User talk:Krish!/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Chehere

Dear Krish! Can you find a poster of movie Chehere: A Modern Day Classic? Thank you! --217.66.152.6 (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dostana (2008 film)

Hello! Your submission of Dostana (2008 film) 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! SL93 (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nani filmography/archive1

This is my fourth attempt at a featured list. Feel free to leave comments if any. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Krrish 3 (2013 film) poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Krrish 3 (2013 film) 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Krrish poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Krrish 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alex Parrish

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alex Parrish 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 Numerounovedant -- Numerounovedant (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Star Wars Hotel; and your signature

Thanks for doing the review. I will have the QPQ in a few days.

On another note, do you mind changing your signature? The pipe character | is messing up the template, so could you use | instead? This character produces the same output, which is a pipe character. It would be much appreciated.

Regards, epicgenius (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the signature, it was discussed previously, and Krish! stated that it had been changed, then.[1] In good faith, the signature came again to its current, problematic form. I'd like to ask Krish! to refocus that good faith, to ensuring it never reverts back again. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Dostana (2008 film)

On 2 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dostana (2008 film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2008 film Dostana inspired several fashion trends in India, with Priyanka Chopra's silver sari, worn in the song "Desi Girl", becoming very popular? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dostana (2008 film). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dostana (2008 film)), 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) 00:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Quantico (season 1)

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Quantico (season 1) has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Thank you so much for your help.Krish | Talk 18:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Quantico (TV series) copyedit

@Miniapolis: Thank you so much for the help.Krish | Talk 18:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Krrish poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Krrish 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Krrish 3 (2013 film) poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Krrish 3 (2013 film) 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Quantico (TV series)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Quantico (TV series) 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 Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Quantico (TV series)

The article Quantico (TV series) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Quantico (TV series) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 07:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Quantico (TV series)

The article Quantico (TV series) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Quantico (TV series) 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 Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank You.Krish | Talk 13:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Krish!. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Yash ^talk stalk 05:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alex Parrish

The article Alex Parrish you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alex Parrish 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 Numerounovedant -- Numerounovedant (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations Daan0001 (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Daan0001: Thanks!Krish | Talk 19:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Quantico (TV series)

On 4 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Quantico (TV series), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after appearing in more than 50 films, Priyanka Chopra's first-ever audition was for the American television series Quantico? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Quantico (TV series). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Quantico (TV series)), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Saiwyn Quadras for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saiwyn Quadras is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saiwyn Quadras until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CelenaSkaggs (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Alex Parrish

On 17 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alex Parrish, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that by portraying Alex Parrish in Quantico, Priyanka Chopra became the first South Asian to headline an American network drama series? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alex Parrish. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alex Parrish), 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 12:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyediting and other edits undone

In undoing an edit by Mchoudhury11 to Gunday from over a month ago, you undid painstaking copyediting (which you requested) by me and edits by a number of others. Old edits must be revised manually. Since I don't have much time available for copyediting, I'm done here. Miniapolis 20:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: When I undid a revision by that user I only reverted a change in the cast section and did not change anything entirely. Plus, I manually changed the reception part which was some hate spewing on the film. Re-check as I was not the one who reverted anything other than this.Krish | Talk 14:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Gunday

@Tdslk: Thanks for your amazing work. I really appreciate it.Krish | Talk 18:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Anjaana Anjaani

I'll have a look at Anjaana Anjaani for you over the next couple of days. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.Krish | Talk 16:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anne Hathaway on screen and stage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Anjaana Anjaani

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Anjaana Anjaani has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist:Thanks. I really appreciate your amazing work.Krish | Talk 18:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Kaththi/archive1

I would appreciate your comments in this FLC, Krish.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Sure thing. I will take a look tomorrow night. Meanwhile, would you like to review my GAC of Gunday or Anjaana Anjaani?Krish | Talk 18:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anjaana Anjaani

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anjaana Anjaani 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 Pavanjandhyala -- Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anjaana Anjaani

The article Anjaana Anjaani you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anjaana Anjaani 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 Pavanjandhyala -- Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Congrats on your GA success Krish. Perhaps you may want to rejoin The 1000 Challenge (Indian cinema), since your original reason for quitting was your dislike for Vensatry's presence, but I think now he isn't really devoted to adding articles to it anymore. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Kailash29792! Well, I haven't thought about rejoining the Project as I am sure he will be back. I have tried to extend olive branch to most of the people I once disliked. Some accepted it and some didn't. Vensatry falls in the latter category. I don't know what his problem is and I don't even want to know. And then there are few who don't exist for me here. Plus, I'm too busy to care about these things. Give me some time to think. And, thanks for being one of the most wonderful friends I have here. Krish | Talk 17:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

BM

I must commend your effort on expanding the article on this film. A "Themes and influences" section would be quite useful (Like what material/films was SLB and the cast inspired by/what films and literary works were they similar to). You can use Mughal-e-Azam, Pather Panchali and Mother India as references if you wish.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, thanks! I always knew that the article would be this big and I did gave some thoughts to "Themes and influences/allusions" section. I had noted several allusions while watching it way back in 2015. For example when Kashibai burns a cloth and then sits on a Tiger, alluding Goddess Durga. This was a stunning showcase of mastery and there are several others. I wanted to write "thesmes" section in Mary Kom and Dil Dhadakne Do too but then I scrapped the idea. But let's see.Krish | Talk 08:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If you intend to take it to FA, then a "Themes" section would be quite useful, especially for a period film as it indubitably has a lot of influences (not compulsory, but it would make the article look more detailed and a pleasure to read for film buffs and potential filmmakers for inspiration).  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 11:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Chandralekha

It is under WP:FAR. Would you be willing to make comments there? --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment there Krish. I had used one book extensively to develop the article: The Best of Tamil Cinema by G. Dhananjayan, but later realised it was a mirror publication, hence I was forced to remove it, and wanted the article to be reassessed. Although the chapter focusing on this film didn't copy from Wiki, it seems the site won't accept books that have even partially copied from them. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hii

I was wondering why you haven't nominated this list for FLC yet? BTW, please leave your comments here if interested. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: I don't want to sound rude or mean but you do know that I have heavily edited NFA Best Supporting Actress list right? The film nomination failed due to lack of sources claiming the youngest / oldest winners etc. My earlier plan was to nominate it just after Chopra had won for Bajirao Mastani. Of course she did not and I forgot. I don't know if main contributors are allowed to comment. Now, coming to Padukone's list, well, I don't think its even ready.Krish | Talk 13:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Krish, try to understand that nobody owns any article on wikipedia and every one has liberty to edit and nominate articles the way they want. I have performed significant edits on this list and I'm also aware of your and Vivvt's contribution on it. I don't move around nominating articles I haven't contributed. A while, back I had asked both Vivvt and FrB.TG (who tagged you in that conversation) about its nomination. The FLC clearly says: "Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FLC process." Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Did I ask you to put my name on it? You are actually misinterpreting my words. I don't want anything to do with this article. And, it should be noted that Vivvt followed a different structure (old one) and it was me who completely re-modeled it and wrote the lead and provided several missing sources. Having said that, NO, I don't want any credit. But you could have asked me befor nomination, as it is always the case. Just saying. Now what I really meant by my above post is that since I have a number of contribution (most edits to be accurate) my support won't count. That's it. I did not ask you to give me any credit. I hope you now have a clear understanding.Krish | Talk 15:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Krish. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Quantico episodes – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for November 27. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Nobody nominated the list. The nomination process, which can be found here, isn't active enough to fill all or even most of the TFL schedule, so the director (myself) has to choose most of the lists. This time I choose yours, as I was looking for a TV-related list for that date. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

If you really want the list to run later, I should be able to find some movie list to use as a substitute. Let me know what you want me to do and I'll make it happen. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, the list's Main Page appearance has been postponed. When you are ready for the list to run, you can suggest a date at WP:TFLS. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.Krish | Talk 19:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Aitraaz scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Aitraaz article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 9, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 9, 2017.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: So now I guess the contributors have no say in all of these? 9th December has no connection to the film, so Why? Isn't there a rule for nomination etc? I have plans to make it appear on either Chopra's birthday or the film's 14th/15th anniversary. Please remove it.Krish | Talk 19:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry for intruding on your conversation and your talk page, but I have to agree with Krish! on this matter. It seems really odd to have an article put up as TFA without consensus from the major contributors. I would imagine that the contributors (or at least the user who nominated the article for FAC and addressed the reviewers' concerns) should be notified prior to scheduling something for TFA, not after the process is complete. Sorry again for coming down on this; I was just randomly looking at this article and noticed this as well. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Contributors can always ask that their pages are withdrawn/rescheduled. What we can't really do is consult every potential TFA writer in advance, or the whole process takes twice as long. I'm not sure were the "So now I guess the contributors have no say in all of these?" arises from. Perhaps I've missed something? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I had replied on my talk, but let me say something here lest i seem unresponsive on the thread. I scheduled it (it has been removed) because I thought it contributed to a diverse group of articles for December, and because it passed the standard checks we run on a possible TFA. I wanted a mix between date relevant blurbs, and ones that were not (random date) because we are not OTD. Scheduling early as I have has advantages, like working out these sorts of things. One good way to signal that an article should not run on a random date is to add it to the pending template. We'll work things out.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Ventilator (film)

Hi Krish!, you may wish to check the plot section is accurate and makes sense; the original text was confusing and I may have got some characters' names in the wrong place, for which I apologise. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: Thanks for the copyediting. I must tell you that you did well editing the plot too. Don't worry. You should also know that I don't speak that language; I saw the film with subtitles.Krish | Talk 08:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

No problems, and thanks for reviewing my changes. I haven't seen it, it's not something I'd watch, so I'm always a little careful when I'm untangling meanings—I even self-reverted! Good luck with your planned G.A. Nomination. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Quantico (season 2)

I've shortened the episode summaries, which one editor removed, even after I'd shortened them; see talk for details. But it's done. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your great work. I really appreciate it. I will let you know about the trimming.Krish | Talk 18:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries; a read-through of the episode summaries 11 - 13 is advised. Good luck with your planned GA nom. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

List of Presidents of India

Please review this FLC .You seem to frequently put up other articles at FLC and will probably have a good knowledge of them-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 10:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC) To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 10:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm busy but I'll try.Krish | Talk 17:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gunday

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gunday 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 Yashthepunisher -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gunday

The article Gunday you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gunday 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 Yashthepunisher -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ventilator (film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ventilator (film) 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) 15:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ventilator (film)

The article Ventilator (film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ventilator (film) 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) 07:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

Request for Help with Current FAC

Hello again! I hope that you are having a wonderful week so far. I was wondering if you could possibly help me with my current FAC? I have decided to return to the FAC process, but I went with projects that I feel be rather easy to put through the reviews in comparison to Sévérine. I would be more than happy to review anything in return for your help. Either way, good luck with your current work and your future projects. Aoba47 (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It's great that you are back! And, thanks for telling me about your FAC. I will look at it tonight. I'm glad that you are back.Krish | Talk 10:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! And feel free to request any reviews for your current or future projects. Have a great rest of your day or night. Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Aoba47: I don't know how did I miss your message. Well, sorry for that. By the way, I have listed Dil Dhadakne Do for GA review. You can review it if you want to. Thanks.Krish | Talk 04:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the message, and no worries. I am unfortunately too busy to do a full GAN review lately. Aoba47 (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Bad timing. Isn't it? LOL.Krish | Talk 04:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

You are famous!

This edit made you famous! Check this out! 86.99.14.238 (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

LOL.Krish | Talk 15:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bajirao Mastani

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bajirao Mastani 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 HindWIKI -- HindWIKI (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

"huge box office flop"

C'mon, Krish... this? When in a neutral encyclopedia do we describe a film as "huge box office flop"? Can I please challenge you to find a more neutral way to phrase the content you've changed? Thanks man, and it's nothing personal. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And I hope this was not you editing while logged out to circumvent a discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not jobless like you. Why don't you ask for IP checkup? If I wanted to revert you, I would have done it with my account. Considering, I just logged in, no it was not me.Krish | Talk 22:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I still don't know where your ridiculous hostility toward me comes from. Maybe someday you'll explain it. But until then, you should know better than to lob personal attacks at people. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all!

	We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ssven2 and Merry Christmas to you too.Krish | Talk 12:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bajirao Mastani

The article Bajirao Mastani you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bajirao Mastani 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 HindWIKI -- HindWIKI (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Gunday

On 1 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gunday, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Gunday (2014) became one of the lowest-rated films on IMDb following a vote brigading social-media campaign by Bangladeshis? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gunday. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gunday), 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) 00:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bajirao Mastani

Hello! Your submission of Bajirao Mastani 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! Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dil Dhadakne Do

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dil Dhadakne Do 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) 17:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dil Dhadakne Do

The article Dil Dhadakne Do you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dil Dhadakne Do 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) 14:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy Pongal, Makar Sankranti, Lohri and Bihu to you!

Happy Thai Pongal, Makar Sankranti, Lohri and Bihu to you!

May all your endeavours have a fruitful beginning and prosperous ending!  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Makar Sankranti for me. Thanks Ssven2 and I wish the same for you.Krish | Talk 14:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

My latest FA attempt, Anbe Sivam, has been promoted to FA. My first solo FA.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations Ssven2.Krish | Talk 19:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Bajirao Mastani

Hello there!

Your efforts on Bajirao Mastani and other articles are much appreciated - and so is your evident admiration for the talented Ms. Chopra, whose stature won't be diminished because she received lesser billing on WP when another actress plays the titular role. Please remember though that you must adhere to WP policy, and no article is your own property. Right now, you shouldn't change the page unless consensus is reached on the matter at hand. This is a two-year issue, and there's evidence that several editors think differently. A talk page discussion, which you didn't care to take part in, is open, and you are more than welcome to stop by. If consensus is reached, it's another story. I did offer to settle the issue by having the cast section reflect the film credits. But discussion is essential. You yourself once wrote in one edit summary "first talk then add" and therefore you should practice that yourself when more than one editor differs. Keep up the good work. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Bajirao Mastani

On 23 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bajirao Mastani, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2015 Indian epic historical romance film Bajirao Mastani spent eleven years in development hell before being revived in 2014? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bajirao Mastani. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bajirao Mastani), 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) 13:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Loev (film)/archive2

My friend and fellow editor, Numerounovedant, has nominated the article for FAC. Do let him know if you are willing to post comments at the second FAC. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I will look at it this weekend.Krish | Talk 14:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Padmaavat

Hi, about this, I have not watched the film and am not a fan of it. However, it is important to mention that the film had special screenings, during which reviews were positive and the theatrical release response was negative. That would be more comprehensive than simply saying response was mixed. For example, the IB Times source and Gulf News source are in direct conflict with each other, saying the opposite of each other. King Prithviraj II (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The initial screening was held for people who had nothing to do with film journalism. By what angle Rajat Sharma and other news anchors look like film Critics to you? It's like saying "the film got positive reviews because public liked shitty films such as like Judwaa 2 and Tiger Zinda Hai." You don't need to go any further but to look at the response of "ass licking" Bollywood Celebrities who have praised it (as they do with every film) as if it's India's answer to Ben-Hur (the ultimate Bimbo Alia Bhatt). The screening for the film reviewers happened on Monday and then the reviews came up which mostly have been mixed, even the positive ones lean towards negative. If you read some of the reviews, you will find that they have given the film 3.5 stars after calling the film "mediocre" (maybe out of pity as the film went through so much) just because they think this film will break box-office records. Some other reviews talk about how the film will win all the awards (is this a review, seriously?) The problem with Indian critics is that most of them are just dummies who don't even know about writing reviews so they end up writing about its box office prospects and awards. BUT, I am NOT questioning those reviews. They are positive according to those Critics so let them be positive. Who are we to judge as it happens to all the big films. But I am talking about the negative ones and they are very negative. Another problem is distributors and trade analyst also give reviews based on Box Office and most of them saw the movie during the early screening. I would like to add that only proper reviewers' views are counted as a critical reception, not public', not "ass licking stars' or those questionable news correspondents and distributors. I hope I am clear now.Krish | Talk 11:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks, King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Padmaavat edits wrt reviews

I am not crazy about the film and am not against having those words in the leading paragraph, but please add references right next to that sentence so that people can look those up. I'm not saying you made up those reviews; I just don't know where to look because that sentence does not point to any references. RagaBhakta (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a rule on wikipedia which says "not to cite references in the lead". A lead is actually the summary of the whole article. The references are cited on the article 's reception section and hence summarised in the lead. Happy editing!Krish | Talk 09:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Madhumati

Hi. Would you like to review the article for its GA? Its my first GA nomination. King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not editing here currently as I'm very busy right now. Good luck with your article.Krish | Talk 10:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Dil dharkne Do

Anticipating reply to your dyk request. Btw.. it was v good Whispyhistory (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Dil Dhadakne Do

On 10 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dil Dhadakne Do, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the song "Gallan Goodiyaan" from the 2015 Indian comedy-drama Dil Dhadakne Do was apparently filmed in a single five-minute take? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dil Dhadakne Do. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dil Dhadakne Do), 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) 01:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Krimuk

What exactly happened that caused him to snap? And his refusal to reply to your question (which was not a PA) makes me wonder if something is not quite right. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I don't know why he snapped. He always talks about this "trauma" caused by certain editors but I wil never understand that guy. At one moment he is just fine but in another behaves as if people are conspiring against him. Am I missing something? Because this is wikipedia and the articles are NOT rated to us in any way. So why would anyone get this much hurt or defensive? We are not writing a blog but an encyclopedia. Krimuk2.0 seems like a very nice person but he is just way too obsessed with his favourite actresses tha the sees even the smallest criticism as a personal dig. Now coming to your actual question, well, I just changed two things in Padukone's article: she is no more the most liked Bollywood actress on Facebook, Chopra is; she surpassed her like six months ago, and her being the highest actress as of 2017 due to contradictory Forbes sources, on e says $11 million while another says ₹63 crore (the conversion is just....). Obviously Padukone must hhave lied about her income to make it to the world's highest paid list but the Indian edition uncovered her true face. Also I wanted to know about her citizenship as one politician has said that she was Danish but her article said Indian. I just asked him about this as a query but he got mad. Now tell me what is here to get mad about?Krish | Talk 09:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

How many favourite actresses do I have? I have written 9 FAs on leading actresses so far. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

People can have as many favourite actors they want. There's no limit. I am not questiong your favourite list but your behaviour following minor edits by other editors on your articles. For the nth time Kriimuk, I have nothing against you or Padukone but the contradictory claims in wikipedia articles. I don't even watch Bollywood films anymore nor I'm interested in any of the Bollywood stars. I just see a film as a viewer who has every right to criticise a movie owing to the fact that I'm paying ₹1000 to watch a film. Just because you liked Padukone in her weakest/cardboard roles, other people's criticism of her doesn't make them a hater. Krish | Talk 09:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Then stop interacting with me and leave me alone! Do you see me making attacks on Priyanka? I don't and I won't because my liking her or not liking her will not affect her career in anyway. I have already met and interacted with Priyanka twice and she's one of the nicest celebs I have ever met. I also don't like pitting one woman against another. So please stop doing that. Your calling Deepika a liar or a terrible actress is not something even Priyanka will condone, who has nothing but the best things to say about Deepika. The media pitting them against each other is absurd and totally untrue. And fyi, I hated Padmaavat. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't hate Deepika but her lame PR team, which has been degrading fellow actresses since the beginning of time. And also I don't hate Deepika, Alia, Varun or other nepokids just because their shitty movies made a lot of money. Maybe I was obsessed the with hit films in 2015 but I was young and now I don't care about box office figures but the quality of a film. Bollywood is a joke and so are the Indian media, journalists, audiences and film reviewers, the paid ones. Have you seen me adding fluffy stuff like Chopra's numerous top this or top that list appearance or how she is termed as a crossover star in US? No, it's because I don't care about anyone's success but quality work. I appreciate films like Newton, Tumhari Sulu and Lipstick Under My Burkha, which also did decent business and other good films that bombed despite being good. I like watching quality and would like to brag about an actor's stunning performance in a flop film than hate on a successful actor's Blockbuster film. I have got no time for that, at least not anymore. And, this does not make me a hater nor does challenging contradictory facts/claims. Additionally, stop seeing my every response as a hate/dig rant and I have no problem with you editing Chopra's article. In fact I will be more than happy because you are an exceptional writer.Krish | Talk 10:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

If you really think of me as an "exceptional writer" and a "very nice person" then please do me a favour and stay out of my hair. I really don't like interacting with you. That's the honest truth and I am mentally much better off contributing on this site when I don't have to see hateful messages being spun about any actor or actress. I have been working in this industry for over a year now, and I have never heard such hateful venom being spewed on an actress as much as you like to. Just so you know, both Priyanka and Deepika are extremely well-liked in the industry and people have nothing bad to say about them. Believe me or not, that's upto you, but that's the truth. The kind of goodwill that they have garnered is rare and comes only when an artist is exceptional. Anyway, I humbly request you to please pay heed to my advice. If you have some problems with any of my articles, kindly leave a neutrally-worded message on the talk page (instead of a hateful edit summary accusing that particular actress) and I will see to it that your concern is taken care of. Thank you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, to respond to Kailash's message, I did not snap. My edits were purely tongue-in-cheek, hence my comparing my "breakdown" to Meryl Streep's annual Oscar nomination. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Good luck Krimuk since the next 6 years will be as eventful as 2018 for you and Deepika. SLB is doing Immortals of Meluha with her. For the next 6 years you will assume I hate her. LOLKrish | Talk 10:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hating an actress and calling someone you don't even know a liar is not funny, Krish. I hope you understand that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, in the next 6 years, I will probably write 9 more featured articles. That's nine more people I will love and you will hate. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't hate any actress especially the Hollywood actresses, who actually have talent unlike the Bollywood actresses who focus more on staying in news for stupid/fluffy stuff. I hope those 9 articles will not include Sara Ali, Jhanvi, Ishaan, Chunkey Pandey 's daughter, Aryan, Suhana, Karan Deol, and Khushi. LOL. BTW, you are right I shouldn't call an actress a liar without knowing her. But that actress can say "Don't compare me to Priyanka because I was in my school when she became Miss World, you can compare me to Sonakshi and Parineeti" even though Priyanka was also in school. That Actress' PR can publish articles about "Priyanka changed her agency because of Deepika, PC gets insecure in Hollywood because of Deepika" considering Priyanka had changed her agency a year before Deepika signed to PC's old agency. Off course friends like Deepika can say when their friends win awards (Priyanka for Mary Kom)...."I think Kangana deserves every award and Not the actress who is winn these Awards". Should I add how Deepika was gushing about Ranbir stealing the limelight in Tamasha......"he deserves every bit of it" but when Priyanka stole the show in Bajirao Mastani, Deepika didn't even say a word out of jealosy and ran articles about how she was not the lead. She made sure SLB doesn't submit her name for Supporting Actress category even at NFA so that she won't win another National Award, which actually what happened. I am sure SLB hadn't paid Priyanka the "lead actress" worth money but he did this to cancel her much deserved National Award. Also friends don't publish "Deepika beats Priyanka in this and that" while Priyanka's PR has never done this. Also good actresses publish articles about how "Deepika will rock Hollywood more than Priyanka" even before the release of their film. Good actresses also degrade their male co-star rs saying "I'm on the poster, I got paid more, it's my film and I would like to thank Shahid and and Ranveer for doing this film and supporting" as if they had cameos in her film. The truth is that hers was a supporting part and a very bad one. Good actresses also claim that they don't believe in number game but always talk about being the Box Office Queen without a single Solo hit. But bad actresses like Priyanka always say nice things about Deepika but great actress Deepika always degrade best friend Priyanka and other actress. Also the amazing Deepika's fans create 100000 fake accounts to abuse Priyanka just because their amazing Queen Deepika suck at acting....... Phew! I am such a hater. Shame on me.Krish | Talk 11:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Re: this, I'm pretty sure I've brought this up before, but we do not regurgitate subjective declarations made by trade mags. If a film was declared a "steaming pile of shit" by some mainstream source, we wouldn't publish that as an indisputable fact, because it breaches the formal, neutral tone we strive for at this encyclopedia. WP:NPOV is the salient policy and maybe also WP:UNDUE. Rotten Tomatoes uses "fresh" and "rotten" labels, but because we're discriminating editors, we don't just say "The film was declared rotten" because we understand that these are hyperbolic labels and may not be representative of every perspective on the film, and because the labels lack neutral nuance. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:RFC

I consider taking Bajirao Mastani to RfC, so that more editors judge the issue from an objective POV. What do you say? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think thwere is a need of an RFC. I think Indian editors like Ssven2, Kailash29792, Numerounovedant, Pavanjandhyala and Yashthepunisher should put their thoughts here.Krish | Talk 19:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Please invite them, and please try to be cool. I have shown enough courtesy so far, but you are being a little too extreme at some points, and I'm NOT going to tolerate this any longer. That concerns your remark on the Filmfare award page as well. I've started a discussion there as well. Cheers, Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Krish, just another note. This move of yours put a smile on my face. I think proportions are so important on WP and there's clearly a great lack of them here. I was actually very sincere when I gave it to you, because I was trying to be kind after an intense argument, and I can only thank you for unaccepting it today, because those who do not appreciate kindness probably do not deserve reward. Calling me a "biased person", however, is not done, and I will kindly take the time to request (or demand) that you refrain from making any such comments, about any user, and be professional to discuss actual issues to the point. The fact that I consider this remark entertaining (because the only bias that I can smell comes from the opposite direction) is another story, but please remember it.

I have been on WP for years, trust me, I was known for fighting arduously against those who thought they could use WP as a platform for star glorification, and they disliked me greatly when they didn't manage to because of me. It's good to make you aware of it, since the reason I interfered with Bajirao Mastani is that I felt incredible amounts of unfairness and, well, bias were being thrown into it. I'm not going to let it happen. You will be surprised to know that several WP editors thanked me for this intervention.

BTW, if you must know, Filmfare Awards are a joke in my eyes (not that it's any of you business) but I insist on fair representation of facts, and Mr. Kapoor clarified that he didn't mean Filmfare (although it probably is what he meant). As for Deepika and Priyanka, as I said on the Bajirao Mastani page, I don't care for either, and neither is a particularly good actress in my books. I am actually more fond of Priyanka because of the way she carries herself outside of India, but it shouldn't matter here. And yet, WP will not be a platform for anyone - it's an encyclopedia, mind you, and that's why I'm here.

Kind regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Why me? I am far worse and regressive than anyone around. Weak in prose, weaker in constructing and worse in understanding. Try the opinions of the better ones. Say, Ssven2, Kailash29792, Numerounovedant, Yashthepunisher, Dr. Blofeld and Vensatry. Thank you. Regards, Pavanjandhyala 03:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not want to have anything to do with this. Just obey the sources without jumping to WP:SYNTHESIS, I don't think that should be too hard. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Seconded.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Ssven2 and Kailash29792 As you all can see that Shshshsh is manipulating stuff to make it look like Padukone was praised for her performance in Bajirao Mastani. He chose only those reviews which praised her performance while neglected those which criticised her performance. Phrases like "failed to make a mark", "terrible portrayal", "failed to do justice", "looses stream", "her performance is wishy-washy", "is merely coasting on her good looks", "the actress fails to bring it out to its full strength", "awful dialogue delivery", and "the actor struggles to make the character as flesh-and-blood as possible" have been used to describe Padukone's portrayal of Mastani. Yet Shahid thinks "Padukone's performance is well-received". LOGIC? He keeps putting only positive ones up to distract the overall critical analysis. What is more laughable is that he kind of determined the "degree of criticism" in the negative articles saying "it's not that bad, is it?" for "Deepika could have done more with her part" (Shubash K. Jha) and "again, not that bad, although much less positive for "but her performance is wishy-washy" (Raja Sen). Can you imagine? Whop are we to determine the degree of comments in reviews? A negative review is negative until it says "good performance", "great performance" etc. Only Padukone's performance has received negative commentary, so how can we say her performance was well-received. I know you guys are friend with Shahid but atleast you can see the manipulation here.Krish | Talk 09:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I can see cherrypicking here. Since I found no source explicitly saying something like "Padukone's performance was predominantly criticised" or "Padukone received overall mixed response for her performance", can we begin a new para in the reception section that says "Some reviewers criticised Padukone's performance" and cite those reviews? --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you find Padukone receiving "mixed reviews" for Padmaavat? This is how Indian media protects Ms. Padukone. Despite receiving mixed/negative reviews for Bajirao Mastani, none of the media article consider her to be mixed/negative. But we can see she was heavily criticised in the reviews. Now coming to your new section about her being panned, well I am a middle of getting blocked because I exposed Shahid's lies, so he is dragging me to ANI. Just imagine what will happen if I really did this.Krish | Talk 10:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Krish!, your attitude is most disheartening, and I'm not going to repeat myself a thousand times just to make you feel better about my indifference towards both Chopra and Padukone, and who's better. This belongs to a Bollywood forum. Which lies did you expose? Are you kidding? :)Of course I wouldn't mention the negative reviews, since you had already done that before, I was presenting counter examples, and for some reason you can't take it. And the funny thing is that it's no big deal at all - my only claim is to exclude the line "much criticism" towards Deepika, which you had added with a strangely unprofessional edit summary. I'm afraid the instinct of defending Priyanka Chopra against practically nothing is becoming increasingly problematic. And I would kindly call your attention to the many WP policies which require editors to be civil. I'm sure there's no need to cite them here, I somehow feel you have been asked to read them in the past, just go and read them again. If you do it, no WP:ANI is necessary. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well then you have not read anti-Priyanka and anti-me edit summaries posted by Krimuk and some IPs in the past. Those edit summaries were filled with venom and so bad that I had to neglect them. BTW, when I listed all the negative reviews I also said that "rest of the reviews praise all the star cast" and additionally listed the reviews which criticized Padukone's performance. I never said Padukone was panned by every critic. I also said in a summary about "60 out of 100" critics panning her, taking as an estimate to prove my point that we can't claim her performance was well-received.Krish | Talk 10:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright

Dear Krish, okay you removed the warning. Please take things in the right proportions, how does WP even have the power to affect you so much? You're taking everything too close to heart, and as result you're behaving rather unconsciously. Let's try to work it out like mature people, I expect nothing less than professionalism from someone who is responsible for all of this. It's just a movie page on WP! It's just Deepika Padukone's performance, so she's getting the big bucks and you are getting nervous because of someone not agreeing with you? How come? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

"I don't want to contribute on wikipedia and I'm sure body gives a fuck about my contributions and hard work" - I do care about your contributions, they are terrific! Stop it already and delete that unnecessary section, we'll talk later! Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete my account permanently

Can someone help me with deleting my account permanently? I have had enough on this site. I have given so many years to this site yet some editors behave as if they own the articles. I have suffered so much because of unwanted hate created by many editors. So I would like the administrator to delete my account permanently. The negativity on this site is affecting my life and I am on a verge of mental breakdown. Please delete this account. I don't want to contribute on wikipedia and I'm sure nobody gives a fuck about my contributions and hard work.Krish | Talk 16:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Been there, and so have multiple other editors. Here's something to try - use the Wikibreak enforcer script and take some time away from here. And when you come back, no looking back in your watchlist, just going forward. You edit in one of the more frustrating areas of Wikipedia that I've found. Lots of fanbois and haters, blatant promotionalism and the sheer volume of unsourced edits is crazy! Laugh about it, change what you can and activate blinders when needed. Sadly, there isn't a way to permanently delete an account, but you can create a really long string of random charaters and change your password to that. If you don't keep a copy, your account is done. Start with the wikibreak, and remove a ton of articles from your watchlist when you come back. Ultimately, while Wikipedia is less without you, it's not worth the stress it seems to be causing. Ravensfire (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It's so true - particularly "it's not worth the stress it seems to be causing". Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Something else to consider that I've been trying to use when I get into a more protracted conflict - I'm use the various noticeboards and project talk pages more to get more people involved. It helps keep discussions from feeling personal between another editor and me, brings in alternate viewpoints and has worked fairly well to help resolve things in a way that doesn't lead to drama. Ravensfire (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Further comment after EC - DUDE!!! That Featured Article notice below is seriously impressive. Not feeling appreciated? Pffft - look below. That's a pat on the back from the community that very few accomplish. Ravensfire (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: The hate is more powerful than a pat on the back. Isn't this a shame how hate overpowers appreciations? Well, it's truth. Anyway, I want to delete my account permanently. I had seen administrators deleting editor's accounts. Please help me.Krish | Talk 17:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Administrator note We do not delete accounts. If the strain of contributing here is too much, you should consider a Wikibreak. If you're concerned that you won't be able to stay away on your own, you can ask an administrator (at WP:AN, for instance) to impose a block for a set period of time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Re:"It's like a depressing day you can't figure out how to overcome." Try watching Enchanted, Forrest Gump, or English Vinglish. There are some great stress busters our there Krish. Please do not let this affect yourself so much. Take a break, maybe binge watch all them this weekend, that's what I'd do. VedantTalk 17:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Good luck with your off-Wikipedia projects. I have a great deal of respect for your work on here. You are a much better contributor than I am and I have a lot to learn from your work. I am glad that I got to read and learn from your contributions on here. Aoba47 (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Aitraaz scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Aitraaz article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 4, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 4, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Jimfbleak I had my own plans for the article, for it's release anniversary. So please remove it. How you can even schedule it without even contacting the main contributor? I don't understand.Krish | Talk 16:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It's too time-consuming to consult every editor about every TFA, so this is your chance to request that it doean't run. I'll pick something else Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, pick something else. BTW, thanks for selecting in first place. I appreciate it.Krish | Talk 17:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you want to improve the chances of it being selected for a given date, consider adding it here WP:TFARP, requested articles have more chance of running, although of course there may be other articles listed for the same date, so no guarantee Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Rockstar (2011 film)

Rockstar (2011 film), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Quantico

Wikipedia is not here for you to vent and display your personal frustrations. I recommend you learn that soon. How about you not edit the article if you don't like it? Bye. -- Alex^TW 05:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: How about "Relax"? I just said that the show dragged and should have ended after season 1. Plus, it kind of wasted Chopra's 2 years, which could have been good for films. I liked the first season and stopped watching after being disappointed with the initial few season 2 episodes (though I have read the later episodes were better). That's all. I don't hate the series but not a fan either.Krish | Talk 12:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

What I think Alex is trying to say is, those comments you made about your personal view of the series should have been made elsewhere. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree. My bad.Krish | Talk 12:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

So, you agree with it when it's not me telling you. Nice to know. Cheers, Kailash. -- Alex^TW 12:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Well, I didn't understand when you wrote. Now, yes, I agree with you too on what you said about not writing those summaries. It's not like what you said about me agreeing only with people other than you.Krish | Talk 12:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of awards and nominations received by Parineeti Chopra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Film Award – Special Jury Award / Special Mention (Feature Film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Krish!/My films list

User:Krish!/My films list, 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:Krish!/My films list and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Krish!/My films list 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) 17:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

A humble request

Please, for the love of God, stay out of my hair. Such edit summaries is not helpful for either you or me. Let me edit in peace without having to deal with your personal opinions on me or other actors. I humbly request you. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

If you gonna manipulate stuff on wikipedia, someone has to barge in. Don't you think? Plus you can't dismiss the facts about that dude who cannot act and works in sexist films and this is NOT my personal POV but majority of critics'. I think you haven't read reviews about his films. He says his dialogues like he is reading a poem with no expressions. How about you add in his lead that he has been criticized for his strings of sexist films? Take care. Krish | Talk 16:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

What about Krimuk?

So this biased administrator Ian.thomson BLOCKED me and not Krimuk2.0?Krish | Talk 22:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Answer me Ian.thomson.Krish | Talk 22:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

As I already explained:

Me: stop talking about or to the other user, right now. I'm right inclined to block the next person who mentions the other user.

You: (continues to make accusations without evidence toward the other user, including this and this and this).

You were told that if one of you even mentioned the other user, you would be blocked. You were told to stop making accusations without evidence, because those are personal attacks. You should already understand that personal attacks are not allowed here.

If, after this explanation, you do not understand what you did wrong here, I am going to have to make this block indefinite under WP:CIR. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You published that post about not mentioning another editor at 22:07 and mine was published two minutes later. What does this mean? Did you even realise that I published that post without seeing yours? You published it when I was already writing it. So when I published it I saw it and then I realised I should not have written that. BUT how I would have known? So I apologized in the next sentence. Now you understand Ian.thomson?Krish | Talk 22:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The first post was two minutes after. The other two were well after and one was in response to my post. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, your initial response to getting blocked was not "hey, sorry, I didn't see your message even though I responded to it," it was to continue talking about Krimuk2.0 (while demanding an explanation from me after deleting the already existing explanation). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The first second post was just an apology and explaining why I did those edits. I DID NOT name that user there. Also my third post was the response to the above discussion NOT you. So technically I didnt not break your rules Ian.thomson.Krish | Talk 22:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I was NOT responding to your post BUT just adding it for my defense. I should have just added it in that Homophobic defense thing. When I started writing your post was NOT there. I saw your post when I had already published it Ian.thomson.Krish | Talk 22:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In other words:

1) Your second post was in response to my post, acknowledging my post that said "stop talking about or to the other user."

2) You then went on to talk about Krimuk2.0 in your third post, after acknowledgeding my message that I would "block the next person who mentions the other user."

I did not say "your next post should not name them," I said "stop talking about or to the other user." In other words, no more discussion of them.

Because you don't understand that your behavior is the problem here, and because you have a history of edit warring and personal attacks, I'm extending the block to indefinite under WP:CIR. If you want to appeal this block, you will need to follow the instructions in the block template you deleted. I will not unblock you, so do not bother messaging me any further. Unless another admin managed to get a very good conversation out of you where you show that you understand everything that you did wrong (not just in this incident but in general), I will oppose other admins' efforts to unblock you as well (or to even shorten your block). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep lying to yourself

1. My second post does not name that user. It just says I am really sorry for my behavior. Where is that name Ian.thomson?
2. My third post was a defense on another post where another administrator Maile66 was looking at the matter. It was NOT the same topic. I was DEFENDING myself at a post created by that USER against me. Get it? Ian.thomson

What about the double standards?Krish | Talk 22:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

So you blocked me indefinitely? Wow slow claps at your hypocrisy. How is that Krimuk not BLOCK for violating 3RR rule? It clearly says While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block.

The three-revert rule states:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions. . Answer me Ian.thomson.Krish | Talk 22:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

If you ping me one more time, I'm revoking your talk page access. Even if you want to look for technicalities, you are in the wrong here, and the more you work to blame others the deeper a hole you dig for yourself. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Help

You would be better served focusing on your own behavior at this time. SQL^{Query me!} 23:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

.....

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Now looking back I think I was also at fault with my behavior but I do not deserve to be blocked for indefinite time (earlier it was 3 Days). I have done plenty of work here and want to do more. Please unblock me. I will try to be more civil.Krish Talk 23:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have to convince us we can be confident you'll never again engage in personal attacks or edit-warring. This totally fails to convince me. Yamla (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Yamla: Yes! I totally promise. I will never ever again engage in personal attacks and edit-warring. I will always discuss first or seek help from other people regarding some edits. I promise.Krish | Talk 23:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yamla: I am waiting for your reply.Krish | Talk 16:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I've already reviewed your block. If you wish to have your block reviewed, make another unblock request addressing the concerns and another admin will review it. --Yamla (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I do not deserve to be blocked for indefinite time (earlier it was 3 Days). I have done plenty of work here and want to do more. Please unblock me. That another administrator said they would unblock me if I promised to never ever again engage in personal attacks and edit-warring. So yes! I totally promise. I will never ever again engage in personal attacks and edit-warring. I will always discuss first or seek help from other people regarding some edits.Krish

Decline reason:

Checkuser-confirmed sock puppetry in addition to anon IP editing which amounts to socking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This unblock request appears to be Crocodile tears. I strongly suggest the following:

1. Explain how your actions (specifically in relation to WP:GAB, WP:ADMINACCT, WP:NPA, and WP:NOTTHEM) have caused you to be in this state
2. Apologize to Ian (without pinging them) for your repeated demands
3. Explain what you intend to do if you were to be unblocked

Once you do these things, you are more likely to have your unblock request taken seriously. Hasteur (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't expect an apology per se, but rather indication of a capacity for self-reflection (which a good answer for 1 should show). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

That another administrator said they would unblock me if I promised to never ever again engage in personal attacks and edit-warring - that's not actually what anyone said. Yamla said You have to convince us we can be confident you'll never again engage in personal attacks or edit-warring. Your inability to follow what others say is one of the reasons why I increased the block (so you'll want to read WP:IDHT as well). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

1. Yes Hasteur I am accountable for all my actions and I am really sorry for acting stubborn and childish with several posts last night. I am very sorry and I take full responsibility for my actions. I should not have indulged myself in the edit-war and I am really sorry for the personal attacks I made towards that editor.
2. I am really sorry Ian.thomson I will never repeat these mistakes and I also want to apologise for constantly pinging you. I forgot how busy you must be here doing all the administrative work and in your real life. I am really sorry for that.
3. After getting unblock, I intend to resume work on my pending projects such nominating an article for FA and expanding another one.Krish | Talk 18:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Not a Sockpuppet

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Seriously? Sockpuppet allegations? LMAO. On what basis? Plus why would I create an account called BollywoodSeductress and won't use for what you are accusing me "of bad behavior"? Don't you think I would have done something bad with that account? I have not done disruptive editing using IPs either. I want to tell you that since the last year I have been using a shared network (my workplace) and sometimes I have used Internet cafes while doing some document work related to my job. Never ever I have done disruptive editing using another account and never will. I done done so much work her and worked hard on over 50 articles, 44 of which are featured/good content. I have a subject of much hate and abuse from my fellow wikipedians from time to time through IPs (check my talk/user page history) but have never indulged in abusing them back. I am here solely for my love for films and few actors and ost of my edits are related to that. I really don't want to leave this place because I really like writing articles here. So kindly look at the matter. EdJohnston and Berean Hunter.Krish | Talk 07:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, we cannot unblock you at this time. There are simply too many coincidences surrounding the sockpuppets. I do not believe that any further unblock requests would have a chance of being successful at this point - and as such, I am revoking your ability to edit this page. If you have further appeals, you may make them via WP:UTRS, but I would strongly suggest that you take some time away from the project, and review the standard offer. SQL^{Query me!} 22:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1. Also, the BLOCK says " Berean Hunter (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Krish! (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked): Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krish!)". If I can see the history of those accounts (they are not mine), I don't see them abusing any user or me or anyone. Then the block is very questionable even if we assume that those accounts are mine which they are NOT.

1. Even I have not abused anyone from my account.

1. The wikipedia rules are against this block even considering those accounts are mine. The first two accounts have made ZERO edits. That another account did NOT support me during disputes, did not abuse anyone during disputes, and most importantly did not edit similar articles. So how those accounts are mine and I am responsible for those accounts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krish! (talk • contribs) 08:22, July 9, 2018 (UTC)

• The Prashant.0216 account was created on July 3 while you were already blocked which implies that it is to be used for block evasion and is a bad faith account creation..i.e. you have no business creating accounts while you are already blocked. That is a violation of WP:SOCK..."Creating new accounts to avoid detection". For BollywoodSeductress, I don't need to wait for that account to edit in order to cu block. I believe that it belongs to a blocked editor that is socking. Why would I let that person hang onto unblocked accounts?

• You and NewWikipedian are  Technically indistinguishable and overlap subject interests. For example, the two of you are the only ones to ever upload this file. You created Purple Pebble Pictures in April 2016 and NewWikipedian added to it in November when they created Ventilator (film) which was the day that the film was released and the day that they created their account. They created Rajesh Mapuskar two days later. They didn't look like a new editor when they started. You posted the GA nomination notice for Ventilator (film) and worked the article towards GA. Why would I leave this account unblocked when I believe that the owner has already been indeffed?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• The wikipedia rules are against this block even considering those accounts are mine. That is probably the stupidest argument I've seen to get out of a block from someone who wasn't actively trolling. WP:BLOCK EVASION explains why we would block those accounts. Even if that was not a policy, common sense would indicate that if we're going to block a person, we need to block any sockpuppets they make or else the block is worthless. Frankly, I don't see why we don't revoke your talk page access, because even if you're not actively trolling, the resulting behavior might as well be the same. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with Prashant.0216 account. My IP was blocked for account creation, so how could I create a new account? Also, I have refrained from using my real name on wikipedia and had changed my User name 2 or 3 years ago for a reason. And, I am not that dumb that I will create an account on my real name. Trust me I have nothing to do with those accounts. Also, I am not against blocking those "sock" accounts" because I have nothing to do with them. And who am I to object if those accounts ever did bad faith or distruptive editing. Also, ever thought that some one else might have created Prashant.0216 to blame me? Just check its IP with few of other Indian wikipedians who work on Bollywood topics. I have worked hard and done considerable work from this account so why would I edit using another account? Also that NewWikipedian could be User:Daan0001 because they share the same interest as mine. His edits were so much similar to mine that someone opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prashant!/Archive BUT found as unrelated. This could be him and I liked Ventilator (film) so I took it to GA. This article is also related to my interest on wikipedia so that should not surprise anyone. I mean it is inevitable that I would upload the poster in order to take it to GA. Berean Hunter, if you want to punish me than block me for a month or two for my bad behavior (the reason for my block on 3 July). I again want to tell you that I am NOT a sockpuppet but a genuine wikipedian who wants to contribute much much more to this informative and interesting place.Krish | Talk 08:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry again Ian.thomson I really don't know how to react to this situation. So I might have offended you. I am really sorry. I am very sorry for my behavior.Krish | Talk 08:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The Prashant! SPI was checking against different accounts, not your account. That older SPI only means you're unrelated to User:Daan0001. The current SPI checking this account against others found that they were connected. Your crocodile tears (sometimes over just secondary matters), your spurious arguments, and delusional denial of behavior that everyone else sees from you are why no one is unblocking you, and why I'm considering revoking your talk page access.

If you do not that, you're going to need to follow the standard offer:

• stop posting on any part of the site, on any accounts, for at least six months
• log in to this account and fill in an unblock request that:

1. admits to sockpuppetry, personal attacks, edit warring, and failing to listen to others, citing the policies and guidelines that explain why those are a problem. Don't just quote me -- be specific, so we know that you know what you did wrong.
2. does not try to excuse or justify your behavior.
3. explains how you plan to help the site while avoiding such negative behavior in the future. Give examples that show what you would do differently this time around.
4. does not mention any other user except when admitting you have treated them wrong. Do not mention any of the admins, even if you're thinking it's admitting wrongdoing on your part. This block is not because you've "offended" us (we really don't care), it's because you've wronged the community.

• Do not argue with any admins working on your appeal. Do not present spurious reasons to misdirect other admins. Do not present Crocodile tears to misdirect us. Stick to calm, rational admission of your wrongdoings and a plan to reform your behavior.

You've had way too many "last" chances. If you do something besides this, I'm revoking your talk page access. I don't want to even see questions about this or requests for clarification, because if you do not understand all of the instructions you've been given (and cannot figure things out from the links in those instructions), WP:CIR applies and you should not be editing anyway. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Quanticocast.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Quanticocast.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

hey!!! I've seen your work on Priyanka Chopra article. Great work i must say... and i have translated that article in Punjabi Language. Now it is second largest article in Punjabi language. Jagseer S Sidhu (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Emailing me is not going to accomplish anything

You have been checkuser blocked by Berean Hunter, and so cannot be unblocked by me.

Also, your emails don't really show that you know what went wrong. You say that you learned from your mistakes, but you don't say what those mistakes are or what you learned from them.

You need to point to specific behaviors on your part and explain the problem with them, and how you plan to avoid them in the future.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the user you need to be emailing. Berean Hunter was the one who CU blocked you. Not me, not SQL. You need to email Berean Hunter, not me or SQL. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Krish, I have changed the block to allow you talk page access so that you may appeal. Please review the above advice on this page before doing so. I have received your email but prefer that you do your appealing publicly.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter and Ian.thomson:, Thanks - They emailed me as well saying that they had emailed Ian in July, and had not received any reply. SQL^{Query me!} 02:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Berean Hunter and SQL for replying me back and giving me me back my talk page access.Krish | Talk 07:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I would like to appeal for an unblock. I completely agree with all the administrators' action against me as my behavior was problematic. I admit I was involved in edit wars that could have been avoided on my part by dealing with them calmly and I should not have used personal attack to prove my point and should have listened to other users, and other administrators. I know all these things are against Wikipedia guidelines and I often used to overreact in heat of the moment which I shouldn't have. After taking a break for a whole year from Wikipedia, I learned several things thanks to my job (I graduated from college in 2018 and accepted one of the job offers) that has made me more calm, collaborative and a better person. While working I realized one don't need to shout or scream to prove their points. I have also learned that other people's POV are also important and they should be respected as well. My job has been a huge learning experience of my life. I think I am in a great position right now, personally and professionally, which was missing earlier and lead to frustration and over-reaction (during college days). Learning from mistakes and not repeating them has been my new motto since the last year and I have followed it nicely. I hope to get back to Wikipedia and edit and contribute like I earlier used to but this time in a very calm, positive and civil way. Here is to new beginnings.Krish | Talk 07:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Please note that while blocked, the user has continued to use IPs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/196.207.91.174 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/27.61.86.70), accusing others of "hypocrisy" and "bias", which is what got him in trouble in the first place. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the second one [[2]] was me who posted the comment because the conversation was contradictive so I thought I would post my views just describing what the situation was but it was rejected so I didn't post that again and I then again sent an email to Ian for unblock again. As you could see above, I had sent an email to Ian in July 2019 but I didn't get a reply. In that post, I called Pakistan's POV hypocritical regarding war and not any user's.

But I reject YOUR first claim/theory, I have not edited this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/196.207.91.174). Maybe someone wrote that anonymous post just in case if I tried to come back for unblock after six months? Who knows? Maybe that person wrote other several posts? I don't know but anything is possible. Or just that one post to use against me? If I had written that anonymous post, don't you think I would have gone after your other articles and abused you or attacked you but It was not me as I had then just started my job from 9 July 2018 and didn't edit anything until 24 August 2019 to describe the situation for the betterment of the editors. I stand firm on my words above that I logged in to my account after a very long time after getting blocked and I have not used any IPs before that one edit on 24 August 2019, after more than a year.Krish | Talk 13:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Continuing to email me will not accomplish anything. As was explained above, this is a checkuser block. I'm not a checkuser. It sounds like you've admitted to evading your block recently above, so I wouldn't be inclined to unblock at this time in any case. Even if I were, I am not permitted to undo checkuser blocks. I've set my preferences to prevent you from emailing me. SQL^{Query me!} 15:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

SQL Thae Administrator was talking about the checkuser block from the last year. Also, I have admitted to one IP edit on 24 Ausgust 2019, after more than a year, just to describe a situation about a discussion that was full of contradiction. It was only meant for helping the editors involved i.e. a productive and helpful edit which Wikipedia rules allow and it's written here Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_and_enforcement: "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." Now coming back to my earlier two accounts that lead charges of sockpuppetery, it should be noted that those accounts were only created for the sole purpose of editing articles and were used to edit articles and not abusing or take advantage or support me in discussions. I am not justifying the sockpuppetry and I know it's against the rules and hence I was blocked further but that was a mistake that I would NEVER repeat again. I have contributed so much to Wikipedia and I deserve one last chance. I want to contribute more to this beautiful place and I have become a better individual and learned for my mistakes. Every person deserves a chance to be better and forgiveness. Please don't take this away from me. This place means a lot to me and I really mean it.Krish | Talk 16:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

"I have admitted to one IP edit on 24 Ausgust 2019" But it wasn't just one IP edit, was it? It was four edits. Even if it was just one, it's still a violation of WP:EVADE. Practically speaking, that guarantees you'll not be unblocked at this time. Your best chance is to apply under WP:SO no sooner than six months from now. At that point, you'll have to specifically convince us you understand the seriousness of your repeated violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. Basically, you'll have to convince us you understand this isn't acceptable and we can trust you'll never do that again. --Yamla (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

But Yamla it was more like a helpful edit not destructive. Anyways, can be specific what should I do now?Krish | Talk 17:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't helpful at all. First, it was a clear case of WP:EVADE. Secondly, it was a violation of WP:NOTFORUM and was reverted. It also may fall foul of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Frankly, claiming it was helpful is strong evidence you shouldn't be unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yamla I meant I wanted it to be a helpful or productive post for the editors who were discussing. Anyways, so you think I should appeal again after six months without any edits? What if I appealed after six months and it was again rejected?Krish | Talk 19:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you should wait six months with zero edits. You may not be unblocked then, in which case you'd wait another six months. WP:SO covers this in detail. This is just my opinion; you are free to ignore it and I won't hold it against you. --Yamla (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yamla Thanks for the suggestion. I will follow your advice but were I am supposed to appeal after six months?Krish | Talk 19:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

In an unblock request, here on this talk page. --Yamla (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yamla Thank you. I will come back after eight months or maybe a year later.Krish | Talk 19:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Unblock Appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked in July 2018 for edit warring and not complying with the request of an administrator. I was told to come back after six months and appeal gain but I am here after more than a year. I completely agree with the administrators' action against me as my behavior was problematic and against Wikipedia guidelines. That time I was wrong and the block was justified. I admit I was involved in edit wars that could have been avoided on my part by dealing with them calmly and I should not have used personal attack to prove my point and should have listened to other users, and other administrators. I know all these things are against Wikipedia guidelines and I often used to overreact in heat of the moment which I shouldn't have. After taking a break for a whole year from Wikipedia, I learned several things thanks to my job (I graduated from college in 2018 and accepted one of the job offers) that has made me more calm, collaborative and a better person. While working I realized one don't need to shout or scream to prove their points instead one should listen to others and deal calmly. I have also learned that other people's POV are also important and they should be respected as well. My job has been a huge learning experience of my life. I think I am in a great position right now, personally and professionally, which was missing earlier and lead to frustration and over-reaction (during college days). Learning from mistakes and not repeating them has been my new motto since the last year and I have followed it nicely. I hope to get back to Wikipedia and edit and contribute like I earlier used to but this time in a very calm, positive and civil way. I have contributed so much to Wikipedia (2 FAs, 22 FLs, 1 FT and 22 GAs) and want to contribute more. I hope it's a new beginning.Krish | Talk 08:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You've engaged in sock puppetry and block evasion, not just a bit of edit warring from a year ago. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

NinjaRobotPirate But edit warring was the main reason was of block, a year ago. What should I do? Does that mean I would never get unblocked and would never be able to edit wikipedia? I have contributed so much to this place and I want to contribute more. I have apologized a lot for my past mistakes and after one year break and learning from my mistakes, I deserve one last chance. This place means a lot to me and I promise I will never repeat any of my mistakes ever.Krish | Talk 17:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Even though my interactions with you were typically met with an unexplained, pissy hostility, I was seriously considering supporting your unblock until the revelation that you couldn't contain yourself and violated your block to comment in a politically charged subject area. That said, I don't think you're the worst of the worst, and I personally would consider unblocking you in two months rather than making you wait the entire six for the standard offer. However, if other admins or CheckUsers have stronger perspectives that you've been engaged in rampant block evasion, that would absolutely change my opinion to the negative. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb Sorry for my behavior and I hope you forgive me. Earlier, as I said, I was in college and a little stupid and immature. After I started working, I realized that the real life is much different than my college bubble and childish behavior infused world that I had created for myself. I learned that for building making/something, collaboration, patience and listening to others and appreciating different POVs is very important. Now coming to that edit which I made on 24 August 2019 (my only IP edit after my block and talk page access revocation), I meant that edit to be helpful an not as destructive only after reading the Wikipedia guidelines that said I could make a productive edit. I was in my office that time and I just wanted to put my POV for the editors to understand it better. I have been so busy with my work and personal life that I had no time to come to wikipedia and edit anything. In fact, I had almost forgotten about it. I did logged in though in early July 2019 to send an email to Ian but didn't get a reply. You can ask a Checkuser to check right now because other than that one edit I haven't edited anything in last one year.Krish | Talk 18:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Email received

Your email has been received. Please hold on. (I don't really like communicating by email, and rarely check it, hence the delay). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Krish, it appears that I owe you an apology for accidentally offering some false hope. Though I said that I would personally consider unblocking you in two months, since I was not the blocking administrator, I would be working against administrative consensus by shortening the time span. There are other concerns as well, including one administrator feeling that you never properly addressed the socking. Please see this. Regards, and I apologise. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb What does this mean? So I won't be able to edit here on Wikipedia, like ever? On a side note, I would like to tell Berean Hunter, that I came here after just two months because you (Cyphoidbomb) asked me to and BTW I am ready to address the socking. I have already asked for forgiveness a million times. I don't get it.Krish | Talk 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. Other admins expect you to not edit for six months. You've abstained for two of those six months. Then beyond that, they expect you to cop to whatever socking you did, as there were some denials previously. See this post by Ian.thomson which appears to have been important to Bearean. So, yes, you should be able to edit here again, provided you adhere to the other admins' expectations. Apologies typically aren't enough. Admins typically want to see people acknowledge what they did and provide a plan for how they intend to avoid that behavior in the future. And again, I apologise for giving you a false sense of hope for a quick unblock. I've unblocked other editors without requiring them to endure the whole standard offer, but those were in cases where I had activated their initial block. It's generally considered bad form for an admin to disregard other admins' blocks or their strong opinions. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb So what should I do now? And BTW, when I apologized for my juvenile behavior, I also meant I was sorry for the socking. But I can apologize again and I understand that it is me who was wrong.Krish | Talk 02:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that you need to 1) wait 4 more months and 2) when you file your unblock request, you need to be candid about what you did to evade your blocks. "I foolishly created the accounts ___ ___ and ___" and right before my first standard offer was over, I couldn't contain myself and responded to discussions here ___ and ___. Being fully candid will help you regain trust with the community. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I was honest when I first appealed in August. Anyways, I will do that again but I'm unsure about coming back to Wikipedia until next October or November as my personal and professional life is keeping me very busy now a days. Still thank you for your time Cyphoidbomb. I really appreciate it.Krish | Talk 03:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Cyphoidbomb! It's been 6 months now. What should I do? Can you help? Thanks.Krish | Talk 20:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It has been over six months now. What should I do Cyphoidbomb and Berean Hunter?Krish | Talk 14:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you should read the totality of the content on this page. I think you should then read the strong objection posted by Berean Hunter here. I think you should then sit in contemplation of the information and write a thorough unblock request that addresses all of the issues that led to your block, that acknowledges what was problematic about those choices you made, and that outlines a plan for how to avoid the problems in the future. At which point, I, or some other admin will open a discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI to review the matter. I am busy IRL, so I may not be as responsive as you might prefer, but I will get to it as soon as I can if another person hasn't. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Standard offer appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for 72 hours in July 2018 for edit warring and not complying with the request of an administrator. And then indefinitely for sock-puppetry, editing through different accounts, created during temporary blocks when I was in college. I only used those accounts only for the sole purpose to edit articles and never for supporting myself or something of that sort. I was wrong on my part. I shouldn't have and hence got rightly blocked. So I was told to come back after six months and appeal gain. I waited for a year and then I sent emails to many Administrators for appeal (as my TPA access was revoked; so had to email) but didn't get any response. During this time, I did an innocent IP edit (still wrong on my part as that time I thought it was allowed for constructive edit; later I learned it was not allowed) on 24 August 2019 to help discuss a situation. Then I was told to wait for another six months for the standard offer and here I am. I completely agree with the administrators' action against me as my behavior was problematic and against Wikipedia guidelines. That time I was wrong and the block was justified. I admit I was involved in edit wars that could have been avoided on my part by dealing with them calmly and I should not have used personal attack to prove my point and should have listened to other users, and other administrators. I know all these things are against Wikipedia guidelines and I often used to overreact in heat of the moment which I shouldn't have. After taking a break for a whole year from Wikipedia, I learned several things thanks to my job (I graduated from college in 2018 and accepted one of the job offers) that has made me more calm, collaborative and a better person. While working I realized one don't need to shout or scream to prove their points instead one should listen to others and deal calmly. I have also learned that other people's POV are also important and they should be respected as well. My job has been a huge learning experience of my life. I think I am in a great position right now, personally and professionally, which was missing earlier and lead to frustration and over-reaction (during college days). Learning from mistakes and not repeating them has been my new motto since the last year and I have followed it nicely. I hope to get back to Wikipedia and edit and contribute like I earlier used to but this time in a very calm, positive and civil way. I have contributed so much to Wikipedia (2 FAs, 22 FLs, 1 FT and 22 GAs) and want to contribute more. I hope it's a new beginning. I won't be repeating any of my past mistakes and I deserve a chance to grow. I have learned from my mistakes and I am a better person and editor now.Krish | Talk 19:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

You have been unblocked following a successful appeal request at WP:AN. Please take care to read core Wikipedia content and conduct policies (especially WP:SOCK) before resuming to edit. The community has displayed an willingness to trust your intentions, I hope you keep that trust. Good luck and happy editing! Best, qedk (t 桜 c) 13:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Krish, a couple of follow-up questions: 1) Since your last block evasion, have you engaged in any more block evasion that has not been discovered or disclosed, whether by creating other accounts or editing as an anonymous editor? 2) Can you please identify the various accounts you have used, even ones that may not have been identified yet? I think some matter of contention was that you denied socking, so being transparent and providing clarity about those accounts might go a long way, since I think most people dislike dishonesty fundamentally. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey! Cyphoidbomb 1) I HAVE NOT edited wikipedia after that 24 August 2019 post (which I did in order to describe that matter for what I thought was contextualising for the betterment of discussion). No I have not edited wikipedia, neither via IPs nor have I created any accounts. 2) I had ONLY these two accounts ([[User:NewWikipedian)) and User:The Awards Specialist to edit articles BUT never used them to support me or for any malpractice; just solely for the purpose of editing articles (which I shouldn't have; I apologize). I had denied socking in July 2018 (when I was blocked) because of my naivety and immaturity to face my wrongdoing. I should not have. We all mistakes and I was very naive till I was in college, like a brat but after I started working, I realised that the real world is not the bubble that I had created in my mind as a kid. I have learned from my mistakes and I would never repeat them and have been truthful to you. Thanks for your time, Cyphoidbomb. I really appreciate it.Krish | Talk 04:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at WP:ANI on your behalf. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cyphoidbomb for opening that discussion and thank you QEDK for accepting the review request. I am grateful.Krish | Talk 13:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back. Canterbury Tail talk 03:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Canterbury Tail BUT I have NOT been unblocked yet.Krish | Talk 10:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like to thank all the administrators who have supported me through this. Thank you so much. Jayron32, Canterbury Tail, QEDK, Berean Hunter, Nosebagbear, 78.26, Dreamy Jazz, Cyphoidbomb and Reyk. I am grateful. Any idea when I will be able to edit again? I cannot wait to edit wikipedia again and contribute to this amazing community.Krish | Talk 13:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)