User talk:Lana Ryback

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 05:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

You must follow these page-specific restrictions until you have 500 edits and have been here 30 days
For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

Also, 500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time. These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Code Pink
Sorry, I was focussing not on the Palestine state thing but on the claim about critics have since accused - the source doesn't talk about critics, it's the JP itself being critical, and those accusations aren't reflected in the latest JP article I can find.

You can't edit any part of the article dealing with the Arab Israeli conflict. I started to again but reverted myself. You can however use the talk page. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I didn't know, since the page is not protected. I assume this IP vandal shouldn't be allowed to edit either on this sensitive topic. In any case, I checked JPost and it condemns Code Pink for working with major human rights violators. For example, it says "...This is the same regime that is complicit in the mass murder of innocent civilians in Syria and planned terrorist attacks on European soil. These are the tyrants that sponsor war in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria. A regime that threatens to wipe Israel off the map and enlists child soldiers in Yemen." Maybe there should be an additional attribution instead of saying just "critics". It could be attributed to the Jerusalem Post or Joshua S. Block, President and CEO of The Israel Project.--Lana Ryback (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Stab-in-the-back myth
You've been here a week and you're not only making your own decisions about overriding the 500/30 rule, now you're reverting the editorial judgment of a 15-year/250k editor on an article that I've just completely re-vamped and converted from a mess of duplicate information in different sections into one which has a coherent narrative. Please don't do that again, it was better the way I had it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? There's no need to be aggressive. I just moved the images below the titles to make the sections more tidy. Also bear in mind that You don't own Wikipedia.--Lana Ryback (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * They are tidy enough whether they are, thank you. They refer to both the section above and the section below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So why don't you explain that instead of WP:Biting the newbies? Anyway, I don't think images should cut titles in the middle.--Lana Ryback (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that people should put mayonnaise on hot dogs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Stab-in-the-back myth. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)