User talk:Kretchmer

Welcome!

Speedy deletion of Heimishe Kretchme
A tag has been placed on Heimishe Kretchme requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. gnfnrf (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You asked in the lead of the article for further information about Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I can help with that (By the way, comments like that should go on the article's talkpage, not the article itself).  What you should really read to understand how to make a good article is your first article.  There is a whole lot to understand about how Wikipedia operates, and it's hard for me to point it all out in one message.  The short version is, the article I read failed to demonstrate the notability of the website by referencing reliable sources.  It sounded like a history of the website that you learned yourself through participating in the site.  The problem with such a way of article writing is that Wikipedia is not a place for original research, since the standard on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  Furthermore, it appears that an earlier version of the article read like an advertisement, and not like an encyclopedia article.  I know that is a lot of policies and guidelines that I just linked to, but they're all relevant.  The short-short version is, a Wikipedia article needs to be based on published works (magazines, books, or something) that are about the subject but independent of it, not your personal knowledge, the subject's webpage itself, blogs, or nothing at all.  If this doesn't make sense, respond here with your questions and I'll try to explain further.  If you want an quicker response, add  to your talkpage after writing your questions and an editor will be by very quickly. gnfnrf (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. i will post the importance why this article should be included in WP, give me sometime. (Kretchmer (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Since this forum is dedicated for ultra orthodox Jewish men. Unlike most forums that contain unsuitable content or images for Jewish people, and/or its important when anyone googles for phrases like "heimishe forum" or "yiddish forum" to retrieve results of what its all about, its history how they went from bad to good will encourage new comers to participate. I will also revise the page to include more outside resources. Hope that helps, if not just delete it an i wont bother.(Kretchmer (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Before I restore it, could you please tell me how the article is notable? As Gnfnrf noted, the article as it was failed to meet either the general notability rules at WP:N or the topic-specific guideline at WP:Notability (web). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have collected some outside resources that note that the entity was well remarkable to them. Its not based on my personal review. Kretchmer (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not certain that it would pass muster...but how about if I create a user subpage for you and restore the article there? That way you won't have to worry about it being speedily deleted again until you're ready to move it into the main (article) space.  Okay?  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

that will work fine. I will also change the way the article portions are sorted to get a more encyclopedic visuality. As soon as i will feel its ready, I will leave a post here. Thanks Kretchmer (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, it has been restored to User:Kretchmer/Heimishe Kretchme. If you have any further questions, comments, complaints, or concerns, please feel free to contact me and I'll try to help.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you wish to move it back to its original location, you can do so via the "move" tab at the top of the article. In my opinion, the article as it is would not be eligible for speedy deletion if moved back to the mainspace, though I obviously can't guarantee that someone won't try to delete it via prod or WP:AfD.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Heimishe Kretchme
An article that you have been involved in editing, Heimishe Kretchme, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Heimishe Kretchme. Thank you. CyberGhostface (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kretchme logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kretchme logo.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)