User talk:B103N48

Welcome![edit]

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

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]

B103N48, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

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]

Quality standards[edit]

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]

May 2020[edit]

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]

June 2020[edit]

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]

Edit-warring[edit]

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

June 2020[edit]

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]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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]

Canvassing[edit]

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]

Sir as I was saying, why are you getting mad at others when they only told you how to ask others nicely and respectfully. Also why don't you use the talk page as there was a discussion going on currently about the upcoming films. Please try to comply with other editors respectfully and politely do not try to be rude to them and also do not try to break policies with your constant reverts of the page. GODUBNATION (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with slashes is...[edit]

Hi there, these changes[2][3] are not quite in line with community editing norms or quality standards, and I'll explain why: Slashed content has polluted thousands of Indian entertainment articles, and they are a real problem. One of the main problems, is that they introduce ambiguities. Example:

Giaa Manek/Rubina Dilaik as Jeannie/Jenu/Chutki/Gita/Rajjo Ji/Roopa/Mrs.Khanna

Are these two actors playing one character with multiple nicknames? Did one actor change their name? Are two actors playing eight characters? Are these characters reincarnations? Impostors? Septuplets? Who knows. In your edit "Niranjan/Avinash Ashok as Thirunavukkarasu Palaniswamy", does that mean that two actors played the character intermittently at the same time, or that one actor replaced another? We can't let people interpret what the slashes mean, which is part of why WP:SLASH discourages their use.

Additionally, per WP:TVCAST, we should be writing complete character descriptions, which nobody ever wants to do in Indian articles. It's unfortunate, but it feels at times that there are legions of people who just want to promote ignorance over information. (I'm not saying that's your goal, but I have a whole page about it.) Slashes don't encourage people to write clear, cohesive character descriptions, they just encourage people to use overly-simplified methods of communication and this is really holding back our Indian articles from delivering useful academic information. And, per WP:TVCAST, we shouldn't just be focussing on in-universe content, we should be providing readers with sufficient real-world information, so they can understand what happened to cast members. If a cast member played a character from YYYY–YYYY, then we should say that. We should also explain why there was a cast change if that information exists. A dispute with the producers? Unhappiness with the direction a character was heading? That's all part of an academic study of a TV show. Wikipedia isn't a fansite. If you care about the quality of Indian articles, and building articles that are of true academic value, then I hope you'll please keep these points in mind moving forward. Your kind consideration is appreciated, please. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You stupid asshole, I have already warned you not to interfer with my actions or advice me.. You are not my teacher whom should I learn from.. Stop following my edits and better mind your own stupid business.. Everyone uses slashes, just go and edit the entire wikipedia server wherever slashes are seen.. Y r u always having problem only with my edits??. Stupid B103N48 (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To address your questions, I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia, which was previously pointed out to you. It is my responsibility to uphold community standards and educate users on proper editing. And really, since this is a community editing project, any experienced editor in the community is able to educate you on community procedures. If you're not comfortable with this, perhaps you should find another hobby. Further, I have almost 18,000 articles on my watchlist, the majority of which are related to Indian entertainment subjects. So you are not, by any stretch, an area of my focus. If I happen to see an edit that you make, and it is not in keeping with editing norms, then you should expect that I will contact you again. As for the slashes and your comment "Everyone uses slashes, just go and edit the entire wikipedia server wherever slashes are seen." The slashes are spreading like a virus across articles, and if editors keep carelessly propagating them to new articles, then every Indian entertainment article will be crap. I aspire for better. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If my editing troubles you, You can very well go and edit according to ur own principles. U don't have any rights to message me personally thinking as u are the owner of wikipedia B103N48 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again you're incorrect, since any editor is allowed to contact another with legitimate comments about building an encyclopedia. This is a community project, not the B103N48 project, and editing Wikipedia is not a right, it's a privilege. We have policies, guidelines, community standards, etc. If you aren't willing to be part of a community and adhere to what far more experienced editors say, you're going to very quickly find yourself very unwelcome to edit here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:B103N48. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Czello 17:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 17:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to speak to people in this way on Wikipedia, which you should have known since you have been blocked for personal attacks before. Longer block next time. Bishonen | tålk 17:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
This comment just lost you the ability to edit this talk page for the duration of your block. If your attitude does not change when this block expires, you should expect your remaining time as a Wikipedia editor to be very short. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More disruptive edits[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Magarasi. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Diff: [4] Again you are, with no reasonable explanation, adding sloppy, poorly-formatted content into this article. I'm not sure what your objection is to full sentences and complete thoughts is, but dumbing down the content doesn't make the article better. Further, you removed maintenance templates without resolving the issue, and your changes contravene WP:TVCAST, which prefers a full history of the cast with new entrants at the bottom, not at the top, the way you've arranged it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was nowhere mentioned to list the replaced character at the bottom.. Also it basic common sense to list the cast member who is currently doing that particular role at first. Priority shouldnot be given for a cast member who left the series, that should be at the end. Quote from wikipedia policies where it has been mentioned...

Wikipedia policies clearly says only New entrants should be placed at the bottom of the cast list.. Not the replacement characters.. As a senior editor You dont even know the difference between new entrant char in the Serial with cast members replacing an existing member..

Pls learn properly before advicing others!!! B103N48 (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only new cast members entering the serial should be at the bottom.. Not the replacement characters.. B103N48 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) Please properly indent your posts to make it clear who's saying what. 2) I don't understand what you're saying in your response, since statements like "Wikipedia policies clearly says only New entrants should be placed at the bottom of the cast list" conflicts with other aspects of your comment, as well as real-life behaviour like this edit (which would be considered edit-warring, by the way) where you put the new cast member at the top, and the replaced cast members at the bottom, in bizarre reverse-chronological order. Why is Mithra Kurian at the bottom of the list if she was the first Aishwarya? That is the opposite of what the community wants. In fact, per WP:TVCAST, if Niranjani Ashok is one of the newer cast members to be introduced, she would usually belong waaaaay at the bottom of the Recurring cast list. Same with Vaishnavi Arulmozhi and Avinash Ashok". The fact that we have that indented bullet list was a local solution to the persistent problem of editors slapping names together sloppily with slashes, like "Niranjani Ashok/Nithya Das/Mithra Kurian, which is confusing as hell, because it could mean many different things, which I explained to you before.

Per WP:TVCAST, which I'm sure you've read, since I've linked to it so many times, The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. So your statement "it basic common sense to list the cast member who is currently doing that particular role at first" is absolutely the opposite of what the community wants.

You've also again removed the maintenance templates without resolving the issues, i.e, by telling readers when the cast members were replaced, which is again disruptive. I'm sure you can understand why an encyclopedia would want to tell readers when something happened, right? Additionally, there is no need to repeat the full character name over and over again. As for the remainder of your comment, if appears like you're trying to insult me, but since your response is confusing and you seem to not actually understand what the community wants, your insult didn't quite land. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have gone through WP:TVCAST. I will try to explain, my understanding of the above article, since you told u couldn't receive what I actually meant.

1) In WP:TVCAST, it's nowhere mentioned about the order for replaced cast members.

2) It only mentioned as, new cast will be added at the end. ( I completely agree with that, As the cast member coming only on the 500th episode should be at the end whereas cast member from 1st episode should be at the top.). I assume new entrant means, cast who are being added new to the serial in addition to the old cast.

3) But incase of an old cast which is replaced by a new cast, they can't be considered as new entrants since they are replacing the place of the existing member.. So that order won't work here..

4) Hence, it's wise to list the current cast member who is doing that particular role as present at first. ( ex. Niranjani ashok is currently doing the role of aiswarya. Whoever sees it, they know only niranjani is doing that at present.. If we put the old cast member at present., it would like that they r doing at present. That y I have made those changes.)

5) Atlast, I have argued on Suntv Serials wiki page. Saying serials should be listed on timeslot basis, but the consensus reached was to list it on alphabetical order., which I hav agreed.. But sadly now the page serials listing is not alphabetical, someone with a random IP has changed it again to timeslot ordering. My question is why none bothered about those edits?? Why senior editors are only cornering my edits alone.. There are also many editors who do disruptive editing( as I mentioned, someone has changed the serials order of listing after the consensus has arrived).. But no one seems to care..

6) I shouted out not because my edits shouldn't be reviewed by anyone., but because only my edits are always cornered.

Hope it goes to everyone!!!! B103N48 (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you are finally engaging in calm discussion. Thank you. Please note that the proper way to format indentations, is by using colons, with increasing numbers of colons for each new comment. Please look at the page formatting and notice what I've done to format this discussion. Now going through your points:

1–3) In WP:TVCAST, it's nowhere mentioned about the order for replaced cast members. That specific issue is not addressed, but we can't write a rule for every possible thing we experience in the wild. The guidelines say very broadly and clearly "with new cast members being added to the end of the list." A new cast member, regardless of who they play, technically goes at the bottom of the list, because we organise the entire list chronologically. That's been the case for years. It doesn't matter whether they are replacing someone else or not. You seem to be confusing cast with characters. And if you want clarification from someone who is not me, feel free to open a discussion at WikiProject Television and ask them how they would organise it.

4) Your proposal of listing the new cast member first, is not consistent with WP:TVCAST, as I keep explaining. Wikipedia is a historical document, not a fan website. We're not here as a supplement to the TV show, we're here to explain what the show is and who has been on it. I doubt that anybody at WikiProject Television would agree with you that the current actor should be placed first. For example, look at this discussion, where I was having trouble figuring out how to indicate the starring cast lineup in the intro ("lede") section of Aladdin - Naam Toh Suna Hoga, after the actor who plays Jasmine was replaced. In my question you can see that I asked if we should just indicate the current line-up. Both of the suggestions the other users provided, wanted us to present clear information bout both actors, and they are listed chronologically. So no, the community doesn't give preferential treatment to the most recent actor to have a role, it wants the content arranged chronologically. But you are free to ask them yourself.

5–6) These points have more to do with your ANI case, which you should probably answer there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

noted(1-4) !!!! B103N48 (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you go to the ANI to plead your case not on your individual talk page as there will be more editors that can see the case. SP013 (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Magarasi, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SP013 (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SP013 (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did here. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Czello 18:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 ~~~~}}. —valereee (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024[edit]

Hello, I'm CNMall41. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of programs broadcast by Sun TV (India), 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. Thank you. CNMall41 (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello sir, future information only needs a source. (Personal attack removed) the show has ended cant u see suntv? did the show is still airing?? how come u keep that in current serial list, go see the suntv and sunnxt for source.. B103N48 (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:B103N48. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Czello ^(music) 11:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

where is the attack as u said ?? i couldnt see anything .. its an explanation B103N48 (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here you said U idiot. — Czello ^(music) 13:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:CNMall41, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. It was fun. CNMall41 (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, The user is block ivading, here is the new sockpuppet account: @Munthanam. Grabup (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]