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: until Dec. '23; January-March '24; April '24.
A barnstar for you![edit]






The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

If at all I'm a good, good faith editor, it is thanks to you. Plus, you rekindled my interest to do more international cinema. :) DareshMohan (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this very touching message; very honoured by what you say. And always glad to receive a barnstar! :D. Yours, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]Clarification[edit]
Just wanting to learn policy.
In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion.
Is speedy keep a straightforward case? It probably is just confirming.
I should have just Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal). Closed the deletion myself. I didnt know about that.
DareshMohan (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DareshMohan, thank you for your concern. I was involved in the editing and AfD, true, but I thought the close was pretty uncontroversial and as you had indicated to close as SK, I decided to take it on me and ignore the rule. If you want to undo it and close it yourself, feel free! (I think it would be a bit bureaucratic but no worries). I just didn't want other users to waste time on this and the page to be marked with an undue notice any longer. But you're right I should have added in my closing statement something like: "I am involved but decided to ignore the letter of the rule". Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! It wasn't worth other users time and I should be careful when nominating articles. Plus, I could have closed it myself.P. S. How do I learn more about Wikipedia policies, do I just sit down and read them? DareshMohan (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question. You can just read them, yes. Talk pages of Guidelines and their history are also interesting to understand why they are what they are and how they were discussed and implemented. For example, I remember a guideline or was it a policy? that went "VERIFIABILITY NOT TRUTH". I always found it was misleading and always disliked it, and disagreed with the way it was phrased and applied. Eventually, it was "rephrased" and downgraded to an essay and footnote. This kind of things gives you food for thought. It's a bit like the way NEWSORGINDIA or WP:NACTOR are interpreted sometimes. One day, it will probably be clarified. Maybe not in a way that I agree with (for instance, another example would be the notability of pornographic artists on Wikipedia: it is subject to a rather recent decision that basically makes them non-notable for being what they are; I don't mind and maybe it's all for the good of readers and contributors, but I think it's unfair). But If you're bold, you'll probably break rules at some point and then someone will let you know you did. Also, I am pretty sure you know the core policies; and when common sense and decency guide your action, it's very likely that what you do is positive. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]Notability[edit]
Check the notability of Draft:Jai Varma, who starred as solo lead in two films (Image, Theekuchi) and group lead (one of five lead members in Naam). Here a user removed several reviews citing them as unreliable although Sify has a wiki link [1]. So, reviews without wiki links such as Chennai Online are unreliable? Malini Mannath of that company writes for The New Indian Express. DareshMohan (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jeraxmoira is misguided. I don't see why Chennai Online shouldn't be used. Kailash29792 (talk)  04:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello to you both, I don't think there's any guideline that says that a newspaper or periodical needs to be notable enough to have a page to be considered reliable. Many local papers don't have a WP page but are acceptable, I think, while the New York Post or the Daily Mail  are notable (and of course do have a page) but are considered notoriously unreliable. IndiaGlitz and Behindwoods are in general not great but not plainly unreliable, I'd say. JV seems more than notable enough. I'll move it!-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 The noticeboard for reliable sources has a few threads about IndiaGlitz, including this one, also about Sify. Unless the removal of those refs, is, again, NEWSORGINDIA applied for reasons that are not clear to me, potentially to every periodical or site from the Subcontinent. Asking User:Jeraxmoira is the best way to know. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]In some instances where people try to add reviews about artists or technicians from the Indian film industry as well as in the Cinema of the United States, they do not include reviews from unknown reviewers, especially without a byline (which also falls under routine coverage). Instead, they add appreciations or praises from renowned people in the same industry or at least a film critic with their own Wikipedia page. The Indian media pumps out articles about anything they find relevant in their stream. By desperately adding low-quality reviews, you are only lessening the quality of an article. IMO, if Ekta Khosla has enough significant roles to pass NACTOR, then the reviews are not needed in the first place. Either way, those low-quality reviews will not stand a chance in an AfD. I need a diff/link to check what's on Chennai Online. Cheers Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. desperately adding low-quality reviews is certainly not what any of us wishes, I hope. I agree with you that significant roles in notable films are enough for any actor to pass the applicable guideline requirements for notability. However, some users "desperately" insist that "SIGCOV" should ALSO be provided; that may explain why, to prevent endless discussions, some so-so coverage is sometimes added; but again, I agree and I am sure anyone can only agree that, when it's not needed for verification, a page might be better off without a disputable quality coverage, if everyone is truly honest about what the guideline says, that is. Anyway, this seems to confirm that one cannot consider IndiaGlitz nor Behindwoods or Sify are deprecated and that they might be used when it seems necessary at the user's discretion, or at least that a consensus should be reached on the TP of the concerned page about whether particular articles or reviews should or could be used. Thanks again. Best,-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you start enabling this practice, the interested parties will pay the reviewers to add a snippet about them in the review. This is why only high-quality reviews or reviews from renowned critics are used. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]A barnstar for you![edit]






The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

For all the work you do at AFD Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I appreciate.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]