 83% BD% E6% 9C% 83 /
  2. ^

June Brown


Hello Upon reading the page on the actress June Brown MBE (my mother) I noticed that it states that she attended the Bristol Old Vic Theatre School. This is NOT true. She actually went to the London Old Vic Theatre School which no longer exists, but it was situated above the existing Old Vic Theatre in London. Please could you amend this - I tried but it didn't work. Thank you. {NA} — Preceding unsigned comment added by RubyFirehorse (talkcontribs) 10:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@RubyFirehorse: Done, with a citation to The Daily Telegraph confirming this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia vadalism

someone has vandalised the picture of south korean president roh moo hyun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athoming1988 (talkcontribs) 07:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Roh Moo-hyun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This was corrected just after you posted here. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The alt right page

Hi, I recently looked at the wiki page regarding the alt right, and saw where the mens rights movement was said to be connected or affiliated with the alt right. I don't believe this to be true, or that the MRA has any paticular political affiliation. So, I think this should be edited.

Thank you, Garduna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garduna (talkcontribs) 18:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA