Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 488

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Teahouse | Questions
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 04:10, 30 May 2016 (Archiving 18 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 485Archive 486Archive 487Archive 488Archive 489Archive 490→Archive 495

COI in creating page for AWA Lighting Designers

Hello all, I'm working on my first article, but I am a "paid contributor" (the subject is my employer) and well aware of the accompanying COI issues. Rather than just toss in my hat, I want to make sure I do everything properly; I understand that submitting a draft to AfC with the proper COI tag, {{connected contributor (paid)}}, is a final step. However, how much or how little content is appropriate? And what kinds of information should I include or avoid (e.g., listing projects, biographical material like education/employment, etc.)? I know these are murky waters I'm navigating, so thank you for your patience and help.

A link to the current draft is here: User:Camnelson15/AWA_Lighting_Designers. I've kept it short to start, and don't worry about more general issues, I plan to have third-party sources for everything, and format it all nicely. The main thing I want to understand is COI ethics/procedures. I'm taking this one step at a time.

Thanks again!

Camnelson15 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Just letting you know, I replaced {{connected contributor (paid)}} with {{tl|connected contributor (paid)}} so that this page is no longer tagged as having a connected contributor. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 20:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Camnelson15, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for being up-front about your status. I have taken the liberty of replacing your external link above by a Wikilink, for clarity.
The (potential) problem is that you have started the wrong way round. You have started with information you know about the company, put it in, and found sources for it. That is better than a lot of people manage, who don't even provide sources. But it is not the way to write a good Wikipedia article. What you need to do is to start by finding independent reliable sources that discuss the company in depth. Then you should forget every single thing you know about the company, and write an article based strictly on what these sources say (though in your own words, so as not to infringe their copyright). If that gives you a substantial article, then you might fill it out with factual information from the company's own resources, and add a selection of products or projects that they have done. But an article that consists almost entirely of projects or products is not encyclopaedic, and indicates that either the company is not notable or that the writer has not found the sources which will establish its notability.
I'm not sure about the two references for which you haven't given URL's, but of the five you have, not one is a substantial piece about the company - they all just mention it; and few of them are independent: if they are published by a company they work with, they are not independent. It is possible that references 2 or 6 are substantial pieces about the company; but given that you have used them to support specific projects, I doubt it. You need to find articles in major newspapers or magazines, or books from reputable publishers, which have substantial pieces about the company (not just about its founder, or about particular projects), written by independent people, not associates of the company (and also not based on press releases or interviews). If you can find some, then write the article based on those; if you can't, then give up, because in that case the company doesn't meet our criteria for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you ColinFine, I'll give that approach (coming at it blind) a shot! Your candor is appreciated. --Camnelson15 (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Blanking content

(cut and paste from archive) I am trying to work on an editing issue with another editor who blanked a lot of content that I referenced very well and was an update to older research. I would rather do this between the editor and myself before I revert, but isn't blanking content sometimes considered a form of vandalism? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Bfpage, you're not a new user by any means; why are you asking this at the Teahouse, since you know perfectly well how WP:BRD works? Assuming it's the sequence of edits at Probiotic and its related pages which are the issue, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine is the place to go for what will be a discussion requiring fairly specialist input on the relative validity of different research groups, if you can't get a consensus on the article talkpages. (I'm noting a singular absence of attempts by you to discuss this on the talk pages, FWIW.) ‑ Iridescent 19:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
If you really are User:Bfpage, an experienced editor and a Teahouse host, not a Teahouse guest, then I wonder whether your Visiting Scholar account has been compromised, because you know how to report vandalism and how to use WikiProjects to get expert participation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Not such a friendly response...hmmmm, maybe even a bit icy. Though I am not a new editor by any means and did not say that I was, I still have an editing question. I am sorry that I did not get back sooner. My question is not about the Probiotics article at all. As a matter of fact, I have absolutely no problems with the Probiotic article and hope to continue to work with other editors to make it better. I have waited until my editing history was long enough so that my question would not be tied to a particular article and that assumptions like the ones made above could not be made. Yes, I know about being bold, but the edits I am referring were not so bold. As for my account being compromised, that is not the case as far as I know. Discussing small edits made over a relatively long period of time is not something that usually merits discussion on talk pages. You won't find too much from me on the Probiotics talk page since I don't have a problem with the editing. I generally avoid reverting, it gets so contentious. But the edits made to an article that I was working on were not bold but over time much of my MEDRS supported content was removed - one small edit at a time. Essentially in the course of a two week period, at least half of it was gone. My point is that if the content were removed all at once, it would be blanking content, is that correct? I think I get the gist of what you might be getting at - blanking content in small, incremental steps is not a form of vandalism, yes? Best Regards.
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC) and Bfpage
I, for one, really don't like to answer questions of this level of generality. The answer to questions of this high level of generality is typically: Sometimes. Maybe. However, to answer your question as you asked it, you already know that large-scale blanking, unless accompanied by a detailed edit summary, is usually a form of vandalism. You appear to be referring to repeated small-scale blanking of content. If you are saying that small edits over a period of time are not normally discussed on talk pages, I wouldn't generalize, and your question makes me uneasy because of its generality, but I wouldn't say that repeated small edits with an overall effect are not worth discussing. You are forcing me to do a lot of guesswork, which is why I really don't like your question, but, if an editor is repeatedly removing small amounts of content, knowing or hoping that the edits will not be discussed, it probably isn't vandalism as such, because it may be POV-pushing instead. Now, rather than deliberately being annoying and vague and general, will you please direct us to an article? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. It has really helped me. I am sorry to be forcing you to do a lot of guesswork and my question is genuinely being asked in good faith. I needed a general answer about editing and what you wrote makes a lot of sense. I don't intend to be deliberately annoying but my question was really about editing and blanking of content and you have given me an unbiased viewpoint about blanking content vs. POV-pushing. I won't direct you to an article, I am sorry. Instead if I continue to have questions about the kind of blanking of content that may be happening, I will discuss with such things with any editor with whom I have a problem. I am here to make an encyclopedia and learn as much as I can from other experienced editors like yourself. I am not sure why I am annoying. I don't want to be. Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC) (other username, Bfpage)

Which of my sources are not reliable?

Hello :) My article was declined, and I would like some help determining how to correct it to wikipedia standards: Draft:James Norley (model/actor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Norley_(model/actor)

My 3 sources were Models.com, IMDb, and Twitter.

Models.com lists all the previous work of models with links to the work to verify it.

IMDb doesn't allow user-generated content when it comes to the work the actor has done. Users can't even submit their own, someone from the film team does that, and IMDb has to approve them, so that would count as reliable right?

Twitter, I can see how that's not reliable because people can say anything they want in their bios.

Any help is welcome. Thank you very much! Nephasno (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nephasno. Please start by reading and thoroughly understanding Your first article. We require significant coverage of the topic in independent, reliable sources to establish notability. The model directory is, well, just a directory. Directory listings do not establish notability. IMDb may have limited use on Wikipedia, but the content you mention is also, in effect, a directory listing, which does not establish notability. An official Twitter feed may be acceptable for a few non-controversial biographical details, but it is most certainly not an independent, reliable source, so has no value in establishing notability. We need solid prose coverage in several independent sources with reputations for accuracy and professional editorial control. Lacking that, Wikipedia would instantly deteriorate into a swamp of spam and gossip. No, people cannot say anything they want in their Wikipedia biographies. They have no ownership rights whatsoever. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Somewhere the documentation discourages the use of IMDb. Twitter is just a social site that anyone can contribute to, so of course it's fairly unreliable. I guess one reason why so many entries on Wikipedia have the "need citations" template is beause reliable sources are hard to find, while unreliable sources are plentiful, especially on the internet.
-- Vmavanti (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
That documentation on IMBDb would be WP:CITINGIMDB. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

How can use references for an article in a different language?

I would like to translate articles from English to Spanish but I don't know if is allowed use the same reference to the same article but with different language? Fujiiy (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

We can't really answer that question for the Spanish Wikipedia. It is OK to use Spanish (or other non-English) sources on the English Wikipedia, as long as they meet our reliable sourcing standards (though if there is a local language edition of a given source, it's nice to cite that alongside the foreign language source). Some other language Wikipedias have different standards for what constitutes a reliable source, though I've gotten the impression that ours are a bit more strict than some others. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Can I use Korean reference on English wikipedia?

Can I use Korean reference on English wikipedia? I didn't find a English reference, so I used Korean references only. Is it OK? Gong Ju-young (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

As long as that source meets the rest of our reliable sourcing standards, language is not an issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

will my article be deleted which has wrong english grammer and wrong spelling?

will my article be deleted which has wrong english grammer and wrong spelling?Berlinuno (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Grammar and spelling are not reasons to delete an article. When an article is deleted, it is most likely deleted because it does not cite enough reliable sources. See WP:42 for more information on how to avoid that problem. Another reason might be plagiarism and copyright violations, but if you're writing with "wrong" English, then you're doing a good job of avoiding plagiarism. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

What to do when I find a factual error?

I found part of an article that I'm fairly certain is wrong. I looked at the Edit history for someone I can contact, but for various reasons it didn't look promising, among them my inability to decipher which contributor wrote the part in question. What do I do about this?
--Vmavanti (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

If you're certain something is wrong, change it. If someone reverts you, be prepared to discuss the change on the talk page, citing reliable sources to support the change. WP:WIKIBLAME links to a tool that can help you find out who added the material in the first place. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

My References are not coming out right!

Hi! I have written a draft (Link: [[1]]) which was submitted for review but declined along with reasons. I have so far fixed some of the issues but i am having confusions regarding a few things.

Firstly, my references are not coming out right. I have followed the correct procedure of citing external links in text. But when i preview my changes and click on the reference, it does not redirect to the website which i have cited, even though the URL posted is correct. Kindly advise.

Secondly, how to insert categories list at the end of the article? If i don't insert categories, will that effect my submission?

Thirdly, i want to insert an image within the text. Do i have to use the file upload wizard or i can embed the image through source editing?

Thanks in advance. Ahmedasghar2016 (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ahmedasghar2016, and welcome to the Teahouse. While wikilinks to other articles are formatted by separating the displayed text and the article title by a pipe character ([[Draft:Tesoro Accessories|My draft article]]), for external links this (somewhat counter-intuitively) breaks the format. For external links the URL is separated from the displayed text by a space ([http://www.example.com My website])
Don't worry about the categories for now; they do not affect your submission. In fact, there is a special trick one needs to employ to add categories to draft articles to prevent them from being categorized as articles. If and when categories become relevant, see Wikipedia:Categorization.
The same goes for images: they are a finishing touch and do not have an effect on the submission. Images need to be uploaded either onto Wikipedia via the Upload Wizard or to Wikimedia Commons to be used. In either case one need's to be absolutely familiar with the copyright status of the image and the licensing policies of Wikimedia.
By far the most serious issue with your draft is the quality of your sources; blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Why am I not able to edit an a wikipedia article?

I am a wiki-editor. As soon, as I log in, I would find the Edit button between 'Read' and 'View History' buttons, so that I can edit the article. But, In the recent days, I don't find the 'Edit' button, Instead I find 'Edit source' button. Through this button, I am not able to edit it. What to do? I want to edit some articles. BawinV (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Some articles are page protected for various reasons. Without knowing what article you tried to edit, I cannot tell you the reason why. This prevents users from editing the page if they are not autoconfirmed or confirmed (which you should be), extended confirmed (users with more than 500 edits over 30 days), or even administrators. It doesn't really have anything to do with you. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
If the page was fully protected you would see "View source" not "Edit source". AFAIK "Edit source" is for people with Visual editor enabled, to allow them to access the "classic" wikitext source editor, so they can enter more complex coding, or edit pages which Visual editor cannot cope with. - Arjayay (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi BawinV, welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to use VisualEditor then "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" should be disabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. When it's disabled there is an "Editing mode" menu where you can choose which editors to see. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Article advice

How can I do much better my article? This article is an assignament from one class. Likn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fujiiy/sandbox

I'm beginer using wikipedia and im not sure how to use it very well.

Thank you Feryeah13 (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

We cannot know how your teacher will judge your work. Is the teacher a Wikipedia contributor? What is their account name? I see that you have paragraphs starting "this place", then "this forest", then "this ecological park". In some contexts this is approved, and called "elegant variation", but in a Wikipedia article it is disapproved, you should just use the subject's name "Seoul Forest" each time. Maproom (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally. I see that Wikipedia already has an article on Seoul Forest, so your version will never be accepted as an article. Maproom (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
It can, however, be merged there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Need a person with admin privledges to delete a picture I uploaded.

I am a new user. I uploaded a picture to wikipedia. Then the next day uploaded the same picture to commons (with a longer description), creating a duplicate. I would like use the picture in commons. Can somebody be so kind as to delete the picture from wikipedia, so that I can continue to edit (I would like see the results - formatting, etc.).

The name of the file is: 1-Inch Micro Table Saw.jpg

Prototype Engineer (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Prototype Engineer: done. :) Though in passing, I think the wikicode, formatting, and the like should be exactly the same whether the image is local or on Commons, so I don't think it needed to have stopped you. Regardless, you should be good to go now, so happy editing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Cant upload photo and Believe that I made wrong

Please help me understand why we do not have permison to upload picture in the infobox? We are registered and confirmed. Please see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Don_Bennechi&action=edit

Venus Recordings Scandinavia (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I believe that you were trying to get the infobox to use an existing image file from Commons. I corrected the link in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! :-)

Venus Recordings Scandinavia (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Venus Recordings Scandinavia:, please make notice of the message on your talk page and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's Username, Conflict of interest, and Paid-contribution disclosure rules as applicable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Archiving

How do I archive stuff on my Talkpage? It's starting to get pretty long.*Treker (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.*Treker (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Viaf and musicbrainz numbers

I have an article that requires both VIAF No and Musicbrainz numbers added?? How or whom do I speak with to have this information added??? I placed the information on his article talk page as I did not know what else to do with it??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Carey_(musician) T Heart (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Imasku. For instructions regarding the VIAF number, please see Wikipedia:Authority control. I am unfamiliar with MusicBrainz. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Imasku: I've added the identifiers on Wikidata. They should be visible at the bottom of the article in: Pat Carey (musician). 84.251.37.56 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, thank you much. You have handled several things for me in the past. Thank you also to the IP address that added that info for Mr. Carey. I am just finishing the research on another and will be faced with this same scenario again. T Heart (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Waiting for review

Hi. I posted a draft article in March and have not received any feedback. I'm not very familiar with the process, but I gather that an article must be reviewed by volunteers before it is posted online. Is this correct? What is the best way to make sure the process is going properly? Is there a way to accelerate the review? Thanks John.gibson30 (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't find the draft I wrote, can you tell me where to look?

I can't find the draft I wrote, can you tell me where to look?Shotzie62 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you click on the "Contributions" link at the top of any page, it takes you to Special:Contributions/Shotzie62. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I assume you are referring to Draft:Stephen Anderson Smith? If not, please help us to help you, and tell us what it was about - Arjayay (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


How did this edit become a "removal"?

Good Evening, I recently made an edit to the Wikipedia article for Andy Garcia. The article stated he was a Republican. I edited that statement so it reflected the fact that this year he was named one of the "Top 50 Most Influential Latino Republicans." My edit was reverted on the grounds as "self-sourced addition and unexplained removal of sourced material." See compared revisions below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Garc%C3%ADa&type=revision&diff=721848030&oldid=721806601

I reverted this back to my edit because (a) the recognition reinforces the point made in the original edit (that Garcia is Republican), (b) I never removed the original source - I added the new one so both the original reference to Garcia being a Republican and the new one that recognizes him for his influence as such as there supporting the edit I made (it doesn't remove the substance of the original statement that was edited but adds merit to it), (c) the source I added is a recognition: it's not the type of article that lends itself to these standard categories.

Before I engage in an editorial battle over what seems like a minuscule edit, I want to learn what I am missing here. The main point is that this is not the removal of the substance of the original edit: it's an addition that reinforces the statement, not to mention that both the original reference and the new one I added were both preserved in my edit. What am I missing?Polisci101 (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

PS - I've also just discovered that the original source actually lead to a bad link: http://hollywoodrepublicans.com/recommendations.htm. I am removing that, accordingly - but it also feel this further supports my edit and actually weakens the case for the original.Polisci101 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Polisci101. You need to take this up with the Bbb23, who reverted your change, either on their User Talk page or on the article's talk page. I don't see it as a removal myself, but there isn't a right and wrong about this: Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and when somebody disagrees with you, the first thing to do is to discuss it with them. See WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks ColinFine. It seems this could be going back and forth but I did make my case in the User Talk page now. I appreciate the feedback.

References

I have a small problem again. Someone told me that under References it is not right... Can someone tell an "amateur" whats wrong there - and if you can help me fix it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Don_Bennechi

Thanks in advance, Regina/Venus Recordings Scandinavia Venus Recordings Scandinavia (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Venus Recordings Scandinavia. There is a message on your talk page explaining that we do not allow shared company or group usernames. Please change yours.
We use in-line references and the code for each reference should be in the body of the article. When coded properly, the software generates the reference list. Please read Referencing for beginners.
Please remove all the promotional language from the article in accordance with the neutral point of view. Also, we do not refer to people by their first names. He should be called "Bennechi" after first mention, not "Don". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

in-line references are the ones that "camed up" on the Screen - that´s where we got the most information from newspappers and the website and Warner Chappell - That was wrong? We changed it all to only Bennechi :-) Finally do you mean that we should change our username - Venus Recordings Scandinavia? Thanks again, Regina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Recordings Scandinavia (talk • contribs) 18:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. Yes, you must change your username. Company accounts are not allowed. Read and implement Referencing for beginners. I provided a link in my initial response. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, "we" can never have an account, shared accounts are not allowed, everyone must have their own individual account. - Arjayay (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Now I have changed name hope that now I can be helped with the reference line. I would like to add there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftonbladet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner/Chappell_Music www.donbennechi.com But is that not references? Because it seems to be wrong when I try to place them there? Can anyone help me to place it there (of course if I am alowed to) Regina Andersson (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Answers

Who answers all of our questions? I'm just wondering, but who answers us? **1624** 20:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username1624 (talk • contribs)

Do you mean here at the Teahouse, Username1624? Questions asked here are answered by a group of regular "hosts", listed at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts, plus some other experienced editors who drop by the page regularly. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

World cat identifier on an article

How do I get a World Cat Identifer removed from an article? The article it is attached to is a different person with the same name???? https://www.worldcat.org/identities/viaf-102795846/T Heart (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Rehouse, Imasku. You can either correct the number or remove the template. Please see Wikipedia:OCLC and Template:OCLC for details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen... okay, however, I do not believe I have permission to do that?? When I go to the page I see no way for me to make corrections in that area. It must be someone higher up than me. But the template has to be removed it is not the same person, they just have the same first and last name. This is the profile it has to be removed from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kendall T Heart (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Cullen... I just went and looked and only template editors or Admins can alter that info. Which explains why I cannot see it. Thanks much (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Authority_control&action=edit) T Heart (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, T heart. I think Cullen328 has misled you. The information which {{authority control}} picks up is from Wikidata. As far as I can see, d:Q5525355 is the Wikidata record for the right Gary Kendall, and has the right Viaf ID, 102795846. If you follow the link from the Wikidata record, it takes you to http://viaf.org/viaf/102795846, which again seems to be the right Gary Kendall. However, if you follow the Worldcat link from the Authority Control on the Wikidata page Gary Kendall, it takes you to https://www.worldcat.org/identities/containsVIAFID/102795846, which has the right VIAF ID, but seems to relate to a different Gary Kendall. It seems to me that this means that it is Worldcat that has got the wrong person, not Wikidata (or Wikipedia). But I know nothing about Worldcat, so perhaps it is more subtle than that. --ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello ColinFine... thank you for your reply as I know nothing of any of this, just know I have to provide it for details. Yes GK's VIAF and Musicbrainz is accurate it is him. But that WorldCat is a PHD. professor originally from Belfast now in Texas. The fact it is wrong how do I go about getting that world cat identifier removed from GK's profile permanently. Or I do not even know what World Cat is or if they can be contacted to explain this is an error on their part??T Heart (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
T heart, I apologize if my answer was misleading. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
No apology necessary. I wrote to WorldCat even though I really do not know what I am talking about. I hope they understand. T Heart (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The Production section of Jamie Scott website has disappeared

Hi there,

I am editing Jamie Scott’s Wiki site and the whole ‘Production’ section - that used to be just below ‘songwriting’ and looked like the songwriting section - has vanished.

Here is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Scott

Can you shed any light on this please? Catherine Songs (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

ok, thanks of getting back. i have no idea what you're talking about re user names but is there any way of getting this production section back? how could i have deleted it? Catherine Songs (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Catherine Songs, all the previous versions of the article are there by picking History at the top. But before worrying about the minutiae of what is in the article, please pay attention to some Wikipedia policies. KylieTastic has pointed out that your user name is probably not acceptable, and linked to a page which explains this: user names may not suggest that they are editing on behalf of an organisation, and may not be shared by several users. If you are indeed part of Catherine Songs, then you are editing with a conflict of interest, as Kylie also suggested, and you need to understand and follow the recommendations in that link. Please be aware that it is not "Jamie Scott's Wiki site", it is Wikipedia's article about Jamie Scott, and Jamie Scott and his friends, relatives and associates are strongly discouraged from editing the article in any way. The article should conform to the special rules on biographies of living people: at present, only a couple of the references are substantial, reliable, and independent. --ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

guys, can you let me know how to delete accounts?! thank you. Catherine Songs (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

We can't completely delete an account because it has a history of contributing to the encyclopedia, and we keep a record of every contribution. You can just stop using an account if you want to. Please read Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing for other options. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_488&oldid=722789072"