User talk:Krimuk2.0/Archive 25
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Krimuk2.0. 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 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 29 |
Kriti Sanon
Hey, somebody tried to ruin page Kriti Sanon. Please fix it asap. I tried to fix it up but there were too many intermediate edits and I got confused. Please help in fixing the page by reverting to the original version. Thanks GracyM (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sock editor has been indeffed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Weird financial fluctuation
Hi Krimuk, this is super-weird: I see that you updated the Stree gross here, and I 100% trust that you added the number that you verified from the source. I am now looking at the reference and see a value of 127.56 crore. This might be something we need to be aware of with BollywoodHungama, because I feel like it may have happened before, i.e. their numbers fluctuating when we're not looking. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the note. I now see 151.07. My best guess would be that we caught the page in between updates. Do you see the updated figure now? Maybe clear your cache? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Cyphoidbomb forgot to ping. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hours later, I see 151.07. Wow, very strange. Something to keep in the back of our heads, I guess. As I said above, I feel like this may have happened before recently. I remember seeing a user enter a value that was not consistent with BH. I fixed the value, then warned the user to double-check their edits. They then put a warning on my talk page with basically the same verbiage. I thought they were just trolling, but then noticed that the number I reported in my edit summary was not the same value as what I posted on their talk page. I thought maybe I'd made a stupid mistake, but now seeing this, I wonder if it's not something else. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- From my experience, the BH figures are pretty consistent when the film's theatrical run ends. During its run, it sometimes fluctuates when calculations are being done. Nonetheless, I'll let you know, Cyphoidbomb, if I find something amiss. Cheers! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hours later, I see 151.07. Wow, very strange. Something to keep in the back of our heads, I guess. As I said above, I feel like this may have happened before recently. I remember seeing a user enter a value that was not consistent with BH. I fixed the value, then warned the user to double-check their edits. They then put a warning on my talk page with basically the same verbiage. I thought they were just trolling, but then noticed that the number I reported in my edit summary was not the same value as what I posted on their talk page. I thought maybe I'd made a stupid mistake, but now seeing this, I wonder if it's not something else. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Movie pages
Hi,
I see you deleted my Takht page. I didn't know that a film had to be in principal production before a page on it can be started. Please direct me to the wikipedia rule or page where it states this. In any case, I think it is a foolish rule because if the film has already been officially announced, has multiple official posters for it released, plus has accompanying interviews with the director and other relevant news articles, then it is in the Public Domain and is thus public knowledge- and that knowledge should be placed in one place, which is exactly what Wikipedia is for! So I see no reason for that page's deletion. Please show me the specific rule where I cannot make a page on such a film, because I think it is quite unfair otherwise. Thanks. Rush922 (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Rush922, as I wrote in your talk page, WP:NFF says: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". Saying that it is "foolish" will not help. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Okay thanks for showing me that, I didn't realize it before. Now that I have read the logic behind it, namely that production issues can still alter the film before filming starts, I can accept it. But going by my original train of thought, I would still think it foolish to not be able to create a page on something that has already long been in the public domain. I mean, if people want more information on it, they ought to have a focused space for it, like a Wikipedia page. Going on the basis of publicity of information, it makes sense to make a page, using that logic. Rush922 (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- As WP:CRYSTAL says, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't predict whether a film will get made or not, unless it is getting made. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Okay thanks for showing me that, I didn't realize it before. Now that I have read the logic behind it, namely that production issues can still alter the film before filming starts, I can accept it. But going by my original train of thought, I would still think it foolish to not be able to create a page on something that has already long been in the public domain. I mean, if people want more information on it, they ought to have a focused space for it, like a Wikipedia page. Going on the basis of publicity of information, it makes sense to make a page, using that logic. Rush922 (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Rush922, as I wrote in your talk page, WP:NFF says: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". Saying that it is "foolish" will not help. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Months of African Cinema!
.svg)
Greetings!
The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.
This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:
- Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
- Country Winners
- Diversity winner
- High quality contributors
- Gender-gap fillers
- Page improvers
- Wikidata Translators
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello Krimuk, been a while. How are things going on with your good self? BTW, Kailash29792 has listed this article about a 1965 cult classic film in Tamil cinema for peer reviewing with the intention of preparing it for FAC and subsequently taking it to FA. As always, your constructive comments would be deeply appreciated. Also do have a look at his other FAC. Thank you. 
— Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
An FAC you might be interested in
Hi, and good luck with your FA nomination of Michelle Williams. If you're interested, I have an FA nomination open on "San Junipero", an episode of British anthology series Black Mirror. The nomination is here. If you're too busy or just not interested, no worries; feel free to ignore or delete this message if you want. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- My second favourite BM episode. I’ll definitely review it this week. Cheers! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oh nice, you've seen the show! (... Which episode is your favourite? :P) — Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- My second favourite BM episode. I’ll definitely review it this week. Cheers! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, yes. It’s one of the best shows of all time. My favourite would be The Entire History of You. What’s yours? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Completely agreed, and nice choice. San Junipero is mine but there's only a couple that I don't like... USS Callister, Shut Up and Dance, Nosedive and Metalhead are all favourites of mine. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- All of which I've loved, especially USS Callister. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
No pressure if you haven't had time or can't do the review, but this is just a reminder in case you'd forgotten. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Florence Pugh
WP:FILMOGRAPHY is an essay, not an enforced guideline. It's merely advice or a suggested style, not the one that absolutely needs following. The current style leads to needless repetition of film release years, and rowspanning allows us to prevent that. This doesn't do any disservice to the reader nor confuses them so i don't understand the analness of enforcing this essay as THE MOS, which, per Wikipedia:Essay states: Essays, as used by Wikipedia editors, typically contain advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. The purpose of an essay is to aid or comment on the encyclopedia but not on any unrelated causes. Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. Also how do rowspans prevent accessibility? All films under that year are still under said year, and does not in anyway prevent "accessibility", so try again please. Rusted AutoParts 18:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Rusted AutoParts 18:25, 16 October 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. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello Krimuk, been a while. How are things with your good self? BTW, Kailash29792 and I have listed this article about a 1959 cult classic film in Tamil cinema for peer reviewing with the intention of preparing it for FAC and subsequently taking it to FA. Your constructive comments would be deeply appreciated. Thank you. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 05:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Writer's Barnstar |
| Been a while since I gave a barnstar. This is for taking Michelle Williams to FA. Congratulations, my friend. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
|
- Thank you, Ssven2. Much appreciated. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Welcome, Krimuk. I would appreciate it if you gave Veerapandiya Kattabomman a look. Thank you. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Welcome, Krimuk. I would appreciate it if you gave Veerapandiya Kattabomman a look. Thank you.
- Thank you, Ssven2. Much appreciated. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Barnstar for you!
|
The Biography Barnstar | |
| Congratulations on the promotion of Michelle Williams (actress) and your hard work and success on all your other actress-related biographies over the years. You do great work! Moisejp (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC) |
- Thank you so much, Moisejp. Your contributions to so many of my nominations have helped a tremendous lot. Cheers! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Congratulations on your success. Many more to come. Veera Narayana 07:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Heyy
So how's life? What are you working on nowadays? —IB [ Poke ] 11:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- IndianBio well, I'm working through my existential crisis. ;) How about you? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Lol, same here. Unless you fancy being engulfed in the first draft of snowfall :P —IB [ Poke ] 15:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- I would presume it's better than sweating in November! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Lol, same here. Unless you fancy being engulfed in the first draft of snowfall :P —IB [ Poke ] 15:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Short and Feature
Here’s the definitions for short film and feature film. They’re different media, and should be put into their own table. I considered it a compromise considering this shorts have no articles and I feel shouldn’t even be listed anyway. Rusted AutoParts 16:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- If the shorts aren't notable enough then they shouldn't be listed, and you should go ahead and remove them. Giving me the definitions to these terms is highly condescending, and I wish you hadn't done that. Anyway, films, whether full-length or short, fall under "films" and should be listed as such (just as theatrical films or Netflix films are both films; and tv series or tv films are both listed under the tv section) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- The aim to condescend wasn’t intended, so I apologize if that was the vibe given from my comment. I have taken the shorts out of the filmography, stating in my edit summary his shorts acting was in his Career section. Rusted AutoParts 16:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- The aim to condescend wasn’t intended, so I apologize if that was the vibe given from my comment. I have taken the shorts out of the filmography, stating in my edit summary his shorts acting was in his Career section. Rusted AutoParts 16:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Rush922(talk) 12:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Six years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to all!
|
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2019! |
| Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless! — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
|
Hey, I'd like to resolve a disagreement we're having.
Sir, with all due respect, I don't understand why you think my edits on the Priyanka Chopra page are "poorly sourced and unencyclopedic trivia." I am citing the reliable sources correctly and putting up relevant biographical information about her. I don't wish to start any feud or edit war between us and I am not speaking in a condescending manner, but I strongly think the info I put up should stay, Sir. —SM [ Twinkler ] 8:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I have something I would like to get clarification on. On Emily Blunt’s wiki page I deleted the “American” part of “English-American” which you change back. That’s fine, the reason why I did it is because someone told me that “most articles should only have one nationality” and she was trying to follow Wikipedia rules. (I was trying to get her to change Scarlett Johansson from “American” to “American-Danish”. So I guess I’m just wondering if you can tell me why Emily Blunt, who has only been an American citizen for a couple of years, should be referred to as “English-American”, while Scarlett Johansson, who is half danish by blood and thus has been a Danish citizen her entire life, should only be referred to as “American“? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.125.118 (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Kader Khan
Happy New year. Sad to know that Kader_Khan has died. I am helping to improve the refs of that article since it is now nominated for WP:ITN/C recent death section. I do contribute in film related articles but not my area of expertise, so I thought, it would be great if you can take a look and do some Krimuk magic on this article. thanks. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hey, happy new year to you too! :) Thank you for valuing my contributions. I'll try and take a look at the article sometime this week. Cheers! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Happy New Year
Hi Krimuk2.0 How are you? Happy New Year. scope_creepTalk 12:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm good, thank you, and a very happy new year to you as well! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Edit war
Hi as you can see im new to wiki. I found the profile picture of emily blunt awfully cropped and does not showcase her truly. So i chose a very beautiful picture in wiki commons that represents exactly that.
I dont even know what an edit war was. I just knew someone kept changing back and didn't understand why. So can you just change it back? Hollywoodfanatic (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Kartik Aaryan
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kartik Aaryan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Kartik Aaryan
Hi, Krimuk and happy new year to your good self! I noticed you had Kartik Aaryan up for GA since July last year and I was hoping if you would like me to review the article (also I kinda like him after seeing him in Sonu Ke Titu Ki Sweety. The way he orders around Sweety's servant is hilarious! And with a creepy smile to boot!) — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oh hey, yes, I had legit forgotten about the nomination. Haha. Sure, it would be great if you could review it. And yes, a very happy new year to you as well. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, Krimuk. I will begin reviewing your article first thing tomorrow if that's alright. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- No problem. Take your time. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Left some comments at the GAR. A small notification. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Kartik Aaryan
The article Kartik Aaryan you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Kartik Aaryan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I think Billoo actually had a point in uploading this poster, since it shows the updated directorial credits: "Radha Krishna Jagarlamudi [and] Kangana Ranaut". Wheras the current one shows only Krish's name. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Gully Boy
Hello Smarojit, This is Mridul . I want to tell you that I see your films seen list off and on and I am really inspired by your choice of movies which I also try to follow by watching various hollywood movies. This saturday I watched gully boy it was a good film and I suggest you to watch gully boy and give rating on your film seen list on wikipedia.
Regards, Mridul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.128.241 (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Krimuk2.0: Do watch Manikarnika movie also . It is also a good movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.128.241 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Puffery
Hi Krimuk, I was trying to be kind when I didn't call you out for this edit, which I removed here. I think that dabbling again in this area of clear puffery is a bit ballsy, and I wouldn't recommend that you keep doing it. Please note that I still have a high regard for your contributions, but I absolutely don't believe in vague attempts to inflate the success of a film, like describing something in the bottom of Wikipedia's top 25 as "one of Indian cinema's biggest commercial successes". I just find that really promotional, especially since Wikipedia is not supposed to be deciding how films are ranked. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Umm, as I wrote on Kaushal's talk page, all I did was follow the source, and I don't appreciate being blamed for doing that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Also, why should I inflate the success of a film that doesn't need to be inflated. We follow the sources, period. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- I wrote the above before I saw your comments on the other talk page. I've since responded to those. I don't know that it will help explain. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Apology
Hi Krimuk, look, I wanted to drop you an apology on the Vicky Kaushal/Uri issue, because I didn't mean to shit on your contributions. I'm extraordinarily sensitive to puffery in Indian film articles, especially with vague, over-arching claims of success, and I wanted to call out choices I thought were not consistent with the way we usually do things. That said, I also want you to know that your contributions are very much appreciated and it is very much my hope that we can still maintain a healthy, friendly working relationship. I hope that you'll please accept my apology for being sharper than I should have. I'm sorry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- There's absolutely no need for an apology, Cyphoidbomb. Puffery and exaggerating figures/reviews are real issues on many Indian-film related articles, so I understand the frustration. I've been there. Having said that, there may be times when I unwittingly make a mistake, or may need to tweak the prose in a way that makes it sound more encyclopedic. In such a case, do leave me a note and we'll figure out the best way to go about it. Be rest assured that there are no hard feelings from my side. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Vicky Kaushal
Hey there, Krimuk. HOW'S THE JOSH? High I hope. Is it alright if I also review Vicky for you as well? Do let me know. Thank you. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- By all means, Ssven2. I'd be glad. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Vicky Kaushal
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vicky Kaushal you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
TFA on IWD
 | |
| ... with thanks from QAI |
Thank you for Brie Larson, the woman featured on International Women's Day, introduced "If you dislike pop culture icons but are a fan of cheese, dolls, architecture, rice, or latex, then there's plenty for you here." - I do like Brie ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you! Much appreciated. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Congrats - nice to see the article on the main page today. ceranthor 18:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Congrats - nice to see the article on the main page today. ceranthor 18:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Mayhaps you should take a gander at polite discourse and suggestions on this here site yourself xoxo
I checked the quotations page, and I see multiple examples of punctuation inside the quotation marks, but do go on accusing me from jump that I'm edit warring, instead of simply viewing it as an error in need of fixing. Clearly, after glancing around different articles, I'd argue that it isn't a clear cut issue, since a lot of articles have it my way, some your supposed "correct" way.
You have an excellent day though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schomizzle (talk • contribs) 19:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
_by_Ron.jpg)
You are most welcome sir.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Alia Bhatt
I have made a mistake while editing Alia bhatt film awards so please check it and made it correct Ved tandon (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hey, this page looks fine to me. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Samuel L. Jackson Awards
User:Krimuk2.0 I can't find the samuel l jackson awards section on his wiki page? The reason I originally added awards is bc I didn't see any link to a separate page. User: The One I Left
- The One I Left: List of awards and nominations received by Samuel L. Jackson. It's right in the article infobox. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Krimuk2.0 Why is it where no one can see it? Doesn't it usually have its own section? User: The One I Left
- "no one can see it"? Really? Anyway, you can create a section with the link. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Krimuk2.0 I obviously didn't mean literally, but it is kinda hidden in that little box. Usually they have their own section on the page.
Saoirse Ronan
User:Krimuk2.0 I hate to be nit-picky but does the mention of the film, I Could Never be your woman have to be in Saoirse's brief description? It wasn't really her debut for most audiences, since it was a direct to dvd release in the both the US and most of Europe in 2008 in Feb, and July of 2008. Atonement is really her film debut for both American and European audiences since it was released in September of 2007.
Reverting my edit in the article about Brie Larson
Greetings! You've reverted my edit and said "There was a discussion about this in the talk page." However, I looked through the talk page before editing but didn't find any discussion on this topic. Could you please elaborate? Thanks. Zaqq (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, Zaqq, here's the discussion. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I forgot about archived talk pages, thanks! Zaqq (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kriti Sanon
Hello. Is it necessary to mention a subject's place of birth and alma mater in the lede since featured articles like Kareena Kapoor, Rani Mukerji do not mention them. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- If we're comparing to other articles then Kangana Ranaut and Deepika Padukone's articles mention their birthplace, but neither went to college. Priyanka Chopra and Preity Zinta did, so we mention what they studied. If where they studied is notable as well, then why shouldn't it be mentioned, as can be seen in Ranbir Kapoor's article? Hope this helps. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
April 2019
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ST47 (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)- Note: 3RR references:
- All within an hour or so. ST47 (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- ST47, I started a discussion on the page, in which the user refused to participate, warned the user, and also pinged an admin. This is quite unfair for someone who's trying to maintain the article's quality, after taking it to FA-status. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yamla do you really think I should be blocked for reverting an user who puts sentences like "a random Twitter user" and using the platform for trolling Larson by using a source like "comicbooknews" on a Featured Article? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- (ec) I appreciate the effort, but you should have done that before your third (and fourth, wow you're fast!) reverts of the war. Recognizing that the other party is edit-warring isn't an excuse to do it yourself - in fact, it's a reason why you should know better. WP:3RR is policy, and you have other options than continuing to revert someone who's obviously willing to war with you. WP:AN/I and WP:BLPN are always there, along with other forms of dispute resolution. Next time, leave it sit before violating WP:3RR and bring it to one of the noticeboards - if you're in the right, someone will back you up, and it probably won't take 31 hours for them to do so. ST47 (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- ST47 I'm sorry but 3RR is exempt from users who are trolling by including biased information, which in this case it was. Please read the user's addition, in which he/she used a source like "comicbooknews". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- this is the user's motive, and I was blocked for trying to maintain the article's quality. Really? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've been reading up on some of the talk page history, as well as the "source" that was cited. I don't think this was obvious vandalism, it may be exempt from 3RR as a BLP problem, but I don't think that's clear either. Plus, your stated reason for the reverts was that the content wasn't notable, not that it was vandalism or BLP violations. I'd encourage you to apply for an unblock (and I see you already have since I've been reading and writing), and I'll let an uninvolved administrator make the decision. ST47 (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Krimuk2.0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
3RR is exempt from "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy", which is what I was doing in this case at Brie Larson's article. The reverting editor's motive can very well be seen in this edit, and the user's addition was clearly meant to target Larson's feminism and advocacy by using an unreliable source like "comicbooknews.com". And yet, I was blocked for maintaining the article's standard from such biased and poorly sourced info. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Accept reason:
After some more careful consideration, I'm unblocking you. You were removing content which violated WP:BLP due to poor sourcing and non-neutrality, and removing the offending content can be more important than waiting for additional editors to weigh in. I stand by the initial block - I believe it was important to stop the edit war, and not spend more time wading into a complex content dispute - but after review, I agree with your actions, and said as much in the unblock log entry. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, ST47. I hope we can put this entire mess behind us, and I'll be more careful to use appropriate edit summaries the next time around. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)