User talk:Krimuk2.0/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

hello great editor .....I am here to clear up some advice you got that is wrong... here you were told that its up to others to seek consensus after you removed an infobox that had been threr for years and years....this is wrong. If an edit has been in the article with no dispute for a long time and you or anyone removes it...it is up to the new bold editor if reverted to seek consensus as per Wikipedia:Consensus. I understand this may be confusing as you have been told to different things...thus i suggest you seek clarification as to the normal protocol(s) at Wikipedia talk:Consensus were editors who are not aware of what has been going on can explain in detail. You seem to be a great editor and we dont want to see you frustrated because you were given the wrong advice. As I said above seek clarification of what WP:BRD is by editors that have no stake in the current conflicts. -- Moxy (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Moxy, thank you for the kind message. I personally believe that an article looks much better without the infobox, when the only information it has is already covered in the lead, but I won't fight you for it. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I looked up that I found you precious in 2012, do you remember? I am working on an article about a piece of music. Please take a look at a table I made, Petite messe solennelle#Structure. Would you advise me to delete it once all the content appears in prose? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed that you'd ask me that Gerda, given how much I respect you as an editor here. To respond to your query, no, I wouldn't advice you to delete the table. As for the issue of infoboxes, as I told Moxy earlier, I personally don't prefer them when there is very little info in it, but I wouldn't lock horns with established editors over it. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to have disappointed you: was it the question if you remember, or the one about "may we have in one article the same information in two formats, one structured, one prose", for different types of readers? - I am a bit disappointed every time I see a distinction made between "respected editor" and what? - My edit notice quotes (from 2012) "every editor is a human being" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I never said a "respected" editor. I said an "established" editor, as opposed to a newbie. Massive difference. In no way is that a judgement on their humanity. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful in language, - at least I, English not being my first language. I understood "given how much I respect you as an editor here", - which implied for me that there are others you respect less than me, - which I don't think would be a good idea. You didn't say what disappointed you, - please do, I like to please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

All I meant is that I respect you, Gerda, not that I disrespect anyone else. And as to what disappointed me, it was simply your question about whether you should delete the table you created. Of course, not, Gerda, I understand and respect your contributions here, and I won't try to belittle them only because I disagree with you on the issue of infoboxes. Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, I like being respected and am not used to it ;) (You probably know that I was considered the notorious infoboxen criminal, see the 2015 archive of my user page). Still: I would like you to answer the question regarding the table, regardless of who created it. Again: we have the same information, structured in a table, and in prose. Would you support to delete the structured information? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

If the table in its entirety can easily be written in prose form, then yes, the table should definitely be deleted. But if the table is heavily detailed and all the information cannot be easily written in prose form, as is the case in the one that you linked earlier, then no, it should not be deleted. In the case of the Zeta-Jones and Padukone articles, the infobox has a maximum of 5 entries, all of which are already in the lead. So to extend the same logic, I don't see why it shouldn't be deleted. Hope that answers your question. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not precise, I didn't mean "any table" but the specific one in Petite messe solennelle. We may (or not) get to infoboxes, but one at a time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, my answer was in response to that table: "if the table is heavily detailed and all the information cannot be easily written in prose form, as is the case in the one that you linked earlier, then no, it should not be deleted." Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that you mentioned that. Would you have an example for one that is short and should go, in your opinion? (while I would probably think that however short, the structuring is an element worth having, for being Übersichtlich, - what's that in English? Row and column labels defining exactly which cell is what, something that you loose in prose.). I looked for an example my end, but couldn't find one easily. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The two short tables in this article are examples of when they should be deleted. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd vote to keep them, for two reasons: they look like they will grow, and they are what readers are used to from similar articles, see Marilyn Monroe's tables and Chopra's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that's my point exactly. I've written over 20 featured lists myself, so I obviously understand and appreciate the use of tables. But when there are just one or two entries in them, we can do without those tables. When there are more films to talk about, then yes, the table should be there. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Krimuk, I thank you for the patient replies. I am sad, watching you withdrawing. I think I understand because I had a failed nom recently myself. I felt I didn't want to invest more effort in it but was encouraged by others to try again, and receive strong support now. I am also sad because of terms such as "you and your friends won". I at least am not here to win, and as nobody's "friend", only a friend of the readers. The term "clique" was mentioned on ANI, and I think it should be applied with great care. Yes, I am part of a group we jokingly call a cabal, but please accept that we don't organize group actions, - members speak only for themselves. - I had no time to review the article closely, but may have supported, as Moxy did, and I may support next time. Please don't give up, we miss already too many good people. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for such a kind message, Gerda Arendt. Dearly appreciate this. My comments were largely directed at Light show and Littleoliveoil, who seemed to have taken the infobox debate too far and were creating an unnecessary stability issue in the article over the "sex appeal" tag. I deeply value the support shown by you, Moxy and BU Rob13 (although his initial oppose was slightly disappointing), even when the three of you disagreed over the infobox matter. That makes me a little less disillusioned by the environment here, and appreciate the fact that there are people who despite disagreements can see the good that is being done. Many thanks to the three of you for that. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For Catherine Zeta Jones. A tremendous article, written by you, but sadly, ruined by complete morons. Illegitimi non carborundum, as they say. CassiantoTalk 23:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Cassianto. This means an awful lot! :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Your work is definitely something to commend. Hope you don't feel too burnt out. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That's very kind, Snuggums. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem at all :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

So sorry to hear about the Zeta-Jones nomination. I know that you have indicated above that you have reduced your workload and will abstain from writing any other article in the future, but is there any chance that you could finish your work on the Jennifer Lawrence article? It's very close to becoming a very good article. FrB.TG (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I don't want to leave that hanging, so I'm trying to motivate myself to get back to it. Should happen in a day or two, hopefully. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting at the now archived peer review for Eega. The article is currently at FAC and i look forward for constructive comments from you. Yours friendly, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

A gentle reminder ICYMI. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For your outstanding contributions to several of articles on wikipedia, and for being true to yourself. Krish | Talk 09:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I accept this as an olive branch from you, and let's hope that from now on you don't let your personal feelings for Chopra overpower your editing skills. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The list is nominated by Kailash29792 and Vensatry at FLC. Feel free to leave comments there, buddy. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 04:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed you haven't included photos of favourite actors and actresses from the pre 90s era. I'm sure there must be 20 of them at least.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 09:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's precisely why I didn't put up pictures for that section. There have been so many spectacular performers over so many decades, that it'll probably fill up the entire page. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe two for each decade (2 for 20s, 30s, 40s etc.) Some of them I can think of, but that's just me, are Hitch, Fonda, Grant, Stewart, both Hepburns, Bergman, Ray, Big B to name a few.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 11:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Krimuk, hope you doing well. I would like you to consider the discussions here and here and help me figure out a way to reach a consensus as most Bollywood articles fall in the scope. Could you possibly help me contact the publishers? NumerounovedantTalk 16:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but maybe an administrator at the Wikimedia Commons can help you with this. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey! I remember suggesting you this TV series. Have you seen it already? It stars Fawad Khan and Sanam Saeed and is an amazing show. I haven't seen such a mature romantic drama on TV, like ever. I once read your posts regarding Khan's performance in K&S and I thought to remind you again! Krish | Talk 18:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw a little bit of it on TV, but haven't really followed the show yet. But yes, it does seem more intriguing than all Indian TV shows combined. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Watch it ASAP. It's really good and the soundtrack of the show is brilliant. By the way, Are you watching the current season of Game of Thrones? Krish | Talk 05:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course I am. I've been an avid follower since the very first season. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I started watching the show in my 2015 Durga Puja break and binge-watched the entire series. And, thanks to STAR INDIA's HOTSTAR premium subscription, I have been watching the sixth season. Recently, I came across some articles saying Dany, in a twist, will become the main villain of the show and I was like NO! I don't want a good-hearted character to turn into a villain just for cinematic thrill. What do you think? Krish | Talk 06:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I have a question. I haven't lived in India for five years now, so I may be wrong, but aren't most western TV shows censored? Or do online streaming services, like hotstar, show them in their original format? Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I really don't know if they let Indians watch uncensored version on Netflix, but the HOTSTAR premium version is uncensored for sure. All the episodes were filled with nudity. As for Netflix, I've already said to someone that I waste my Netfix subscription as I hardly get time to catch old shows or films but I do watch one film in a week or two. Krish | Talk 06:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It's important to let content be screened in their original format for paid services. Certification is extremely important, but censorship for adult content is simply awful! It's good to know that services such as hotstar understand that. Anyway, Netflix has some great films and TV shows. Their original programming, in particular, is top-class. I highly recommend several of them. In fact, American and British TV is at its peak now. The content produced by cable and streaming services can be favourably compared to some of the best films ever made. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

So true. When I was at home, I checked a GOT episode on Star World, an episode where Jaimie Lannister's hand was chopped off and I was dissapointed to see that they actually zoomed the frame to hide the butchering of the hand and only thing I could see was his face covering my TV screen and his scream. This didn't made any sense. If am new viewer, how will I know what the character is going through? Thank god I never see TV shows on TV. Coming to your list, I can only start watching all those shows next year as this year is quite important. But you didn't answer my question about Dany being the main villain!Krish | Talk 06:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I highly doubt they'll make her the show's villain. Khaleesi will be the ruler of the seven kingdoms. Hopefully with Jon Snow and Tyrion by her side. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

So glad to hear that. A Dragon had three heads (Dany, Jon and Tyrion). There are so many theories. That Tower of Joy scene in Bran's vision, Tywin words before dying "You are not my son", and Khaleesi's vision at the House of undying, proves that all three of them are Targaryens. However, one theory even says that Meera is actually Jon's sibling. Do you know that The Whitewalkers are actually good people? Krish | Talk 07:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha, so many crazy theories, including the whitewalker one. Let's see which direction the show takes. Right now, I'm psyched for the battle of the bastards next week. Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

True. I think the "Bastardbowl" is going to be like "Hardhome" and will only feature the main battle and little bit of other characters. I want Sansa to kill that sadistic moron Ramsay. And, we will finally see three Starks children together since the first season. Hopefully Arya will join them next season. Krish | Talk 07:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) She was already killed in "No One". Last episode with Arya killing that f***ing b***h Waif lady and cutting her head off was awesome and, might I add, kind of badass. Feel sorry for the Blackfish guy though. Really want Cersei to be killed/taught a lesson.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 15:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Some more awful things are gonna go down with Cersei, though I really hope that the poor Loras is spared. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. She is the most hated character right now on television. Should I say Lena Headey is a goddess? Because she plays that character so well. It's a shame that she didn't got her much deserved Emmy Award. Her performance was fab last season and that "Walk of Atonement" made me feel sorry for the character, even though she is superevil. But, have you ever thought what if she and Jaime are Targayens? Because then it would be kind of shocker. What if Tywin's only child is Tyrion, whom he hated all his life. Krish | Talk 06:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

True, making us sympathetic towards such an evil character is no small feat. And Headey is spectacular in the role, though for me Peter Dinklage remains the best performer in the ensemble. Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm beginning to like Margaery Tyrell by and by. Even though she's still loyal to House Tyrell, she is equally loyal to her husband and the high septon too.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 01:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Her husband is turning into a little bitch as well, which is a pity because Tommen used to be a decent fellow. But this plotline is one of the most important themes addressed by the show, about how so many decent people in the world are brainwashed by organised religion. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Just goes to show one an important thing: Never fall under bad influence. Tommen, I feel, is more of a puppet controlled by his wife, his mother and the high Septon, than "a little bitch". One would feel sorry for him under his current circumstances. Sad, isn't it?  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 04:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha, that clip is awesome! Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The one and only Katz, one of the main antagonists from Courage the Cowardly Dog. Aaaaaaaahhhhhh! Eeeehhhhhyyyeeeaaahhh!  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting all the errors on Chopra's filmography page. I appreciate it.Krish | Talk 07:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yea, right. According to you, I am the one who's ruining articles of both Indian and western actresses, isn't it? You have also accused me of taking money from Dharma Productions, Vidya Balan, and Deepika Padukone. So please, your "thanks" means nothing at all. Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Come on Krimuk, like you haven't said mean things to me. We both have said many things to each other. It's time to move on. If you want an apology, I will apologize. Let bygones be bygones. And, I only said about "Dharma Kids" just because Shraddha Kaoppr's article was in bad shape. Since you edit all new actor's page except hers. You know I respect you so much.Krish | Talk 07:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not true. I'm the top contributor for Varun, Sidharth, Arjun, Shraddha, Alia, and Arjun. So please, check your facts before you accuse me of paid-editing. Also, I don't want to hold a grudge against you, but only if you stop your agenda against actresses you don't like. If you don't like Vidya or Deepika or Alia, that's your personal opinion. You don't have to abuse them, or me for writing their articles. That will not get you anywhere, and will definitely not make Priyanka seem more accomplished than them. They are all well-established performers and don't need to abuse each other to succeed. And also, I have said those so-called "mean things" only as a retaliation to your abuses. I won't have to say such things if you stop saying crap about me first. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

My response were also for the same reasons as you called me "fake-shant", but now we need to stop and start afresh. Plus, I don't hate Alia or Deepika or Vidya or anyone. I have seen Kapoor and Sons five times for Alia's natural performance, Deepika's Tamasha (she deserved an NFA for this one) four times and Bajirao Mastani 11 times and Vidya's Kahaani 12th time last week. I do admire them as performers.Krish | Talk 08:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Then stop criticizing and abusing them everytime they win an award over Priyanka, or bag a role that Priyanka was also circling. And more than all of that, stop criticizing me for writing about them. I don't focus on one celebrity, but write about a whole range of them. Infact if you and Bollyjeff weren't the contributors to Priyanka's article, I would be writing about her too. As you can see at the top of my user page, I think she's having a heck of a career at the moment, and I am rooting for her to bag more prestigious projects in Hollywood. That doesn't mean I am not doing the same for Deepika or Nimrat, who are also looking at projects in America.

You know, I used to have a crush on Kareena during my early teens, and was quite biased towards her. But now, I am embarrassed by that. I still like her a lot, but I also like each of her contemporaries equally for their unique abilities. You need to do the same. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you are right, I should. I was upset of Chopra getting snubbed at ZCA but she was in wrong category. And, again NFA, her name was submitted for Best Actress and was pissed at SLB for pulling a Harvey Wenstein and now he didn't cast her in Padmavati. You are right what we can do if somebody's choice is someone for a film or an award. Coming to Deepika, I like her so much and eagerly waiting for XXX because it looks good only because of her. I literally loved her in Tamasha, which, according to me, is Deepika'a show all the way. I haven't seen Piku but was rooting for her to win all awards and she won. Nimrat has been cast in Wayward Pines and I'm excited as hell. I too want these and more women to challenge the stereotypes in Hollywood and grab the roles which are not defined by race. And, I don't criticize you for writing for them, that 3 billion thing which you added didn't look good that's why i said about that. As you can see I did re-add that highest grossing film feat. female actor in Kangana Ranaut. Sometimes we all make mistakes, sometimes we correct and sometime we don't. I'm glad I corrected that mistake.Krish | Talk 08:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. I hope you stick to your word this time. As for Chopra's snub at the NFA, that was quite surprising for me as well. I have said this earlier as well, but as good as Tanvi Azmi was, Chopra's supporting act completely stole the show for me. As you can see, I would have given her the award if it were upto me. It was was career-best performance, and I am not ashamed to say that I shed a tear too many during her scenes. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw your praises for her. I liked her for a reason which most people like Viola Davis's performance in The Doubt: a small role with large impact. She was nearly absent in the first half but the scene before the interval made me think she was ll present and then the second half was hers. Coming to the NFA's this year's list of winners were the worst of all time. I would have given NFA to Shefali Shah because her performance was so layered (more complex than Azmi's).Krish | Talk 08:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Shefali Shah is also in my list, although Dil Dhadakne Do was a bit of a letdown from Zoya's previous films. But enjoyable, nonetheless. Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey! one thing I wanna say. When I see you and Blofeld editing articles, it unfolds like some kind magic. I would ask to go through whole article as it needs a copy-editor like you. And, stop taunting me saying "ready for abuse", "please don't be abusive because I'm adding this; this has been covered in the main body" .... etc Krish | Talk 09:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not taunting you. Just taking a precaution due to prior events. But okay, I won't add such disclaimers again. I would be very happy to copy-edit the Chopra article. Maybe in a day or two? :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Whenever you are free to do. By the way, I just love what you have done with Jessica Chastain's article. Next Amy Adams? Krish | Talk 09:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Jennifer Lawrence is next (75% there already). And will tackle Eddie Redmayne and Viola Davis after that, hopefully. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Would you please fix the e-mail problem? Krish | Talk 16:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

What problem are you referring to? Krimuk|90 (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I sent you an email today, you didn't reply. Spam/Block I guess!! Krish | Talk 17:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Glad you loved the film, it's a favourite of mine as well. BTW, it is connected to one of your GA reviews as well. But, how you found the home media versions of Papanasam and Inji Iduppazhagi is something i am curious to know. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I know that it's a remake of the original Drishyam. Oh, and I saw both those films on the Mediacorp Vasantham channel in Singapore where I live. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I wanted to watch Inji Iduppazhagi once, but many including you have directly/indirectly suggested not to watch it. Is it that bad? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

As a feminist, I found it to be offensively bad. When Indian films try to be "progressive" and still succumb to old-fashioned stereotypes, that annoys me the most. Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

No wonder it was a miserable failure. Perhaps, the best thing in such "progressive" films is to treat the actresses as characters and not as leads. Piku, Te3n, and Kshanam (Telugu) may be considered as the recent examples for that. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the definition of a "leading lady" should be so much more than the romantic love interest or the sex symbol. There's nothing wrong in being one, but it shouldn't be limited to just that. Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Right. A positive change is being observed these days occasionally, and i hope the trend shall go upwards. BTW, does Vasantham screen films with subs? or you can speak Tamil and other regional languages (if any)? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The films are always screened with English subtitles. Apart from Hindi, I can speak Bengali and Marathi fluently, though I ain't too proficient in them. As for Tamil, I just know a couple of words and phrases. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Gonna watch Finding Dory today. My exams have finished this morning. By God's grace, they went very well. Glad you enjoyed the film. I'll give my rating shortly on my "Films seen" list.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 09:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This link for Rajadhyaksha & Williemen's book was found by Kailash29792. You can use it for possible future GANs.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 16:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Ssven. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Stumbled on this. This is an excellent link :) Already started reading the book there. Do check out WP:PINQ, there is a film-related question there as of now.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

of this? LOL -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 17:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

WTF! This is just horrible, though a hilarious one at that. The media just can't let them be, can they? Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm really amused! LOL. BTW (this is a minor thing), but I noticed that your recent edit on Kapoor's filmography stated that she had decreased her workload for the next three years. Would you count 2013 as well? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 04:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

She did have Satyagraha and GTPM that year. Her role wasn't substantial in the first one, and the second one was her only release from 2013-15 to have her in a pivotal part. What do you think? Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I was confused that's why I thought I'd ask you. You do bring up a valid point, and in this source she states that it was for two years. And this source states that she actively looked for GTPM. My assumption is that after Satyagraha and GTPM didn't do too well at the box office, she decided to decrease her workload? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 05:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense too! You can go ahead and change that if you want. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey! Do you think the current version on Kapoor's article is better or should I change it to this? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 21:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I like the new version more. It's more concise. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry to bother you while you're on vacation but I was wondering if you would be interested in collaborating on Saif Ali Khan? A few years back, I had expanded the article but left it halfway since I got busy. I've already started working on the lead. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 04:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing! I'll start work on it after my vacation? I still have a week to go. :D --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

No rush buddy! Enjoy your vacation! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on Saif Ali Khan so far? There is still much work to be done including expanding, copy-editing and replacing the dead links. Do you think the career headings are appropriate? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 22:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It's moving in the right direction. A lot of work to be done, of course. I'll start assisting you in a couple of days. Also, why don't we move the filmography table to a different page? Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Krimuk, hope you're doing well. Just a question, how do you upload film posters on Wikimedia? With the proper licensing and all? Do we source it from the production house website, or use sites like Bollywood Hungama? P.S.:Have you watched Udta Punjab? -- Semanti Paul (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I'm in the last leg of my long vacation. I'll discuss this with you in a couple of days,alright? Cheers! :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, no worries. Semanti Paul (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed you were active again so just a small reminder about this. Semanti Paul (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't do anything harmful to Wikipedia. How can you say i hate all those actors? Just tried to make it more neutral. Block warning without any reason? Unfair. As a senoir editor you can explain and guide people like me who is relatively new to Wikipedia. Again just tried to make it more perfect. That was my only intention. Thanks Ambeinghari (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ambeinghari: You do realise that I can see your edits on Mr. Salman Khan's page, that are made with an intent to praise the actor. And then, you raise objections to the use of similar statements in Mr. Shah Rukh Khan, Mr. Ranbir Kapoor and Ms. Deepika Padukone's page. Not too difficult to understand your motivation in doing so, buddy. Not saying that your edits on Mr. Salman Khan's page are wrong (although you must familarise yourself with Wikipedia:Manual of Style), but don't undermine the work of more senior editors only because you don't like your favourite actor's contemporaries. Cheers! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok!!! Cheers! Ambeinghari (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)