User talk:Krimuk2.0/Archive 24
 | 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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 29 |
Hi
Do you mind if I collaborate with you on Anushka Sharma? I have been involved with her article for a few years now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Brie Larson
Hi Krimuk2.0. You have reverted the Forbes site. The Forbes sites subdomain is not under editorial control. It is completely open access. It web hosting mechanism, where you can host and get your site. It is a webhosting Please revert it. scope_creep (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Here is the advertising kit for it. [Advertising kit scope_creep (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- An example of it, take a look at the say, Whitney Wolfe which is on the advertising kit, described above. Do a search for her, and forbes. You see her site, comes in at [[1]] which is her website hosting on Forbes. I have given you the evidence, please remove it. scope_creep (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- You need to consider this on a case-by-case basis. As I said in my edit summary, the author of the Forbes article in Larson's page is a certain Natalie R, who is an editor at the magazine. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- I checked it, you seem to be only partially right. It seems there is 41 of the 30 under 30 list published every year, so the reference itself, isnt particularly notable per BLP standard, compared to the Oscar ref, which is very strong. I think you should remove it. scope_creep (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Which BLP standard tells us that this is not notable? Its placement in the article is arguable but its notability isn't. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- It is not bad faith. The lead is too long, although I never knew it was a featured article. I'm rewriting the Hans Globke article, which has almost exactly the same lead length as that, and it had to be rewritten, reordered. Sorry. Regarding the above, I checked with notable sources noticeboard, who informaed me that there was 41 of that type in year. Do you not think being there is 41 of them, they are written moreso to drive and generate advertising, and are essentially clickbait. 41 of them, every year. scope_creep (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Krimuk2.0, Sorry I thought they were full size articles. scope_creep (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Which BLP standard tells us that this is not notable? Its placement in the article is arguable but its notability isn't. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- I checked it, you seem to be only partially right. It seems there is 41 of the 30 under 30 list published every year, so the reference itself, isnt particularly notable per BLP standard, compared to the Oscar ref, which is very strong. I think you should remove it. scope_creep (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- You need to consider this on a case-by-case basis. As I said in my edit summary, the author of the Forbes article in Larson's page is a certain Natalie R, who is an editor at the magazine. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- An example of it, take a look at the say, Whitney Wolfe which is on the advertising kit, described above. Do a search for her, and forbes. You see her site, comes in at [[1]] which is her website hosting on Forbes. I have given you the evidence, please remove it. scope_creep (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The Shape of Water triumphed Lady Bird
Somehow unexpected, right? Especially by Academy standards. Because they've almost always preferred realistic and rational films to sci-fi and fantasy. And before The Shape of Water, only one fantasy film had won Best Picture, making me think this film had a low chance of winning Best Picture, especially because it was competing with so many rational films; by rational I mean realistic with no sci-fi/fantasy elements. But too sad that Lady Bird faced the same fate as The Shawshank Redemption, right? Since it (briefly) became RT's highest rated film, I thought it would win at least one major Oscar. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. But I'm glad it won because Guillermo is the most loveable genius in the world, and has made a truly unique film. I obviously loved Lady Bird a lot and was a bit upset that it didn't win even one award (especially because I love Saoirse Ronan beyond measure), and all of my other favourites (except Loveless) won at least one. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Bajirao Mastani
Hey there,
You might be interested to weigh in on our latest dispute on the article's talk page in regard to the line user:Krish! added on the article's lead about "Padukone receiving much criticism". Shahid • Talk2me 20:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Shahid. I have to thank you for taking on the insurmountable task of attempting to correct the blatant attempts by one editor to discredit the achievements of actresses who the media consider to be rivals of Ms Chopra. I have been at the receiving end of abuse for years (for working on articles of no less than 4 of her "rivals"); I have chosen to step away from confrontations with that editor and have mostly resorted to sarcasm to deal with it. However, it is no laughing matter and the hate-filled prejudices of Wikipedia's very own Weinstein have gone on unchecked for far too long. The problem is that editors who work on articles related to Indian cinema refuse to stand up for one another. In a better world, there would have been more solidarity and that particular editor would have been blocked years ago. But it won't happen and I'm sure that statements favouring Chopra and discrediting her "rivals" will remain as is. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- WP needs more such editors like yourself, whose courtesy and goodwill make this place better for many. Please don't give up and never stop fighting for what is right. But above all, keep up the incredible, good work. The selfie with Vidya Balan, by the way, is just terrific. I hope you did let her know how much effort you've put into making her WP article what it is today. Way to go, Shahid • Talk2me 09:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oh shut up! Two-faced Krimuk. I have had enough of you and your hypocrisy. Just to remind you I don't consider those "four of your favourites" as Chopra's rivals. You on the other hand have made this place fancruft filled blog. Phrases such as "Through her successful film career", "Biggest hit featuring a heroine", "Biggest this and biggest that" are an example you are the culprit here not me. And, behave as if you don't know that your future actress of your debut directorail Ms. Deepika Padukone was panned for Bajirao Mastani and Padmaavaat and critics didn't even care to mention her name in XXX reviews because of her bland performance. I just want to tell you that opening a delete nomination for Karnesh Sharma doesn't make me a Anushka Sharma hater, removing the biggest hit of a heroine from Sonam Kapoor's article doesn't make me a hater either. It's just your thinking. Seems like you read too much Bollywood gossip, which I had stopped doing since 2015. Just an advice, you should stop doing it too. And I can tell that you are a hypocrite. Priyanka's role in Krrish 3 and Deepika's role Padmmavat and Bajirao Mastani are the same, all underwritten and badly performed but in one hand you forced other editors to put "Priyanka's role is small and not upto the mark" criticism in her article", you simply didn't do the same for Padukone. What a shame, right? And I am a hypocrite! Wow! Just wow!Krish | Talk 09:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Wow, I'm Aaron Eckhart! What a compliment. :D --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Shahid. I have to thank you for taking on the insurmountable task of attempting to correct the blatant attempts by one editor to discredit the achievements of actresses who the media consider to be rivals of Ms Chopra. I have been at the receiving end of abuse for years (for working on articles of no less than 4 of her "rivals"); I have chosen to step away from confrontations with that editor and have mostly resorted to sarcasm to deal with it. However, it is no laughing matter and the hate-filled prejudices of Wikipedia's very own Weinstein have gone on unchecked for far too long. The problem is that editors who work on articles related to Indian cinema refuse to stand up for one another. In a better world, there would have been more solidarity and that particular editor would have been blocked years ago. But it won't happen and I'm sure that statements favouring Chopra and discrediting her "rivals" will remain as is. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
As an aside, if my fellow editors like Ssven2, Kailash29792, Numerounovedant, Yashthepunisher, FrB.TG, BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ, SNUGGUMS, Vensatry, Cyphoidbomb and others would band together and take a stand against such blatant abuse, then this particular editor wouldn't have been able to get away with such personal attacks for so long. I hope some of you choose to speak up this time, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Please stop this. There is a limit and this is it! I've been watching patiently hoping you two will resolve your differences, but to no avail. I beseech you two, yeh jagda mat karo yaaron.
— Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- I fail to understand why editors such as you don't condemn his behaviour. The only reason he goes on attacking me is because I take a stand and refuse to cower. Why do you not take a stand, or do you like me being called "manipulative", a "hypocrite", "biased" and other such stuff? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Please stop this. There is a limit and this is it! I've been watching patiently hoping you two will resolve your differences, but to no avail. I beseech you two, yeh jagda mat karo yaaron.
- Okay, WP:ANI is called for here, I thought he was just being uncivil and amusingly tempestuous, but this is where a limit should be drawn. And I actually did warn him to "refrain from making any such comments, about any user". I'm sure there are many other such examples, judging by your unsurprised reaction, Krimurk. Shahid • Talk2me 10:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Abuse what abuse? Are you taking about yourself? You are the one who abused me through through IPs saying "FakeShant needs to get laid" and stuff, accused me of being a paid writer of Chopra, attacked me on Twitter and Facebook. You are such a manipulative person Krimuk. As far as I know, you are the one who takes everything so personally and stars acting like you are undergoing some mental attack. You have been fighting with many of the editors over disruptive edits on Hollywood articles but only my edits are abuse? Wow! Just wow! Just to inform you, disagreement over few edits does not make editors monsters. So dtop playing victim here. As far as I am concerned, you shouldn't even be editing wikipedia considering your Bollywood contacts with Vidya Balan and other Bollywood celebrities. Aren't you in middle of directing and scripting a Bollywood film right now?Krish | Talk 10:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
As you can see, Shahid, more unsubstantiated claims and personal attacks against me. I don't know what gives him the right to comment on my personal or professional life outside Wikipedia. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Is this an attack, Krimuk? Saying you attacked me and are related to Bollywood people is attack? In what world? Just to clarify Krimuk, I don't have any problems with you or Shahid, it's just you behave very badly and have always criticized me for being "not good enough" to be here. I, on the other hand, have tried to be good with you which you never did.Krish | Talk 10:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- "You are such a manipulative person" and "I don't have any problems with you" don't exactly gel. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- By manipulative I mean you are taking advantage of this situation (my disagreement with Shahid over few edits) to bring your old agenda and hatred towards me. I have handled myself nicely despite getting hatred from may users here, especially from you, who one moment acts nice and another start attacking me for editing your "favourite actresses"'s articles. I have always tried to maintain a good relationship with you, bringing up topics about films and Hollywood actors and film related topics but in the end you always end up showing your dislike for me. So what you have to say about that?Krish | Talk 10:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have never "acted nice" with you. I have always been upfront about my strong dislike towards you and your warring attitude, without ever resorting to personal attacks, and have requested and even begged you to stay away from me many times. In this case, I did not make a single edit on the Bajirao Mastani article, and only commented when Shahid posted on my talk page. And yes, it's none of your business if I am making a film or not. That's something I would like to discuss with my friends, which you are not. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Do you even have any friends in your life? LOL I am glad you finally accepted the truth of playing two-faced with me. You just accepted you have always hated me, so there you go, I proved my point. Just for your information, my friends say that I am the best friend everyone needs and should have. So there's that. Now coming to your film, I hope it is good. I would like to write your film's article on wikipedia.Krish | Talk 11:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have never "acted nice" with you. I have always been upfront about my strong dislike towards you and your warring attitude, without ever resorting to personal attacks, and have requested and even begged you to stay away from me many times. In this case, I did not make a single edit on the Bajirao Mastani article, and only commented when Shahid posted on my talk page. And yes, it's none of your business if I am making a film or not. That's something I would like to discuss with my friends, which you are not. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- By manipulative I mean you are taking advantage of this situation (my disagreement with Shahid over few edits) to bring your old agenda and hatred towards me. I have handled myself nicely despite getting hatred from may users here, especially from you, who one moment acts nice and another start attacking me for editing your "favourite actresses"'s articles. I have always tried to maintain a good relationship with you, bringing up topics about films and Hollywood actors and film related topics but in the end you always end up showing your dislike for me. So what you have to say about that?Krish | Talk 10:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- "You are such a manipulative person" and "I don't have any problems with you" don't exactly gel. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Is this an attack, Krimuk? Saying you attacked me and are related to Bollywood people is attack? In what world? Just to clarify Krimuk, I don't have any problems with you or Shahid, it's just you behave very badly and have always criticized me for being "not good enough" to be here. I, on the other hand, have tried to be good with you which you never did.Krish | Talk 10:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Krish! It seems like you're trying to break the ice with Krimurk by taking all the wrong steps. As you can see, you have been requested to stay away, and you are clearly knocking on the wrong door. Do you actually realize how unacceptable such a cynical and tasteless remark as "Do you even have any friends in your life?" is? Stop it right there. I cannot believe someone who has done good work on WP is engaging in such disgraceful conduct. Shahid • Talk2me 11:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think you are right, Shahid! I am such a disgrace. Shame on me for standing up for what I believe is true and Kudos to you for believing in yourself. See, how you believe that "you were right" but my belief in myself is a bad thing. You are so nice person Krimuk, you are very honest, hard-working, amazing and just a great human being. Whenever Krimuk abused me, got into fights with other editors and attacked personally, he was called graceful but when I did the same I am so disgarceful. Shame on me. Right Shahid? Krimuk you deserve so much better and should get better treatment. Glad you finally acknowledged my hypocrisy. I am so hypocrite. I will not bother you now.Krish | Talk 12:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Krish, you need to stop harassing Krimuk here with false accusations (don't pretend like you haven't been doing so in this thread) and find a better use of your time (i.e. improving articles). Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'd suggest Shahid to move this issue to RfC, as I don't think anyone's opinion will matter here. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
...
Hi Krimuk, re: this, I know that things can be tense, especially with people you don't get along with, and it can be satisfying to taunt those people, but ultimately it probably doesn't do too much good, and for someone who feels like he's already under a great deal of pressure/scrutiny/etc. it's likely only to fuel more hostility. If you have legitimate complaints and want to pursue them, there is always ANI, but if your commitment level is just to poke and prod, I hope I can try to steer you away from that. Just a thought, mate, not an official admonishment. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. It’s not satisfying to see an editor who has repeatedly harassed and made personal attacks against me get away with it because he decides to overplay the drama and paint himself as the victim. I’m sorry, but I’m not going to buy into it. My recommendation, that he be blocked for a while, is valid, and not a “taunt”. I'll soon be filing an ANI report. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Krimuk, I am sorry I wasn't able to drop by earlier. I know it can be really hard to deal with the sort of personal attacks that keep on flying around here. That said, it was sensible on your part to not pursue the debate further on his talk page. However hard the two of you may try, you keep on crossing paths. Since, hostility for hostility wouldn't get us anywhere, you might as well go through with an ANI as it would be a lot better than endless toxic debates, provided that the ANI doesn't turn into one too. I hope you get to a cordial solution. VedantTalk 06:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
MWS
Hey Krimuk, I was wondering if you could take a quick look at my current FAC. It has had a substantial amount of commentary, but Ian Rose has expressed some reservations. I'm sure a quick scan from an editor familiar with the field would really help. Let me know, thanks. VedantTalk 07:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, sure thing. Give me until tomorrow evening. Cheers! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Numerounovedant: give me 24 hours. I'll give the entire article a copyedit. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey Krimuk, is it good to go? VedantTalk 08:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have given it a go. You can now ping Mike and ask if it's okay or if it needs further work. Good luck! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
NFA no 65
I was just seeing this. As expected, BB2 scores on the technical front. ARR gets it for Kaatru Veliyidai. Deserved it. (Although, I never really got attached to "Vaan Varuvaan", the song that won Shashaa her NFA). Haven't seen Irada or Mom. Just kind of getting the feeling that NFA jury, headed by Shekhar Kapur, were a tad partial to Sridevi and Vinod Khanna for their posthumous awards. What's your opinion on it? 
— Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- I guess it was their way of honouring Sridevi for her career. Sadly, other than Baahubali, I have not seen any of the other films. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Although I liked Mom, especially for Sridevi's performance, I initially believed the jury awarded her as a tribute, adding to the fact that it was her 300th film. But thrillers like this are not usually awarded in major categories in almost any credible award ceremony, right? On an unrelated note, how are you sure the passport of Ranaut is fake? ----Kailash29792 (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- In this April 2018 interview, she said, "I am 31 now". We should believe her over an ex against whom she filed a harassment report, right? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Although I liked Mom, especially for Sridevi's performance, I initially believed the jury awarded her as a tribute, adding to the fact that it was her 300th film. But thrillers like this are not usually awarded in major categories in almost any credible award ceremony, right? On an unrelated note, how are you sure the passport of Ranaut is fake? ----Kailash29792 (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Ghachar Ghochar
Hello! Your submission of Ghachar Ghochar at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Request To Change Katrinas Second Line
Hi, Just wanted to change the second line of the Katrina Kaif wiki page " Despite receiving mixed reviews from critics for her acting prowess, she has established herself in Bollywood, and is considered among the country's most attractive and highest-paid actresses."
TO
"Kaif has established herself in Bollywood, and is considered among the country's most attractive and highest-paid actresses."
Reason - Can we have the first half of the line later in the critics section? Also after 7-8 lines we anyway critically analyse and talking about her acting. Hence its a kind request to have that first half removed and edited the way i mentioned it. Kindly let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAMSangeeta (talk • contribs) 06:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The Legend of Bhagat Singh DYK nom
Hey, Krimuk. I was hoping that you'd review a DYK for the film which I've just nominated. Do let me know if you wish to review it. Thanks. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
DYK cooperation
Ssven2 mentioned you in User talk:Ssven2 after I asked him about a DYK that I plan to do. It is about the Patnagarh parcel bomb ( Patnagarh bombing ). I am willing to do most of the work but if you would like to be co-nominator or help with the wording of the hook before I submit it, I would be grateful and give you co-authorship credit. Please see Ssven2's talk page for the proposal. What interests me is the criminal was found because of a phrase that he used in a letter to the police and because a film is being made of the crime. Vanguard10 16:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Now that Krish may not be returning (for quite some time), Priyanka Chopra filmography is vulnerable. I have added info on Chopra hosting the web series If I Could Tell You Just One Thing. Can you please improve it? Because I think I screwed up somewhere. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Ghachar Ghochar
Hello! Your submission of Ghachar Ghochar at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please reply to the messages left on this page as soon as possible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Vidya Balan
Hey, Krimuk. I was hoping that you'd help me make sense of this bit from the lead: "By 2009 Vidya had established herself as a leading actress of Hindi cinema, as she went on to portray five consecutive roles to wide critical acclaim in the 2009 drama Paa, the 2010 black comedy Ishqiya, the 2011 semi-biographical thriller No One Killed Jessica, the 2011 biopic The Dirty Picture, and the 2012 thriller Kahaani." Considering that all of her success came after 2009, shouldn't the first half be rephrased? As it stands, the previous line: "This initial success was followed by roles in the romantic comedies Heyy Babyy (2007) and Kismat Konnection (2008) which had negative reviews" suggests that she was having a hard time during the 2009 period. Let me know how you feel. VedantTalk 18:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree, I've tweaked it. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity
How did you get a new username Krimuk? I am not very sure what are basis for requesting a new one? VedantTalk 12:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- You can put in a request here and read more about it at WP:CHU. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Michelle Williams Discography
Fair enough she is not a professional singer but can't chart entries and certifications be added regardless whether she is or not? Mn1548 (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I believe the chart entries and certifications are apt for The Greatest Showman: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack and not for an actor in the film who has only sung two songs in it. If she was a professional singer, then certifications would be an integral part of her career, but since she's not, simply stating the few songs she has sung (as part of her acting commitment to the film) should suffice IMO. Cheers! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- What you say makes sense for the album as a whole but the songs on it, which she sang, I think should have the charts and certifications on it because as you said - she sung them. Also I think what you said about the certifications not being "an integral part of her career" because she's an actress and not a singer is true but that information is still true regardless which is why I think it should be on. Please tell me what you think about this. Thankyou. Mn1548 (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Ranbir Kapoor filmography
On 7 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ranbir Kapoor filmography, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ranbir Kapoor filmography. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ranbir Kapoor filmography), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Commons notes
I deleted the images you tagged from Aapkai Pitta Gee (listed at commons:User talk:Aapkai Pitta Gee). In the future, obvious copyright violations can be tagged as {{copyvio |...}}, or {{No permission since |...}} rather than filing a formal deletion-request. DMacks (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Also, it took me a few minutes to find your actual account here...your userpage on commons has a broken link (both target and syntax). DMacks (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Krimuk, can you please review this article for me? Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Krimuk2.0/List of films and television series seen
User:Krimuk2.0/List of films and television series seen, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Krimuk2.0/List of films and television series seen and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Krimuk2.0/List of films and television series seen during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Razer(talk) 06:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Is User:Krimuk2.0/List of films and television series seen intended in any way to support Wikipedia article editing? if so, please how? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Of course not, hence it isn't in the mainspace. But I still don't see why it shouldn't exist, since it doesn't distract Krimuk from editing articles. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Kailash29792, WP:UPNOT reads
Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project.
It specifically lists as examples of what should not be included:Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.
,Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article
, andGames, roleplaying sessions, secret pages and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia".
It is because of these and related policy issues that a deletion discussion has been opened on the specified page, which is linked above on this page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Kailash29792, WP:UPNOT reads
- Thank you for the message, DES. No, the list doesn't support my editing but in my defence, I didn't think it harmed my work here. Anyway, if it goes against policy, then I understand why it should be deleted. Thanks. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response, Honestly, i think this is in a grey area. The policy mentions
substantial content
, , andExtensive writings and material
. There is no defined standard for what constitutes "substantial" and 'extensive" here. Also, established productive contributors traditionally have gotten more leeway on such content. Clearly if someone is running a personal blog hosted on Wikipedia, or using it to write a novel, that is way out of line. This isn't quite that case. Some editors recently have been cracking down on userspace content. Exactly where the line should be drawn is unclear, and this instance may help establish that. You may wish to comment in the MfD discussion, linked above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response, Honestly, i think this is in a grey area. The policy mentions
why did you revert my changes on saoirse ronan? what's the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caresusta09 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
TFL notification
Hi, Krimuk. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Dharma Productions films – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for July 20. The TFL blurb can be seen here. There was one dead link that I noticed in the references, so please fix that if possible before the Main Page date. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 20:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
ANI-notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (it wasn't me) Kleuske (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- ...Aand he's blocked. Yes, I'm referring to Krish, and I dunno whether to celebrate or mourn his blocking. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Kartik Aaryan
Hello! Your submission of Kartik Aaryan at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
India-West
On what grounds is it not WP:RS? I thought that if a news site had an about us page (like India-West does here), it would certainly be WP:RS. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- We need to establish WP:NOTABILITY for a newspaper that does not have its own Wiki article. If you think I'm wrong, then we need to establish it's notability at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- The newspaper, which has been in existence since 1975, had its Wiki article deleted a few months ago. It's reliability was earlier discussed on Vensatry's talk page, but he simply said, "Ah, I'm hearing such a newspaper for the first time. Thanks for pointing out". That was before the article got deleted. I think this is better discussed at WP:ICTFSOURCES. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Kartik Aaryan
On 22 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kartik Aaryan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kartik Aaryan made his acting debut in the 2011 film Pyaar Ka Punchnama after answering a casting call on Facebook? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kartik Aaryan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kartik Aaryan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Amy Adams scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that I've scheduled Amy Adams to appear on the main page as today's featured article on Augsut 20, 2018. If you need to make tweaks to the blurb, it is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 20, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Ayo mate
How have you been? Remember me? :D —IB [ Poke ] 04:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi, just wanted to drop by to thank you for all the updates to "my" articles. I appreciate it. FrB.TG (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. I enjoy keeping articles of my favourite performers up-to-date and more importantly, I know you're not the kind to mind. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
How have you been my friend? Great work on Vicky Kaushal and all the other articles you have worked on recently. Wikipedia is lucky to have an editor like you. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 20:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Why, thank you, R! I wish more people recognised my value. Haha. ;) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- People don't recognize your value because you're ANMOL! :) BTW do you think it would be wise to separate Kapoor's career post 2015 or even motherhood (more so, the former)? I noticed that a while back you removed the heading "decrease in workload" from the article. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 20:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't really agree with the "decrease in workload" bit because she has been consistently working post-marriage. She's still one of the biggest stars in Bollywood and her output equals that of her male and female contemporaries. Anyway, if you want to separate her work post 2016 then that's fine but I don't find it particularly necessary. Maybe in a year or two, when Good News, Salute, and some of her other films release, we could have a "2018 onwards" subsection. What do you think? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds good! -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 02:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't really agree with the "decrease in workload" bit because she has been consistently working post-marriage. She's still one of the biggest stars in Bollywood and her output equals that of her male and female contemporaries. Anyway, if you want to separate her work post 2016 then that's fine but I don't find it particularly necessary. Maybe in a year or two, when Good News, Salute, and some of her other films release, we could have a "2018 onwards" subsection. What do you think? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- People don't recognize your value because you're ANMOL! :) BTW do you think it would be wise to separate Kapoor's career post 2015 or even motherhood (more so, the former)? I noticed that a while back you removed the heading "decrease in workload" from the article. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 20:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for what you introduced: "For those of you unfamiliar with the lovely Amy Adams, I hope that reading this article makes you exclaim, "Now that's a proper introduction!" The biography of a perfect lady must be perfect, and I look forward to all the help I can get in giving Miss Adams her next shiny star."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Publisher field
After seeing your recent edit on Vidya Balan, this is what I wanted to tell you. As per Template:Cite web, "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)." That is why the "website" parameter exists. Please do not forget this. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- The main reason why the "publisher" field is used instead of "website" is due to the default italic formatting in the latter parameter. Sites like "Bollywood Hungama", "Rotten Tomatoes", etc are not to be italicised, and hence the website parameter is not used by many of us. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Look at the way "Rotten Tomatoes" and other such website references are formatted in Lady Gaga's article (an FA not written by me). --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
August 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --John (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
John, I really do not understand this overwhelming desire to undermine someone else's effort. Yes, there may be versions that I like more than you, but do you really think tag bombing an article on the main page only because I disagreed with you is a good thing to do? As long-term editors on this website, let's please be nicer to one another and not go out of our way to damage someone else's work because there a couple quotes too much or a wording that displeases you. Believe it or not, I want the best for the article and tag-bombing is definitely not the way to do it. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you were upset. It's best not to revert good-faith edits if you can manage it. I noticed your reverts of the IP's good edits and thought they were right and you were wrong. Summarising is preferred to quotes and almost everyone in the world is of "limited financial means" so this wording is a euphemism, which we prefer to avoid. --John (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sometimes paraphrasing may lose the essence of the quote, which is what I was afraid of in this case. And as I said, it's absolutely fine that you disagreed with my version, but I hope that you listen to my plea of not add tags when an article is on the main page. It's highly demeaning to the people who have worked hard on the article. Thanks! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Wish
Hello. Help improve article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thank you. 125.214.51.223 (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)