User talk:Paddykumar

January 2022

Hello, I'm Levi OP. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, HBOS, 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. ― Levi_OP^Talk 18:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KPMG

Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and in particular for adding references! However, you should know that adding a bare URL is not ideal, and exposes the reference to linkrot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources. A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just URL copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between <ref>...</ref> tags, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation. Here's an example of a full citation using the {{cite web}} template to cite a web page:

Lorem ipsum<ref>{{cite web |title=Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac |publisher=Canon Inc |work=Ask a Question |date=2022 |url=https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART174839 |access-date=2022-04-02}}</ref> dolor sit amet.

which displays inline in the running text of the article as:

Lorem ipsum^[1] dolor sit amet.

and displays under References as:

1. ^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac". Ask a Question. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

If you've already entered one or more bare urls to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations; try the reFill tool, which can resolve some bare references semi-automatically. Once again, thanks for adding references to articles, and to avoid future link rot, please consider supplementing your bare URLs—creating full, inline citations with title, author, date, publisher, etc. More information can be found at Wikipedia:Inline citations. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from HBOS into KPMG. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert - biographies of living people

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Among other problems, this edit re-added controversial, unsourcwd material about living people into an article after said material had been challenged. The WP community takes a dim view of that, I believe. Newimpartial (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and in particular for adding references, as you did to Lloyds Banking Group! However, you should know that adding a bare URL is not ideal, and exposes the reference to linkrot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources. A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just URL copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between <ref>...</ref> tags, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation. Here's an example of a full citation using the {{cite web}} template to cite a web page:

Lorem ipsum<ref>{{cite web |title=Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac |publisher=Canon Inc |work=Ask a Question |date=2022 |url=https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART174839 |access-date=2022-04-02}}</ref> dolor sit amet.

which displays inline in the running text of the article as:

Lorem ipsum^[1] dolor sit amet.

and displays under References as:

1. ^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac". Ask a Question. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

If you've already entered one or more bare urls to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations; try the reFill tool, which can resolve some bare references semi-automatically. Once again, thanks for adding references to articles, and to avoid future link rot, please consider supplementing your bare URLs—creating full, inline citations with title, author, date, publisher, etc. More information can be found at Wikipedia:Inline citations. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paddykumar! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 13:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Irreversible Damage has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Your recent editing history at Mermaids (charity) 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Newimpartial (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Mermaids (charity)) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the block log, this partial block is to prevent continued edit warring and BLP violations (which I've already had to revision delete). — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation (second notice)

Your edit to Mermaids (charity) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:GENDERID

Please observe the sitewide consensus on Wikipedia embodied in MOS:GENDERID (which you seem to have ignored in this edit). Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy please re-read the full text of the source you cited, and pay careful attention to the pronouns used in the second paragraph. Then, before considering restoring again, open a discussion on the article's talk page because this seems very much UNDUE and yet another hit piece by The Times. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy, please see the discussion at Talk:Mermaids (charity)#Discussion on "rude images" reported by The Times, as it relates to the messages left here by Newimpartial and myself. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Paddy, how can you state that the employee's gender was not mentioned in the text you added, when you referred to rude images of himself? Are you perhaps unfamiliar with English-language pronouns? Newimpartial (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Notice

Your recent editing history at Mermaids (charity) 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Newimpartial (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are topic banned from any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated peoples, broadly construed, for twelve months.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paddykumar: please note that due to your topic ban, you are not allowed to discuss or edit any article or content relating to any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated peoples, broadly construed, which includes the comment you made on BLPN about an hour ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

You immediately violated the TBAN placed on you. I'm extending considerable rope here because your editing experience is relatively limited. If a further violation occurs after this block expires, please take this as your warning any future sanction will be more significant.

Let me know if you have any questions. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem Just wanted to notify you that Paddykumar has evaded the ban again here, to make an unencyclopedic edit to Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edit once the above block expired was to violate the same topic ban again by editing about the same person. This, coupled with a history of combative editing and edit summaries does not seem to be compatible with a collaborative project. As such I have blocked this account indefinitely - the first year of the block is to be treated as Arbitration Enforcement, the rest as a regular admin action. firefly ( t · c ) 21:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You had the opportunity to deal with the bias when I raised it, but you did not. Now the issue is now much, much more public. More fool you! Paddykumar (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Had you engaged in civil discussion at the talk page before you got topic banned, you might be eligible to continue to participate in the discussion. Your disruptive actions have necessitated you to be banned from gender-related topics entirely, and your refusal to stay away from the topic led to your account being blocked indefinitely. I strongly suggest that you not discuss any topic on your talk page other than your conduct and how you might improve it in the future, lest you lose access to edit even this page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://twitter.com/salltweets/status/1639480137833140225?s=20 Paddykumar (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We had the opportunity to diverge from reliable sources to introduce your biased POV when you raised it, but we did not, because of how wikipedia's sourcing requirements work. Now, the issue has been raised on twitter, changing absolutely nothing and doing nothing to magically dissappear the multiple reliable sources the article is based on. Like the other editors who've raised issues with the article and called it false, Keen has failed to point to a single untrue statement from it. A single ridiculous tweet with an insult thrown in does not affect Wikipedia at all. You have done nothing but briefly waste people's time and run headfirst into a completely avoidable block, more fool you! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your nasty little article is more widely known and Wiki's reputation is more damaged. So, no more fool you, and more fool Wiki, with knobs on! Paddykumar (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Star Mississippi 20:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]