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)[reply]

Hi Mistamystery. I'm seeing this text inside the article:

from the river to the sea – [Palestine] is an Arab Islamic land that [it] is legally forbidden from abandoning any inch of, and the Israeli presence in Palestine is a null existence, which is forbidden by law to recognize

However, a Google Translate version doesn't read anything like what you're writing. Obviously it would be very foolish of me to argue with your translation if you speak Arabic and I don't. So I want to ask, is this translation from you or from somewhere else?

Thanks much.Stix1776 (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there was a link copy error (or someone swapped out the URL)

This is the appropriate link - I’ll repair it in the citation now. Good catch.

https://www.aljazeera.net/2004/10/03/حركة-الجهاد-الإسلامي-3 Mistamystery (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This makes sense now.Stix1776 (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you suggest people look at the talk page, when no case had been made there? Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I started a talk page item immediately following my edit. There is no WP:ONUS just because one editor says so without attestation or citation.

Requesting you undo your recent revert and refer the conversation to the talk page post I just made so we can hash it out. Mistamystery (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS is on those waiting to make a change, not on those undoing it. Also your edit was uncited. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn’t an existing citation saying that Peleset and Palestine (two distinct concepts and words already) were definitionally the same thing. My point was already reflected in the body of the existing article. Mistamystery (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Leaving this and this here for any passersby.

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