Delete a person that wasn't a person
Batt Lees, GCZQ-NF9 was not a person, but an abbreviation for Company C Lee's Battalion. This abbreviation was added as a spouse for Addison Riley L6F2-52F who fought in Company C Lee's Battalion.
See this record.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L9H1-L84V?i=254&cc=2125026
Can you please delete the record for Batt Lees because it was not a person?
And while you are at it, is there anyway to correct the index that says Batt Lees is a spouse of Adison Riley so this won't happen again?
Best Answer
-
Batt Leés • GCZQ-NF9 has been deleted from Family Tree.
2
Answers
-
The profile:
This fairly common correction is one you can do yourself. Simply detach GCZQ-NF9 from any person and merge it into another profile of the **** (or first change the sex). When you do the merge, in the reason statement explain how Batt Lees is not a person.
Perhaps put a similar explanation in a Note on L6F2-52F.
The indexed historical record:
You can edit the indexing somewhat here: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QL2J-J4CQ
You can also use the Feedback tab on the right edge of the page to request the index record be deleted, since it is spurious.
0 -
Did you know that you can do all this? For example:
0 -
Thanks.
Yes, I know I can delete the relationship, but the record will still be in the database and this was never a person. It was a military company, so Addison Riley could not be married to the whole company.
This record needs to be deleted, but delete record is unavailable. I was instructed to contact support to get this deleted, and this community is the only way to contact support now.
The index is what says it is his wife, and there is no way to correct this index. Someone else who doesn't look at images will probably come along and add this fake wife again.
0 -
------------------
[ English ]
Moderator [ ie. 'FamilySearch' "Support" (Personnel) ]
Unfortunately, it appears that you DO NO understand ORIGINAL post.
FYI
Technically, there is NO problem/issue with the "Source":
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QL2J-J4CQ
The REAL problem/issue, is the SECOND Spouse/Wife, that was "Created" on 21 March 2021, from the "Source"; being, the individual/person:
Batt Leés ... ( GCZQ-NF9 )
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/changelog/GCZQ-NF9
The aforementioned individual/person DOES NOT actually exist.
The aforementioned is a NON-EXISTENT individual/person.
Now, due to circumstances, this NON-EXISTENT individual/person, CANNOT be "Deleted" (ie. "Removed"), from "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', by ANY User/Patron; as, the "Delete Person is Unavailable".
Hence, the original REQUEST, to "Delete" (ie. "Remove"), this NON-EXISTENT individual/person, from "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch'.
The NON-EXISTENT individual/person CAN certainly be "Detach" / "Unassociated" from the "Couple" Relationship, to which it is CURRENTLY associated; and, left "Hanging" in "Limbo".
But ...
That Said ...
In the situation/circumstance of a NON-EXISTENT individual/person, rather than LEAVING such a Record in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', in "Limbo"; where, such could be INADVERTENTLY used by ANOTHER User/Patron, I would humbly suggest, that "Deletion" (ie. "Removal"), from "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' would be the BEST course of action.
Just my thoughts.
------------------
[ Spanish ]
Moderador [es decir. 'FamilySearch' "Soporte" (personal)]
Desafortunadamente, parece que NO entiendes la publicación ORIGINAL.
FYI
Técnicamente, NO hay problema / problema con la "Fuente":
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QL2J-J4CQ
El VERDADERO problema / cuestión es el SEGUNDO Cónyuge / Esposa, que fue "Creado" el 21 de marzo de 2021, de la "Fuente"; siendo, el individuo / persona:
Batt Leés ... ( GCZQ-NF9 )
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/changelog/GCZQ-NF9
El individuo / persona antes mencionado NO existe realmente.
El mencionado es un individuo / persona NO EXISTENTE.
Ahora, debido a las circunstancias, este individuo / persona NO EXISTENTE, NO PUEDE ser "Eliminado" (es decir, "Eliminado"), del "Árbol Familiar", de 'FamilySearch', por CUALQUIER Usuario / Cliente; como, "Eliminar persona no está disponible".
Por lo tanto, la SOLICITUD original, para "Eliminar" (es decir, "Eliminar"), este individuo / persona NO EXISTENTE, del "Árbol Familiar", de 'FamilySearch'.
El individuo / persona NO EXISTENTE PUEDE ciertamente estar "Separado" / "Desasociado" de la Relación de "Pareja", a la que está asociado ACTUALMENTE; y dejó "Hanging" en "Limbo".
Pero ...
Eso dijo ...
En la situación / circunstancia de un individuo / persona NO EXISTENTE, en lugar de DEJAR dicho Registro en el "Árbol Familiar" de 'FamilySearch', en el "Limbo"; donde, INADVERTIDAMENTE, podría ser usado por OTRO Usuario / Cliente, humildemente sugeriría que "Eliminación" (es decir, "Eliminación"), del "Árbol Familiar" de 'FamilySearch' sería el MEJOR curso de acción.
Solo mis pensamientos.
------------------
Brett
2 -
Hello @Stephanie Spencer Booth,
Here are a couple of things you can do about this record for Batt Lees GCZQ-NF9 since the delete is unavailable:
- Merge the non-existent person with the real wife with a note in the reason for merging.
- Send a friendly message to the creator of this record so they will not make the same mistake when they see that you have merged the records.
Best Wishes!
0 -
Given that the index is not correctable, I suggest that you merge "Ms. Batt" with Adison's actual wife (who is in the very next entry of the record, so I haven't a clue what the indexers could've been thinking), and attach the erroneously-indexed record to both Adison and Jane. This will not completely prevent people from adding Ms. Batt again, but it will discourage many of them, and has the added benefit that the rest of the index entry is actually correct, and does actually refer to Adison.
I am filing this one in my "favorite misindexings" document, by the way. It's right up there with my spouse's distant relative, who had her baptism misindexed with a sex-changed mother to become her father, and a mother created out of her father's occupation and religion. On that one, the entry was in Latin; Ms. Batt's creator(s) had no such excuse, so it's a truly spectacular example.
0 -
The profile:
This fairly common correction is one you can do yourself. Simply detach GCZQ-NF9 from any person and merge it into another profile of the **** (or first change the sex). When you do the merge, in the reason statement explain how Batt Lees is not a person.
Perhaps put a similar explanation in a Note on L6F2-52F.
The indexed historical record:
You can edit the indexing somewhat here: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QL2J-J4CQ
You can also use the Feedback tab on the right edge of the page to request the index record be deleted. Personally, I probably wouldn't bother with either step.
0 -
The profile:
This fairly common correction is one you can do yourself. Simply detach GCZQ-NF9 from any person and merge it into another profile of the **** (or first change the sex). When you do the merge, in the reason statement explain how Batt Lees is not a person.
Perhaps put a similar explanation in a Note on L6F2-52F.
The indexed historical record:
You can edit the indexing somewhat here: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QL2J-J4CQ
You can also use the Feedback tab on the right edge of the page to request the index record be deleted. (I don't know if doing this would accomplish anything.)
0 -
Yes, it is one of the funniest indexing errors I have ever seen as well.
I am not going to merge Batt Lees with Addison Riley's correct wife because it is not his wife. It would also make me look really foolish to anyone reading the history of his wife's record.
I was hoping that someone from support would read this post because the instructions I get when I click "Delete Person Unavailable" say the following:
If this person never existed, use Get Help and Contact Us to have the data removed.
I am sad that contacting support has gotten so difficult. If any support missionaries read this, could you please delete the record GCZQ-NF9 Batt Lees, because it's not a person or a wife, it is a military unit.
1 -
Stephanie,
Thank you for your efforts to keep information in Family Tree accurate. We will forward your request to a Specialty Department for review.
0 -
@Stephanie Spencer Booth you can still contact Support, via Live Chat or phone in most locations:
https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/contact-familysearch-support
0 -
If you find you cannot get someone with administrative rights to carry out a deletion, you might have to carry out the merge yourself. Providing you explain the situation (about the non-existent person) as well as you have here, I see no reason why this should "make me look really foolish to anyone reading the history of his wife's record". I sincerely hope you are able to resolve this problem to your satisfaction.
1 -
I don't see any practical difference between "Batt Lees" and a simple typo like "Jnae Smth", in terms of dealing with the repercussions of the indexing error. Neither one is the correct name of the person, but that can be fixed easily enough, and the relationship is real. (It'd be somewhat different if Batt had been created for an unmarried man.)
The only difference between Batt and my "Cath Arendat" is that the latter source does actually apply to the mother, whereas only the next entry in Batt's source document refers to the wife. So I can see an argument for just dismissing the "unfinished attachments" on the husband's source citation, instead of attaching it to his actual wife, but given the difficulty of flagging down someone who can actually delete Batt, I think the best solution is to merge it with Jane. (You can change Batt to Jane first, if you'd like.)
1 -
It was my impression that Stephanie Spencer Booth's concern was more with the incorrectly indexed historical record than with the PID.
Future record searches will find that spurious "spouse". What can be done about it?
1 -
Sorry about the repeat comments from me, everyone. That was a Community software glitch that I struggled with for days!
0 -
It looks like the Discovery page has a 'thank you' button that will go directly to the indexer...
If they start getting a bunch of thank yous for this one I bet they would wonder...😂
2 -
All
As indicated ...
'FamilySearch' has done the right thing, by "Deleting"/"Removing", the NON-EXISTENT individual/person, from 'Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' altogether.
As, 'Stephanie' has ORIGINALLY "Requested", in this post.
That was the least complicated solution.
Brett
ps: WHY ...
Why, "Merge"/"Combine", the NON-EXISTENT individual/person, when ANOTHER User/Patron, can just come along; and, subsequently, RESURRECT (ie. "Unmerge"; and/or, "Restore") the the NON-EXISTENT individual/person, all over again?
Thereby, perpetuating, the whole situation.
Despite, ALL, the "Detail"; and, the "Information", that CAN be ADDED to the individuals/persons concerned ...
As, MANY Users/Patrons DO NOT even, READ; and/or, TAKE NOTICE OF, such detail/information ...
There is every chance, that the User/Patron, who "Created" the NON-EXISTENT individual/person, may come along; and, "Unmerge"; and/or, "Restore".
Plus, there is even the possibility, that ANOTHER User/Patron, may come along; and, "Unmerge"; and/or, "Restore", the NON-EXISTENT individual/person.
.
0 -
Brett asks why merge the bogus profile into the wife? Because the indexing error remains, and will likely lead to someone else making another profile and attaching it to the husband. Hence the recommendation to merge it and keep the bogus index record attached to the actual wife. And include a note on her profile or the attached source.
The only time I ask FS staff to delete a profile is when the profiled person is living but no one is available to hold it in private tree space.
1 -
FYI
IF, the "Source" is ALREADY "Attached" (with "Notes"); THEN, it is less likely (but, of course, NOT impossible) that another User/Patron will make the SAME "Mistake".
And, anyway, "Merging"/"Combining", the NON-EXISTENT individual/person, would be MORE prone to possible "Future" ERROR, than an ALREADY attached "Source" (with "Notes").
Why go to the bother, of ADDING "Notes", about a NON-EXISTENT individual/person, which would MOST likely NOT / NEVER be, READ; and/or, TAKEN NOTICE OF.
Having "Indexing" ERRORS in "Sources" can, in many cases, be difficult; and, time-consuming.
Whereas, having NON-EXISTENT individuals/persons, "Deleted"/"Removed," from "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', is a lot better option; and, somewhat less difficult.
Brett
1
