Talk:Neil Nitin Mukesh

message: The image :Image:JohnnyGaddaar1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      File:JohnnyGaddaar1.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:JohnnyGaddaar1.jpg

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:NeilNitinMukesh.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Neil Nitin Mukesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014131907/http://boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=288&catName=MjAwOQ%3D%3D to http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=288&catName=MjAwOQ==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014062657/http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=318&catName=MjAxMA%3D%3D to http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=318&catName=MjAxMA==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020154427/http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/Players-different-from-the-original-movie-Bipasha/Article1-787772.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/Players-different-from-the-original-movie-Bipasha/Article1-787772.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021062228/http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/Neil-Nitin-Mukesh-s-David-gets-mixed-reviews/Article1-1004928.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/Neil-Nitin-Mukesh-s-David-gets-mixed-reviews/Article1-1004928.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Hi, regarding this removal, the caste is not contested, rather it is the order in which the castes are written in the article, with which the IP has problems. The video source comes from a reliable news agency India Today and the person'e father self-identifies the castes (in that particular order), which is an important policy for Indian BLP articles as per WP:INB. Note that article faced similar POV push to remove/downplay the person's Gujarati ancestry in the past by sock master User:Karkanistan and their sock User:UserGK23 as evident in the talk page discussion Talk:Neil Nitin_Mukesh#The subjects food habits and interest in Gujarati folk dance.
 
Also note 's comment above. his exact words  - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , per WP:BLPRS,  Once there is consensus among the editors here that the information is relevant and properly sourced, and there's an agreed-upon wording, it can be added back in. You can use  to make that request, or just ping me and I can do it. – bradv🍁 14:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was not "contentious" until that IP started its disruptive POV pushing today. The thing already got consensus above. I'll ask the people involved again. Pinging  for discussion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly this user is also a sock. One of the things they did, just like the IP was to change the order of ethnicities/castes "Mathur" and "Gujarati Shrimali Brahmin", with edit summaries that reflected patriarchal bias . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

text: I'm of the opinion that the longstanding order prior to the recent changes should be maintained. In a case where a person describes themselves as 50% A and 50% B, the order doesn't matter one iota to me, and is ultimately arbitrary (provided that we didn't insert our own personal bias...) But arbitrary changes, or perhaps I should say changes that seem arbitrary, are disruptive. There's a reason known only to this new editor for why a new order is superior, otherwise they wouldn't have made the change. And that sort of thing seems likely to be related to the culture/ethnic/caste/gender/misc.-warring that plagues Indian articles. Whether it's someone pushing Telugu before Tamil or flipping Mammootty and Mohanlal, these sorts of arbitrary changes just irritate the community and should be disallowed once an article has become stable and people are actively trying to maintain a consistent level of quality. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yup, the content should be restored as per WP:STATUSQUO. This user under their various avatars have disrupted the article time to time. Also I was gonna mention WP:NOYT according to which: YouTube official channels of notable organisations can be used as sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with the YouTube sentiment. YouTube isn't a source, it's a broadcasting mechanism. If the entity that produced the video is verified and otherwise reliable, where the content appears is irrelevant. WP:RSPYT Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. The channel is also verified, no COPYVIO either. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removal