Help desk
< November 28	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

November 29

Copyright

If I post an essay of mine about Wikipedia in my userspace, does doing so release it into the public domain? I want to share it in my userspace but I want to maintain copyright of the content. —Entropy (T/C) 00:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It releases it under a Creative Commons licence, meaning other people are free to use it free of charge. So, if you want to keep the copyright, don't post to WP. --FormerIP (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not entirely correct. You still hold the copyright, but by releasing your contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (to which you agree when entering text into the edit window and hit 'Save') you grant anyone the right to use your content for any purpose, given they provide proper attribution. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds pretty acceptable. Does attribution have to be given to my Wikipedia account or the original source? I suppose it doesn't make much difference since it's just me either way. Am I going to run into any issues with copying and pasting content from another source onto Wikipedia, though? Sorry for my poor understanding of the licensing here. —Entropy (T/C) 17:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wanting to copy and paste material from another source into Wikipedia, you'd need to read WP:COPYVIO, WP:CFAQ, and WP:Plagiarism. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through those pages, but they don't seem to give much information about what's allowed when you are the copyright holder and the owner of the domain the text is being copied from. —Entropy (T/C) 22:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not covered in Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials? - David Biddulph (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David, I've donated the text as described in your link. Thanks for the help! —Entropy (T/C) 03:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R.Narasimha

Does R.Narasimha have a correct title. Isn't it supposed to be "R. Narasimha" -- Jab7842 (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a redirect, and so is R. Narasimha. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R. Narasimha has been a redirect for 1½ years, but R.Narasimha was a new article about a different person that OrangeMike converted to a redirect after the original post here. —teb728 t c 06:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Run Ads...

I realize Wikipedi is on a fund-raising mission, and the budget for 2011-2012 is something like a 24% increase over this year. Although I respect your decision to NOT accept advertising, you may want to re-think this policy.

Advertising can easily co-exist with information if it is segregated and clearly identified as such (Google blurs the line on this).

Personally I would have absolutely no problem with limited advertising/sponsorships being presented on your pages. I doubt anyone else would have a problem with you accepting advertising.

You have a product that is widely used and valuable. Might as well derive an income from it that can build an even better Wikipedi! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.52.36 (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to suggest advertising. Talk to WikiMedia. -- kainaw ™ 00:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also read Wikipedia:Advertisements, which goes through all the arguments. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how to move subpage to mainspace

This subject is not covered by your "Moving a page" article. I don't want to re-title the article on the move to mainspace. How do I indicate I want my subpage article to be now viewed in mainspace? thanks Jina2 (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't. What you have written isn't an encyclopedia article, it is an essay. It would be wholly inappropriate to publish it in the main space. See This page here for information about why the writing at User:Jina2/sandbox is not a Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 01:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's how you move the article!!!! By definition, a mainspace article doesn't have your name on it. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible inappropriate comment

Isn't this comment inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- Jab7842 (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider it inappropriate but, on the other hand, allowances might be made for the fact that Wikipedia has editors from various age-groups. --FormerIP (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the editor who that page belongs to can remove it if it bothers them. -- LWG ^talk 03:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be justifiably upset too if someone moved a draft I was working on without asking me first. As Ian Streeter seems to have done with Dan56's draft.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Franamax on mispelling in title of article on Guy Leverne Fake

I just discovered that Franamax responded to my mispelling post last June. He or she indicated that I would need to find a reliable source before the spelling could be edited. I have done this, in the "History of the Federal Judiciary", whose link is: http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=732&cid=224&ctype=dc&instate=nj&highlight=null, which will take you to the page where the information on my grandfather resides. Apparently the other sources ignored my pleas(which is probably typical of most Federal entities.) Please correct the spelling for Guy Leverne Fake. Thank you! Peter H. Fake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.128.68 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think User:Franamax edits on this forum very often; so I doubt he will see your post here. It would be better if you posted at Talk:Guy Laverne Fake or User talk:Franamax. —teb728 t c 05:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

User:Franamax has moved to page to Guy Leverne Fake now that FJC has the correct spelling, though the The Historical Society of the US District Court ref in the article remains 'Laverne'.; the previous spelling remains as a redirect. Dru of Id (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was out on a smoke break. :) I think I've got all the incoming links and redirects fixed now. I left the HSUSDC spelling as is since they still use the spelling, but put in "[sic]" to indicate their misspelling. Hope that works for you. Franamax (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My username on another Wikipedia

I'm asking here as well as at their embassy because it looks like their embassy might take a little while (as in months) to respond. Does anyone here have any idea why my username might not be allowed on the Indonesian Wikipedia? It was created when I globalized my account, and I went there today to check for an interlanguage link with a Simple English article, and I discovered a message left on my user page saying that my username was prohibited. If anyone can help with this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user who tagged your user page at id:Pengguna:Purplewowies has reverted themself. —teb728 t c 05:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italic tags in titles seen in Firefox on Windows

I can see html italics tags around titles on several pages in Firefox 8.0 on Windows XP. I do not see them in IE, but most pages don't have this problem in Firefox so it seems it can be fixed. Examples: Caillou and ReGenesis (I've posted on those Talk pages, but I've searched to find this problem reported elsewhere and another way to report with no success. There may be many more such pages, but they can't be located through the search function.) JoyceD (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those pages use {{Infobox television}}, which automatically italicizes the article title. Your version of IE may not support the markup used to create the italics. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 October 16#Titles are not appearing in italics. says this is caused by StumbleUpon's browser extension. Do you have that? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with poor sources

Please point me to the appropriate page if there is one. If I run across an "open wiki with user-generated content" being used as a source in the {{reflist}}, how should I handle this? Do I remove the ref per WP:USERG and leave it unreferenced, or do I tag the reference with some template, or do I do something else? I do not have a WP:RS to replace the open wiki, so finding a RS is not possible at this point, which is why I am asking here for assistance. --(Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.)64.85.217.215 (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could tag the source with {{Verify credibility}}; this allows readers to see the source and decide for themselves whether to trust it. If the information being sourced are contentious or potentially damaging then consider removing both the source and the information, especially if the article is about a living person. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I did not come across that template in my search. It has a parameter failed=y which is handy, ~~but is there some way to include the reason, such as "open wiki with user-generated content"? I don't want to have to start a talk page section on each article.~~ Otherwise, I'll start using this when I tag these refs. Rgrds. --64.85.217.215 (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that. I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates is a better place to ask that f/u question. Thanks for the response. --64.85.217.215 (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

republishing

There is a publishing company that is just taking pages from wikipedia and printing them and selling the things as books. This seems illegal or at least immoral. Here is a link to one http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1244388831/ref=cm_cr_rev_prod_title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.163.144 (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they are abiding by the terms of the licence (proper attribution) they are welcome to publish WP articles. Roger (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's more at Wikipedia:Buying Wikipedia articles in print or another form. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some more information at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-08-17/News and notes. They apparently do make a half arsed attempt to attribute the material to Wikipedia inside the book, but it's still a scam in my eyes, nothing can be done, alas. Яehevkor ✉ 10:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My company actually bought one of those books (Betascript) for a relatively obscure Relational Database Management system. I'm not even sure I'd go as high as half arsed. One percent arsed seems about right.Naraht (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tag for "please expand this acronym"

Is there an inline tag to request that an obscure acronym be written out in full? Roger (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything usable in Category:Inline cleanup templates or Category:Inline citation and verifiability dispute templates? {{clarify}} night be the next best thing. Яehevkor ✉ 11:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Perhaps you could use {{clarify}} or {{elucidate}} which are listed at WP:TC#Inline with article text? I don't know whether there exists a more specific template like the one you want. You can request the creation of such a template at Wikipedia:Requested templates if you are not satisfied with the existing cleanup templates. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I found Template:Expand acronym in Category:Inline cleanup templates. I'm adding a link to that category to my userpage. Roger (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a picture

In all of my time on Wikipedia, I've never uploaded an image - I've seen an article I can improve with an image (it's a mobile phone article) article but is there any sort of guide on format, size and the like that I should consider when taking the photo? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fundraising question

Admiring your programming genius, I'm sure you can come up with a way to make your fund raising less obnoxious. I've given twice during your ongoing campaign but still I get Jimmy Wales or that other guy right up top, in my face, every time. And now you have a cutaway popup article I'm supposed to read before I use Wikipedia? How about installing a cookie once someone has given so that they are no longer pestered by your fund raising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.234.209 (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you create an account you can permanently remove the fundraising banner. – ukexpat (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 94#How to hide all fundraising banners on all Wikimedia wikis until next year is about such a cookie but perhaps it's only for logged in users. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Open (tennis) editions

Hi there,

can anyone explain to me why 2004 US Open is marked as 123rd edition and 2005 US Open is marked as 125th edition? Where did 124th edition go?

Regards, Vinkje83 (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting this. An editor falsely changed many edition numbers since 2005.[1] I will fix it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes. All edition numbers I saw in independent sources agree with numbering where 2005 is the 124th edition and 2011 is the 130th. However, it apparently started in 1881 and has been held every year so I'm not sure what is going on with the numbers. If 1881 was 1st then it seems 2005 should be 125th. I haven't found official numbering published by the tournament itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very puzzling indeed. Thanks for making the adjustments. I will keep an eye on this page to see whether any new information comes up. Perhaps in some year the tournament wasn't held? Greetings from the Netherlands, Vinkje83 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Afkatk/SandboxP10, As I've explained to Prime already this is how I got the numbers, so unless I made any errors I'll apologize. Independent sources can be wrong sometimes even with something so simple. I did plan to edit all the articles but either got bored or sidetracked, because I originally wanted to pimp out most of the Main Tennis Grand Slam articles so they'd have more structure otherwise they look like this, when ideally they should be looking like 1905 WIM bare minimum. Afro (Talk) 17:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further investigation turned up this list. No single year is missing, and the list from 1881 to 2011 indeed counts 131 editions. (I employed MS Excel for counting.) I will adapt the edition numbers on the Dutch Wikipedia, which means you guys have a nice job to do on the English Wikipedia. :-( Good luck and be brave. Vinkje83 (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is there a consensus here for me to redo the edits which were called false? Afro (Talk) 15:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the apparently erroneous recent edits from 2005 onwards. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches like "US Open" "130th edition" indicate that more than 90% of online sources use the numbering where 2011 is 130th and 2005 is 124th. The tournament has an unnumbered list of champions [2] where 2005 is the 125th entry but without an official number it seems like borderline original research to go against the vast majority of sources and assume that every entry in a list must be a numbered edition. Perhaps we should mention the discrepancy in US Open (tennis). Mentioning it in every edition would be a bit much. I have posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#US Open edition numbers. Maybe somebody there can find a good explanation. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's simply press error. The US Open website calls the 1981 edition the "100th anniversary" which would be correct. The press has simply err'd in transposing the 130th anniversary into the 130th edition. The cover of Tennis Magazine got it right back in 1981 with the word anniversary. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to make the ref list?

I am new to editing and created a new page about "Applied Theatre" with internal citations. I keep getting a message that I need to make a ref list, and a link to the help page, but without instructions HOW to do it. All it states is that it will come up with a reference list for the new editor. Weel, that's not happening and my page won't post. Please help!

--clkaplan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clkaplan (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are particular things in WP:Referencing for beginners that you don't understand, please ask. That particular problem in Applied theatre has been cured by other editors adding

== References ==
{{reflist}}

but the article is apparently about to be deleted for other reasons, as outlined on your talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Speedy template has been removed so it isn't currently under any imminent threat of deletion. With a bit more work by knowlegable editors it looks like it has potential to become a useful article. Roger (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Showing personal appeal again

Awhile back, I clicked the X on the personal appeal from Jimmy Wales. I didn't know that this would be permanent, but I haven't seen his face since then. I'm starting to miss it and I would like to bring it back. Is there an easy way to get it to start showing up at the top of every article again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.18.130 (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have the option checked in your userpage (which you can't unless you're logged in), the fundraising banner should still show up from time to time. You might be able to get it to show up right away if you clear the page cache. —Entropy (T/C) 18:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

help (2)

hi

thanx thats was good but i need to show me example about how to use IPA english in some article on wiki

thanx plz answer as soon possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.240.37 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of articles that use the {{IPA-en}} template.

(for reference, this section is a follow-up to #help) —teb728 t c 21:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting your page

Is it possible to submit an article to be reviewed for page protected before it is actually written? Basically, is there a way to protect it before it hits the web? I would like to write an article but the content will be very sensitive and I would like to try to get it fully protected for safety reasons. I understand the need for it to be reviewed first and am completely willing to submit it for review before being given full protection rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.47.237 (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer? No. Protection is usually only applied as a last line of defence (see Wikipedia:Protection policy). Protecting a new article specifically to prevent others from editing it will never happen, it goes against the core values of Wikipedia. Яehevkor ✉ 18:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention a salt is only for pages that have been repeatedly recreated, and it only allows administrators to create a page on that title. Protecting the page "before it is actually written" would be a salting, and would be self-defeating as it would prevent you from editing it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If creating an article on a "sensitive" (for whatever reason) subject, it is best to ensure that your sources are of the best quality that you can get. Iff the subject passes the relevant policies of WP:GNG,, WP:V via WP:RS, WP:BLP (if appliccable) then you should be WP:BOLD and create it. Just remember to WP:CITE your sources. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More money for Wikipedia: Provide - against a donation - whole(!) portals, such as science, fixed(!) on DVD.

I (and many others) would buy such DVDs against donation

More money for Wikipedia As Jimmy Wales asks for donantions my suggestion:

Wikipedia has the "export" function of individual arcticles as PDF. I would like to have "groups" of articles / portals (mainly science) burnt on DVD, e.g. "fixed".

I suggest that you provide this (via computer) against a donation of a suggested amount, such as "For getting all Wikipedia for as private copy as 6 DVDs we regard a donation from (number) as appropriate."

Of course, less traffic for Wikipedia, you might mail the DVDs by service-companies as Kaspersky does for their anti-vitus software.

As Wikipedia is non-profit: It should not be a formal sale but a "view by using a DVD" with the donation flowing to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.245.139.150 (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:DVD editions have been discussed but I don't know how much progress has been made. Nice if I could have a copy of Wikipedia on a tablet computer when out of radio range. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media/Logo question

I uploaded a PD-Textlogo a while ago that was recently tagged by another user with 'wrong license'. The logo is at [3]. Is it because the summary used is for a non-free logo ? wasn't sure what other summary to include with it. Would appreciate some help, thanks.Grmike (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Have you asked User:Sfan00 IMG why they tagged it with that template? – ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the tagging was done as it is a textlogo and thus in the public domain. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean the summary used is unecessary?Grmike (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)grmike[reply]

The tag states "An experienced editor should contact the uploader and add the proper tag" so this is the first place I thought to ask for help.Grmike (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)grmike[reply]

If it is a {{PD-text}} logo, then the non-free use rationale is not required. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I changed it using {{information}} with some help from Sfan00.Grmike (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)grmike[reply]

I uploaded a new version of the logo with the proper license at File:Brink's Company logo.png and added it to The Brink's Company here. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious as to what the point of that was? – ukexpat (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point of that was to reduce the rendered size of the image due to WP:LOGO#Editorial concerns, which says the logo should not be rendered at an unnecessary high resolution. The rendering of File:The Brink's Company Logo.svg at 2000px is unnecessary. This is probably irrelevant, as that resolution is not actually displayed in an article. That was mindless of me. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting from existing article to new page -- policy?

I can't find this in the FAQ--is there a policy to follow regarding doing this?

I've been putting in a lot of time on the CFNY-FM article, but more and more I'm finding that the Dean Blundell Show section has too much information and is a bit unwieldy for the radio station's main article. I've been thinking for a couple weeks now that the best solution would probably be to split it off onto its own page (where current points, facts, etc can be discussed at greater length) and reduce the CFNY article's section down to a more concise description in line with the other hosts' sections.

Can anyone advise on what the correct policy course to follow on this is? Thanks. DigiFluid (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken a look at WP:SPLIT? – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, had never seen or found that before. Thanks. DigiFluid (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Dean Blundell section has been tagged "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed" since June 2009, I'd say the solution is to remove all the fanboy detail that isn't properly sourced to reliable sources. That will reduce it to a half-dozen paragraphs or less, and solve your problems for good. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thought crossed my mind, but I seem to be pretty much the only one trying to clean up the article as a whole and face a lot of either anonymous editors or editors with very few credits to their names who like to put things in that I remove. And as to the flagged marker, I think I'm at the point now where several of those throughout the page could be removed--but I didn't feel it was my place to do so, and haven't submitted the page for review yet because I'm still working on it. DigiFluid (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that article needs a rewrite, it does not sections breaking out into separate articles, it needs a rewrite. If I can find the energy, I'll do some work on it tomorrow. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article removed for copyright infringement

I had created a Wikipedia article on Globwave as I am part of the scientific consortium that runs this project. This was deleted by wikipedia due to copyright infringement, despite the article being created for the consortium. How can I resubmit this article without the same thing happening again. 22:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfarquhar 220276 (talk • contribs)

If it has been published anywhere else without being released under a compatible license, it's fully copyrighted and Wikipedia can't use it. See WP:Fair use. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 23:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, ostensibly, you can donate text by licensing it, at its source, according to Wikipedia's reuse license CC-BY-SA 3.0. If you update the website where the text was originally located, and indicate that the text is licensed under those terms, it would help. However, that would presuppose that the text's copyright status was the only issue. It isn't. Wikipedia is not a webhosting service, and has high standards for encyclopedia articles. First, not every entity (person, company, whatever) in existance merits an article. What counts is what at Wikipedia is known as "notability". We don't actually judge notability; we merely look to see if the world finds something notable. How do we know if the world finds something notable? Well, lots of people, who don't actually belong to your company, will have written lots of text about it (things like books, magazine articles, journal articles, newspaper stories, etc.) of an in-depth manner. See WP:N for more information about notability. Secondly, even if a company is notable, Wikipedia articles are NOT advertisements for the company. The text you put on Wikipedia was written like an advertisement, which is wholly inappropriate. What Wikipedia is, is an encyclopedia and that means what we host is encyclopedia articles. We have standards for what these articles look like, how they are written, what information they contain, etc. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Five pillars for information on what Wikipedia is, and is not. Finally, even if your company is notable AND even if someone were to compose information which is written of an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia, you should not be the one writing it. Wikipedia discourages writing while under a conflict of interest (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You should wait for someone to notice that the article doesn't exist at Wikipedia, and independently write it, without any connection to you or your company. --Jayron32 23:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Express, Inc.

I wanted to add a new article on Wikipedia. It kept getting deleted. I was giving good references and I do not understand why the article I was making kept getting deleted.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgmann912 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)‎[reply]

Simply put, it's spam. Articles on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral viewpoint, without any advertisement speech in them. References will not help that. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 23:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a company is not inherently spam. The article in question had a neutral tone, so the outstanding problem was the lack of asserted notability. Goodvac (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Henry TD mayo North Ireland 1927 to 1932.

Mark Henry TD North mayo 1927 to 1932. I have more information on his life and times. How do I give that information to your website? Cathal Henry. Grandson of Mark Henry. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.188.246 (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email this address.

What article is this related to? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about Mark Henry (Irish politician)? If so, we have that article about him, and you could post your information at Talk:Mark Henry (Irish politician). You need to know, however, that we cannot use private knowledge. All content of articles must be verifyable by reference to published reliable sources. —teb728 t c 00:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting footnote mistakes under the reference section of an article

I have 3 footnotes added by mistake under the "references" section of my article. How do I delete these?. Thank you. Kpvandy 23:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpvandy (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "mistake". If you're referring to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arlington P. Van Dyke, that's how it's supposed to appear: the references you used to create the article appear as footnotes beneath the article, linked by numbers. Clicking on a number will drop you down to the appropriate footnote, and clicking on the caret before the footnote will take you back up to the number that refers to it. You're doing it right; could you clarify why you feel this is a mistake? Choess (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]