User talk:GuruAskew

Welcome!

Hello GuruAskew, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Thatdog (Talk) 04:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Although I completely disagree with your saying that there is "Strong continuity" and have been reverting your edits (which I tried to find a compromise by brining in references in DAD and Tracy - instead your supposed compromise is anything but), I should warn you that should note the rule of WP:3RR. I have no idea how many we're both up to and as far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter, however, it is the rule and you should take note. I don't plan to revert your latest one any time soon in accordance with that rule, but I will, if not done by someone else by tomorrow.

It would also be nice if you didn't completely blanket revert my changes. I informed you that James Bond is an ageless character. This is complete fact that we don't even have to argue and the point about YOLT and OHMSS should also be removed because we shouldn't have to explain to people why the error is there. It is there and as such it is a continuity error. K1Bond007 07:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only warned you as a courtesy. My edits weren't to say there isn't continuity. If that's how you read it then you need to read it again. I said it was loose. Continuity is rare and loose in the film series. That's just a fact. It's not an insult to the series. It doesn't mean Brosnan's Bond isn't Connery's Bond. It doesn't mean much of anything except that there isn't a whole lot of continuity going on. A mention of Tracy as continuity in LTK doesn't make up for the lack thereof in Octopussy, A View to a Kill, and The Living Daylights. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. I tried to compromise on that by adding in points of continuity and points where they conflicted, but instead the point against got changed to an excuse where it was an error in script writing or film editing (it doesn't matter, it doesn't change the fact that its still an error!). The ageless character bit, I think you just totally ignored. Bond is ageless. It's true for the films, it's true for the literature (even with Fleming), we really don't have to acknowledge the age of Bond from the 60s v Bond of the 90s. I'm not trying to be mean here and spark some childish debate. At least read what I have to say and respond accordingly instead of continuing on down this path. K1Bond007 07:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lecter's sadism towards animals

GuruAskew, I have tried to be civil with you. I do not want this to turn into an edit war. Graham and Starling's conversations with Chilton prove that Lecter lied to psychiatrists and profilers. And it is not POV if it is stated in the novels, nor is it original research. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 20:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's your interpretation of events that never specifically allude to lying. Lecter would fold tests into origami, he would insult the intelligence of his interviewers but there is little precedent for "Lecter the liar" in the series. Also, you treat Graham's statement as if it could have only come from Lecter himself. The fact that "Rising" retroactively gives Lecter a past that would make details of Lecter's young life hard to establish by an American authority doesn't weigh into the fact that the character of Graham was written as being clearly certain of his statement 25 years previously.GuruAskew 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's your interpretation of events that is simply wrong. Graham would have no way to find that out without Lecter being questioned. Plus, there is a statement from Chilton stating that Lecter is too sophisticated for regular testing because he can simply lie on the tests to get a desired result. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 20:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that Will Graham is on the pursuing end of the serial killer hunt whereas Hannibal Lecter is incarcerated and unable to use a ball-point pen or read a magazine with staples in it speaks volumes about the credibility of Graham's statements. That's MY interpretation of it but you won't see me adding THAT to the article because it's POV/original research.GuruAskew 20:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't speak volumes at all. Please elaborate. :-) Dr. Hannibal Lecter 20:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It speaks volumes for Graham's credibility as opposed to Lecter's. Also, you have to address the fact that Graham is portrayed as very aware of Lecter's bullshit and very capable of sorting through it to find the truth, I mean, it's said that Graham understands Lecter better than anyone else.

Knowing that Lecter is deceptive Graham believes the animal sadism occurred, and it should also be noted that Graham never once says "Lecter told me..." about the sadism. His source is never given. Since Lecter's European origins weren't even established until 18 years later one can assume that Graham would have had access to people that Lecter grew up with since there was nothing to suggest he wasn't American at the time.

But yeah, I think Graham's credibility as a character speaks for itself but that's my interpretation and you won't find me trying to cram it into encyclopedia articles like you've been doing. Stick to the facts.GuruAskew 20:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now it has been established that he is European. Why don't you stop deciding what is canon and let the author decide that. You won't find me doing that. As Rising is part of the canon, one who actually pays attention to the series would know that Graham didn't have access to Lecter's childhood. And once again, Chilton said that Lecter is known for lying on tests (for instance, a test to figure out his psychological condition, which would undoubtably need to ask about sadistic behavior towards animals). Therefore, it is not original research or POV, but rather it is nearly totally authenticated by Chilton in the novels Red Dragon and Silence. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research accusations and personal attacks

Excuse me, but I did not make the "POV" and "original research" statements on Red Dragon (film)! It was some previous IP that made the edit. That is so rude to randomly accuse me of this simply because after one case where you thought my edits were Original Research, you think all of my edits will be. And by the way, that comment about me being locked up? Believe it or not, that's considered a Personal Attack. I won't report you because I am above that sort of thing, but why don't you stop randomly accusing me with random possible cases of Original Research. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you were refering to something else. Sorry. Anyway, that in no way excuses you from your personal attacks. You are certainly not assuming good faith in this case (I know that the statement I just made also doesn't assume good faith, but I have reason to believe otherwise anyway. You clearly haven't assumed good faith in many cases, such as a comment you made to User:CyberGhostface on Hannibal Rising: There you go. Also, I think it's really telling that you won't participate in the discussion on this topic on the discussion page. Please stop. And stop acting like I am just sooooo POVed. You have made so many POV edits and then used, agreeing with CyberGhostface, immature ways to get it mentioned as much as possible. I tried to argue my POV on Hannibal Rising in a civilized manner, and proving it correct by Dr. Chilton's many statements in Red Dragon and The Silence of the Lambs. You, however, wouldn't take it as it was against your POV. I removed it because CyberGhostface asked me in a very civilized manner for reasons he left uncertain, whether he thought it might be POV or just edit-war starting to make you happy, something you failed to do, though you did manage to randomly decide that he was 100% agreeing with you. The same with another user, I believe User:Gdo10. You took a comment that he made simply saying that something was accidentaly readded when I reverted an article and you acted like he was complaining against original research. Please, just stop. I have assumed good faith for a while, but that assumption is over. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 03:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal Rising

Just to let you know, some people are trying to remove and/or add explanations to the inconsistencies section. I've been trying my best to keep it at bay, but I might not be able to catch all of it, so if you could help that'd be great. Thanks.--CyberGhostface 18:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I saw someone removed the "reeking stool pit" inconsistency, though CyberGhostface reverted it. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 20:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grey/Heather Dunk High Pro SB

What an odd concept for a shoe, but it looks good.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GuruAskew&diff=137343615&oldid=107382286 Anyway, the connection is a bit indirect, so I'm going to edit it down to a single sentence. There have been countless cultural references to the subject and his character. While this is unique so are many others. Oh, and you might add something about it to the relevant Nike article as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parker/Stone on Family Guy

Nice add on Criticism of Family Guy. The article needs more actual criticism and less stuff inferred from watching other cartoons. Can you help us (or message me) with a few details on that DVD commentary so I can add a {{cite episode}} citation note? I need the following:

DVD title
episode title (presumably Cartoon Wars; but ep I, ep II, or both?)
time in episode comment is made (optional, but helps a lot)
verbatim quote of what is said — lengthy is fine.

I can draw the rest from the Wikipedia page for that episode. Thank again. / edg ☺ ★ 23:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Reubens

I have added this article to my watch list. Even without page protection, more eyes means less permanent vandalism. Bearian 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

It's still speculation no matter what. Technically, these articles shouldn't even have such sections because they are most POV and OR. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now you're going too far. Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is never a good thing. If a writer who works on both shows wrote it, then it's not really a reference is it? Besides, we try to restrict those sections to just 4 or 5 and we try to limit them to major references, ie. 30 second parodies, etc. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFAIN'TSOURCEDANDTHISISSOOOOOBVIOUSIFYOU'REAFAN. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reference, that's OR, there's a HUGE difference. Like I said, we try to limit these sections to major ones anyway. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it verifiable? this is an example of an article with a sourced cultural references section, you're relying on speculation and original research. And like I said, we try to limit these sections to major references, otherwise you could easily make messes of them with minor references. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea what a source is? Everything on Wikipedia needs sources. Now, no matter how obvious it may seem to you, there is no proof that they were referencing it, and the only way you could ever make it acceptable is if you got a direct interview where somebody from the show admitted they were referencing it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you heed Scropion0422's advice, things on here need sources, or else they cannot be included, that's policy. There's a lot of stuff I'd love to include, but I can't, because it needs a source. Gran² 16:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, stop adding unsourced stuff. Please read WP:NOR and WP:RS and you will find out that policy is against you. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. Why do you refuse to read WP:NOR? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Treehouse of Horror XVIII. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Ctjf83 04:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Treehouse of Horror XVIII. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like being reverted, you've been warned before, and that was at least your fourth revert in 24 hours, so you're blocked for 24 hours. Take the time to read up on edit wars and see why it's wrong. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This 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).

GuruAskew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Scorpion0422 has been trying to get this reference removed before he knew anything about it, he first attributed it to vandalism and then dug into the Wiki rules with weak support. He is also guilty of the 3RR violation yet he isn't blocked.

Decline reason:

The 3RR rule is in place to encourage discussion over edit wars. Therefore, it stands even if the reference has problems. Furthermore, it does not matter if Scorpion0422 has violated 3RR; it is your responsibility not to violate it yourself. — Danaman5 02:32, 10 November 2007 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Block extended

Your block has been extended for another 48 hours due to block evasion per Special:Contributions/192.254.1.7. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This 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).

GuruAskew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How do you figure I'm guilty of "block evasion?" That IP that made edits that agreed with me is completely different than mine, it has a long history of edits that in no way resemble my own that predate my own account. I suspect that Scorpion0422 and CTFJ83 are actually the same user and there's actual evidence to suggest this, unlike this case with me. Also, if I had the ability and inclination to use alternate IPs and accounts why would I stop at one?

Decline reason:

this edit and this edit seem like a mighty coincidence. Please serve out the rest of your block with grace. — ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:45, 10 November 2007 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This 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).

GuruAskew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

That poster obviously just used the "undo" function that is available to everyone. How can an option available to every single Wikipedia user with a single click be considered a "mighty coincidence"? How can it supercede a complete edit history that spans two years? Also, if I have the ability to use this "sock" why am I not using it now? Why am I appealing my blocks?

Decline reason:

Here is a better question...why did that IP stop editing right after your block was extended? Denied. — IrishGuy ^talk 22:02, 10 November 2007 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This 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).

GuruAskew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How does that have anything to do with anything? Those posts were made after I was blocked, naturally I could continue to make them as an extension of my block doesn't affect that IP as far as I know. If I had the ability to use that IP why am I not using it right now to prove you wrong? I can't be held responsible for the fact that that user has made no edits since that one. In any case, I've found a clip of the sketch in question on YouTube that renders this entire argument moot so you should unblock me so I can properly cite it.

Decline reason:

Talk page protected for abuse of the unblock tag. — Sandstein 22:18, 10 November 2007 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Clips on YouTube are not typically reliable sources. Please don't use it as a source without talking about it on the talk-page first. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you think we're the same user do you?

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Go ahead. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Again, for a month. Block evasion = indef, and abusing {{unblock}} won't do you no good either. Maxim 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This 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).

GuruAskew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why did I get blocked for this? Why isn't Scorpion0422 blocked for edit warring? Also, as I've said before, it's a very specific name, it's been noted by fans as a favorite line before (which I also plan on citing with a quote from the "Mr. Show" book) and I have to bring up the "Luke Skywalker" argument where it's distinctive enough where you don't need someone saying "that's a 'Star Wars' reference if someone mentioned Luke Skywalker in a movie.

Decline reason:

Bad behavior does not endorse bad behavior. east.718 at 02:17, 11/13/2007

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.

Reply

Yes, no matter how obvious a reference may seem, it still needs a citation. And, you can't just add something that confirms it was in whatever. Nobody is denying that they line was used on Mr. Show, but it does not prove that The Simpsons was referencing it. It's a Cultural References section, not cultural similarities and the statement will not be acceptable unless you can provide a reliable source where somebody confirms that they were referencing it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a specific name. How is it not a reference? It's not like we're dealing with "John Smith" here. It's a specific, unique name and there's a common writer so it's worth noting.GuruAskew 02:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is the last time I am every going to type this, so please actually click the links this time. No matter how obvious something seems, it still needs a source. Read WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:A. And, by the way, if somebody did say "Luke Skywalker", we probably wouldn't include it as we try to limit the sections to major references (ie. 30 second parodies, songs, major plot devices, etc.) and mentions of something usually don't make it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool because I don't plan on stopping, and you can just kiss ass and have me blocked or banned if it makes you feel better.GuruAskew 02:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, GuruAskew. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, GuruAskew. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello, I'm NJZombie. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Chad Zumock, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! NJZombie (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

--Jorm (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Your recent editing history at Max Landis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sro23 (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you, pussy GuruAskew (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what does it matter whether his most recent work was self-published or not? Obviously, he's still an active writer. Sro23 (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Max Landis, you may be blocked from editing. Jorm (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:GuruAskew reported by User:Sro23 (Result: ). Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! A bunch of Wikipedia nerds are (gulp) DISCUSSING ME? GuruAskew (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]