User talk:Gkblank

Image tagging for Image:Br frankney.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Br frankney.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Br frankney1.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Br frankney1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Directory and WP:External links[edit]

Hi. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to undertake directory/boutique links to represented material. Typically all the EB data is reproduced at English Wikisource in its original nature, so linking to as it is and as it was isn't adding true value to the people articles. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello . . . this is NOT reproducing the material but is offering brand new commentary ON that material from the leading scholars in the field. This is anything but "boutique" link. Once more, this is academic commentary from the scholars on the field. Gkblank (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background: this is a brand-new website is from a university host. Once more, this is NEW academic scholarship just out this week. That it has been taken down is a little worrying. I hope the "added value" is in clear sight, and that is the point of the brand new commentary. Gkblank (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one more comment. I sent your response to some of the contributors to the site (some of whom themselves have substantial Wikipedia entries about them), hoping for advice. "Surely the reviewer/moderator doesn't get the site and how it works and, very importantly, what it does. Essentially, there is no difference between a collection of original critical essays and what the site does!" "How on earth can the reviewer say that it doesn't add 'true value' when these new, original essays offer cutting-edge, valuable commentary that no one has seen." "Take this to a higher level and really complain like crazy." "This happened to us once, and they got it right by re-instating the links to our archive." At this point, we are hoping for the latter. Thanks (G. Kim Blank, PhD, Professor, University of Victoria) Gkblank (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have again added links to a site that I reverted and which you had already queried and I had explained. Not a good look that you have just continued adding the links, would that be your instruction to your students? As a university professor you should be well aware of conflict of interest (the page to which you had already been directed and you have not addressed) and maybe I should throw in paid editing. We would love the editing to add true value to our encyclopaedic articles, but not with a conflict of interest, not with simply throwing in links to your site, instead having sources properly used to improve our articles, not simply as a pathway to your site. I find it dumbfounding that I have to explain these somple things to an intelligent person such as yourself. Remember, WP is not about your site, it is about building an encyclopaedia.

Hello! Gkblank, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

— billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides your insulting tone and words (which reveals much), you clearly do not know what is going on. The site is NOT about me but about brand new scholarly commentary on significant poets made by some of the most important literary critics alive today--not by me (I am the unpaid editor and creator of the site--do you get it?). Honestly, what don't you get about this? There is no difference between my place in this this and the editor of a book of new critical essays on an important topic. So, listen to this if you can: for example, the site has brand new scholarly commentary about John Keats just written by a famous professor at Princeton and the world's expert on Keats (Susan Wolfson), and for some odd reason this is about me??? What is the "conflict of interest"? So, to repeat just once more: this brand new scholarly commentary offered by professors (many with endowed chairs) is indeed "true value"--what on earth could be more valuable than commentary on these important topics by the very top people in the field? Please answer that, and if you can, try to avoid the immature insults. Gkblank (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]