User talk:TheLFC

Australian election edits

Why were you changing all instances of "antisemitism" to "judeophobia"? GraziePrego (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked temporarily from editing Wikipedia. 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.

—Cryptic 17:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

We need edit summaries with your edits

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the Talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing India3 to India in pushpin maps

Why have you been changing lots of articles so that the pushpin maps use "India" instead of "India3"? "India3" displays less of other countries to the north of India - i.e. it does not waste space on the page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message.

I'd like to clarify why I have been replacing India location map 3.png (or "India3") with India location map.svg:

1. "India3" violates Wikipedia's core content policy of neutrality

According to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, controversial topics — especially long-standing geopolitical disputes like Kashmir — must be presented fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias. The "India3" map:

Falsely depicts all of Kashmir as being under Indian control, despite the reality that large portions are administered by Pakistan (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan) and China (Aksai Chin).
Contradicts what is accepted by the international community, including the UN, National Geographic, and CIA World Factbook, all of whom show these regions as disputed or under partial control.
Therefore, its use implies a partisan position — one that only India officially holds, and is not recognized by most countries or neutral international bodies.

2. The India SVG map shows the de facto situation and follows global cartographic practices

The India SVG map:

Reflects de facto administrative boundaries, showing disputed areas as such, in line with United Nations cartographic practices and other global standards.
Is used across dozens of internationally neutral publications, maps, and encyclopedias.
Thus, it adheres to the neutral representation policy expected of Wikipedia.

3. SVG is technically superior to PNG

Per Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload:

“An SVG image scales to different sizes far better than an equivalent PNG. Therefore, for images that consist largely or entirely of polygons, lines, and curves (national flags, road signs, etc.), SVG is the preferred format.”

Using "India.svg" ensures:

Infinite scalability without pixelation.
Easier editing, localization, and updates.
Better load performance on high-resolution displays and mobile.

4. "Wasted space" is not a valid reason to override policy

The idea that "India3" is better because it "does not waste space at the top" is:

Subjective and arbitrary. No image space is “wasted” when showing relevant international boundaries and surrounding geography.
Not a Wikipedia guideline. The Manual of Style and Map conventions prioritize accuracy, not cropping convenience.

If image dimensions are the concern, the solution is to adjust the viewport or zoom of the existing SVG, not to switch to a geopolitically biased PNG.

TheLFC (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Mikewem (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Please stop reverting appropriate edits as vandalism, when they are clearly not vandalism. 2600:1017:B831:E8F4:ADA9:8EAD:9575:84C4 (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:SelfStarter2 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SelfStarter2. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]