Hello, B103N48, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place ((Help me)) on this page and someone will drop by to help. Sam Sailor -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B103N48! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim of my edit being stupid is a foolish one. Wikipedia follows certain standards. As per MOS:TV and WP:NOTVGUIDE, list should follow certain order like alphabetical and not messed up random manner and is not a TV guide to follow time slot arrangements. I just improved the quality of the article by partially arranging in alphabetical order. Please do read and follow Wikipedia polices before accusing anyone unnecessary. The template in Sun TV program list page is itself specifies the article being in a low quality standard which I tried to improve by a neat alphabetical arrangement. Just it is been in a certain style for years doesn't make it a right version. Your justification is totally wrong. Noobie anonymous (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a simple reference, Indian TV channels program list articles like List of programs broadcast by Star Plus, List of programs broadcast by Star Vijay they are neatly arranged in alphabetical order with specifications of year of broadcast which satisfies Wikipedia quality standards. Noobie anonymous (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All those above links nu different channels are edited unwantedly by you.. So don't quote ur editing as an example. B103N48 (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B103N48, actually, it wasn't. Look at this revision which is where the current format and layout was introduced - that wasn't done by Noobie anonymous, but by Joshuamoshua. Please stop personalizing this, discuss the edits on the article talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.. The version showed there list serials according to the time order with information on episode count.. Which is done by Joshuamoshua.

Only Noobie anonymous changed to alphabetical sorting with loss of information on episode. I have cross checked before actually discussing. Don't blame others.  B103N48 (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the television related Indian articles are in a totally wrong and collapsed format especially Indian television based articles other than Hindi language. Those other languages including Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Bengali, Marathi,etc are in a pathetic version which any well versed editor would remove easily from Wikipedia as per their policies. It doesn't take time for me to report those everything and delete those articles for the same. I believe that they too can be improved to some extent of atleast providing minimum proper information with reliable references which made me to fix the issues in it. I have seen that there are no proper and active editors for those articles compared to Hindi language television related articles. It is quite easy to establish most of the Hindi television series with proper references and notability, but not for other languages compared to it. Trying to achieve a better standard and notability of those articles is my aim for which I also focus on other languages sometimes. If you think episode count is necessary you can add it. Why should you edit war for that. Please use your words wisely with a polite approach and not accusing unnecessarily. Noobie anonymous (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of programs broadcast by Sun TV (India) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please don't keep reverting, you can end up blocked. Please follow WP:BRD and DISCUSS the changes on the ARTICLE talk page, not editor talk pages. Ravensfire (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting the talk page discussion, I've left a response and am also looking into some other examples for ideas. Ravensfire (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Cyphoidbomb. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:List of Tamil films of 2020 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Diff: [1] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: The incivil comment was not removed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit absolutely constitutes edit-warring, which will not be tolerated at Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  N.J.A. | talk 15:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note This block is due to evidence of the user being unable to take a step back from a recent edit dispute. The recent revert without clear consensus is disruptive, though I felt the biggest concern is the (not completely unexpected) loss of civility in recent comments, such as this diff. Saying that, if the user wishes to address the concern and edit earlier, then I’m not opposed to a review to reduce or lift the block, assuming these concerns are worked out. All the best, N.J.A. | talk 16:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this and this, while you are allowed to invite other users to discussions, you need to do it neutrally so as not to influence them with whatever your personal bias is with regard to the dispute. This is called canvassing, and it is not acceptable. A version that would be acceptable is, "There is a discussion at ___ that might interest you, since I notice you have edited Tamil film articles before." Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you better mind your own business than to comment on my actions B103N48 (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin and long established editor, Cyphoidbomb has every right to provide feedback and warn you where your actions are contrary to our policies and guidelines. These rules apply to everyone. I see no effort on your talk page to discuss your actions leading to the recent block. After the block you engaged in further disruptive behaviour, for which you were warned and are clearly dismissing. You are warned not to revert your edits to the article List of Tamil films of 2020, partially or fully, until clear consensus is established on the article talk page. Failure to abide by this restriction will result in an immediate block by me or an uninvolved admin without warning, which may be for an indefinite period (or until you demonstrate a willingness to edit in accordance with the rules, like everyone else)., N.J.A. | talk 11:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]