User talk:Evanmit

External Links

Just below the What should be linked section, there's the following point, under Links to be considered: For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews. Scenefilms is more personal than professional, and is definitely non-notable (I wasn't able to find a review with a comment, implying there are not many users or viewers). While it's fine to add professional, notable links, when the purpose of an account is simply to add links to one particular website to a specific article type, you have to question the rationale and bias of the editor. It also falls under Links to be avoided: Links mainly intended to promote a website. Indeed, as you seem to be the owner of the website, it's definitely self-promotion. Wikipedia is not the place to promote websites. Thanks! Fin©™ 08:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response Falcon, won't happen again.

No problem. Enjoy Wikipedia! =) Fin©™ 08:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Spam in Australian anthill

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Australian anthill, by CultureDrone (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Australian anthill is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Australian anthill, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Although the article had been tagged as an advertisement by a previous editor, the reason I gave was nn (no assertion of notability), because it did not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. The paper's website is not an independent source. Jimfbleak. ^{Talk to me.}06:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)