User talk:Sapromo

Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not use advertising in articles. For more information on this, see If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write   below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Waitak 11:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Recent edits
Thanks for getting in touch. The reasons for South Africa Shop being removed were different from the rest, I think. The links to SA Promo were removed because they violate WP:SPAM. That is, editors are not allowed to put in external links in order to promote sites. The reason for a link is that it adds to the subject matter of the article - normally by providing information that becomes part of the article. Some links are made to sites that are related to the subject area, even if they don't necessarily add to the context of the article per se. But it was clear that SA Promo isn't particular to, say, Braai, Biltong, etc. It's a general promotional site for South Africa and South Africa business. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia...

As for South Africa Shop, why don't you take some time to draft an article in your sandbox, if you feel it would be a good contribution? That'll give you time to work on it, and then to decide if you really think it should be an article. Waitak 12:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added the "prod" template to the article South Africa Shop, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:South Africa Shop. If you remove the dated prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -FisherQueen 11:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was sitting in my sand box "as you suggested" and well, I still think South African shop does have a Wiki value to it. Now... I wonder, can you sit in your sandbox and look at Nando's while you are there. Now is Nando's uuuhhmm, yes, that's right, it's a promotion for well... Nando's... What's it doing there? What makes it different to what South African Shop refers to? Why dont I mayke a SA PROMO wiki, then it's acceptable is it not? Eagerly await your reply!


 * Well, let's take this apart a bit. I read the article for Nando's, and I found it reasonable "encyclopedic". That is, it sought to do a good job of covering what Nando's is, what it does, and present interesting facts about it, without sounding like an ad. It included a logo, a list of notable customers, and countries where there are Nando's franchises. If you've got your heart set on writing a South Africa Shop article, maybe you could start by finding examples of usage of the term on the Web? If you can show that it's not just a trivial phrase, but that people actually use it, you'd have a better shot at presenting the article as encyclopedic. That's the real point - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Articles on companies are fine, as long as they're "encyclopedic"! The various articles like WP:NOT are there to help you get a feel for what that means.


 * Hope that's helpful. While I'm here... could you try to remember to put ~ after your contributions to talk pages, please? Otherwise it's a challenge to know that you were the one who was writing, and a challenge to reply. Thanks! Hang in there! Waitak 11:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:Sapromo magazine Issue15.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sapromo magazine Issue15.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)