User talk:Krimuk2.0/Archive 19

Hmmm
Hey stranger! How have you been? --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 04:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey!! I have been alright. I hardly see you edit much these days. Been busy? Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 05:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * More or less. But to be honest, the enjoyment that I earlier had while editing is no longer there! :( You've been pretty MIA as well! --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 00:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel you. I was away for around six months because of a certain troublesome editor whom I need not mention. I don't edit as frequently as I used to earlier either because I sense some people are here just to cause trouble rather than edit constructively. And I really don't have space for additional stress in my life right now. -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 01:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL... so true! Seen any new films recently? --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 03:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Plenty. I'm keeping a list here.  Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 03:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Congrats on the new GA bud! Truly, one of WP's prime assets! :) BTW, I was thinking of updating Kapoor's career section, but needed your opinion. I came across two articles that talk about Kapoor's work post-marriage and how she wanted to take "a little bit of a break": this and this. What are your thoughts? Is this important or would it be redundant? --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 21:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, buddy. :) It was wonderful writing about her, because the western media talks about so much more than just her clothes/boyfriends. There was a lot of useful information about her "as a professional actress", which the Indian media doesn't seem to care much about for their own celebrities. Anyway, yeah, the fact that Kareena took a bit of a break can be added to the article. After 12-13 years of working non-stop, she did deserve some time out. She of course continued to do films, but you can say that for a couple of years after her marriage she only chose roles that did not require too much of a commitment from her part. But now she's back in the game, and that's great! It's good that Ki & Ka is doing so well at the box-office. We'll hopefully get to see more of her now. :) -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 01:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you say that it was just 2014-15 or 2013 as well? By looking at the two articles, I assume that it was just 2014-15 where she took a bit of a break. --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 19:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good! -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 03:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 05:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Have I told you that you're a genius? :) --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 05:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Awww...that's very flattering. Is this because of the Jessica Chastain expansion? :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 01:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes sir! ;) --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 21:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to expand her article for ages! So glad I finally managed to do it. :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 01:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Contest award
I'll review Chastain later in the week, as I'm sure you understand I need a wikibreak for a while now!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the barnstar. Also, no problem, take your time. You deserve a long break.  Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 01:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

A little help
Hey there, I would appreciate if you just helped me with the image quality subject. Any specifics of how to judge what images are better quality? Numerounovedant  Talk  05:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. Take a look at this image. Just below the picture, you can see that the original size of the image is 585 × 881 pixels, which is a pretty decent quality, as opposed to say this one, which is merely 227 × 287 pixels. Problem is, a large number of the images uploaded from Bollywood Hungama by inexperienced editors aren't too great, so we must use our judgement on which ones to use. Hope this helps. -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 06:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, Thanks!  Numerounovedant   Talk  14:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey there I don't know if I did something to make you feel uncomfortable, but really if there is anything at all that bothered you that was really not my intention. I totally understand if you want distance yourself from Koechlin's article. It has been a long way getting the article here for me as well, it just has become an obsession at this point (So I may sound condescending at times). Maybe we get to work on some other article together in a better work environment. Cheers too!  Numerounovedant   Talk  10:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking this the way it was intended. And as I said earlier, all the very best with the nomination! Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 01:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you so much, Pavan. :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 01:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Good luck with the nomination, Vedant! :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 01:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding those emails
Feel free to drop me a line. WormTT(talk) 06:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If
Musdan77 continues to gut articles while misleadingly claiming he's "trimming", let me know please through a talk page message. Thanks. Ninefive6 (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks, I definitely will! :) -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 04:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologize
Sorry...for that.. Which I did with ranbir kapoor...now it will never... Priyanksoni9713 (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jessica Chastain
The article Jessica Chastain you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Jessica Chastain for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it passed. I don't know why the bot displayed it like this. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hahah, I wonder what happened to the bot. -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 04:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Why, thank you, Blofeld! -- Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 02:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Response
Thanks, I try. Thank you for your contributions on Lupita Nyong'o as well! MsScorpioMoon (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Any chance of review?
Hi Krimuk, I have a couple of pages at FLC, (one on Churchill and a spy bibliography); if you have any spare time to provide a review for one of them it would be much appreciated! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! Give me a couple of days though. :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 01:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Michelle Williams on screen and stage
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Matt Damon filmography
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Jessica Chastain
— Maile (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

VB
Hi, can you please give a copy-edit to this section? Its quite small in size. I'm saying this because he is also one of your favorite filmmaker. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, he's my favourite contemporary filmmaker in India! I'll surely look into it sometime later this week. Cheers! Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 09:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ben Affleck filmography
Hello! Your submission of Ben Affleck filmography 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! Yoninah (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

User:ProveIt GT
This is an amazing references gadget you could use for your upcoming FACs/FLCs. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, cool! Is it really helpful? Do you use it? -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 08:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. I use it. Every time. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi
Hola! I have a message for you on the talk page of this article. Please check - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aishwarya_Rai_Bachchan Cheers, Ssg2442 (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you so much Ssven. It's as much your list, so many congratulations to you as well. We'll target the Tanu Weds Manu Returns list next, hopefully soon, after more reviewers take a look at the Matt Damon filmography. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 01:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Anbe Sivam PR
Hello, Krimuk. I've listed the article for PR here as I wish to take it to FA. Feel free to leave comments. Thanks. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me 01:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Give me a couple of days though. :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 01:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

A gentle reminder. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Replied to your last comment at PR in case you didn't catch it. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me 08:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much, Pavan. :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 07:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. BTW, Eega PR is nearing a closure. Would you like to drop further comments there or directly meet at the FAC? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of other editors have commented on much of what I would have said anyway. Good luck! :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 08:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Its okay. Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for all the help. I am planning to go with the fly to the graveyard on June 1; that marks my fourth year here. Hope to meet you and others there soon. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ben Affleck filmography
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

JLaw
Hi, I am hoping that you do not mind my assistance (albeit with many errors) in the Jennifer Lawrence article, and when it's ready for GA/FA (or however you have planned for it), you can include me as the co-nominator if you like. FrB.TG (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, your contributions are most definitely welcome, and very much appreciated. And I'll surely tag you as a co-nominator in the GA/FA nominations, as and when that happens. Cheers! :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 03:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Count me in as well! I've been one of the biggest contributors by edit count over the past couple of years. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Snuggums, it really doesn't work that way. I was the top-editor at Sonam Kapoor's page before FrB.TG expanded it and took it to FA, and I sure did not ask for credit there. In this case, both FrB.TG and I are the ones expanding the article over the last few days, so if you do assist us in this expansion, then I'd be very happy to include your name as well. Cheers!  Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 04:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Understandable Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Did I come across as mean? Upon re-reading the message, I think I did. So sorry for that. It really wasn't my intention to be dismissive of your contributions. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 05:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. It may have somewhat surprised me at first, but I didn't take offense. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 14:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

FAC reviews
I have started to review Featured article candidates/Catherine Zeta-Jones/archive1. I am hoping that you might consider reviewing Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive5.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I'm not interested in indulging with editors who put such bad-faith opposes on articles based on their personal preference. -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 05:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * When you come to the realization that it is not a bad faith oppose, please respond again.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Any oppose not based on existing policy or guidelines is a bad faith oppose. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 06:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then it should be obvious that my oppose is not a bad faith oppose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet, no policy says that each and every performance of her should be expanded/reviewed. So yes, I stand by my statement. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 02:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

talk page
I dont want to discuss with biased editors on talk page. I cant understand what is your problem, and personal point of view on adding infobox. It is natural to keep infobox on articles, especially artists. Just because it is a featured article, doesn't not mean you rub your point of view, and authority on other editors. Skskdh (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

archive
I did not remove, any note from any archive, please stop your infobox nonsense. Skskdh (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't my "nonsense". Consensus was established to remove the infobox, so stop edit-warring unless you want to be blocked for going against consensus. I suggest you revert yourself. -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 04:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Manisha Koirala filmography
Hi. Hope you're well. I was wondering if you'd like to leave comments on my first Bollywood film actress filmography? Cowlibob (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 03:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

What an awful place this is
Totally understand how you must be feeling with wikipedia with the way people are treating and acting around the Zeta Jones article. I've barely made a start on Cary Grant, one book out of possibly half a dozen and I'm being made to feel like a vandal over it. Wikipedia attracts a certain type doesn't it? We're volunteers here! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do people have to make writing an encyclopedia more difficult than it needs to be? Why is there never support when it comes to writing major biographies, only hostility from people turning up to take pot shots at the work of the few people bothering to write them? People should support each other, not trying to belittle their work and put them off. Nobody has bothered to write the Grant article in years, I make the effort to start to develop it and I have to deal with all of this. What the hell is wrong with people? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's horrible and has turned into fucking lynch mob! I'm this close to withdrawing from the review. Everyone has some personal preference that doesn't match with each other, and they are willing to sabotage an entire nomination for that. They are just terrible human beings. I completely agree with you. The Zeta-Jones article was in terrible shape early this year, and no one gave a damn. The moment I did improve it, my my, people raised all kinds of concerns over her nationality, over that damn infobox, over her being sexy, etc. etc. -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 03:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty disgusting. Some people really seem to have absolutely no consideration whatsoever for others. What irritates me the most is that you've put hard work into something and if you didn't the article would still be crap. But that gets overlooked by those obsessed with infoboxes and other things who'll oppose it if they don't get their own way. You donate your time and do something very worthwhile for free and all people do is make you feel bad about it. Nasty.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I think it's time to bid goodbye to this awful atmosphere and make myself useful someplace else. Maybe somewhere where having sex appeal is not frowned upon, and where they won't personally attack you for making an article aesthetically pleasing. Or simply put, somewhere where people appreciate your fucking efforts! This is not the place where that happens. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 10:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, I have not written a lot of articles, but I also have faced some obstacles in form of some users who press a tiny agenda without objectivity and without common sense. All I can say is that hang on and do not let those users make you feel bad, because such people are found everywhere, including here and real life, but that shouldn't mean giving up. P.S. I don't know about others, but I really appreciate your efforts. FrB.TG (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Do any of you support the idea that Wikipedia should be closed and there be a new encyclopaedia that is operated by experts only? I do. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I really do feel that its nasty business. But, overcoming them despite the nastiness is the best thing. Me and Kailash overcame Enthiran after it was withdrawn due to MOS:LQ issues of all things. But looking at Zeta-Jones' FAC, the opposes and their justifications really do look like a lot of codswallop (mostly) and its based on personal POV rather than professional. As for another encyclopaedia, if that were the case, then good editors like Yours Truly, Kailash, Doc, Krimuk would be out of a hobby/profession/editing job, wouldn't we? LOL. ;-) —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 13:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Good luck everybody. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've withdrawn the nomination and am going on an extended wiki break. Hopefully, I find a better place to use my talents. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 01:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Understandable, it's really been quite unbearable of late, you deserve much better than this! Thankyou for working on the Zeta article, I appreciate it anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not someone like Henry V at the Battle of Agincourt who can cheer the depressed with a speech. But, i wanted to drop something here. The environment at your talk page turned moody yet spiritual, showing a deep desire for salvation. Your efforts are appreciated for sure, though i feel semi-retiring is not a proper solution. Why not try to make a brief appearance at your regional wiki? There are hardly any stumbling blocks there. Working there may cheer you up and bring a positive outlook towards English wiki, or perhaps towards everyone! Those regional wikis are like a friendly yet under developed village who require someone like a Mohan Bhargava or Harsha Vardhan. Give it a thought. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. Pavan, English is my first language, so this is the only encyclopedia I can contribute to. I haven't retired yet, and I will probably be around to revert vandals and update some of my existing FAs, but I don't think I'll be as active as before nor am I interested in significantly contributing to a new article in the future. Cheers! Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 01:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)