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.
File:AZ-districts-109-02.jpg has an error in it: 3 of the districts in the small map are numbered incorrectly. I realize this image is pulled directly from a public-domain government website, and obviously that site is the source of the error. Short of calling up someone at the Department of the Interior, does anyone have a suggestion for how to fix the image currently on Wikipedia? Oughgh (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a different reliable source with the correctly numbered districts, the best thing to do would be to contact the editor who uploaded the map, and show him the sources and ask him to fix it. The person who actually created it likely has the original maps saved on his own computer, and it would be a trivial correction to make. --Jayron3202:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Including material cited to a subscriber-only resource doesn't violate policy: paid-for (and indeed offline) sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as it would be possible to verify them. If you want to check what the source says, you could ask whether someone at the WP Resource Exchange can help. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Gonzonoir says, this is perfectly valid for a reference. The reference is verifiable by someone with a subscription. It is in the same way that a reference citing a newspaper or a book is valid, even though not every reader would necessarily have access to the newspaper or book. If it exists, is reliable, and can be verified, it is suitable as a reference. May I point out that quite often I have found that news references that I find are only available on a subscription or pay-per-view basis. Although not every one has a subscription, there will be some editors/readers who would have. If you have doubts that the reference actually contradicts (or at least does not fully back up) what is in the article, this should be discussed on the article's talk page. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to add an image to the Stussy article's infobox. I have not been able to find an appropriately licensed image in commons or flickr and have not had anything from Stussy to snap a pic of in over a decade. The website just recently went down (I think they are launching something new) but it has their logo. I also found a better siced one here. A fair use rational could easily be created (I think) for use of the logo but I wasn't sure the best way or from where to pull a clean copy. The bitmap gets weird when pulling fromt he official site and I assume pulling fromt he blog site is not OK. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use is rationale for us not being able to find permission when it is more than aesthetic. Regardless of that, editors can show some balls and send a quick email. Thanks for the reminder. I'll shoot a quick message to see what they are doing logo wise (this is especially important if they are doing rebranding) and reserve FUR if they don't want to go for it.Cptnono (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been recently creating new articles on musical films but i am a bit confused with the template. Please can someone explain the difference between "studio" and "distributor". Thanks.--Coin945 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The studio is often also the distributor. I would assume that the distribution parameter would be left out of the infobox unless it is a separate entity. I suppose it could be duplicated in the field but that seems redundant.Cptnono (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As Cptnono says, normally they are the same. Generally, the studio would be better referred to as the Production company - the company that made the film. The distributor is an independent company, a subsidiary company or occasionally an individual, which acts as the final agent between a film production company or some intermediary agent, and a film exhibitor, to the end of securing placement of the producer's film on the exhibitor's screen (to quote from Film distributor). For the major studios, the distributor is the subsidiary company of the studio. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which image is it? If you refer to a scan of the cover of a magazine (as in File:0906cover.jpg), you are not the copyright owner of the magazine - you may have scanned it, but you are not the creator of it.
Magazine covers are copyrighted to the organization publishing the magazine (and individual photos on a cover are copyrighted to either the photographer or the person who paid for the photograph). I am not an expert on copyright, but I thought I should mention this. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PhantomSteve's advice is correct, but I read your question a little differently. As I read it, you seem to be aware that you don't own the copyright, but perhaps think the requirement is to properly add the copyright information. Wikipedia does not permit the use of images under copyright, with some fairly narrow exceptions for fair use. If you own the copyright, and can provide a license which would permit it to be included, but that doesn't apply here.--SPhilbrickT12:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting a new wiki so we can go in depth into certain subjects. I want to copy some articles from Wikipedia along with the templates the articles use. Is there a better way to do it rather than just find it, create the page on my wiki, copy the source across etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.139.172 (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it's not what I was looking for. I just wanted specific pages. I used Special:Export and got what I wanted. Have to upload images manually though and I cant figure out how to upload the .svg images. Wont seem to let me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.139.172 (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there I am relatively new to this whole internet thing and have been using your site for a while now but have only just become a member. Please could you tell me what things can and can not be put on wikipedia, I mean are there rules that stop me from putting myself onto the website? I have just always fancied seeing my name on wikipedia!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dino billington (talk • contribs) 09:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You cant write about yourself sorry, unless you're someone famous/really important that people would be looking for you here. Otherwise everyone would write about themselves! You can write about yourself on your User Page though. Click your name at the top right of the page to get to it. 114.76.139.172 (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Dino billington... your name is on Wikipedia now! Seriously, unless you are a notable person, then you would not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you are notable, then you would need to request an article to be written about yourself, as you would have a conflict of interest.
Yesterday I edited the section on 'Need' in Wikipedia.
For some time the following messaage had been in place: 'This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. Please help recruit one or improve this article yourself.'
Since I have written extensively on the subject I decided to past in some new content. However, it appears at the very beginning of the Need page, before the Contents box, which looks odd, and it has not been related to the existing content, which needs editing. I'm not sure whose repsonsibility it is to restructure the page. Gougle (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your good faith edit. If the material is relevant to the article, it needs to be put within the article, not added as a chunk of text above the current article. I do not know enough about the subject to know for sure, but your text struck me as being original research. If it is not, I apologise, but the text needs to be inserted into the relevant sections of the current article. If you want to add the text, it is your responsibility to restructure the page as you put it. I have placed a welcome message on your talk page with useful links to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for creating/editing articles. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me after reading those! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
however I don't seem to be able to get wiki to recognize the links I have
added as it still claims no articles point to it. The links I added
however are complete url's because trying to insert the disambig name
makes a mess or the rendered article. What should a link to this article
look like to preserve the rendered text? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 11:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your mistake is in adding the complete URL in the links to the articles, instead, just type the article name between: "[[" and "]]". This will produce a link to the article, so for instance: [[Virtual State (physics)]] will produce: Virtual State (physics). Finally we want to get rid of the "(physics)" part of the link, so we do this: [[Virtual State (physics)|Virtual State]] which looks like this: Virtual State. The first part is what the link links to, and the second part is how it displays. For more information see: Help:Linking. Or just ask here again and someone can explain it in more detail, hope this helps, if not just say, thanks SpitfireTally-ho!11:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for my question: In the cellar scene in Inglourious Basterds we see the German soldiers playing Wer bin ich? (Who am I?). In English comments on that scene, the game is usually called 20 Questions. But in Wer bin ich?, one usually asks questions till the first "No" and then turns over to the next one - as long as all players (or all but the loser) have guessed their names. There is no restriction in the total number of questions. Thus, this game is not 20 questions, even though using a similar principle. But there is no game closer to 20 questions in German-speaking Europe (afaik, at least).
Based on your description I would say the articles are currently a little to far apart for interlanguage links, but you could fix that by adding a mention of the German game (and other international versions if you know them) to Twenty questions. My language Danish has "Tyve spørgsmål til professoren" (English: Twenty questions to the professor) which is like Twenty questions, but there is no Danish Wikipedia article about it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about senior editors and trials. It is about the project that is Wikipedia. I can show you several essays and guidelines that assert this so if you really care that much let me know and thou shall receive. If you want to make a point that is OK too since we all need to vent sometimes.Cptnono (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking in some pages, the language template {{lang-''language ISO|''indigenous name''}}' will result to a link of the language plus the name in italics.
However, i cannot make the same even if I used all the possible ISO codes for Ilocano. As there are a lot of articles abaout the Philippines that are connected with the Ilocanos, i hope someone can help me with this.
The village pump is usually the best place to make proposals. It's divided into several subsections, including policy, proposals, and technical. TNXMan13:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm running the beta version of Wikipedia (or the monobook skin, I can't tell), and I can't find anywhere to WP:Move an article. I checked the WP:Move page and it does not include instructions for moving an article under the Beta. Any help? Mac Davis (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c*2) It's Reference desk policy not to do editors' homework for them. If you show evidence that you have attempted to do your homework, and are stuck at a specific point, then and only then will the reference desk volunteers try to help you. Xenon54 (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I just thought that wikipedia was a place to learn things? If not, I think there should be an entire new wikipedia for homework help. *Note that I did not say DOING our homework, but HELPING when stuck.Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down. If you actually read the above four replies, you would have learned that the Reference desk volunteers are happy to help - but only if you have made it clear that you have attempted the homework and gotten stuck. Xenon54 (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if my reply gave a wrong impression. But if you had read the link provided, you would understand what we do what we don't. ≈ Chamaltalk¤14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As others have said, the reference desk can help with not do your homework. However, most teachers I know tend to tell their students to either not use Wikipedia (as there can be errors in the articles), or to use it alongside other reference materials (such as books). If you have tried to do the homework, and are stuck on a particular point, the Ref Desk folks can guide you to the right section of Wikipedia for you to read! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can also search Wikipedia or the Web for words or phrases in your homework. As more and more of the world's relevant information finds its way online, your ability to look up answers to questions on your own will increasingly determine your effectiveness at whatever you end up doing after you leave school. In addition to the software search tools, there are many online communities with people who will answer questions for free, and your ability to get answers from them is directly a function of your ability to ask questions the smart way. It's a shame that schools don't seem to be teaching students how to use the Internet yet - that would be one of the most valuable skills a school could teach. But I suppose teachers would have to know how to look stuff up online before they could teach the students. --Teratornis (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correcting a name - is that considered major or minor edit?
I noticed when looking up someone's bio that his son's name had a III after it. From personal conversation with that particular person I know that the III is not a part of his name since his middle name is different from that of his famous father who is a Jr. So that leads to 2 questions: 1) is changing the name considered a major or minor edit and 2)how exactly would I go about making a change since the intricacies of Wiki edits still eludes me! Thanks Hydrangean (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Hydrangean[reply]
(e/c)It depends on context whether the edit is major or minor - if there are sources for the current form, changing the name might actually be quite a significant edit. If you let us know which article you're considering, we might be able to give better advice. This leads me to the answer to the second part of your question: the article you are editing probably has an "Edit" link at the very top of the screen - if you click on that, you'll see an editable version of the article. (If you can't find one, it's possible the article is protected: let us know which article, if that's the case, so we can advise you on what to try next. Before you edit, though, it's a good idea to find a source that demonstrates that the name is as you say it is: personal conversations are very hard to verify, which is a cornerstone of Wikipedia policy. I'll drop some links on your talkpage explaining all these things a little better. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Such an edit is unlikely to be minor, and this is something that should be added with a reference (does the article in question have a reference for this, btw?). Minor edits are not judged by the amount of data added/removed/changed. It is judged by the impact it will have on the article. Any change in facts or information given in the article is not minor, unless it is fixing an obvious error etc (see WP:MINOR). ≈ Chamaltalk¤14:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question is the bio for Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of the New York Times. His son's name is Arthur Gregg Sulzberger. As his son explained to me, he is NOT the III since his middle name is different from his father's and grandfather's. As far as verifiable sources go, all the son's published articles just list his name as A.G. Sulzberger and there are many of them! Hydrangean (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Hydrangean[reply]
Actually, if there is no reference for the III at the end either than THAT is original research as well, and should likely be removed. Since it appears that the son self-identifies without the III, you should be well justified in removing it. If, perchance, someone objects, be prepared with actual examples of his own usage of his own name., such as published articles and the like. --Jayron3215:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As this article points out [1] suffixes like "Junior" (and maybe or maybe not suffixes of Roman numerals) do not require the same middle name. However, there seems to be no legalistic rule on the matter, it's more a matter of usage, and is flexible depending on how a family choses to use it. In short, Jayron has it right - its validity or lack thereof depends on reliable sources. If there is no public record of the matter, then the "III" has to go. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots06:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why was Family data removed from right column summary block for all people on Wikipedia?
There has been no global change and spouse appears on a huge number of articles so we really need an example if you want to know why it disappeared there. Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of biographies. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Sallie Johnson and I am a member of Iota Lambda Pi fraternity. I recently looked up my organization through your site and noticed that our page has been deleted. As President and Grand Chapter member, what do I need to do to get our information back on your site? Our fraternity was the very first of it's kind and it is only right that we be apart of this much informational site. So please help me.. Thank you for your time and patience. <blanked>
I also checked the name of the article and the deletion reason was that there was no content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there has to be content apart from, say, links elsewhere. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'd use (actually, I used) 4im. He evidently knows the rules. But, in light of the suggestion of the far more experienced editor above, I'd use {{uw-error2}} at the very least. He's got some welcomes already. Tim Song (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I originally split List of Amiga games into three subarticles, because it was growing too long. But now it looks like it needs even further splitting, because one of the subarticles is already over 30 kilobytes and another is nearly that long. Otherwise I'd know how to split the article further, but it has been interwikied to the French Wikipedia, with the exact same splitting criteria. How would I go along splitting the article further? Can I somehow avoid making any changes to the French Wikipedia? JIP | Talk19:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
: I'm not sure if there is a simple way of changing the split to a 4-way split (without copying-and-pasting a lot) - but however it is done, you don't need to worry about the French Wikipedia. Although they are part of the overall Wikipedia project, they make their own decisions about how to layout such articles. If we change the article on the English Wikipedia, then that does not directly affect the French one - if you remove the interwiki links. When you have completed the re-structuring, then perhaps you could re-interwiki link? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore that... I must pay more attention to what people ask! My advice would be to remove the [[Fr:xxxx]] links, restructure the article's subarticles, and then redo the Fr links with the correct divisions. Hopefully, I've read what you wrote properly this time, and answered it properly! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself only, I don't think alphabetical index pages should follow the same size rules as articles, since articles are meant for reading from start to finish, whereas an index page is for random access. Few people would want to read an entire index page; they most likely just want to look up one or a few specific entries. I wouldn't even have recommended the first split. When I refer to an index page, I often search it with Ctrl+F, which becomes more effective as the index page includes more of the alphabet. That is, it would be easier to search the list of Amiga games if they were all on one page. The Editor's index to Wikipedia, for example, currently stands at 272 kilobytes, and there is no thought of splitting it yet. Splitting it would make is less useful as a reference for looking things up, because the keyword I might remember to look something up might start with a different letter than where the something appears in the index. In other words, alphabetical drill-down is not the only way of searching an index page, and is often not the most effective method. --Teratornis (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript - perhaps you should make the changes to the article, and then ask someone on one of the WikiProjects to help move it to fr.wikipedia.org? I don't know if there's a specific project that would deal with that side of things? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of Interest: Writing for an employer, from a neutral point of view
I am looking to write a string of articles related to my employer's recent endeavors, including a TV show.
I will be using secondary resources, and have no issue with opening the article up to editing and review.
I imagine it should be no issue for me to write from a neutral point of view, intending to post only facts and no promotional items.
Is there any way to create these articles and still comply with Wikipedia's COI documents?
As long as the articles are written using a neutral point of view, using reliable sources, there should be no problems. Be warned however, that it can be hard to do so, if you have a potential Conflict of Interest. The guidelines on COI aren't to prevent people contributing, but to ensure that they are aware of the possible problems, and what Wikipedia looks for in its articles. Also, it wouldn't harm if you left a message on the articles' talk pages explaining your connection with the subject. Alternatively, you could always request an article to be written, giving a neutral editor the information, along with reliable, independent sources of information. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. My user page is indefinitely semi-protected because of incessant vandalism. But generally a page won't be protected just to be protected - there has to be a reason. Xenon54 (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did say "generally" - there are times (such as your page) when it can happen, but in this case, the vandalism to MattC13's page is very low key, and there have only been a total of 11 edits on his page, 7 by him, 1 by a 'bot, and 3 "vandalism" items. Obviously, MattC13 isn't happy about it, but he remedied it himself, and there looked to be insufficient grounds for any kind of protection on his page, hence my advice. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to use an image that was uploaded to the Italian Wikipedia for an article in the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this image was not uploaded to Wikimedia Commons so I cannot use it in an article as-is. I can't contact the uploader of the image because I don't know Italian. What should I do to be able to use this image?-Schnurrbart (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be in the public domain, so just download it and upload it here (It should probably be moved to Commons too, I wouldn't know how.)----occono (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do I add the name of artist Fulton Ross to the listed
Black Artist in Wikipedia? www.fultonross.com
The artist was born in Boston, Massachusetts in 1947 and
has worked as a career committed professional artist for
over forty years.------ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fultonross (talk • contribs) 21:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although she shouldn't have left her email on pages, I ended up emailing Neva Gilbert about her Wikipedia article. She wants to add info about her still being a working, if "on Hiatus" actor and member of SAG.
She has asked
"Dear Anthony, I have spoken to Joe Franklin about my Playboy
centerfold. I have done some off , off broadway theater in the last
few years. Not since the late 90's. But it's just lately i found out
some information being on wiki. As I said I am a working actor , As
the say "On Hiatus'. I still belong to SAG and AFTRA since 1952.
What else can I say(write)? Neva"
What should I say? I replied she should add info to her article that she thinks would be helpful/interesting. What else should I say?----occono (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to refer her to WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:COI. Any information she adds which is not available from reliable, published sources will be removed by other editors. She may certainly remove any information which is false and not sourced; but beyond that her best course would be to explain on the article's talk page what changes she would like to see made to the article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any overlapping. (I'm using Firefox).Try refreshing, once in a while, I see a page problem that goes away with a refresh.--SPhilbrickT23:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created a page but I cant seem to search it not logged in and find it. What am I doing wrong I followed the steps on how to create a page and have an account too.
It won't turn up in Wikipedia's search engine straight away. Do you mean this though? If so, that's an article you've posted on your personal user page.----occono (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If User:HorusProtector is the article you are talking about, it looks promotional, which is not tolerated on Wikipedia. In order for it to survive in article space it would have to be totally rewritten in neutral encyclopedic tone, showing the notability of the subject, verified by WP:reliable sources. —teb728tc 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC) I see it is also a blatent copyright violation of the CFRA About page. You need to rewrite it in your own words. —teb728tc23:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info...
How can I use the info from the CFRA about page as I am creating this for the owner (I am dating him) he wanted me to create a Wiki page for the Associations 15th year anniversary?? Do I have to cite the page on my wiki page?? He would like this done by the anniversary. I'm sorry I am very new at this. And I still dont quite understand how to make the page public as it is in my user page and I dont understand the instructions as when I click on the steps it says I dont have to post that way as I am a registered user? So how do I get my page public viewable??
You could avoid the copyright problem by writing in your own words. But the problem is not just about copyright: Two other things beside copyright violation will get a page deleted immediately: being promotional or not demonstrating notability. The about page is hopelessly promotional, and it does not demonstrate notability. Rather than basing your article on the about page, you should base it on what independent reliable sources say about CFRA. That is what it takes to demonstrate notability.
Hello my name is Veronica Perez, aka Fa1thus, I am the community manager for SouthPeak Games and i need some help with the page /article that i created on wikipedia. Justicewiki keeps vandalising SouthPeak Games page and i would appreicate any help that you guys can help on this matter. Thank you in advance for all your help and i look forward on hearing from someone soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fa1thus (talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information you are removing is cited, and written elsewhere before it ever appeared here. See [2]. If the information there is wrong, then it really needs to be taken up with the journalists who wrote those first articles. Additionally, if you have concerns,. the proper method is to discuss the matter in a civil manner at the article's talk page; if you can work with other editors rather than accuse them of bad faith, you will accomplish a lot more. Running around accusing people of slander with no proof does not necessarily win a lot of support for your position. --Jayron3200:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)x2 No legal threat is permitted. Please do not use words like "slander". The section you (and your apparent sockpuppet) tried so hard to remove appears to be sourced. As Jayron said, take the issue up with the original reporters, if you want. Or discuss this at the article talk page. Throwing accusations around without any evidence to back them up will not win you friends here. Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way to solve your problem, Fa1thus, is to provide reliable sources of information (i.e. independent of either party) that show the information in those articles to be untrue. If you can show that the claims are false, they will be removed from the article. However, as others have said, those claims are out there - you may not like them, but as Jayron32 said, you need to contact the journalists who wrote those articles - Wikipedia is just reflecting what appears to be reported fact. Wikipedia is not here to promote your company - it is an encyclopedia. That means that any published criticisms (unless they are proven to be false, which does not mean you saying "this is wrong" - it needs verifiable sources of information which show it is incorrect if that is the case) can be put in the Wikipedia article. Until you can provide reliable sources of information showing otherwise, it will remain in the article about SouthPeak Games - that's the way Wikipedia works. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 00:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
