User talk:Krish!

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)

Last warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Bajirao Mastani. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)