User talk:Awillcox

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

• Great, also remember to sign your comments to other users by putting four tidles (~~~~) after your message.
  Wackymacs 21:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

).

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:ISF070501.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

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)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]