User talk:Mushy Yank

Hello and welcome.
I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. So if you leave me a message here, I will reply here. I will not continue to watch a talk page if the discussion has migrated. By the same token, if I leave a comment on another talk page, please respond to it there. At the same time, feel free to send an alert about a comment you have left elsewhere. Also please note that I find user warning templates generally inappropriate. If I have made a mistake and there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words.
Thank you.
Archived talk: here (until Dec. '23) and here (from January '24).
Well known film, no article due to draft history[edit]
Since you have helped me in the past and I know you are of great help, I would like you to know about Draft:Family Star a released film which is not being able to go to main space at the moment. You can control-f my name and see my comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Zolgensma_NOTHERE which is valid. DareshMohan (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFDs[edit]
Hello, Mushy Yank,
First, I really hate this tilting talk page. It really is annoying and distracting. But that's not why I'm here.
Secondly, I think you might benefit from taking a break from participating in AFD discussions for a while, a few days or even a week. I see you getting very upset by the comments and stances of other editors and greatly invested in the fate of every single article whose deletion discussion you participate in. You can't have that kind of attitude and continue to participate in AFDs to the extent you do, it will just break your heart and wear you out. You need to have a little detachment, realize that even editors you greatly disagree with are trying their best and that some discussions will close the way you want while others don't. I face the fact that I'm responsible for deleting articles that, if it was up to me, I wouldn't delete and keeping other articles that I think are junk. But AFDs are decided by arguments and group consensus and sometimes yours might be a lone voice and be outnumbered by editors who are arguing against your stance who also have valid arguments. 
I also have the feeling that I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know. I just see you as an incredibly valuable contributor to AFD discussions and I don't want to see you implode or get a civility block or any other unpleasant outcomes that can happen when editors just have had enough and blow a fuse. It's better to take a time out and return, refreshed days later. I want you around for a long time! Take care. Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Liz:. Thank you for your message. All right, if you think it's better, I'll leave Afds; and (de)ProDs) and pages with notability issues by the same token (as they are quite interconnected). Thanks for the advice and concern! Yours,-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]notability[edit]
Is this film even notable The Ode? The reception section contains a student review from UCLA. DareshMohan (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DareshMohan. There was an Afd and various users found it notable, so maybe it is indeed! I'll have a look.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saw the notability tag on Shariq Hassan. I will add the reviews from his films. DareshMohan (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]Relist[edit]
I saw the comment on the relist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silence 2: The Night Owl Bar Shootout. Valid point. I was surprised when The Hindu was thought to be unreliable (if you ask me even The Times of India articles are fine for film production). I feel that other editors have more privileges (and their voice is mainly heard), which oddly may Wikipedia seem communist. 
There seems to be a bias, especially if a well known film like The Family Star doesn't get article (India has like 400k ppl who use internet and half of them probably are looking for English version) or if a film that will get reviews is deleted after reviews are written. This comment Even if 1,000 reviews were released, if all of them are just a few sentences, they can't be used. Additionally, paid reviews don't count either is uncalled for. Stuff like this makes me hate it here. DareshMohan (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DareshMohan, I am not sure "communist" is the word! But I agree, that, at times, I am puzzled and disheartened by the way certain articles are treated or very clear guidelines applied or interpreted (and even when you ask, the answer you get, if you receive one, is at best unclear). I still don't understand the comment about your !vote there, for instance. Anyway, that was just a relist, and really not a big problem. So I've decided to consider it's not a big deal; after all, it's only on Wikipedia and the real world still exists. Thanks for your message. Cheers, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply](This discussion is) Off the Record[edit]
Hiya! Seen your signature around before :D I'm wondering why you deprodded the article. Was there a source I didn't see or a notability guideline that I overlooked? Anyways feel free to participate in the afd that I've opened and tell me if there's anything I could've done better. Justiyaya 14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thor (The Asylum)[edit]
Would this be an acceptable time to be bold and WP:BLAR? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:80D4:D0B3:B66:64D9 (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I really have no opinion about that character, sorry, but sure, it can be considered an acceptable edit to BLAR and redirect to a section where the character is mentioned as an alternative to deletion if you think sources are not enough. So, yes, feel free to redirect the page and if you're reverted (that won't be by me) and you still think it really does not deserve a page, take it to Afd. Or you can ask on the TP of the article. Up to you! Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]Unreliable sources[edit]
Hello - just a friendly reminder to please avoid adding unreliable references to pages. Thank you for your understanding! —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello to you too. Thank you for your friendly reminder. But may I ask what sources specifically you happen to have in mind in both diffs and where there is consensus that these sources are considered unreliable? Thank you in advance.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. galaxylollywood.com and pakistanicinema.net are not reliable at all wherehas urdupoint is questionable. Even if there's no consensus or discussion yet, we can use WP:COMMONSENSE in determining their reliability for WP. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. For your complete information, I did not add the ref to Urdupoint (as the diff you provided clearly confirms). So feel free to mention it to anyone who added it. But as it is only, according to you, "questionable" and not unreliable, allow me too to advise you to use common sense. As for the rest of your reply, I am sorry but you would have to come up with something a little bit more substantial next time you wish to open a section called "Unreliable sources" on someone'sTP and "friendly" remind them to "please avoid using unreliable references". At least, if you don't, I think you should change your approach and wording of what you consider to be the issue. Indeed, it seems correct to say that this is just your personal opinion based on nothing in particular. I am therefore not convinced but you can rest assured that, although I disagree with your opinion, I will not remove the tag you added on both (and other) pages. You might want to explain on each article TP what sources in particular you consider dubious, though. That would be helpful. Should you wish to pursue this conversation, may I invite you to do it on the concerned talk page(s)? Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my choice of words  seemed inappropriate. And it's not my intention to personally label these sources as unreliable. I'm confident @CNMall41: would agree with me and perhaps they can provide further insight on the matter. But still If you choose not to consider my information, that's entirely up to you. I hold no strong opinions on this matter. Regards! --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I didn't find your edit summary to be particularly respectful either. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ES: My turn to apologise, I don't remember what I wanted to write but "twit" in capitals was absolutely not what I had in mind (my edit summaries are sometimes completely insane for some reason, maybe automated corrections or just typing too hastily, I don't remember what I had in mind but not that and I didn't check, or would have mentioned it to you in advance). Sincerely sorry for that. For the rest, I did not choose "not to consider (any) information" you would have provided. You shared your opinion. I've paid attention, and I left the tag on the page. Again, feel free to ask or ping other users on the concerned page, where discussion of sources is probably more likely to be fruitful.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]Lenny & Sid[edit]
TV Tropes is not a reliable source. It's a user generated wiki. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 10:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello to you too. Why mention this to me, if I may ask? I didn’t add it to the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]