`:The following was written as a reply to your message on my talk page, and it refers to the text of that message. Normally, I reply to a message on the talk page where it is posted, to avoid fragmenting discussion, but since you have also posted a message to me here, and since it concerns you more than me, I am posting my reply here.  :First of all, you say ``sorry for this``, but no apologies are necessary. I am sure that everything you did was done in good faith, and all of us, when we first start to edit Wikipedia, don't know all the policies, guidelines, etc, so there is no blame to be attached to anyone who perfectly innocently does things which they then find are not considered acceptable. I should think very few of us manage to do any significant editing of Wikipedia without making some sort of mistakes.  :There are several issues here. I will try to deal with the ones that I think are most important.  :You say that permission has been given for use of the content. However we can't take the unsubstantiated word of just anyone who chooses to create a Wikipedia account that they have copyright permission. This is not just some kind of pedantry: unfortunately, people do come here and lie about such issues. Just yesterday I was looking at the case of someone who has over several years repeatedly lied about copyright permission, forged evidence of such permission, and used multiple Wikipedia accounts to do so. I am giving you, below, information about how to give copyright permission to Wikipedia. However, I still suggest that that may not be a useful way forward, for several reasons. Granting permission under the relevant licensing terms will mean that permission is give for anyone at all, anywhere in the world, to reuse the text, as it is or modified however they like, for any purpose, including their own commercial use, subject to minimal requirements, essentially no more than providing a link to show where they got the content from. In practice, there are very few organisations or businesses that are willing to license their web-site content so freely, and it is very unlikely that an organisation which puts ``© Tinkatolli ApS`` without further qualification at the bottom of its web pages will be willing to do so. There is no such thing as licensing text for use only on Wikipedia, because anything posted to any Wikipedia page is automatically released under free licensing terms. Also, even if Tinkatolli ApS is willing to change its copyright licensing terms in that way, it is doubtful whether there will be any point in doing so. The result would be that reuse by anyone anywhere in the world would be allowed for ever, just so that the content would be posted temporarily to a userspace page to be edited to make it less promotional. (Contrary to what many people think, it is not possible for me even to restore the information to a user-space page to be edited without copyright permission. Knowingly posting copyright-infringing content to a page on a publicly viewable website is illegal, and having the word ``user`` in the title at the top of the page doesn't change that.) A much better way forward is for me to email the content to you, so that you can edit it off Wikipedia. However, please note that if you choose to take this option, it must not be posted to any page at all on Wikipedia while copyright-infringing content is still there. Let me know if you want me to email it to you.  :You wrote ``The first reason you had mentioned it looks like for promotion only, it isn't, it's well known and has a big audience...`` I am not at all sure what you think ``promotion`` means, but it has nothing whatever to do with how well known the subject is. I should think that, at the last United States presidential election campaign, Barack Obama was one of the best known people in the world, and certainly better known than Tinkatolli, but taht does not detract from teh fact that he and his supporters mounted a massive campaign to promote him. Such language as, for example``Tinkatolli inspires kids to create, move, think and give in the game and away from the computer`` is unambiguously promotional, and the whole article was permeated by such promotional writing.  :Finally, as I said I would do, I will give you information on how to give Wikipedia copyright permission. As I have already explained, I don't recommend taking that option, but it is up to you if you wish to.  ::If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you may include on the external site the statement ``I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.`` You may also e-mail or mail the Foundation to release the content. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more.  :    `