User talk:LylaSand

Welcome[edit]

Hello, LylaSand, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revert violation[edit]

Hi, You reverted my edit twice, in violation of the Edit Notice on Khan Shaykhun chemical attack page. Please revert yourself so I don't have to report this to the Administrators' noticeboard. If someone else wants to revert my edit, that's fine, but you're not allowed to do it two times in a row. And for the record, I had already "seen" the talk page before making my edit. Thanks for your understanding.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, you may be blocked from editing. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erlbaeko is correct; the next time he adds a stupidly unreliable source to the article it should be reverted, not commented as unreliable in article space. VQuakr (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN notice[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#LylaSand is a topic about you at WP:AN. Please respond there if you want to.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation?[edit]

@BU Rob13: Do these edits not exceed 1RR?Terrorist96 (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That third edit reverted blatant vandalism. An irrelevant picture was added to blatantly pov push. LylaSand (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we don't count [the second one]~~that one~~, it's still a violation since less than 24 hours transpired between the first and third edit.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. I'll revert that second second revert. LylaSand (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still less than 24 hours between the first edit and third edit, but thanks for reverting the middle one.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That third edit reverted vandalism. Per the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Vandalism LylaSand (talk)

May 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for a 1RR violation on Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The third edit linked above does not revert obvious vandalism. Adding an image illustrating the text of an article is not obvious vandalism. It may be undue, but not all undue edits are vandalism, and almost all undue edits are not obvious vandalism. Note that WP:3RRNO only exempts obvious vandalism, not all vandalism. The guideline cites page blanking and adding profanities as examples of obvious vandalism, so the guideline is clearly not intended to cover more subtle things. I normally block 72 hours for 1RR violations, but this is a first offense and it appears to have resulted from confusion over exemptions, so I've blocked for a shorter period of time. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing deliberately false information[edit]

In this edit [1], you deliberately entered information that is false into the lede of the article. Major no-no. It's bad enough you are an SPA (and most likely a sock - edits such as these from the beginning [2]), if this sort of thing continues, I will make the case for you to be topic banned. You are on notice. Khirurg (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing for months before i created this account. This is my ip 68.199.221.23 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC) LylaSand (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also my information was not false. You just didn't read properly. LylaSand (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I think I read very properly indeed. Care to see what the admins think? And no, I didn't mean your IP. You know what I meant. Khirurg (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Care to see what the admins think?". Right. I have informed the appropriate admin about this discussion [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirurg. Re to this. Sorry, but I do not stalk you. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess it's just by accident you cam upon this discussion. You seem very interested in me lately. Maybe you should back off? Khirurg (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was looking at edits by LylaSand. There is nothing wrong here, although I can stop watching if she asks. My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douma_chemical_attack#Media_investigations

you deliberately made a false interpretation of the content quoted. When I introduced the literal, you again condensed it in a very distorting manner. Why are you doing this? I think this is edit warring! It seems not to be the first time you show this behaviour. --BestHealthGuide (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]