User talk:Mushy Yank/Arkive of the Boom

Archived Talk page .For conversations from 2024 onwards, please see User talk:Mushy Yank/Dark hives of the Gloom

Welcome!

Hello, Mushy Yank!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Article assessment

Thanks for your recent efforts to do article assessment. However, based your recent assessment of Django Kill... If You Live, Shoot!, I would recommend that you not rely solely on the WP:RATER tool. While that tool gives a good starting point and some suggestions, if you take the tool's assessment straight up, you'll end up with a lot of articles that are poorly assessed. From the tool's own documentation: This is only a prediction, and may be inaccurate (occasionally wildly so). Looking at the Django article, it was shaky at best in its assessment. My guess is the tool gave weight to the total article word count, but the readable prose on the article was around 900 or so words, more than 2/3s of which was the plot summary. That basically means the article is significantly lacking other details. I know that assessment is somewhat subjective and a matter of opinion, but this one should be a little more obvious as to why it should not be rated C-class. I'm not trying to discourage you - but you do need to be careful when using an automated tool. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I had left you a message on your page already. Thank you for your concern. Again, I don't rely on automated tools to assess pages and understand robots can be fooled. When you say "this one should be a little more obvious as to why it should not be rated C-clas", I am not sure what you mean, but I'll have another look. Yours, — MY, OH, MY! 14:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

There are a couple of other things to point out - and these call into question how closely these articles are being looked at (which also makes it appear that you're relying too heavily on Rater - I know you said you don't, and I'm taking you at your word, so maybe it's just lack of experience).

In most wikiprojects, when you get to a B-class assessment, you can't simply put "class=B" in the project banner. Some (or probably most) projects will require you to include individual assessment criteria as a checklist. Both the Film and Horror projects require that. For projects that require this, when you put class=B in the banner, it will still indicate C class assessment until you specifically note "yes" for each of the B-class criteria. By not doing this, it shows that you're not actually looking at the project banner (i.e. relying on Rater) and/or you're not checking the specific criteria for B-class. The purpose of project banners putting this step in there is so that assessment is more careful rather than simply sticking a "B" in the |class=. You have to tediously answer "yes" to each individual assessment criteria. Here's an example where this was not done (but it's the same in every B-class article you assessed): Talk:The Mad Ghoul

The other problem is you're leaving stub templates on articles you assessed as "start" class. Again, that would call into question how closely you are looking at these articles. Remember, assessment says you're looking at the detail of articles you say you're looking at. If you're missing things like this, how closely are you really looking at them? Examples: Fear-Bound or The Monster Maker. I'm not going to audit every assessment, but there's enough here to suggest a pattern of missing important details.

Assessment is about checking details. It's one thing to say you're looking at detail, but the actual results here suggest that you're not. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, I am not (I repeat NOT) relying on Rater to assess a page. Never. At all. I may be wrong but I am not wrong because I am relying on rater, because I don't even LOOK at what it suggests.

As for the B assessment requiring detailed criteria, thank you for this reminder. That does not prevent me from assessing them as B in general, does it? I might assess them in detail but I was waiting for another user to agree with me to give it more weight. Fair enough, I'll do it myself.

In general I DO remove stub templates. I will amend those I have forgotten. This is a bit discouraging to be honest with you.— MY, OH, MY! 15:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a bit discouraging to be honest with you. - it shouldn't be. It should be constructive. As I said, assessment is about attention to detail. It's important. If details are being missed, then it needs to be addressed. You shouldn't take that personally, nor as a discouragement. Use it to improve your skillset as an editor.

That does not prevent me from assessing them as B in general, does it? - correct. You can still assess them in general. But it won't show as assessed B-class until the criteria are noted as having been checked. I might assess them in detail but I was waiting for another user to agree with me to give it more weight. - That's a good approach, but that depend upon the specific wikiprojects. Each wikiproject has its own guidelines, assumptions, and expectations. They're all going to be similar, but one project may have a different view than another. For the Westerns project (which doesn't apply to any of the B-class assessments you did - but may in the future), those criteria can be checked and filled in by the original assessor. There simply are not enough project members in Westerns to do otherwise. For Film or Horror, I'd say the same probably applies, but you could certainly reach out to those projects and see what their expectation is. You're right that a second set of eyes is always better. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, perfect. — MY, OH, MY! 15:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits by @User:Star Mississippi

Majority of the votes were to retain the article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subhodhayam. Without reaching any consensus, @User:Star Mississippi billed it as consensus reached to delete and closed it, this is sheer manipulation. Please advise the editor not to to unconstructive edits going forward. Our forced opinions dont have weight on whether to keep or dont keep articles. Fostera12 (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Likewise hello. Please do work on your phrasing, please, for everyone's sake and for clarity's sake. Being more civil would not hurt, either, you know. Although I can only agree that the closing of the Afd was not correct, it cannot be said it is a matter of unconstructive edits. I opened a deletion review about that. I should have let you know, apologies. But as I was so sure relisting would be the obvious outcome (as original relisting had been ignored) I didn't. I am not sure anymore, as my comments do not seem to be addressed as they should, I find, neither am I sure that you can comment there but you may ask. As I was accused of bludgeoning during the review, I will not comment on that page anymore unless I am specifically asked to do so. I find it funny, by the way, that what could pass for bludgeoning when commenting on your comments remained unnoticed. (I think all commenting on other users's comments, although making the page hard to read, was done in good faith but that's not the point). Yours, — MY, OH, MY! 11:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Mushy Yank. I also welcomed our colleague to participate in the deletion review that you opened when they reached out on my Talk. Have a great day both. Star Mississippi 11:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

what is the use of your apologies now, when knowingly u have not taken into consideration the max no of votes to retain the article, and why should i take all the pain and go for deletion review, when the closure has not reached consensus, and when the closure was not done democratically, so open new afd on Subhodayam. Fostera12 (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. Are you talking to me, to Star Mississippi or to yourself? Never mind. The deletion review may be a way to reopen the Afd. Let's wait. And then, you'll see. But, I must insist, you REALLY have to be more civil (or just simply civil) or I will not reply to you anymore. I agree with you on the closing of the Afd, and on the fact that the page could have been kept, but it's not a reason for me to accept this harsh tone that seems to be the one of your late messages. This lack of civility is also very counterproductive. Anyway, allow me to leave things at that for the moment, will you? — MY, OH, MY! 14:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (soundtrack), is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Pizzaplayer219

WHAT are you talking about? — MY, OH, MY! 15:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Understood. I had, obviously, by mistake pasted a link in the wrong place. Apologies. I don't think this template was necessarry nor appropriate,though, as it was an evident bad move of my fingers. But still, sorry all the same.— MY, OH, MY! 15:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm CorbieVreccan. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hank Williams First Nation, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You need to check the content on the pages you link to as citations. You twice added a cite to an empty page, citing an entire section to a page that simply states, "No movie found.." I've had to remove this twice now. Don't re-add unusable links like this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 17:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, yes, it's reliable, it's the American Film Institute. But you are correct to say it did not work: indeed, despite my best effort, the link(S) to the AFI in that format does not work and ends up empty, that's unfortunate. And please, I would like to ask you to try to adopt a tiny bit softer tone in your phrasing (and that includes your last edit summary) when something does not work, as it is obviously a technical issue. You would mind (and rightly so), I suppose, if I told you things like: "Don't remove facts that I'm trying to source, etc.", wouldn't you? (Again, you would be right to feel this way, if I did so) I'll add the bare url on the page or on the talk page. Did I really re-add it? Unless I am very much mistaken, I simply added it (there are 2 links in fact, as you'll see), once (sourcing two things (with, I repeat a link that is originally different, but only one time). I'll pursue this on the page and its TP, if you don't mind. Best, — MY, OH, MY!  (mushy yank) — 19:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I clarified on article talk. This was not in any way "obviously a technical issue". The issue is not about the reliability of AFI, the issue is that the AFI page you linked to had no mention of the film. I noted this and flagged the cite for not citing the content / failing verification. You removed the flag and then added the contentless cite to two places in the article. It's also not about a template. The urls you posted on article talk are completely different than the one you used in the article. AGF does not mean ignore inconsistencies between what someone is doing and what they say they are doing. I wish you the best but those things did not line up. That's a  Redflag - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

FInal reply@CorbieVreccan (and only here, if I may). It was technical, yes, please, just try it: see article TP, by all means, do try to insert the links I've pasted there, with the automated sourcing tool and see the result: I am telling you that when I inserted those very links with "sourcing" through the visual editor it did produce the empty link (I was not aware it was blank obviously again, as I did not re-add it), why, I don't know, just try it; is it AFI that bugs with the script? I have no idea but I OBVIOUSLY had not inserted empty links. Why would I do that?? The links I had inserted were those you have as bare urls in the TP now. The same, no other, not completely different, the SAME. Why the link "became" what it turned out to be (EMPTY), again, I would not know. Just try it yourself, please, and see if it's not technical. Why and HOW would I make up 2 links like that to source a plot and a film location? And then by miracle find two accurate urls that are just the right ones when I need to back up my story? Would not make sense and highly unlikely. Two last things: It's not about reliability of AFI, you say, but your message starts with a sentence that ends with "but you didn't provide a reliable source." ... And, "AGF" may not mean ignore inconsistency, OK, sure, if you say so, but it may mean that when someone tells you the links they inserted in the first place were the very same they show you (and that it seems unlikely they could have invented 2 links on the same site, specially when there are 2 existing links for those 2 sections of the page (and not mentioning again the question as to why they would such a thing) you could trust them. If you decide not to trust them, you might want to check for yourself the technical issue mentioned in their "allegations". Again, just try it yourself, try and source the film location with the visual editor and input the link I've shown, and if this time fortunately, it does not direct to an empty page but to the page I meant, it probably means the technical issue is resolved or that these users have an obsolete computer. No need for any flag at all, in my view. Anyway, thank you for time. Best,

PS- I just did try again myself (with visual editor/source editing). The first link (AFI/Native Movie Month) seems to work now but the second (AFI/film description) still does direct you to No movie found.... Just try it, or just trust me. — MY, OH, MY!  (mushy yank) — 21:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

Hello Mushy Yank, I wanted to add a note about your sources for Nihon Igai Zenbu Chinbotsu. It's looks like you're making good advancements in improving the page and I don't want to hinder it with edits while it's still in progress. However, WP:SOURCE provides extensive guidance for what materials merit citation on Wikipedia. For instance, the review by Glenn Erickson is self-published and Erickson is explicitly noted as not noteworthy by Rotten Tomatoes. Similarly I can't find indications that Peter Nellhaus, Xavier Desbarats, Simon Booth, or Senesi Michele Man are film critics of any note. At the moment these reviews are poor indications of notability because they are not reliable sources. While I wouldn't consider its mention in Lee's book to be significant coverage, the film's mention is at least one point of notability if it it can be bolstered with other criteria from WP:NFILM. Good luck in your ongoing work!

Vegantics (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Pussy Soup

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Pussy Soup, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Other accounts

As you've edited from at least one of them recently, I think it would be seen as a good faith disclosure for you to disclose your other accounts on your user page, prominently, the way you used to. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello to you too. OK, I might change the layout someday but I don’t really use them. Best, — MY, OH, MY!  (mushy yank) — 09:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

You haven't used Tchèque Point recently, but you edited as Dolesbang just two months ago. While you're not editing the same articles or discussions with these three accounts, you have overlapped chronologically.

• Dolesbang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tchèque Point (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You disclose the connection on those userpages; if you don't intend to WP:SOCK with these accounts, you should also disclose them here on your main account. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello again to you too. I DO disclose them on my User page. Please have a closer look. Only the layout is awkward and, again, I might change it someday. Best. — MY, OH, MY!  (mushy yank) — 08:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done — MY, OH, MY!  (mushy yank) — 20:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Reply

The text of The Clock: Spirits Awakening was copied verbatim from here. I'll restore it to here shortly without the infringement. When you are ready, move (don't cut-and-paste) to draft page and submit for review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@User:Jimfbleak Thanks a lot! That's very helpful. Just one thing: when it is ready, I might move it directly to the Main if I am sure it is correctly sourced and clearly notable (which I thought it was when I de-prodded it but I will make sure it is). Yours, — MY, OH, MY!  (mushy yank) — 10:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Night and Fog in Japan

Thanks for starting to improve this article, the film deserves better than the state it was previously in. Robert Kerber (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Robert Kerber:Thank you! I had seen that it needed attention but I would probably never have touched it if you hadn't tagged the page. Best, -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 17:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank:Well, one does what one can. If there is something like a real challenge, it's this mess of an article, which in my eyes should be revised from scratch. Robert Kerber (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. For the page Ikinai, could you help expanding it? I feel it could be a bit longer. DareshMohan (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to say thank you for saving Indian film articles in deletion discussions. DareshMohan (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind message@DareshMohan:.-MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 19:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The reason that it is so important is that unlike in PROD if a major film article gets deleted at AfD it is almost impossible to recreate it without reliable sources. DareshMohan (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I must say, if you are not Indian, you are the nicest non-Indian editor that edits Indian films. DareshMohan (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

AfD

No need to be worry. All of those articles shouldn't exist anyway. If I create like so many individual AfDs with the exact same content, then it could be problematic (mass deletion is not allowed here). DareshMohan (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Not canvassing (don't care what u vote). Can u vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karan Verma? DareshMohan (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

(t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Clarity

The name "Van Horne" is not mentioned in the film Hidden Strike. Full transcript here. DareshMohan (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

???-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 04:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

John Cena plays "Chris" in Hidden Strike as per the credits. But the article says "Chris Van Horne". DareshMohan (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I see. OK. Maybe. But why mention it to me, if I may ask? I happen to have seen the film but I don't remember editing the page (let alone the cast section). I don't even remember the character's name. Maybe the surname was given by the production company in their press release or written in the credits or shown somewhere in the film without being uttered (or rather the other around from what I understand, mentioned in the film with his surname and under his given name only in the credits, in which case it's also all right). Maybe ask User:Tintin Phoneix, who added it in the Cast and Plot section, where he/she took it from and decide together if you want to source/leave/remove it. I won't touch the page myself and cannot make any further comment for now.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your work on Taiwanese, French and Italian films. DareshMohan (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

merci pour vos articles! DareshMohan (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for the improvements on those pages.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Emeraude

Please be wary of him. He tags any article he pleases with {{notability}}, and that puts it in danger of deletion. Indian films are not immune, and when prodded/AfD'd, the task force does not notify anyone and the blameless article gets deleted. Puthiya Vaarpugal is one such victim which I retrieved from deletion. Emeraude is apparently not aware of WP:HEY. If I can't stop him I must be able to monitor his edits. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That is totally disingenuous. The notability tag says, "Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention." It is a signal to other editors that sources need to be found in line with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, not an invitation to delete. I note that since I tagged Puthiya Vaarpugal the article has not only been improved, but inclusion has been mad of awards that it won, thus demonstrating notability! Emeraude (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello both,

if a mere improvement of sources is wished, there are many tags that seem, in my view, more appropriate than the Notability tag. The Notability tag signals a quite serious issue and not just that an article needs improvements. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the tag is used to call for sourcing fast, although I feel it is both a good and bad thing. DareshMohan (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Aditi Shankar

Can you help with this article? Things needed to change:

1. Positive to neutral tone
2. Shorten article (only acted in two films)

I am irked by some IP wasting my time lol. DareshMohan (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, did some trimming but the page was already rather OK, I found.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For moving 3 Idiots-fame Sharman Joshi's 3 Bachelors to the mainspace. DareshMohan (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @DareshMohan:, much appreciated.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Swapnalokam

We are having trouble getting this article to the mainspace. Could you please help? When it's hard to find sources for pre-2000 Indian films, this one is actually better developed than most such articles. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello@DareshMohan:. I'll see what I can do. Cheers.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Afc

I am pretty sure I made a mistake. I made Draft:Smart Cookie (film series) and submitted it for AfC one year ago. I should have made it into the articlespace directly (I initially had no sources so a draft was necessary). Do you know if the best way to go about this like for a speedy review. Thanks in advance. Can you move it to the articlespace directly -- or it that WP:Canvassing?

Many of my drafts took a year, so maybe AfC is just slow. We could just wait it out cause eventually it probably will get moved right? DareshMohan (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello@DareshMohan:. The page has been improved since the last submission, it seems ready, yes and the subject notable. I'll move it. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Best,

Another Yeti A Love Story: Life on the Streets moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Another Yeti A Love Story: Life on the Streets. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and for such an article (low budget horror film), we need to see specific reviews or discussions from these sites that we consider acceptable for sourcing [1]. What's used in the reviews section doesn't appear in that list. Otherwise, there is a good chance this could get deleted for lack of coverage in "reliable sources" (as given in the link). . Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Oaktree b (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello to you too.

next time please ask before doing such a move and please in such a case don’t use preformated messages on my talk page, thank you. I find them inappropriate and it’s written in red above.

The list you mention is not exhaustive and a tiny tiny look at my contributions may have helped you understand that maybe just maybe I am probably aware of its existence.So thank you for your concern because I believe your intention was good but again, -because I already mentioned that to you in an Afd- not all good sources are listed in the reliable sources lists. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

On top of this, at least 2 reviews I used and were on the page come from sites that ARE LISTED IN THE LIST YOU PRESENTED.......Next time, please make sure YOU read the links to which you direct other people who happen to know them. To be honest, i find your move and message quite disruptive.... i’m moving the page back to the Main. I suggest you go to the article talk page if you feel the need to discuss this any further. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Another Yeti A Love Story: Life on the Streets

Hello, Mushy Yank, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Oaktree b, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Another Yeti A Love Story: Life on the Streets, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Yeti A Love Story: Life on the Streets.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Oaktree b}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Oaktree b (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Note

Sorry about the deletion. I feel it would be best to expand the article Yeti: A Love Story with your new sources. DareshMohan (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello @DareshMohan:. No worries. Feel free to share your thoughts at the deletion discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Unreferenced

Can you help find sources for Sinbad (1992 film), Tottoi, Janghwa Hongryeon jeon (1936 film) and Las Pasiones Infernales. DareshMohan (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello,  Done-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Question

I am looking to create articles for French films. If there is any film without article but with sources, tell me. DareshMohan (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

You probably know this page. Among the films listed Docteur Petiot (film) has received some coverage in books in English. Also, the suggestions by the Translation tool in the Beta features (personalised, top of page) may give you ideas of articles that do not exist yet in English but are on other Wikipedias. But you surely knew that. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Article request

Blind Ambition [2] [3] [4] [5] DareshMohan (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Actually the page exists.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC) (Just realised it was you who created it! Thanks! Added a few things.)

Question

Would you vote weak keep/redirect if Prema Vimanam were deleted. The film has production sources but no reviews [6]. DareshMohan (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello.

if the article was taken to Afd, you mean? No idea. The film was not released yet. That makes a big difference. So, probably not. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

omg, I thought the film released, my bad. DareshMohan (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Khais Millen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thala. DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Note

Hats off for defending yourself in that AfD. Meanwhile can u help expand Tandoori Love. DareshMohan (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you. I will have a look at that page. Cheers.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Good work! Can you expand Madly (2016 film. DareshMohan (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from The Films of Rick Dalton into Quentin Tarantino. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Request

Can you please make an article on Inseparables (2016)? FilmInk [7] La Nación [8] [9] [10] I don't have time to make it. DareshMohan (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I created a little stub with the sources you kndly listed. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Kandasamys: The Baby (2023) on Netflix deserves an article. [11] News24: Kandasamys: The Baby sees our OTP Jodi (Mishqah Parthiephal) and Prishen (Madhushan Singh) living in Mauritius as they welcome their first child ... [12] IOL [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] . DareshMohan (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Just passing by. Am impressed with the tilted setup here. – robertsky (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

My bad

Sorry about that, I didn't notice that the editor did mention the article at one point in the comment-- though I do still think the comment is largely directed at the subject of the article than any part of the article itself. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 10:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Really no worries, and no need to apologise. I agree, the comment is not really well-focused but I think it's better to leave it if other people share these views, so that they can see what has been replied , or in case anyone wishes to reply more extensively. Thank you for your message and for your work on the page, Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

AFD comments

Hello, Mushy Yank,

You participate in a fair number of AFD discussions. However, I've noticed that you often don't bold your "vote". It should look like Keep (written like '''Keep'''). Of course, the closer reads all of the content in a deletion discussion but bolding your opinion on what should happen with an article being discussed is a visual aid that can help a closer know where the majority of editors are leaning. It's just helpful, at least to me and I seem to be closing a lot of AFDs lately. So, if you could just bold your Keep, Redirect, Merge, Draftify or Delete opinion, it would be very helpful. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Liz. I will now bold the !vote option then, if it helps. Best.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

THANK YOU

Thanks for your work with Faria Abdullah. Personally, I was scared and unsure on how to proceed. At least she has an article in Telugu [18]. DareshMohan (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your work and message. Hopefully, the article in English will be accepted sooner or later. I find it very eloquent that I received no answer whatsoever to my repeated question " is there any guideline that states that draft review process is mandatory when an article seems to meet all concerned guidelines, as this is obviously the main question here?" The page should not even have been speedy-deleted in my view ([19], as it was in good faith, I'm sure) as G4 criterion does not apply to articles that have been substantially changed, which is obviously the case as sources from after 2021 are numerous on the page. (WP:G4: "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." (such as article whose subject is an actress who played in various notable films and series since the deletion, I suppose). Emphasis mine. And this is a WP:POLICY!!!!.. But hey! Thanks again.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like any article that goes through AfD is under discretion even if notable. DareshMohan (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Expand The Curse of Turandot

[20] DareshMohan (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Justin Lewis (film director)

Hi, Thanks a lot for adding references to the Louis Morneau article. Could you please help a bit about Justin Lewis? This guy received several awards, so I thought he is certainly notable enough. I am not from the US, so I don't know if these film festivals are notable and sufficient enough to establish notability. I suppose there were press reports when he received these awards, but I can't find them. Thanks again! Yann (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I will have anothe look. The Emmy for Best Editing I see here might seem promising and might have had him considered a notable film editor. The HE was indeed Won but awarded to the series not to him personally (although he is mentioned). Might count for WP:CREATIVE but probably needs more. If I have time by the end of the week, I’ll dig deeper but I am not so sure. Thank you for message. Best.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Additional findings @Yann: I could verify a personal award at the Richmond International film festival (2023 RICHMOND INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL Top Grand Jury Award Winners & Audience Choice Awards: PDF) but I am afraid other users may challenge the significance of this award. I didn’t have time to check the rest. Feel free to copy paste the links here at the Afd if you think that helps discussion. If I find more I might !vote there myself. I personally think he might be considered notable as these are various indications that, gathered, amount to something significant, and that he may meet WP:CREATIVE for at least his career as film editor and if I have time to find more coverage on even minor awards, I’ll let you know. Best,-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Porn 'n Chicken, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Press.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Mushy Yank, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Faria Abdullah has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Faria Abdullah. Thanks! –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Faria Abdullah has been accepted

Faria Abdullah, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

–Novem Linguae (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)