User talk:Mistamystery

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. Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Tagging concerns and CPUSH
There are at least two articles, Gaza Strip famine and Weaponization of antisemitism where you have improperly used tags to push concerns about article titles, which is completely inappropriate and which you have been informed about previously. RMs are used to deal with article titles, not accuracy tags and not neutrality tags.

This apart, on the question of improper tagging, at the Weaponization article, you are adding tags in a disruptive manner and refusing to address the tag concerns as required as well as resorting to walls of text, wikilawyering, making threats and casting aspersions on the motives of other editors.

I am pretty much at the point of taking your behavior to AE, last warning on this. Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This obviously has reached a certain boil and obviously would like to do what I can do alleviate any concerns.
 * I will concede that there was an accidental double use of tagging (which you yourself helpfully remedied and I appreciate the guidance, now as always), but this is the first time I have stepped into taking larger initiative on RM and tagging in this capacity and, please be assured, the double tagging was an innocent mistake (which was quickly reverted when pointed out). However, I must dispute any assertion that the placement of the general tag on GSF was either disruptive or improper, given that the issues with the article were sourced and pointed out, with numerous other editors in support. The lede was adjusted (by another editor) to satisfactorily address the issues pointed out, and the tag subsequently removed as a result.
 * As for Weaponization, I will address tag concerns specifically as newly requested as of yesterday. The tag has been up for a week pointing to pre-existing concerns and editors opposing the tag were not asking for itemized rebuttal or counter-sources until yesterday. I have no problem doing as requested, when requested, and have not refused doing so. The requests have changed and I will happily abide.
 * Regarding potential aspersions, I may have been too spicy in a single response to what I felt (and still feel) were unfair and inaccurate aspersions being cast toward me. I will revert out of excess caution. Mistamystery (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: the comments have been reverted, and the itemized rebuttal to extant tag concerns (as requested) is incoming. Mistamystery (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)