User talk:Mistamystery

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for your inspiring commitment and integrity for proper sourcing on the page From the river to the sea! Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

May I ask why my edit got reverted?

I do not understand what you meant by "relevance not correlated significantly enough to edit description". The article mentioned that it essentially claimed that Palestinian history does not exist, but would that be irrelevant since 'Historical negationism' is listed as a category? Clammodest (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. “other quotes associated with the wars and genocide“ is not specific (or NPOV) enough to warrant linking out to other quotes generally associated with the region and conflict.

How exactly do you see these quotes as being directly relevant and correlative to this page ? Mistamystery (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I appreciate it. Clammodest (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand how I was biased with my tag, even if I went through the article and thought that there would be some support to adding those categories (the article directly mentioning 'denialism of Palestinian history' was one of them) and I mentioned genocide due to the ICJ's ruling which declared it a genocide. Perhaps, it's a bit much. Clammodest (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

1. The ICJ ruling did not declare anything a genocide. Please provide what sources you refer to that claim this to be so.

2. Re: the talk post just made on the article in question, I see (some) of the confusion here. I (apparently) had a browser error and an edit on the wrong page went through. I've gone ahead and made the appropriate revert...please let me know if there's anything further you'd like to discuss. Mistamystery (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Aliyah into Zionism. 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) 15:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The text was adapted, not flatly copied from the section in question, and I linked to the source page in the edit (it now appears at the top of the section in question). Where applicable I’ll be sure to note/attribute going forward but otherwise but it’s pretty clear. Mistamystery (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of content

Mistamystery, can you acknowledge that adding a citation needed tag would have been the appropriate thing to do to address your doubts about the content which you instead unilaterally removed without discussion?

I'm sure you can understand that I'm concerned you will make similar harmful edits in the future, since you haven't acknowledged that this edit was erroneous or problematic.

I remind you that on WP:contentious topics we are explicitly told to edit "carefully and constructively" and to "err on the side of caution".

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Un-cited content can be removed at any time, as it should have never appeared in the article in the first place. If anything, it's resolving previous unilateral action to add content without appropriate respect to WP (and most especially contentious topic consideration and expectation). Mistamystery (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

But how do you know the content is uncited? It's just not cited inline, which is why adding a citation needed tag would have been the appropriate action. You can't simply remove any and all content that is not accompanied with inline citation. And even if you do decide to remove such content you should definitely be opening a discussion at the talk page — even if only to make the removal more visible so that others can review it. This is especially true of significant and/or sensitive content such as was removed here.

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You're assuming that a review of the entire page was not undertaken, which it was. And the non-presentation of any viable citations to argue restoration of the removed passages hammers the point home here pretty clearly. Points must be cited neutrally and in an encyclopedic fashion, or else they have no place on a wikipedia article.

Also - the purpose of in-line citation is to ensure there is direct support for any emphatic assertion at the location of assertion. No one should be expected to hunt through citations elsewhere on the page for the purpose of establishing if content is cited. Citations may be reinforced and re-used across articles for this express purpose. Mistamystery (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"You're assuming that a review of the entire page was not undertaken, which it was." Surely you didn't read through every single reference on which the page is based. Not that that would be a reasonable expectation of course, but that's what I'm referring to when I question your statement that the content wasn't sourced. Again, adding a citation needed tag would have been aproppriate and even constructive; but removing the content without at the very least leaving a message on the talk page about it is unacceptable.

But you're not addressing the points I've made and it's clear that you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that your removal and the way in which it was done (no discussion, poor edit summary) was inappropriate. It is reasonable then to suspect that you will likely make furher edits repeating these same mistakes. I'll be contacting an uninvolved admin to review this matter.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:BE BOLD. There is no obligation to pre-discuss edits, especially when there are no clear and obvious citations to back up naked claims on pages. You are misunderstanding general WP policy and respectfully ask you to expend your energy finding appropriate citations than jackhammering me here on my talk page and threatening to bring in admins.

Respectfully, you noted on the article talk page yourself that this general matter is getting to be a point of frustration, and I would recommend cooling down a bit before continuing this line of convo. Another editor on the talk page already backed up what I'm saying above and clarified standard WP editorial policy (as will any admin you deign to drag in here).

I am not trying to be brusque in any way, but our work here is not to argue points into being, or let emotional insistence overly guide our hands. The job is simply to be balanced, neutral and encyclopedic. If things are not cited appropriately, or fall into polemical slants, they are not supposed to be on pages until proper citations can be found. Mistamystery (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for review submitted here [1] -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Leaving this and this here for any passersby.

Peace MM Mistamystery (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Please do not remove sourced content as you did here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

As stated in the edit history, citations were deadlinked with no quotes (as well as inappropriately cited to begin with). Anyone is free to remove dead linked citations as much as they are equally welcome to restore them.

Did you restore a dead link or did you cite them appropriately as requested? Mistamystery (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

"Anyone is free to remove dead linked citations." This is not true at all. The title of the book was cited... A link is not required at all for such citations. You continue to be extremely reckless with removing content. Please just use tags and/or the article's talk page if you have doubts about any information. Especially when the information has an inline citation it is absolutely wrong to be removing it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, this is the third time you have hounded me on my talk page with an incomplete understanding of WP. I am civilly requesting you reset your tone and approach with me or any further behavior like this will be constituted as WP:HOUNDING and will be duly reported. I have been nothing but civil with you and have done nothing to deserve this treatment.

Secondly, a dead Amazon books link was hastily provided with no further information - including page of source or quote in context. The citation was not remotely properly executed and until the items are cited properly, the link (and accompanying assertions) should not be in any article. Per WP:CITE (as well as WP:BRD) this is completely within guidelines.

If anything, your hasty restoration of the link without even taking the time - in good faith - to correct the citation as requested in the edit, plus your equally hasty rush here to push this, could be constituted as a violation of WP:TENDENTIOUS.

As I said in the edit description - simply - please restore the deleted section with the appropriate citation. Instead of rushing here, you could have done that and that would have taken all of five minutes.

And otherwise, please consider WP:JDI and WP:AGF and let's start over. This is not that complicated, and I am not the problem. Mistamystery (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Canvassing

Posting at only one of the projects is considered a form of canvassing. You need to post the same at the Pal and Is/Pal projects in addition. Selfstudier (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier Noted. Happy to post at the other two as well. Mistamystery (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Belligerent occupation

See HCJ 1661/05, Gaza Beach Regional Council et al., v. Knesset of Israel et al., 59(2) PD, p. 481, 2005, p. 514, where the Court stated that the framework of belligerent occupation has always been accepted by the Court and by all governments that have held office in Israel since 1967. The petitioners – Israeli settlers who were required to leave their homes under a law giving effect to the disengagement plan from Gaza – argued that Gaza (before the disengagement) was not subject to a regime of belligerent occupation. The Court dismissed the argument out of hand (ibid., paras. 76–77). Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes but that was not the link or court case provided, which was not a declaration. Also, the link was dead, so if this is the appropriate case that affirms the statement, please replace it with a proper, live link. Mistamystery (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Your edit summary was untrue. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It was not. Affirmation of rules of engagement are not a declaration by court, and you are referring to a completely different court proceeding from a separate year. Mistamystery (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Take more care with what you say in your edit summaries. Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I stand by my summary, and the invocation of a completely separate case to justify the revert only proves my initial point further. I'm glad to know the declaration happened in *a separate case* and hope the citation has been updated appropriately. Mistamystery (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sigh, the source given in the article (not dead) says "The court’s judgment confirmed the applicability of the laws of belligerent occupation found in the 1907 Hague Regulations and 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention (whose humanitarian rules Israel undertook to apply to the Occupied Territories, notwithstanding its arguments regarding the Convention’s formal applicability) to questions concerning the legality of the barrier, alongside Israeli administrative law" Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I got a 404 and had to look it up on archive.org.

And yes I know what it says. And it may be semantics, but "confirmed the applicability of the laws of belligerent occupation" does not equate to ruling "that Israel is holding the West Bank under "belligerent occupation".

If there was a ruling affirming that, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, the above is a very specifically different matter. Mistamystery (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

If you were properly familiar with these things, you would know that the ISC has reaffirmed "belligerent occupations" on various occasions, no matter what nonsense you may read in other places. Israeli Supreme Court opinions on the West Bank Barrier#Israeli Supreme Court decision of 2004. Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)