User talk:Rechtman

If you would like the park slope food co-op to stay in , then you have to write it like a WP article. There have been a fair number of news stories in local newspapers, and probably elsewhere. Get some references in, add content, and dont elaborate on trivia. DGG 04:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bet Gamal

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bet Gamal, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.donbosco.asn.au/Bulletins/2004/sept/holyland.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 13:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:British Premonitions Bureau has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:British Premonitions Bureau. Thanks! BuySomeApples (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: British Premonitions Bureau has been accepted

British Premonitions Bureau, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Yigal M. Rechtman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yigal M. Rechtman 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/Yigal M. Rechtman 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.

(t · c) buidhe 18:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm fully aware that this is a self publishing type entry, I would ask to focus your attention on the large amount of commentary on regulations that range from auditing to cyber security. As a live person I recognize that this is an achievement that at some point needs to be captured.

Obviously I'm aware that this could be a conflict of interest and I was very cognizant of that when I created the entry. I believe it should be retained for the following reasons: It is a helpful summary of a collection of contradictory articles by myself, it is devoid of any hyper language, and water just written by myself it actually is a combination of multiple efforts by multiple people especially with respect to published articles and comment letters.

This entry is a summary of achievements but although continue to proceed as I develop professionally, contributes to a general understanding of standards, regulations, and commentary on topics ranging from auditing, information technology, information system, and forensic accounting.

I can't help being alive so I'm putting this together to show the collection of commentary and peer reviewed articles that I have authored over the years.

The article itself is devoid of hyper, sales type pitch, or anything else that is not facts based.

My vote naturally is to keep the article.

If there's specific comments on the entries that will be helpful to know (beyond the fact that it's written by the subject of the article itself).

100.8.248.104 (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. similar to academics who have their own entries (see for example, my own computer science professor, Marsha Berger who also has a Wikj entry), I'm a thought leader and a professional in practice who produced original creative work that was published multiple times on various topics.

I believe I should be afforded the same treatment as somebody who does academic research. 100.8.248.104 (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not saying that you're not an influential person, but Wikipedia articles must be based on independent sources. If such sources don't exist, you would be better served setting up a website and putting information about yourself there. Academics are a bit of an exception to the rule on independent sources, an exception that I personally oppose. (t · c) buidhe 19:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See rechtman.com 100.8.248.104 (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ironic part is that I am the recipient of a best-in-class award but I did not want to put those in there.

This is a compilation of articles about me. They were created by me. I own the situation.

Of course you can be independently verified. Look at how many references I created. There's something like 45 foot notes in there 100.8.248.104 (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every source is cited. I'll re-write to make it look less like a "resume". 100.8.248.104 (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Rechtman. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Rechtman, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My time is at times limited but I'll visit. 100.8.248.104 (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yigal M. Rechtman moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Yigal M. Rechtman, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CUPIDICAE💕 00:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly advise you cease attempting to publish this and if you insist on doing so, you need to go through WP:AFC. Continued attempts to do so yourself in mainspace, especially after an AFD will likely result in you being blocked. CUPIDICAE💕 00:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you will. It appears to me that you are a mafia I really does not care about expanding for information. Do you like to control the information and that's exactly what you're doing. 100.8.248.104 (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks will get you nowhere, so I suggest you stop unless you want to wind up indefinitely blocked. CUPIDICAE💕 00:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: As a forensic accountant, you should definitely know what standards are, as well as compliance, or you know, rules. Here's a hint: standards - we have them. CUPIDICAE💕 00:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rechtman,

I know it's disappointing to have your article deleted. But if you put a version back into main space, it will be deleted according to Speedy deletion guidelines, CSD G4, as the recreation of an article deleted through a recent AFD discussion. Your best bet is to work on the draft and submit it for review to Articles for Creation. The AFC reviewers attempt to get articles in good enough shape that they won't be deleted once they are moved to main space.

You may not appreciate Praxidicae's action but she did you a favor. This page could have easily be tagged for CSD G4 deletion and instead she moved it to Draft space where you can continue to work on it.

As far as your comments about Wikipedia being a "mafia", we are a loosely connected group of thousands of editors from all over the globe and everyone focuses upon their own interests so we don't have any kind of sinister coordination that you seem to imply. We're just a group of volunteers who spend their time working on an online encyclopedia project. Your work ran afoul of some of our policies that have been codified over the 21 years now that we have been in existence. It's best in this situation to ask for help than to insult our volunteers who are donating their time to help improve the quality of this project. You are concerned with this one article but most of us have our eye on the quality of the larger project of which your article is one small part.

If you have questions about article creation, AFC or deletion processes on Wikipedia, please bring them to the Teahouse where you can receive advice and support. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mike Ben Ari (April 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Justiyaya was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mike Ben Ari and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Mike Ben Ari, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Justi yaya 09:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Yigal M. Rechtman

Hello, Rechtman. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Yigal M. Rechtman, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Skunk Hollow has been accepted

Skunk Hollow, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Voting House

The article Voting House has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, unclear where this could redirect if wanted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of notability because its a very specific, small topic that is not a "big deal" like WWII. However, it is a valid topic that should be documented as it is otherwise unknown. The obscureness is what makes it noteworthy - this is how rural VA voters vote, and this is a solution to a voting problem that has plagued the USA. It's not "notable" just by itself, but if not under its own heading, where else would you post such an otherwise obscure topic? Rechtman (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you might imagine, like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia has criteria for which topics should have an article about them and which should not. In Wikipedia's case, we assess the extent to which other reliable, independent publications have already written in depth about the subject. If another editor looks for such coverage and finds none, they may tag the article for deletion, and it is then up to you if you wish to demonstrate that there is indeed such coverage. If you can't show that there is, the article will be deleted. WP:ITSUSEFUL or this definitely belongs in an encyclopedia or this is a real thing aren't considered by the Wikipedia community to be good reasons to keep something. Maybe the material could be added to a section in Elections in Virginia? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed deletion is rather racist. Since the editors who proposed to delete it are not familiar with what Voting House do in rural country (US), most of them believe there is no significance. The voting houses in Rural Virginia brought voting to the African American, ex-enslaved people.

I request that you seriously re-consider this racist, narrow minded, white approach to life: "if we don't know what it is then it must be irrelevant". Rechtman (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rechtman,

It doesn't help to protest a deletion that occurred over a year ago. And you posted your message on Talk:Voting House not Talk:Voting house which was the article deleted. If you would like to work on this article and bring it up to Wikipedia standards, you can request its restoration at WP:REFUND. But please don't throw around accusations of racism, those are seen as personal attacks and can result in your account being blocked from editing.

If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia or its deletion processes, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz,

It may come as a shock to you but I am only a very occasional user of Wikipedia. All these terms that you are using are foreign to me.

I did not "through around" comments about racism, I genuinely view the "not relevant" comment that was shared with me about Voting Houses as insensitive to a part of history that the author (you?) had no idea about so they just used their power + lack of knowledge and said "it's irrelevant" (or something to that effect).

I am not going to advocate for a topic that I authored. If the people at Wikipedia think it's worthy of reconsideration (you??) then take the appropriate action.

Veritas! 72.76.109.43 (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Mike Ben Ari

Hello, Rechtman. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mike Ben Ari, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Mike Ben Ari

Hello, Rechtman. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mike Ben Ari".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

I am removing your changes to Kavarskas, because the part that is original content is filled with errors and often an odd rewrite of text already existing in the article, and the rest was taken verbatim from its cited sources. Please don't do any of those things again. Jessicapierce (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Voting house for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Voting house 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/Voting house 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.

UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that deletion in the first place was at best-- biased. If the powers that be don't want this article, it says more about them than about the topic.

In the draft I remained neutral and facts-based in the article.

I did not want to include opinions which is may be one of the reason nobody knew what this topic was about, that of course not knowing the import of a historical fact.

Either way, I'm not going to take any action until "you guys" decide what you want to do.

Like I said deletion of this article about black and rural America and the role of Voting Houses in them, says more about Wikipedia and then about the topic. I gave my reasons in the request refund. 72.76.109.43 (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Please log in when editing, even to just replay on your talk page.) You need to read our policies on notability and what it takes to show notability. Articles that do not demonstrate what our policy describes as notable are to be deleted. This has nothing to do with race. You are the one who keeps bringing up race, and you have been told this can be viewed as a personal attack. Personal attacks can be grounds for having your editing privileges revoked. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, this is a major part of UNTOLD story of voting in the south. It is being discovered now, and is going forward. Looking back, yeah little has been written about it, and Wikipedia is part of the problem. The deletion plan is exactly the problem: If we didn't hear about it then it must not be important. It's important to swathes of the population that don't get to edit Wikipedia pages.

I'll repeat my comment about race: if this page is deleted, it says more about Wikipedia then about the topic. Rechtman (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs. Please read and comprehend that. Do the work to right the great wrong elsewhere, and Wikipedia will eventually cover the topic. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's for sharing information, factual verifiable information.

The "wrong" is that deleting historical evidence of a transformation of the voting rights act, and the overall so-called 'freedom creep' of the "Negro" (not my choice of words) is part of dismantling of the Antabellum South.

The "right of the wrong" is simply documenting a historical fact. The standard of "relevance" and "notoriety" is apparently subjective, because factually the history is thus: without these Voting Houses, the Voting Rights Act would have been de-facto not implemented in great parts of the United States.

Like I said: deleting this article will say more about Wikipedia than about the topic. Rechtman (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Wikipedia's job to document a historical fact. It is Wikipedia's job to summarize facts that are already notably documented already. Until you understand this, you will be at odds with Wikipedia's purpose. What you want to do is not what Wikipedia is for. Read and understand those links; if you do not, you will find yourself either pushed away from Wikipedia, or blocked as disruptive. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retan Cemetery moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Retan Cemetery. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it's poorly formatted. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly formatted it is. I am not sure how to best arrange the photos.

The sources are there and are cited as such. Most of the sources are in unpublished manuscripts and self-originating research is not allowed, so the limited sources actually provide 99% of the information.

The poor formatting issue: I seek help in formatting the photos of the GRAVES which are the main source of information about who is buried there. Rechtman (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Retan Cemetery (September 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by I dream of horses was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Still has the issues that got the article moved into draftspace, because you haven't attempted to find other sources (the formatting issues are secondary to the sourcing).

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Retan Cemetery and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Retan Cemetery (October 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Retan Cemetery and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer @SafariScribe "wrote"*:

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)

reliable

secondary

independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

The sources cited check all the boxes in terms of being:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)

reliable

secondary

independent of the subject

However, we checked and we did not find the same to the the case.

N.B. *The reviewer notice is clearly a template, so you need to provide more details in order to substantiate @SafariScribe's opinion that the article's references are none of these things.

ACTION REQUESTED

Please provide 2-3 examples of references that are not in line with being reliable, independent, secondary, and in-depth. Please be as specific as possible because the generic language - while impressive in its style - is poor on substance.

Thank you. Rechtman (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are "we"? --bonadea contributions talk 05:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are the pronouns I use. Or you can think of as the Royal We. Rechtman (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]