User talk:Smog.net
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here are some tips to help you get started:
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
- Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
- Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
- Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
[edit] Bukowski Link
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)
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 godhatesfags.com. 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. Smog.net
-
- 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)
[edit] Vandalism
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)
