From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bukowski Link[edit]

I understand that you do not like the Charles Bukowski link to A critical look at Charles Bukowski’s poem "My First Affair With That Older Woman". When I did a major rewrite to the Bukowski article a few months ago, I added a number of links to "positive" external sources and this one link to a "negative" take on Buk's poetry. Links should not only be to supportive sources but also to sources that that a critical look at the subject. I found the essay at the link to be a useful analysis of the issues that some people have with Buk's poetry. This doesn't mean I agree with it, but the article should retain the link to keep a NPOV. Is there some way we can come to agreement on this? For what it's worth, the site the article is on has a high Google page rank and has been mentioned by a number of sources, such as the New York Times, as a valuable source of poetry analysis. These comments are also posted at Talk:Charles Bukowski. --Alabamaboy 12:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't that I don't like it. I actually find it comical in a perverse way. But like I said in the article discussion, I don't see the value of it. Dan Schneider (who?) is the kind of frustrated academic who has been bitching about Bukowski for 60 years. It's obvious when you spend more than 30 seconds on his site. It's dusty. Like really old Victorian era dust. On everything. It makes you yawn involuntarily. In fact, I defy you to read that site for more than ten minutes without yawning uncontrollably. Of course he hates Bukowski. And make no mistake, he *hates* him --- he isn't just doing a critique. Saying that link belongs there is like saying an article on homosexuality needs a link to That's how much that guy hates Bukowski. Seriously. Unfortuantely, I know a lot of poets, and I know his type. I doubt we'll come to an agreement on this, but I'll stop deleting the link if you think it's important that it be there.
I disagree with your assessment of Dan Schneider's writing style and critiques (I see the writer's style as harking back to an older, more ridicule-based form of critique, which used to be practiced but has since fallen out of favor). Still, I appreciate you saying you'll not delete the link. I also wanted to thank you the many excellent edits you made to the article. I think this article has been improved greatly over the last two months.--Alabamaboy 12:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, none of the "excellent edits" remain, as I long ago abandoned any hope of maintaining an accurate Bukowski article here. As Hunter Thompson so eloquently described Wikipedia (not really, but it fits); "The rats have swarmed into the belfry, and anything sane that survives will be hurled out to sea and stomped down like a dwarf in a shitrain." (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Charles Bukowski. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 05:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is saying, "blow me" vandalism? (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's in the middle of an article, yes. Ty 00:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username,, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

  1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
  2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
  3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.
If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

It seems that Night Ranger is using this block as harassment because he took offense at my characterization of wikipedia as a "patch of dead weeds" and people such as himself as "pipe-chewing beard-scratchers."

Decline reason:

This does not appear to be the case. The reason for your block is given above. Kuru (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Puppeter template.svg

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Night Ranger (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]