User talk:Bukowski99

Charles Bukowski

Several of your recent edits to this article seem to contain some original research, such as the claim that his experiences with teasing "may have led Bukowski to never learn the German that his parents spoke in the home." Would you mind referencing these? Movingboxes (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not added any references as Movingboxes suggested. These claims are getting more and more bizarre and angry: "In 1962 Bukowski was traumatized by the death of Jane Cooney Baker, a pot-bellied alcoholic charwoman who had seen better days. She had been his first real romantic attachment." This almost reads like vandalism. I've reverted these changes, but feel free to add them back in with correctly cited references to reliable sources. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 12:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your "Readership" section: can you please discuss this on the talk page before reinstating it? Despite your claim that this is the "politically correct" version (not sure what that has to do with the encyclopedia), it smacks of WP:OR and, other than the brief reference to the New Yorker article, there are no sources cited. Other editors are discussing this on the talk page and you are welcome to join that conversation and discuss with us why you feel this edit would add to the article. Movingboxes (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you don't want to discuss your edits on the article talk page? Movingboxes (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No special reason. Lack of time maybe. Good luck with your work.

Can you help explain the "lack of time" thing to me? This is a collaborative project, so if you have time to make edits, you should have time to discuss those edits. Movingboxes (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

__________

Yo! Whassup, my Man? "Lack of time" explanation: I have time to make factual edits, but not enough time to argue and banter or agree with you. I am busy. I WORK for a living. Thank you. I am welcoming. I assume good faith on your part. I appreciate your concern.

The BUKOWSKi name may be Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Byelorussian or Polish. Why did you change it to Polish only?

I have no more time. I must go back to work. I thank you.

If you don't have time to discuss your edits on the talk page, perhaps you should reduce your number of edits so that you can discuss the edits that you are making. The vast majority of editors also work for a living. Your edits are often unsourced or undersourced and they indicate a very strong POV. Also, it isn't necessary to keep stating that you assume good faith on my part. It's a basic assumption that you can make of other editors and it isn't necessary to point it out. Finally, I didn't "change" the name to "Polish only," I only reverted the (unsourced) change that you made to the article because it was worded speculatively. Movingboxes (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Charles Bukowski has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\baltervista\.org' (link(s): http://www.bukowski.altervista.org/) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BUKOWSKI: READERSHIP

I appreciate all the hints and comments here and I added the READERSHIP section as a spur to discussion on just why Bukowski is ignored by nearly all mainstream American literary critics. I assume good faith but I wonder why one reviewer wrote that Bukowski "is not a good writer and deserves no special recognition' (paraphrase.)

I am very sorry to hear that and perhaps you should excuse yourself from editing the BUKOWSKI article since you admit bias. Wikipedia forbids bias.

I'll narrow down specific references later when I have more time. Meanwhile, I am adding an amended READERSHIP section that complies with WIKIPEDIA guidelines. I will also DELETE other parts of the article that, as stated by WIKIPEDIA iteself, do not adhere to proper guidelines. (Bukowski in film, etc.)

I am at a loss as to why the original writer made no attempt to correct blatant factual errors, pointed out months ago, such as Bukowski being "Polish", rather than German.

Once again, I assume good faith on everyone's part and I welcome further discussion.

Wikipedia doesn't fordid bias. We'd have to be robots not to have bias. Editors are allowed to think whatever they like--positive or negative--about Bukowski. What Wikipedia doesn't allow is bias to be expressed through edits to articles. By the way, bias can be positive as well as negative. Adding a statement like "Bukowski's well-deserved place at the heights of literature . . . " (an edit you made) to an article is as clear an expression of bias as a hypothetical edit reading "Bukowski is a hack." Both should be avoided. If you feel that another editor has made biased edits to the article, feel free to adjust those so that the article reflects a neutral point of view. And, by all means, continue to correct factual issues with the article. But if your time to locate sources is limited, please hold off on making edits until you can reference them. Making edits so that the article may serve as a "spur to discussion" doesn't really seem encyclopedic. Can you clarify what you mean by this? Movingboxes (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hello. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.

~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Movingboxes (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty realism and User:José Luis1

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Movingboxes (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.[1] Ty 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Very few of your edits in this month have been constructive, and most have been additions of irrelevant material about Charles Bukowski to articles of other authors, removal of sourced information about him from his article and that about literary movements (note: even if he never acknowledged belonging to a literary movement, he may very well have founded a number of them), and adding WP:UNCIVIL comments on user pages (a double-violation) and user talk pages.

Oh yes, and blanking or vandalizing literary movement articles.

If you do any of those again, you may be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to BLOCK me. ! Bukowski99 (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Dirty realism. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Verbal chat 10:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to mark a page for deletion, so long as it hasn't previously, follow the instructions at WP:PROD. Verbal chat 10:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]