User talk:CarlaPolusDigital

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:CarlaPolusDigital, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages: user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to your user talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also edit this page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would help make it encyclopedic. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Tckma (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Peridon (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have cautioned, and not blocked like I did at User:PolusDigitalInc. This username is acceptable under WP:USERNAME which the other one is not. However, I would warn you that the use of multiple accounts is not a good idea, as it can be regarded as sockpuppetry WP:SOCK. Please read WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV (neutral point of view). Then I would recommend WP:BIO and WP:RS (reliable independent sources). WP:COI might not go amiss, if you or the company are associated with or employed by the subject of your 'article'. Bearing in mind "We don't just make logos and websites, we help create your brand so it represents your vision", I don't think I am being cynical there. Peridon (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would add to the list (I know, long already but important to understand if you want to be a bona-fide collaborator in Wikipedia), is to read about being a paid editor and most importantly the Business FAQ. -- Alexf(talk) 16:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)