User talk:Mybihonteem

Getty Vocabulary Program

In the opening paragraph(s) you need to make a claim that establishes why the subject matter is notable (tallest building, award winning author, etc.) You need to read the policy on notability rather than try to wing it, as that is what we use here. I would also suggest trimming the external links down (they prove nothing to establish notability, only inline citations are considered) and don't put in "see also" links that are redlinks (nonexistant). Ok, maybe ONE if you expect to write that article, but certainly not 50% of the "see also" links should be dead. I see you are kinda new to Wikipedia, and yes, there are a lot of rules. I also noticed you said I didn't give a reason to redirect, but if you check my summaries, they always have a reason. IN this case, it was "this short article needs to be merged, it doesn't provide the context necessary for understanding and isnt' notable enough to stand alone" (see this article's history). Many times, articles like this should either start out as a section in the main article OR start out in your user space until they are sufficient to prove notability and have enough reliable sources to verify this. Then the article can start without fear of getting speedy deleted or AFD deleted. Remember, "notable" and "reliable sources" have different meaning here at Wikipedia than they do in the real world. If you need help understanding the policies and such, it is always better to just ask. In the long run, it is also faster and has less headaches. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 22:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice job!! A completely different article now. I removed the Notability tag, and broke up the first section just a little (para2,3 now a "usage" section). The external links still may be a bit long, but overall the article looks perfectly fine to me. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 10:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Cataloging Cultural Objects

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Cataloging Cultural Objects, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.vraweb.org/ccoweb/cco/about.html, http://metadata-wg.mannlib.cornell.edu/forum/index.php?date=2007-12-14. As a copyright violation, Cataloging Cultural Objects appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Cataloging Cultural Objects has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Cataloging Cultural Objects and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Cataloging Cultural Objects with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Cataloging Cultural Objects.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. JNW (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Taking pieces out of several copyrighted texts and adding them together is just as much a copyright violation as a massive cut-and-paste from a single source. Wikipedia must be aggressive about respecting copyright, due to our own GFDL licensing system. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of Union List of Artist Names for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Union List of Artist Names 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/Union List of Artist Names until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)