User talk:Krimuk2.0

"More unexplained change to picture via sock-puppetry"

What does this mean? You reverted an edit I made to Sydney Sweeney's page and left this note. Fsalis (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kriti Sanon

@Krimuk2.0, please KINDLY explain why my edit was wrong on Sanon's because clearly I was being too hostile towards you. 19Arham (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)\[reply]

Yes, clearly you are being hostile towards me, not just now but ever since you started contributing here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no hostility until you began rudely reverting my edits with no explanation except them being ‘mess’. And when I thought we could start afresh with Rashmika’s article and I asked you for help genuinely, you were bitter and said you didn’t want to help me. So thank you. Thank you very much. 19Arham (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do not want to help hostile people. Respect people's choices. I haven't been contributing to Wiki for over a decade to fawn over your existence. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi @Krimuk2.0, due to recent events I would like to sincerely apologise for my behaviour towards you. My attitude was inexcusable and I would like to take this time to tell you that I will ensure to be more respectful and mindful of how I treat you as you were only doing what was best for the article. This is not solely because of the fact that you were proven right on the matter of Sanon’s article but because, after some light introspection, you were right. I know it is been years that we’ve been going back and forth like this but I genuinely would like to start afresh. Sorry again and thank you for your contributions.

- Arham 19Arham (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reason of marking external link as Spam

Hello Sir / Madam,

I had added an external link for movie Meiyazhagan. I have noted that you have reverted this and marked my change as spam. May I check why this should be considered a spam.

I understand RecoBee is a new website but i dont think it would be consdiered a spam.

Link with diff is below https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meiyazhagan&diff=prev&oldid=1251666974

Also adding RecoBee page for Meiyazhagan https://www.reco-bee.com/movie/393284

Regards Ankit Ankitg118 (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gal Gadot

I've noticed that you revert my edits and refer to them as messy. Can you explain why? Like how is it a "mess"! Lililolol (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what's the point of duplicating her credits in her bio multiple times, when the same info exists in her career section and a separate filmography page. Also, WP:ROLEBIO applies when mentioning her occupation in lead and infobox. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t unnecessary duplication. According to Good Article criteria, a filmography section should highlight an actor’s most notable roles, which is exactly what I’ve done for Gal Gadot. Like when you look at any actor’s filmography, you’ll typically see their key roles emphasized there.

Lililolol (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading any FA instead of edit-warring and further ignoring WP:ROLEBIO. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nolan's Casting

Your mentioned reason not to update casting status makes no sense. Those tend to be major developments, and if not then go ahead and take down the lines about Tom Holland and Damon too. Also, it's in the career section, not "bio". Baptiste6888 (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see casting announcements, or even extended cast listings, of Nolan's previous films in his "career section"? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those films are finished works belonging to the past. You're free to trim the paragraph on the upcoming film once we know enough to write up its own page. For now, consider that people might be returning to Nolan's page simply to keep abreast of all major news about it. And major news is indeed what my edit was. Baptiste6888 (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desimartini

I think it qualifies as RS because it is owned by HT Media. Where do we discuss this? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their "journalism" quality is pretty poor tbh. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kailash29792, Desimartini is owned by the Hindustan Times group (HMVL) and operated by its HT Digital stream (HTDS) division. To remove it because you consider it's journalism poor is not a reason and you need to prove it with consensus. Poor source is where no significant coverage can be found but it does not mean that the source itself is unreliable. Amar Ujala is one of India’s leading Hindi newspapers with 22 editions in 179 districts in 6 states and 2 union territories. This source and Desi Martini are not poor but sufficient and reliable for film coverages. Please do not remove sources calling it "poor". Please let us get consensus before removing it. We also have WP:ICTFSOURCES talk page where you can raise your opinion. RangersRus (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD the onus is on you to prove its reliability. Simply being "leading" and "owned" by a group that publishes other noteworthy news doesn't make these reliable. Remember, Daily Mail and TMZ are both widely read. Doesn't make them reliable for Wikipedia. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]