User talk:Krimuk2.0

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]

Margot Robbie

Greetings! Is Margot Robbie's baby birth source reliable? Can you check it out? M.lebedev (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind adding it, but I think some others might disagree. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply reverting

Why are you reverting my edits which have WP:NEWSORGINDIA references? Thesanas (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're a WP:SOCK. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just here to make this a GA. Please help me to promote to GA, without just reverting all my and other editors edits. Thesanas (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]