Geajc1951

Welcome!

Hello, Geajc1951, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Galerie Walter Klinkhoff, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Rtphokie (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Galerie Walter Klinkhoff

A tag has been placed on Galerie Walter Klinkhoff 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 a company or corporation, 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 companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Rtphokie (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Galerie Walter Klinkhoff

A tag has been placed on Galerie Walter Klinkhoff 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 a company or corporation, 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 companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Rtphokie (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Help

//roux   18:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Dear Experienced Wikipedian,

I am having a tremendous amount of difficulty publishing a Wikipedia site for Galerie Walter Klinkhoff. In my attempts to create a listing, I admit that the first the article was not equal to the standards expected by Wikipedia. In my defense however, I seriously underestimated the speed at which users will flag/report and delete the sites under construction. Being new to the site, I am just trying to get familiar with it. I do truly intend on creating an unbiased listing, in hopes of highlighting the historical significance of Galerie Walter Klinkhoff however, fellow users have been ruthlessly deleting any content put up. I believe that I have not been given an adequate opportunity to present the importance of this Gallery in the history of Canadian art to those whom it may not already be clear (just as many of our colleagues at other historical galleries have done on wikipedia!). I ask that you kindly reinstate the former page and advise me how to modify the text so that it complies with Wikipedia's standards. As mentioned on a 'Talk' page of another Wikipedian, one who in fact deleted the page, Galerie Walter Klinkhoff is among one of only a handful of private Gallery's listed in the Canadian Encyclopedia. I ask that you consider this when deciding whether or not the Klinkhoff Gallery is relevant in an online encyclopedia. Your advice, expertize and guidance would be greatly appreciated! I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Geajc1951 (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your best bet is to get the old content userfied: that is, moved into your userspace (use {{adminhelp}} to request this). It will not be deleted from there, and you can work on it until you think it is ready to be transferred into main article space. For many more hints and tips, see WP:YFA. Otherwise, the page will be deleted again and again: if it does not assert notability or reads like an advertisement from the off, then it will be deleted. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} Dear Admin,

Could you please get the old content from this listing 'userfied' so that I can create a listing that is acceptable within Wikipedia? I have been having difficulty creating this page because while I was creating it, users deleted it citing violations, not giving me adequate time to defend the content. Kindly allow me an opportunity to become familiar with Wikipedia and create the page that conforms to the standards laid out in Wikipedia's policy. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards,

Geajc1951 (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

deletion

independent verifiable sources (preferably more than one - reviews in major newspapers or magazines etc would be good) that it meets the notability guidelines would help, but not be sufficient. The text is pretty spammy, full of claims that need in-line references to independent sources to verify

• It is one of the few remaining art galleries that deals in important historical Canadian art independent verification needed,
• now famous Beaver Hall Hill Group - opinion unless independent source
• The Montreal Gazette has written, Galerie Walter Klinkhoff was "instrumental in introducing to the public." - in-line reference to this source please (either link or details -date of publication- if not online)
• The Klinkhoff also has internationally recognized expertise - opinion unless independent source
• They are respected experts - opinion unless independent source
• The Klinkhoffs' expertise and their website are invaluable resources - opinion unless independent source

I am not prepared to recreate in the current form, but I'll shortly put the text here so you can work on it before recreating. I have not protected the article from recreation, so you can simply repost improved text, or ask me, if you wish, to look at the sandboxed version before recreating in article space. jimfbleak (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Galerie Walter Klinkhoff: possible perception as commercial promotion

I have read your comments concerning your attempts to establish an article about the Galerie Walter Klinkhoff. I can appreciate the frustration you feel, and, while I do not feel able to offer much help, I have a few comments which may possibly clarify matters a little.

On your user page you say "The main issue here is that other Wikipedia users have been very quick to dismiss this listing because the Gallery is a commercial Art Gallery". I am not sure that that the main issue is that it is a commercial gallery: there are many articles on commercial companies which are accepted. I suspect it may be felt by some wikipedia editors that the purpose of the article appears to be commercial promotion of the gallery: this is very different from objecting simply because it is a commercial gallery. If you read the policy page What Wikipedia is not you will see that advertising and self promotion are both considered inappropriate. In the course of rewriting the article to make it acceptable you may like to take this into consideration.

If editors do have the impression that you are seeking to promote the gallery then such an impression is likely to be increased by edits you have made in other articles, which largely consist of links to the gallery's web site. The trouble here is as follows. Anything given in an article on, say, Joe Bloggs, is supposed to be there to provide information about Joe Bloggs, and links to other web sites are considered appropriate only if they give confirmation of notable information about Joe Bloggs. If it is felt that a link does little to serve this purpose then it is considered appropriate. If a link points to a site which has some connection with Joe Bloggs, but nevertheless the purpose of the link appears to be to call attention to that site, rather than to provide information about Joe Bloggs, then the link is likely to be regarded as spam. Many of your edits to other articles give this appearance, and though of course the value of the article on the gallery must be judged on its own merit, such an impression cannot help your cause.

If the gallery really does have notability in Wikipedia's sense then it should be easy to find confirmation from reliable independent third party sources and give references to them. If you can do so I am sure the objections to your article will disappear. I made a quick Google search for the gallery. Looking through the first few pages of hits I found an abundance of commercial listing sites, a few "what to do in Montréal" type sites, and so on, but nothing which looked like an independent indication of notability in Wikipedia's sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

One further thought which may be helpful. I have just had a look at your copy of your article in your user space, and I think statements like "The Klinkhoffs' expertise and their website are invaluable resources for Canadian art collectors, enthusiasts, students and academics" will be disliked by Wikipedia editors. The problem here is that "are invaluable resources" comes across as a subjective opinion, rather than as a fact, and increases the impression that the article is an advertisement. In fact even if you eventually get the article as a whole accepted, you may well find that statements of this kind continue to be deleted. Try to make sure that the information you give comes across as fact, rather than opinion. However, it is also essential to get references to "reliable" third party published sources, to make it clear that what you say is generally accepted fact, rather than just your own point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Clarence Gagnon do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 15:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How to use help templates

I thought I had finished, but I have noticed one more thing that I thought was worth mentioning. You have attempted to use two templates to ask for help, but unfortunately you have not used them correctly, which probably explains why you did not get a more immediate response. For the general help request what you need to put in when you are editing looks like {{helpme}}, but when the page is displayed this shows up as a box asking for help. So how did I show you that you want {{helpme}}? If i had just typed in {{helpme}} it would not have shown up as {{helpme}} when you viewed the page. The answer is that when editing I typed in {{tlx|helpme}}. The extra "tlx|" tells the Wikipedia rendering system to actually show the curly braces with helpme inside it, rather than replace it with a help box. I hope I have made that clear. If you select "edit this page" and look at what I have typed above you will see that in each case there is an extra "tlx|", which does not show up in normal page view.

Exactly the same applies to the {{adminhelp}} template used to ask for help from an administrator.

What you did was to type in the version with "tlx|" included, instead of the version without. My guess is that you copied this from somewhere giving instructions how to do it, but copied the version you saw when editing, whereas the intention was for you to copy the version you saw in normal page view.

You may like to correct your use of the tags. On the other hand you may feel you no longer need the help you requested, in which case you may like to simply delete the section: it is, of course, up to you. In any case since you have a copy of your article in your user space the request for it to be userfied is probably redundant. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Galerie Walter Klinkhoff page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)