User talk:Krimuk2.0

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, thank you! :) Can't believe its been ten years! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Hello @Krimuk2.0: this user RealAspects is a sockpuppet of user Jomontegeorge. Please see Talk:Pooja Hedge for further information. Adding the same Pooja Hedge claim I am not able to report since I m an IP editor. 2001:8F8:1825:A94F:50A0:907F:B3C9:15B (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I figured. And I'm honestly tired by this. :( Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Janelle Monáe

Hi. I agree with your edit, but I have a question. How Harriet is more notable than Antebellum? Because Monáe is a leading actress in Antebellum while she is a supporting actress in Harriet. Are reception and accolades of a movie more important than such stuff? --Mann Mann (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, yes. Antebellum is not a notable film in her career, either critically or commercially. Since the lead is a summary, it's better to focus on the most notable aspects of her career. Of course, we should write about her leading role in Antebellum in the article body. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine. Just wanted to know about it for the future edits; e.g. which movies or TV series should be mentioned in the lead section. Thanks for the reply and your contributions. --Mann Mann (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think the idea is to keep the lead as simple as possible by avoiding clutter and sticking to the most notable facts, for easy reading. Good luck! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Butler

The image is the most current, 2022. Why did you change it?--88.15.161.148 (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]