User talk:Awillcox

Christian Art External Link
The External Link in the Christian Art Page doesn't have a description next to it. Please provide a description next to the link, as the link that you added doesn't necessarily identify or describe exactly what its aim is and how it relates to the many facets of Christian Art. I've made a concerted effort to keep The Christian Art page as generic as possible and I'm not certain how the link expands this multi-christian-faith perspective on christian art. Does artsandfaith discuss christian art or does it discuss all faiths (e.g. Judaism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc.). Perhaps you could answer this in a brief description next to the link in Christian Art. -- sp 00n  17 :color="#555577">talk 16:30, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Style
When creating new articles, remember that the External links section should read 'External links' and not 'External Links' according to Manual of Style. The first sentence of the article should also include the title of the article in bold. — Wackymacs 21:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! fixed.
 * Great, also remember to sign your comments to other users by putting four tidles ( ~ ) after your message. Wackymacs 21:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Arts and Faith
That kind of external linking is inappropriate to Wikipedia. It is promotional in nature (your promoting the web site by doing a mass-linkage across dozens of articles, abusing the trust of the community), it has little content available (theres no reason to link to it accept to promote it), and is not academic or encyclopedic in nature. I will remove them as I see them and encourage others to do the same. --Stbalbach 17:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The Arts & Faith community has, for a few years now, created and maintained a list of spiritual films. This work involves hundreds of people (well, 160 at the last count). It has been written up in the Los Angeles Times, Christianity Today, and other outlets.

It's not a commercial venture, and it provides links and substantive content throughout the website. IMDb has no such restriction on its links, and my next step was to put Wikipedia links in my system, even before the IMDb links, given the collaborative and conversational nature of Wikipedia. Yes there are AdSense ads, because it's a small community and someone has to pay the bill.

According to the External Links information here, most of our pages definitely fall under condition 6: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews." Some of our listings, including for The Virgin Spring, don't have summaries yet. This is actually particularly true for Bergman films, as he fared very well in the latest revision to the list (whereas others directors, such as Weir, did not). Most of our listings, however, do offer specific comments and reviews, with links to resources and conversations on-line, often on our site. Consider, for example, this page on Dreyer's Ordet.

I urge you to think it over. I'm putting in a friendly rv, but I hope we can arrive at an agreeable solution. At the least, let's do an RfC rather that just arbitrarily making more work. In adding links, I've also been able to build pages for many films that didn't even have any pages, ranging from Sansho the Bailiff to Thirteen Conversations About One Thing. --Alan Thomas 17:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If there is no meaningful content, then it shouldnt be linked. Zero, or one or two brief reviews by non-notable authors is not meaningful content. It is promotion of your website. --Stbalbach 18:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I can understand your point about the pages that have little to add (for now)--including the new Bergman listings. Can we compromise there? I will remove the Wiki links to pages like The Virgin Spring that are only placeholders, but leave the ones that do have content. (And FWIW, many of these authors actually are notable, and include university faculty, professional film reviewers, and journalists.) If not, then, as I suggest, let's start an RfC. Alan Thomas 18:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Any further thoughts? 02:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's all I would expect. If a link has legitimate content thats fine. If not it shouldnt be linked. --Stbalbach 02:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm getting the hang of the colons! Makes conversations much easier. I'm in the process of removing links with nothing to offer. Probably about 20 of the 100 listed films are just placeholders and will have links from Wiki removed. In addition, I'll keep an eye towards this in the future and make sure that our pages are substantial enough to warrant interest. Alan Thomas 02:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thank you. --Stbalbach 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Isflogo.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Isflogo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Th e Su nshi ne M an  17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Isflogo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Isflogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:ISF070501.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ISF070501.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Information Security Forum for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Information Security Forum is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Information Security Forum until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)