User talk:Krimuk2.0/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Orphaned non-free image File:Mary Kom Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mary Kom Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Haider (film)

Hi. It is observed that you are reverting my edits on Haider's page. Please, try to understand what all I did for that page in past two months and what I'm trying to achieve. I know that no page on Wikipedia belongs to me but there is a slight attachment with the work that one does in clean and good spirits. Just reverting and claiming that the prose is not upto the mark or some reason you feel appropriate; doesn't justify. If you wish, you may involve other editors to improve the page.
I saw your user page. It shows your experience and level. I revere you and your opinions. I'm leaving India today for some work abroad. So, if needed, I'll continue this conversation later. Arjann (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This matter doesn't really need any discussion. Your edits were grammatically incorrect, and they ruined the correct sentences. In such a case, my revert is justified. If you were to improve upon the article, no one would have reverted your edits. But if you are adamant on ruining the grammar on articles, your edits will definitely not be considered as constructive. You can't randomly construct sentences that mean very little in correct English and expect them to remain. Cheers! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Akshay Kumar filmography

I have improved the above filmography. There were no comments at the PR. Can you take a look at it and tell me whether it should be renominated or not? Thanks for your help.--Skr15081997 (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll try, but no promises. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I have renominated it here. The concerns raised during the previous FLC have been addressed. I have removed the response to films and the information their box office performance to make it neutral. The overall quality of the filmography has increased a lot. Thanks for your help.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Attack on Deepika

Some user has been adding an infobox to Deepika Padukone over and over again despite repeated warnings not to do so. I have even ARV'd him, but there has been no response. Can you do anything about this? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! They have been blocked. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Leonardo DiCaprio filmography

Hi. Hope you're well. I've recently nominated Leonardo DiCaprio's filmography article for FLC and since he's one of your favourite actors thought you might like to have a look at it. Cowlibob (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely! Thanks for the notification. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Chandramukhi

Hey bro, you interested in conducting a GA review on Rajinikanth's comeback film Ssven2 (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to pass. Maybe something else later! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources and verifiability

I'd like to follow up on the message posted here by TheRedPenOfDoom, a message that you quickly removed. Wikipedia's rules about verifiability expressly state that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." (my emphasis). And that's a Wikipedia policy, not something you can choose to ignore. Thomas.W ^talk 15:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thomas.W The sources were already present in the article. No filmography table, including the FAs, have an inline citation for every film, when there are multiple sources in the article. I did not choose to ignore policy, and I hope the next time you post such a message on behalf of TRPoD, you check the facts and not blindly follow his lead. Also, I can choose to remove what I want from my talk page without asking for permission. Cheers! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Rani Mukerji

Hello Krimuk90 I saw that you keep reverting my edits and I want to know why? According to the Biyer Phool article here in Wikipedia the film released in 1996. Rani said in a interview (that I used as a source) that she started her career when she was 17. She is born in 1978. And she had to be 14 years old if the movie really released in 1992. Did you watch the movie Biyer Phool? She does not look like 14. Biyer Phool | Bengali Movie Video Songs | Prasenjit, Rani Mukherjee: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLteSRTKLf30zXopusuIGjhWosw4sBbzwl Here are some songs. Have a look. She looks like 17 not like 14. It would be great if we could agree on that topic. Thank you for your attention. Have a nice day Getoutoftheway (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Getoutoftheway, there are sevral sources which give the release year as 1992:

And I found none that say 1996. What say you? Are newspaper articles written by experts more reliable than Wikipedia articles, written by normal people? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

They use copy paste. No one really does rechechere these days. Here is a part of an interview of Rani Mukerji "You know my first film was Raja ki Ayegi Baraat not biyer phool. I shot for Raja ki ayegi Baraat first and then my father's film biyer phool but they released on the same day, 18th October 1996."

http://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainmenttags/rani-mukerji/must-read-rani-mukerjee-interview She even said that in an interview in video format. Saregama Bengali should know when the movie was shot. And honestly Rani M. does not look like 14 on this picture. Raja Ki Aayegi Baaraat http://www.lightscamerabollywood.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Rani-Mukherji-Biography-02-02.-jpg.jpg Biyer Phool http://www.lightscamerabollywood.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Rani-Mukherji-Biography-25-25.-jpg.jpg It does not look like that those movies were shot 4 years apart. And this website says 1996 http://www.lightscamerabollywood.com/rani-mukherji-biography/ Getoutoftheway (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide a well-reputed newspaper or book source that says the same, then we will be able to make the change. I agree, she does not look 14, but I can't do much about it when all the newspaper sources say that. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Spuul and Bollywoodlife say 1996

https://spuul.com/stars/95-rani-mukerji http://www.bollywoodlife.com/celeb/rani-mukerji/ . Is that good enough? It's very hard to do research on that topic. The movie is not even listed in Ram Mukherjees film list in imdb and he was the director. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0611550/ This article says that Rani was shooting for Raja Ki Aayegi Baaraat and Biyer Phool at the same time. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080404/jsp/entertainment/story_9095682.jsp Thank you anyways Getoutoftheway (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Telegraph link. It helps. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

so can we finally change the year to 1996?

Getoutoftheway (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Because Telegraph does not mention the year. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Kailash29792 Telegrapfindia mentioned, that she was shooting for RKAB and BP at the same time. So when Rani says she began her carrier with 17 it has to be 1996. It's easy mathematic. It's not possible, that one of them released 4 years earlier. The other source may have copy that from Wiki how they usually do. Now we are at a point where we have many sources. Some of them say 1992 and other 1996 like this one

and now we have to think. Does she look like 14 in BP? No she does not. Are there videos which say 1992? No. Did she say something about BP in an interview? Yes she said, that she shot for RKAB at first and then BP but BP released first. According to Pinkvilla both of them released on the same date. 18th October 1996. http://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainmenttags/rani-mukerji/must-read-rani-mukerjee-interview Getoutoftheway (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! It's me again (I just changed my username, don't be confused)

Why do I get no answer from you Krimuk90? I think 1992 is not correct and some articles say the same.

If you do not agree then it is OK. But the articles which say 1992 are not reliable. Isn't it better to not write a year than writing a wrong year? You see that no one is really sure. So please think about it. (please don't write, that I have to search reliable sources, because above this one there are many articles) Look at this article. They copied the whole text from Wikipedia.

http://zeeseries.com/rani-mukerji/

It's also possible that other journalists copied the information and did no research and that is why there are so many articles which say 1992. Did you understand me? Thank you and have a nice day --Shwayze (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I am getting sick of these! Can you provide ONE leading newspaper or book source that says 1992? You can't claim that all of them copied from Wikipedia. And how come all the sources that say 1996 are only random blog sources or sources that are unreliable; in which universe is pinkvilla considered a WP:RS! I am not doubting you, and am myself doubtful of the fact that the film came out in 1992, but on Wiki, I need to follow policy, and mention whatever is present in the reliable sources. So stop with this already, unless you can find ONE good source saying 1996. And please do not post anymore links of sites like psyphil and rentreminders etc. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I am actually really sorry for bothering you. I taught Spuul is a reliable source. According to WP:NEWSBLOG blogs are reliable sources as long they have a neutral point of view (which I thing they have). If we could just remove the year it would be OK, in my opinion. It would be a good solution. Have a nice day --Shwayze (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for my misbehaviour

Respected Samarojit Sir,I really apologize you for the misbehavior. I just wanted you to ask you that if we can add exact height of Actor Arjun Kapoor and other actors from the google knowledge graph.https://www.google.com/#q=arjun+kapoor here is the link which can help you to identify that the height information should be written or not. The height information if is incorrect then I want you to contact google to delete height information because most of the actor's google knowledge graph has first half of information is connected with Wikipedia that's way I am confused please reply me back.Mriduls.sharma (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Chandramukhi and Velaiyilla Pattathari

I am pleased to inform you that both the articles which I had nominated have passed their GA reviews. This is also my first success as a Wikipedia editor. Ssven2 (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a saying, "Ek maar dho tukda" (I guess you know what that means). In this case, Ssven scored the rare feat of two GA's in one day. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, impressive feat! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind?

I don't know if you are able and I hope this doesn't come off as offensive but I thought maybe you could look at an article and look into some sources and if it can be improved? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purewal, I'd hate for something to get deleted just because we can't find the references needed in the language of the area. If you can't help perhaps you know someone else on wiki that can? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello. This doesn't come under my area of expertise, but I'll definitely try to find some sources. I also think that editors such as Dharmadhyaksha and Dwaipayanc could be of more help than me. Cheers! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hello

This is a notification to advise you that there is a discussion at ANI regarding an incident that you may have been involved in. You can find the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment report--5 albert square (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@5 albert square: Thanks for raising the ANI, and I apologise for not doing so myself. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

SRK moves

Thanks for undoing the move. There were a couple others moved by this editor as well. Could you get those too? Also, can you show me how it's done. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 13:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the awards and nom page move too. Don't worry, I'll keep an eye out on reverts. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Inactive

Hello! Just to let you know that I'll be inactive from Wikipedia for some days. Please manage the FLC. Merry Christmas.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 15:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Merry Christmas. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

I have opened a peer review for Rajinikanth filmography. Feel free to leave comments. —Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 10:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Varun Dhawan

Please be careful to reverting edits or providing source to unsourced content, Article content is still not verified by source. Ch an der 14:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I know what I am doing. The ref clearly mentions the university. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

leads

a lead should summarize the article if there is enough content to summarize. - the entire content of Vaani Kapoor is under the maximum length of a WP:LEAD and therefore there is nothing to "summarize". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hoffman

Hey Krimuk, hope you're well. Since you did the GA review for Philip Seymour Hoffman, I thought I'd let you know that Blofeld and I are taking a shot at FAC (in the hope of getting him on the main page for the anniversary of his death). If you could chip it that would be great, but no worries at all if you're busy. --Loeba (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha, and right after writing this I went to my watchlist and saw that you'd just given it your support. Funny. Never mind then - thank you!! :D --Loeba (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha, yep. I have been reading this through the day today. Great job, once again! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Reviews

Hello! I am here just to let you know that two reviewers have posted their respective comments in the FLC, thanks.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 18:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Josh Hutcherson

Hello, hello! You mentioned that you were probably going to review the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Josh Hutcherson/archive2 and I was just wondering if you still had plans to do so? I'd very much appreciate it if you could! Gloss 05:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, definitely. Thanks for the reminder, I'll review it now. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Not sure if you watchlisted the page, so just letting you know I've replied and taken care of your requests. Gloss 07:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss complicated or controversial edits on the talk page, not in our edit summaries redux

I left a request on your talk page, entitled "As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss complicated or controversial edits on the talk page, not in our edit summaries". I thought I was civil. You excised it from your talk page. That mystifies me. You left a comment on my talk page that implied you thought I had accused you of bad faith. That also mystifies me, as I accused no one of bad faith.

Can I ask if you ever read the advice at WP:AAGF? It recommends a lot of caution in accusing other contributors of lapsing from WP:AGF.

With regard to the edit summary you used, when you excised my comment: "Reverted to revision 640055335 by Gloss (talk): Umm..like you reverted TRPoD's edit without even an edit summary? No, thanks!"

A complicated or controversial edit should oblige us to discuss our concerns on the talk page. However, genuinely simple and non-controversial edits don't place this obligation on us. The explanations for genuinely simple and genuinely non-controversial edits can be brief enough to place in an edit summary. The purpose of the very simplest edits may not need any explanation at all.

This edit added 29 characters since my last edit. It added <ref name=NYTimes2014-12-04/>. Are you honestly suggesting there is a single experienced wikipedia contributor who would need to have the addition of <ref name=NYTimes2014-12-04/> further explained? Really?

My advice to you remains unchanged -- I honestly think it would be a lot better for the project in general if you, I, TRPoD, everyone, made the effort to offer a civil and collegial explanation, on the article's talk page, any time we made a complex or controversial edit. Geo Swan (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I have already explained my motivations on Chopra's talk page, so whatever else you have to say please say it there. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Krimuk90!

Happy New Year!

Krimuk90,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 07:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

PR

Hi Krimuk90! First of all thank you for your help in Vidya Balan's awards list I am really grateful to you for that. Could you have a look at List of accolades received by Kahaani and comment at the article's peer review. I will very much appreciate it. Happy New Year.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 12:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Happy New Year to you too. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable or not

Are Koimoi and Oneindia.in reliable sources?--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure of OneIndia's reliability, but Koimoi is used in multiple FAs, so I guess it should be okay. Though I wouldn't used box office figures from Koimoi, as the BOI figures are the most reliable. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought that any news website having a well developed article on Wiki should satisfy WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

OneIndia's article is definitely not "well-developed", and uses questionable sources. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

FL

Hey Krimuk90! Thank you and congratulations on List of accolades received by Vidya Balan as it is a featured list now. Cheers.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 14:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations to you too. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You are churning out too many Bollywood FLs. Many congrats for that. BTW, please have a look at here. Feel free to alter/add more hooks. Apologies for not asking you before nomming. —Vensatry _(ping) 08:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Not at all! Thank you for the nom. :) And the hook looks great. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Happened to see Vidya Balan's accolades list being promoted. Would you be interested in taking this to FLC? —Vensatry _(ping) 14:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I sure am, but I would like to work on Rai's biography before I target her awards page. Are you planning to work on it? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I was interested in her biography page long back when I joined WP. The first time it was a premature nomination, while for the second time when it was nominated, the atmosphere wasn't that good and the reasons for its failure weren't convincing. I almost gave up editing the page after that. But I'm willing to collaborate with you if you're ready. —Vensatry _(ping) 19:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be great! It has been quite a pain for me to edit that page as well, due to the high amount of fan edits. One particular user, Hnygupta, was adamant on ruining all my contributions. Hopefully, it will be more stable this time round. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Copy

Hey Krimuk! I am sorry that I copied your page design without your permission. I apologize for this.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 17:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Where? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I just checked and was happy for you and FankBoy. Congratulations as Vidya Balan awards list was promoted to FL. Long ago, I tried with Chopra's but due to lack of solid sources it failed. Its failure resulted in several lead changes which continues. But, I would definitely complete my trilogy after this. Keep writing the good stuffs.—Prashant 17:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! for moving the list. But What is "accodales"? Accolades! See yourself.—Prashant 05:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a typo! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Query

Excuse me, but why did you revert this edit? Ϣere SpielChequers 06:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

My bad. I wanted to revert the unexplained image change. I've corrected my mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Declined speedy

I'd originally speedied the page you'd nominated for deletion (the other page for List of accolades received by Priyanka Chopra), but I restored it. The reason being is that while the name may have been wrong, deleting this would remove a long edit history. Typically in situations like this what should be done is not a cut and paste to the correct name but to move the article so that the history remains intact and then tag the misspelled redirect for deletion after it's been moved. If the move would require that the target get deleted then you can tag it with a speedy move request tag. I've moved the article to the correct name and restored the history. I just wanted to drop a note to let you know that typically we try not to delete articles based on incorrect names/spellings if there is a long and substantial history to the article as far as editing goes. It's not a major thing, so no huge worries just that you'll know this for the next time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for the note. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Req

Hi! Sorry to irritate you once again! I am not a skilled user, kinda newbie. Can you have a look at this FLC. I think it needs reviews of the reviewers like you. I had already asked two users - Cowlibob and Skr15081997 - but both of them are currently inactive and sorry for repeatedly leaving messages.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 13:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to look into it this weekend. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Moondram Pirai

A small gift from me to you for the support you have shown me. It has subtitles.

Here are the links.

Moondram Pirai - Part 1

Moondram Pirai - Part 2

Hope you enjoy watching it. —Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have seen the Hindi remake of the film, Sadma, which I thought was a heartbreaking piece of work with excellent performances by Haasan and Sridevi. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The article has passed its GA review! — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 14:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Salman Khan

The picture you put is outdated. Dineshfernandes89 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Dineshfernandes89Dineshfernandes89 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)