User talk:Krish!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, 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[edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

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. Time2wait.svg 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"[edit]

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![edit]

Johansen Viggo - Radosne Boże Narodzenie.jpg 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! Face-smile.svg  — 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[edit]

The article Bajirao Mastani you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; 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[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 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[edit]

Symbol question.svg 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[edit]

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. Time2wait.svg 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[edit]

The article Dil Dhadakne Do you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; 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![edit]

May all your endeavours have a fruitful beginning and prosperous ending! Face-smile.svg  — 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. Face-smile.svg  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations Ssven2.Krish | Talk 19:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Bajirao Mastani[edit]

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. ShahidTalk2me 13:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Bajirao Mastani[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 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[edit]

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. Face-smile.svg  — 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Hi. Would you like to review the article for its GA? Its my first GA nomination. Face-smile.svg 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[edit]

Anticipating reply to your dyk request. Btw.. it was v good Whispyhistory (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Dil Dhadakne Do[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

I consider taking Bajirao Mastani to RfC, so that more editors judge the issue from an objective POV. What do you say? ShahidTalk2me 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, ShahidTalk2me 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, ShahidTalk2me 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. ShahidTalk2me 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)

Alright[edit]

Dear Krish, okay you removed the warning. Please take things in the right proportions, how does WP even have the power to affect you so much? You're taking everything too close to heart, and as result you're behaving rather unconsciously. Let's try to work it out like mature people, I expect nothing less than professionalism from someone who is responsible for all of this. It's just a movie page on WP! It's just Deepika Padukone's performance, so she's getting the big bucks and you are getting nervous because of someone not agreeing with you? How come? ShahidTalk2me 16:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

"I don't want to contribute on wikipedia and I'm sure body gives a fuck about my contributions and hard work" - I do care about your contributions, they are terrific! Stop it already and delete that unnecessary section, we'll talk later! ShahidTalk2me 16:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete my account permanently[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Can someone help me with deleting my account permanently? I have had enough on this site. I have given so many years to this site yet some editors behave as if they own the articles. I have suffered so much because of unwanted hate created by many editors. So I would like the administrator to delete my account permanently. The negativity on this site is affecting my life and I am on a verge of mental breakdown. Please delete this account. I don't want to contribute on wikipedia and I'm sure nobody gives a fuck about my contributions and hard work.Krish | Talk 16:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Been there, and so have multiple other editors. Here's something to try - use the Wikibreak enforcer script and take some time away from here. And when you come back, no looking back in your watchlist, just going forward. You edit in one of the more frustrating areas of Wikipedia that I've found. Lots of fanbois and haters, blatant promotionalism and the sheer volume of unsourced edits is crazy! Laugh about it, change what you can and activate blinders when needed. Sadly, there isn't a way to permanently delete an account, but you can create a really long string of random charaters and change your password to that. If you don't keep a copy, your account is done. Start with the wikibreak, and remove a ton of articles from your watchlist when you come back. Ultimately, while Wikipedia is less without you, it's not worth the stress it seems to be causing. Ravensfire (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
It's so true - particularly "it's not worth the stress it seems to be causing". ShahidTalk2me 16:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Something else to consider that I've been trying to use when I get into a more protracted conflict - I'm use the various noticeboards and project talk pages more to get more people involved. It helps keep discussions from feeling personal between another editor and me, brings in alternate viewpoints and has worked fairly well to help resolve things in a way that doesn't lead to drama. Ravensfire (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Further comment after EC - DUDE!!! That Featured Article notice below is seriously impressive. Not feeling appreciated? Pffft - look below. That's a pat on the back from the community that very few accomplish. Ravensfire (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ravensfire: The hate is more powerful than a pat on the back. Isn't this a shame how hate overpowers appreciations? Well, it's truth. Anyway, I want to delete my account permanently. I had seen administrators deleting editor's accounts. Please help me.Krish | Talk 17:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note: We do not delete accounts. If the strain of contributing here is too much, you should consider a Wikibreak. If you're concerned that you won't be able to stay away on your own, you can ask an administrator (at WP:AN, for instance) to impose a block for a set period of time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Re:"It's like a depressing day you can't figure out how to overcome." Try watching Enchanted, Forrest Gump, or English Vinglish. There are some great stress busters our there Krish. Please do not let this affect yourself so much. Take a break, maybe binge watch all them this weekend, that's what I'd do. VedantTalk 17:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Good luck with your off-Wikipedia projects. I have a great deal of respect for your work on here. You are a much better contributor than I am and I have a lot to learn from your work. I am glad that I got to read and learn from your contributions on here. Aoba47 (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Aitraaz scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Aitraaz article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 4, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 4, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Jimfbleak I had my own plans for the article, for it's release anniversary. So please remove it. How you can even schedule it without even contacting the main contributor? I don't understand.Krish | Talk 16:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
It's too time-consuming to consult every editor about every TFA, so this is your chance to request that it doean't run. I'll pick something else Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, pick something else. BTW, thanks for selecting in first place. I appreciate it.Krish | Talk 17:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you want to improve the chances of it being selected for a given date, consider adding it here WP:TFARP, requested articles have more chance of running, although of course there may be other articles listed for the same date, so no guarantee Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Rockstar (2011 film)[edit]

Rockstar (2011 film), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Quantico[edit]

Wikipedia is not here for you to vent and display your personal frustrations. I recommend you learn that soon. How about you not edit the article if you don't like it? Bye. -- AlexTW 05:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: How about "Relax"? I just said that the show dragged and should have ended after season 1. Plus, it kind of wasted Chopra's 2 years, which could have been good for films. I liked the first season and stopped watching after being disappointed with the initial few season 2 episodes (though I have read the later episodes were better). That's all. I don't hate the series but not a fan either.Krish | Talk 12:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
What I think Alex is trying to say is, those comments you made about your personal view of the series should have been made elsewhere. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. I agree. My bad.Krish | Talk 12:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
So, you agree with it when it's not me telling you. Nice to know. Cheers, Kailash. -- AlexTW 12:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: Well, I didn't understand when you wrote. Now, yes, I agree with you too on what you said about not writing those summaries. It's not like what you said about me agreeing only with people other than you.Krish | Talk 12:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of awards and nominations received by Parineeti Chopra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Film Award – Special Jury Award / Special Mention (Feature Film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Krish!/My films list[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg User:Krish!/My films list, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Krish!/My films list and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Krish!/My films list during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Razer(talk) 17:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

A humble request[edit]

Please, for the love of God, stay out of my hair. Such edit summaries is not helpful for either you or me. Let me edit in peace without having to deal with your personal opinions on me or other actors. I humbly request you. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

If you gonna manipulate stuff on wikipedia, someone has to barge in. Don't you think? Plus you can't dismiss the facts about that dude who cannot act and works in sexist films and this is NOT my personal POV but majority of critics'. I think you haven't read reviews about his films. He says his dialogues like he is reading a poem with no expressions. How about you add in his lead that he has been criticized for his strings of sexist films? Take care. Krish | Talk 16:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI notification[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

What about Krimuk?[edit]

So this biased administrator Ian.thomson BLOCKED me and not Krimuk2.0?Krish | Talk 22:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Answer me Ian.thomson.Krish | Talk 22:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
As I already explained:
Me: stop talking about or to the other user, right now. I'm right inclined to block the next person who mentions the other user.
You: (continues to make accusations without evidence toward the other user, including this and this and this).
You were told that if one of you even mentioned the other user, you would be blocked. You were told to stop making accusations without evidence, because those are personal attacks. You should already understand that personal attacks are not allowed here.
If, after this explanation, you do not understand what you did wrong here, I am going to have to make this block indefinite under WP:CIR. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
You published that post about not mentioning another editor at 22:07 and mine was published two minutes later. What does this mean? Did you even realise that I published that post without seeing yours? You published it when I was already writing it. So when I published it I saw it and then I realised I should not have written that. BUT how I would have known? So I apologized in the next sentence. Now you understand Ian.thomson?Krish | Talk 22:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The first post was two minutes after. The other two were well after and one was in response to my post. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, your initial response to getting blocked was not "hey, sorry, I didn't see your message even though I responded to it," it was to continue talking about Krimuk2.0 (while demanding an explanation from me after deleting the already existing explanation). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The first second post was just an apology and explaining why I did those edits. I DID NOT name that user there. Also my third post was the response to the above discussion NOT you. So technically I didnt not break your rules Ian.thomson.Krish | Talk 22:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I was NOT responding to your post BUT just adding it for my defense. I should have just added it in that Homophobic defense thing. When I started writing your post was NOT there. I saw your post when I had already published it Ian.thomson.Krish | Talk 22:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In other words:
1) Your second post was in response to my post, acknowledging my post that said "stop talking about or to the other user."
2) You then went on to talk about Krimuk2.0 in your third post, after acknowledgeding my message that I would "block the next person who mentions the other user."
I did not say "your next post should not name them," I said "stop talking about or to the other user." In other words, no more discussion of them.
Because you don't understand that your behavior is the problem here, and because you have a history of edit warring and personal attacks, I'm extending the block to indefinite under WP:CIR. If you want to appeal this block, you will need to follow the instructions in the block template you deleted. I will not unblock you, so do not bother messaging me any further. Unless another admin managed to get a very good conversation out of you where you show that you understand everything that you did wrong (not just in this incident but in general), I will oppose other admins' efforts to unblock you as well (or to even shorten your block). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep lying to yourself
  1. My second post does not name that user. It just says I am really sorry for my behavior. Where is that name Ian.thomson?
  2. My third post was a defense on another post where another administrator Maile66 was looking at the matter. It was NOT the same topic. I was DEFENDING myself at a post created by that USER against me. Get it? Ian.thomson

What about the double standards?Krish | Talk 22:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


So you blocked me indefinitely? Wow slow claps at your hypocrisy. How is that Krimuk not BLOCK for violating 3RR rule? It clearly says While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block.

The three-revert rule states:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions. . Answer me Ian.thomson.Krish | Talk 22:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

If you ping me one more time, I'm revoking your talk page access. Even if you want to look for technicalities, you are in the wrong here, and the more you work to blame others the deeper a hole you dig for yourself. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Help[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.
You would be better served focusing on your own behavior at this time. SQLQuery me! 23:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

.....[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Krish! (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

Now looking back I think I was also at fault with my behavior but I do not deserve to be blocked for indefinite time (earlier it was 3 Days). I have done plenty of work here and want to do more. Please unblock me. I will try to be more civil.Krish Talk 23:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have to convince us we can be confident you'll never again engage in personal attacks or edit-warring. This totally fails to convince me. Yamla (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

@Yamla: Yes! I totally promise. I will never ever again engage in personal attacks and edit-warring. I will always discuss first or seek help from other people regarding some edits. I promise.Krish | Talk 23:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@Yamla: I am waiting for your reply.Krish | Talk 16:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I've already reviewed your block. If you wish to have your block reviewed, make another unblock request addressing the concerns and another admin will review it. --Yamla (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Krish! (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I do not deserve to be blocked for indefinite time (earlier it was 3 Days). I have done plenty of work here and want to do more. Please unblock me. That another administrator said they would unblock me if I promised to never ever again engage in personal attacks and edit-warring. So yes! I totally promise. I will never ever again engage in personal attacks and edit-warring. I will always discuss first or seek help from other people regarding some edits.Krish

Decline reason:

Checkuser-confirmed sock puppetry in addition to anon IP editing which amounts to socking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

This unblock request appears to be Crocodile tears. I strongly suggest the following:
  1. Explain how your actions (specifically in relation to WP:GAB, WP:ADMINACCT, WP:NPA, and WP:NOTTHEM) have caused you to be in this state
  2. Apologize to Ian (without pinging them) for your repeated demands
  3. Explain what you intend to do if you were to be unblocked
Once you do these things, you are more likely to have your unblock request taken seriously. Hasteur (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't expect an apology per se, but rather indication of a capacity for self-reflection (which a good answer for 1 should show). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
That another administrator said they would unblock me if I promised to never ever again engage in personal attacks and edit-warring - that's not actually what anyone said. Yamla said You have to convince us we can be confident you'll never again engage in personal attacks or edit-warring. Your inability to follow what others say is one of the reasons why I increased the block (so you'll want to read WP:IDHT as well). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  1. Yes Hasteur I am accountable for all my actions and I am really sorry for acting stubborn and childish with several posts last night. I am very sorry and I take full responsibility for my actions. I should not have indulged myself in the edit-war and I am really sorry for the personal attacks I made towards that editor.
  2. I am really sorry Ian.thomson I will never repeat these mistakes and I also want to apologise for constantly pinging you. I forgot how busy you must be here doing all the administrative work and in your real life. I am really sorry for that.
  3. After getting unblock, I intend to resume work on my pending projects such nominating an article for FA and expanding another one.Krish | Talk 18:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

Not a Sockpuppet[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Krish! (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

Seriously? Sockpuppet allegations? LMAO. On what basis? Plus why would I create an account called BollywoodSeductress and won't use for what you are accusing me "of bad behavior"? Don't you think I would have done something bad with that account? I have not done disruptive editing using IPs either. I want to tell you that since the last year I have been using a shared network (my workplace) and sometimes I have used Internet cafes while doing some document work related to my job. Never ever I have done disruptive editing using another account and never will. I done done so much work her and worked hard on over 50 articles, 44 of which are featured/good content. I have a subject of much hate and abuse from my fellow wikipedians from time to time through IPs (check my talk/user page history) but have never indulged in abusing them back. I am here solely for my love for films and few actors and ost of my edits are related to that. I really don't want to leave this place because I really like writing articles here. So kindly look at the matter. EdJohnston and Berean Hunter.Krish | Talk 07:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, we cannot unblock you at this time. There are simply too many coincidences surrounding the sockpuppets. I do not believe that any further unblock requests would have a chance of being successful at this point - and as such, I am revoking your ability to edit this page. If you have further appeals, you may make them via WP:UTRS, but I would strongly suggest that you take some time away from the project, and review the standard offer. SQLQuery me! 22:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

  1. Also, the BLOCK says " Berean Hunter (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Krish! (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked): Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krish!)". If I can see the history of those accounts (they are not mine), I don't see them abusing any user or me or anyone. Then the block is very questionable even if we assume that those accounts are mine which they are NOT.
  1. Even I have not abused anyone from my account.
  1. The wikipedia rules are against this block even considering those accounts are mine. The first two accounts have made ZERO edits. That another account did NOT support me during disputes, did not abuse anyone during disputes, and most importantly did not edit similar articles. So how those accounts are mine and I am responsible for those accounts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krish! (talkcontribs) 08:22, July 9, 2018 (UTC)
  • The Prashant.0216 account was created on July 3 while you were already blocked which implies that it is to be used for block evasion and is a bad faith account creation..i.e. you have no business creating accounts while you are already blocked. That is a violation of WP:SOCK..."Creating new accounts to avoid detection". For BollywoodSeductress, I don't need to wait for that account to edit in order to cu block. I believe that it belongs to a blocked editor that is socking. Why would I let that person hang onto unblocked accounts?
  • You and NewWikipedian are  Technically indistinguishable and overlap subject interests. For example, the two of you are the only ones to ever upload this file. You created Purple Pebble Pictures in April 2016 and NewWikipedian added to it in November when they created Ventilator (film) which was the day that the film was released and the day that they created their account. They created Rajesh Mapuskar two days later. They didn't look like a new editor when they started. You posted the GA nomination notice for Ventilator (film) and worked the article towards GA. Why would I leave this account unblocked when I believe that the owner has already been indeffed?
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The wikipedia rules are against this block even considering those accounts are mine. That is probably the stupidest argument I've seen to get out of a block from someone who wasn't actively trolling. WP:BLOCK EVASION explains why we would block those accounts. Even if that was not a policy, common sense would indicate that if we're going to block a person, we need to block any sockpuppets they make or else the block is worthless. Frankly, I don't see why we don't revoke your talk page access, because even if you're not actively trolling, the resulting behavior might as well be the same. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I have nothing to do with Prashant.0216 account. My IP was blocked for account creation, so how could I create a new account? Also, I have refrained from using my real name on wikipedia and had changed my User name 2 or 3 years ago for a reason. And, I am not that dumb that I will create an account on my real name. Trust me I have nothing to do with those accounts. Also, I am not against blocking those "sock" accounts" because I have nothing to do with them. And who am I to object if those accounts ever did bad faith or distruptive editing. Also, ever thought that some one else might have created Prashant.0216 to blame me? Just check its IP with few of other Indian wikipedians who work on Bollywood topics. I have worked hard and done considerable work from this account so why would I edit using another account? Also that NewWikipedian could be User:Daan0001 because they share the same interest as mine. His edits were so much similar to mine that someone opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prashant!/Archive BUT found as unrelated. This could be him and I liked Ventilator (film) so I took it to GA. This article is also related to my interest on wikipedia so that should not surprise anyone. I mean it is inevitable that I would upload the poster in order to take it to GA. Berean Hunter, if you want to punish me than block me for a month or two for my bad behavior (the reason for my block on 3 July). I again want to tell you that I am NOT a sockpuppet but a genuine wikipedian who wants to contribute much much more to this informative and interesting place.Krish | Talk 08:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry again Ian.thomson I really don't know how to react to this situation. So I might have offended you. I am really sorry. I am very sorry for my behavior.Krish | Talk 08:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

The Prashant! SPI was checking against different accounts, not your account. That older SPI only means you're unrelated to User:Daan0001. The current SPI checking this account against others found that they were connected. Your crocodile tears (sometimes over just secondary matters), your spurious arguments, and delusional denial of behavior that everyone else sees from you are why no one is unblocking you, and why I'm considering revoking your talk page access.
If you do not that, you're going to need to follow the standard offer:
  • stop posting on any part of the site, on any accounts, for at least six months
  • log in to this account and fill in an unblock request that:
  1. admits to sockpuppetry, personal attacks, edit warring, and failing to listen to others, citing the policies and guidelines that explain why those are a problem. Don't just quote me -- be specific, so we know that you know what you did wrong.
  2. does not try to excuse or justify your behavior.
  3. explains how you plan to help the site while avoiding such negative behavior in the future. Give examples that show what you would do differently this time around.
  4. does not mention any other user except when admitting you have treated them wrong. Do not mention any of the admins, even if you're thinking it's admitting wrongdoing on your part. This block is not because you've "offended" us (we really don't care), it's because you've wronged the community.
  • Do not argue with any admins working on your appeal. Do not present spurious reasons to misdirect other admins. Do not present Crocodile tears to misdirect us. Stick to calm, rational admission of your wrongdoings and a plan to reform your behavior.
You've had way too many "last" chances. If you do something besides this, I'm revoking your talk page access. I don't want to even see questions about this or requests for clarification, because if you do not understand all of the instructions you've been given (and cannot figure things out from the links in those instructions), WP:CIR applies and you should not be editing anyway. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)