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)
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. 216.220.11.84 05:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
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:
((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.((unblock|Your reason here))
, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Smog.net (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (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)
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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smog.net 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)