User talk:Tombah/Archive 1

Changing West Jerusalem to Jerusalem is a violation of the sanctions mentioned above
Motza is in West Jerusalem, so changing that is a violation of the sanctions. And you shouldn't make any edits at all relevant to the Arab-Israeli conflict at the moment. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Doug, what are the rules of using West Jerusalem instead of Jerusalem?

Thank you for introducing me to Musakhan
I shall definitely be making this soon. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just made it yesterday, it's terrific. Highly recommended.

Copyright violation at Birzeit University
Your edit to Birzeit University has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. DanCherek (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

ARBPIA violation at Birzeit University, copyright problems and a temporary block
You've been told you shouldn't be making such edits. I'm also concerned about your lack of response to the copyright issues. You know about article talk pages but I'm wondering if you've discovered your own. To ensure that these issues don't continue, I'm giving you an indefinite block. That just means you're blocked until you start responding here and show that you understand the issues of copyright and editing in the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have no idea why this edit is considered a violation. Where can I learn more about ARBPIA? A mentor could help. All I was trying to do is to give a more balanced account of the latest events.

January 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for not responding on talk page to concerns about copyvio and ARBPIA violations, may not have found talk page yet. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Users are not permitted to remove declined unblock requests. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I also note that you are asking where you can learn more about ARBPIA. I can't understand this at all. An "alert" was posted to your talk page on December 27th by User:Huldra. This included the statement "Please note the 30/500 rule; editors must be registered for at least 30 days, and have at least 500 edits in order to edit in the IP (=Israel-Palestine)  area, cheers,". You deleted that today as well as User:Diannaa's copyright warning. If you don't understand why this edit is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict then I'm concerned about your ability to edit in the area. The same goes for changing from West Jerusalem to Jerusalem.
 * But I've got an almost bigger worry. I said you hadn't discovered your talk page and you thanked me for helping you discover it. But I was wrong, you discovered it on January 3rd when you edited it. Doug Weller  talk 13:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Doug, let me explain: Today was in fact the first time I learned what user page should look like, after seeing yours and some few others. I learned that most people delete older messages to keep the talk page up to date, and this is why I deleted older messages.
 * About the Birzeit University edit - Of course I understand how the page is related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but what I don't get is why my edit is considered a violation of the rules. I was trying to be respectful for the two sides and balance the account, as the previous description of it seemed pretty unbalanced. It almost looks like the Israel military stormed the place for no real reason, but there was a real reason behind it, as Palestinian militants held rallies there and called for the continuation of suicide bombings against Israelis (like me). I wish it wasn't true, but the YouTube link I added depicts that perfectly. When I entered the page mentioned by Huldra, I didn't find specific instructions there what is okay and what's not when editing a page related to the conflict, and I still don't get why the Birzeit edit was a violation. I could use a more exact guidance - what are the rules?
 * As of the talk page - well, that's correct. The last edit you saw is surely me, but it was using my mobile phone, trying to understand what to do with the notification I got. I admit it took me a while to understand the Talk Page dynamics - I thought of the messages as notifications (like in Facebook), not something that should be answered separately. About copyright violations - after reading the copyright violation guide, I understand that what I was doing (changing some wording but still using the general structure used by the original reference) is wrong.
 * Again, I kindly ask for unblock. As I hope you can see, I have contributed lots of articles to Wikipedia in the last two months since I joined. Most are related to Biblical archaeology, Palestinian culinary, world history, religion and more. Please have some good faith in me... that's all I ask (except some clearer instructions for ARBPIA. :)).


 * Please read my post above this one - I'm not clear what part you don't understand about your restrictions at the moment against editing in the area. You also haven't responded about copyright. Don't forget to sign with 4 tildes, eg ~ Doug Weller  talk 10:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * About ARBPIA - do we have a clearer guide, "Do" and "Don't do", about the Israel/Palestinian conflict? Where can I find it? Regarding the copyright issues - truth is I thought that a superficial change of words will suffice, but after reading the guide, I acknowledge my mistake... I understand the two options are: (1) Rewrite the quote completely using my own words; (2) employing quotation. Tombah (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * First, before you edit an article that might be in some way related to the conflict, read the top of the talk page. If it mentions discretionary sanctions it may also mention restrictions such was WP:1RR. When you edit an article, make sure you read anything at the top of the edit window. Don't change sourced text unless you have checked the source - editors mess around with the words Israel, Canaan, Palestine and Levant without seeing what the source says - we follow the source. Don't use your own opinions of what something should say, again, we use sources. Make sure you've read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Be civil, but I don't see that as a problem for you. Do you understand my comments on West Jerusalem and why your edit at Birzeit University was related to the conflict? And finally, you should not edit articles related to the subject or sections of articles related to the subject until you have 500 edits. In fact some articles you actually can't edit. Any more questions? Doug Weller  talk 14:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I've read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, thank your for that. Yes, I do understand your comments about Jerusalem and Birzeit, and I promise I won't edit any article related to the Israel-Palestinian conflict until I reach the 500 edits mark. You have my word. About Jerusalem - Full disclosure: I'm living in Jerusalem and personally I'm having trouble with having to specify which part of the city I'm referring to at each point (putting ideology aside, as it is not professional - I naturally don't think that way, especially when describing distances from the city as I did on the Solomon's Temple page regarding the Motza Temple. And we all pay taxes to the same municipal authorities). In any case, if these are the guidelines Wikipedia decided to adopt, I'd do everything I can to follow them. I admit I'm not sure I fully understood the point about my latest edit at Birzeit University: Now, I understand it was a copyright violation, and that Memri isn't considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. I do feel I have to stress the point that the video I used as reference is indeed real, and I thought that expanding that paragraph to include the Israeli POV is necessary for assuring the neutrality of the article (I think the current description of recent events present a much Pro-Palestinian POV). So, here's my last question: except the copyright issues, editing the article before reaching 500 edits, and the MEMRI reliability: how could I add the Israeli POV to the article without violating ARBPIA. tombah (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say that if an event is significant enough to be included, you need several mainstream sources. But otherwise it would probably have been ok if you had 500 edits. I'm unblocking you now. Doug Weller  talk 17:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! tombah (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dura-Europos synagogue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parthian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Minor edits
Hi Tom. Please read WP:Minor as isn’t minor. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Doug, I will definitely have a look. Thanks! tombah (talk)


 * This is not minor either. Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

City of David (historic)
This edit removed "The prevailing theory in mainstream scholarship, is that even if the kings David and Solomon existed, they were monarchs of a tiny backwater." and replaced it with "led some scholars to believe that even if the kings David and Solomon existed, they were chieftains of a tiny backwater.". Edit mistakes can and do occur but when taken together with your edit summary It is incorrect to claim that most scholars today believe that David and Solomon were backwater chieftains; it is hard to see how this edit amounts to anything other than source misrepresentation. The Haaretz source is perfectly clear on the point and in WP we do not alter sources to fit our personal opinions. What one can do is present alternative sourcing that is contradictory. Since you are a relatively new editor I am going to fix the misrepresentation and overlook the lapse on this occasion with every expectation that there will be no recurrence. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Selfstudier, the true nature of the Kingdom of David and Solomon as described in the Hebrew Bible is one of the most highly contested subjects in today's biblical archeology. I invite you to check out the United Monarchy article, it really explains the debate in great detail, with the different points raised by each side. The Haaretz article brings the story of one scholar from the Tel Aviv University who stands against the prevailing view in that university, which is widely known as "Biblical minimalism". There are many other articles and books that put forward the exactly opposite claim, which is commonly associated with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which has been putting forward that claim for years. In fact, in recent years, recent archaeological discoveries such as Khirbet Qeiyafa reinforces the theory put forward by the Hebrew University, which claim that David's kingdom was much larger and stronger than thought to be by biblical minimalists. To sum up, there's no real consensus regarding this issue today. I'll add few more references to the City of David (historic) article so the different views are better represented. tombah (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The need is for sources to be accurately represented. Haaretz make the claim directly and I do not see in the article that they attribute that view to Tel Aviv University. The article later mentions a dispute between scholars at Tel Aviv so I suspect matters are not as simple as you say. In fact I have little interest in the ins and outs of this debate just that it was me who added the Haaretz material in the first place as balance for what was in the article at the time and so I noticed your edit. If it is as you say it is, then it should be a straightforward matter to accurately source current material that spells out (the sources need to actually say it) the relative prevalence of different views. I might have a look myself if I get a chance.Selfstudier (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Israel into History of ancient Israel and Judah. 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.,. 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 Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Talk:Al-Khader, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Doug Weller HI, could you please have a look at my post on your talk page? would really appreciate your answer with how to deal with that cases. I think that recent edits of the Sebastia, Nablus article showcase that the issue best. Tombah (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at that post, I disagree, the first problem at the Sebastia article is that following a revert by one editor, simply reinserting the reverted content with an edit summary that translates to "I'm right" is not the best way to proceed. It is also not correct to bold a place name that is not an alternate name, only a name from ancient times. While you may argue that the other editor was POV in reverting, I don't see his action as being any more POV than your own for the same reason in reverse. Content disputes need to be dealt with at article talk pages in the first instance and should it go beyond a content dispute, then there are procedures for that too. Selfstudier (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

You say something like "What do you have against ancient Jewish history?" again I promise you I will report it and ask for a topic ban. You don't get to make implications like that. Read and internalize WP:NPA and WP:AVOIDYOU. Youve already been informed of the discretionary sanctions, further edit-warring or personal attacks will bring an enforcement request.  nableezy  - 15:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Israeli settlements article
Your most recent edit summary is false. The statement "excluding the United States, which has recognized Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem and the Golan Heights" is untrue. Although it is natural for people to hold a POV, I frankly find the pattern of your editing in general to lack objectivity nor is this the first time that you have allowed your personal beliefs to hold sway over sources. If there is a recurrence, I will request a topic ban.

Further, you have applied an unbalanced tag following a consensus against you in the matter of an alternate name for settlements. As the tag states, it is designed to prompt the adding of neglected viewpoints which doesn't apply to the argument you are making, what viewpoint has been neglected? Perhaps you intended some other tag?

I have reverted your recent editing until such time as you can attain a consensus for it in article talk. In general it is a bad idea to make substantive changes to the leads of important IP articles absent such consensus.

Thank you for your attention. Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Selfstudier what makes the aforementioned statement untrue? The United States did in fact recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Have a look at United States recognition of the Golan Heights as part of Israel. It almost seems like you accuse me for a lack of objectivity while rejecting the actual facts. Regarding the template, it was already pointed out by another user that this is a case of WP:UNDUE. To be honest, it is starting to feel like a violation of WikiBullying directed personally at my contributions to Wikipedia. Tombah (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel suggests at best that you do not understand the material you are editing. Selfstudier (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, you are personally attacking me instead of explaining how you view things in a constructive and kind way. If this continues, I'm afraid I'll have to ask someone to have a look on this. Tombah (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are also now in breach of the 1R restriction.Selfstudier (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Selfstudier,I think you should stop personally attacking Tombah. Let's keep this conversation as constructive as we can. What are your arguments against mentioning the US recognition of the Golan Heights as part of Israel? Eladkarmel (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Gulan is under conflict area.pls update your information.we shouldnt get a side for battle. Ert141 (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

1R breach
I am doing you the courtesy of waiting for your self revert at the Israeli settlements article, failing which I will report the matter. Here are the relevant diffs.

Revision as of 21:52, 13 March 2022 Added "excluding the United States"

Revision as of 00:07, 14 March 2022 Reverted by Onceinawhile.

Revision as of 08:40, 14 March 2022 Readded.

Revision as of 09:48, 14 March 2022 Reverted by Selfstudier.

Revision as of 10:10, 14 March 2022 Readded.

Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Is expanding an article, and adding citations considered a revert? I haven't figured that out, so if that is true, I owe you my apologies. In any case, I do not understand what this is all about - the US recognition of the Golan Heights as an Israeli territory is a fact. I wish you would stop your personal attacks against me. I'm a moment away from reporting that matter. Tombah (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You have added the material "excluding the United States" three times, twice undoing the actions of other editors inside a 24 hour period. Kindly self revert, I won't ask again.
 * The separate issue with your editing is your obvious misread of the situation regarding Jerusalem. Recognizing a capital is not a recognition of sovereignty and the US clearly stated so.
 * Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding Jerusalem, this is indeed my bad. The Golan Heights reference was added later as a correction, not as a revert. And again, I ask you to stop attacking me. The language you are using here is extremely aggressive and aubsive. This should stop now. Tombah (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just self revert as asked Shrike (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Tombah. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)
It appears that you copied or moved text from Zionism to Jerusalem. 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.,. 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 Copying within Wikipedia. DanCherek (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, @DanCherek, I'll make sure I attribute it to the original contributor on next time Tombah (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

DYKs
If you create a new article you may showcase an interesting fact from it on main page through WP:DYK process. If you need help let me know Shrike (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

1RR
You've violated the 1RR at Palestinians, kindly self-revert or you may be reported to arbitration enforcement and blocked or topic-banned. Also, this method of repeatedly trying to revert your changes in without consensus is edit-warring, regardless of if you revert once a day or once a week. That is likewise disruptive editing and may be reported to arbitration enforcement. When you make an edit that is reverted the next step is to seek consensus on the talk page, not simply restore your edit. Regardless of the wider editing MO issue, the 1RR at Palestinians should be self-reverted otherwise a report will be made.  nableezy  - 16:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, please tell me, how did I violate 1RR? Not sure I got you. Tombah (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, not sure how it happened but I didn't see you reverted me earlier. I'm self-reverting... and by the way, what is exactly the issue in dispute? Tombah (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We can discuss that at Talk:Palestinians further.  nableezy  - 17:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

1RR
The removal of any mention of storming from the lead is your first revert, your second was the revert of my revert. If you do not self-revert I will be seeking sanctions at AE. This method of enforcing your preferred framing through reverts is disruptive and it is edit-warring.  nableezy  - 19:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  nableezy  - 19:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The scope of the article has been the clashes from the first day. Drsmoo (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The scope has been the storming of the mosque, as made evident by the title and the lead from the start of the article.  nableezy  - 19:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The scope has been the clashes, as made evident by the content of the article. That is also the scope of the preponderance of reliable sources discussing the event. Drsmoo (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
This edit is tendentious, including the reinserting of material previously removed for having failed verification as well as mass deletion of reliable sources and attendant information. Since edit warring is not my thing, I have tagged the article and opened a talk page discussion about it.

The edit has much in common with this one about which I warned the editor in question that any repetition would result in an AE filing and said warning is hereby repeated for your benefit. Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing your opinion. Frankly, I am of the exact opposite opinion. The lead was already written with a tendentious mindset, and I believe my latest edit, in addition to the one mentioned above, were aimed at fixing that imbalance. I see no point in explaining the religious significance of the site in the lead. Anyway, if you insist on referring to the site's religious importance, I ask you not to overlook the other side, which views the exact same site as the holiest place on Earth...
 * For the verification bit - you are right. I'm on it. Tombah (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Concerning Khirbet er-Ra'i
Hi Tombah! I am writing to you this message in order to ask you if one time we could collaborate in order to expand the Khirbet er-Ra'i article. I have already left several relevant sources on the subject at the Talk:Khirbet er-Ra'i page, but no one has still decided to join me. Since you seem to have already work on it, I think we could made a good team. Do you view it well? I will wait for your response.--Potatín5 (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Potatín5 Of course! I would be happy to collaborate! let me know what you had in mind :) Tombah (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Your additions to See also for Jewish–Roman wars
Although didn't link to the Manual of Style, as noted in their edit summary, it's generally accepted that See also sections will not repeat links used in the article.

There is what's generally referred to as BRD, or the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. It's optional, but it can often prevent disputes from escalating to an edit war, which can lead to blocks.
 * 1) Make a bold edit.
 * 2) Another editor reverts it.
 * Discuss the situation.

It's not BRR, bold, revert, revert. If someone reverts a change that you've made, and you disagree, please discuss it on the article's talk page. Thanks, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at State of Palestine
You made this edit on 22 May which I reverted with reason "Not in article body and not a common name" either of which is sufficient reason to revert.

You restored your edit the next day without entering into any discussion on talk and with edit summary "restoring restoring well-sourced designation of current political status", failing to address either reason given for the initial revert.

Awaiting an explanation with interest. Selfstudier (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "Not in article body and not a common name" are vague explanations for removal of well-sourced material. The description of the State of Palestine as a quasi-state is attested in many reliable sources, and appears on lede in other languages. Let's steer away from WP:IDONTLIKEIT, shall we? Tombah (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The reasons given were not vague and any experienced editor would know exactly what is meant. Your editing is clearly disruptive (just read your own talk page) and I expect a revert in short order. I have initiated a discussion on the talk page, something which you should have done to start with and we will see what happens from there. Selfstudier (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I never claimed to be an experienced editor, as I joined Wikipedia only a few months ago. But instead of offering help and guidance, you are just being aggressive. To be honest, I don't get what my editing is considered disruptive, especially in that case. Somehow, it is always the same three editors that accuse me for disruptive edits, leaving me to wonder why. Anyway, if you're able to provide a bit more detailed and constructive guidance, I'm always happy to learn. Thanks. Tombah (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See the section above this one where another editor specifically tells you that BRR is a bad idea which is exactly what you just did at SoP. You can ignore BRD if you wish, it's not cast in stone, better be absolutely sure of your ground if you do. The IP area (or AP for that matter) is not for widows and orphans, the debate is likely to get rough from time to time.
 * If you want further explanation for what I meant, ordinarily the lead is a summary of the body, not always, but in the better articles, it is something to aspire to and a definite requirement if you are going to add something contentious. We only bold commonnames in the lead and you had zero consensus for that (you would have to show at least 10% of all relevant sources). I see now that Nableezy has added another reason, it's PNA not SoP, if so (I didn't read them myself) then the thing is wrong on first principles. Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Makhamra family
Hello! Your submission of Makhamra family at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mount Ebal site
Hello! Your submission of Mount Ebal site at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Temple Mount
Removal of a neutrality tag while discussion about it is in progress is disruptive. Kindly restore it. Note that warnings about disruptive editing are beginning to mount up. Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting enough, 90% of these warnings are by you. I wonder what is the meaning of this. Tombah (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No idea, nor about the claimed percentage, perhaps you just edit disruptively on pages I have an interest in and in respect of edits I have made, like this POV tag. Selfstudier (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Tombah (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I also strongly disagree with your above claim. The term "Temple Mount" has been used in Wikipedia as the main term for the site for twenty years now. Suddenly, it became unneutral, with you and other editors labelling the site as the "Sacred Esplanade" or "Al-Aqsa Mosque", forcing these new terms without even looking to reach consensus. To me, this is exactly what makes an editing disruptive and tendentious, and these edits may be interpreted as agenda-pushing. And as someone mentioned on the talk page there, the usage of Al-Aqsa for the entire site, which was true in some point in the Middle Ages, is again promoted in recent years by radical Islamist Palestinian militant groups, who are looking to extend the Islamic claim over the site at the expense of the Jewish one. Many of those promote Temple Denial, completely rejecting the Jewish history of the site, deliberately ignoring thousands of years of history. I really hope this is not the case here. Tombah (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * POV tag is not just about that and if you wanted to debate the tag, there was a POV tag section created in talk for that purpose and where you failed to respond to another editor even when pinged. Bye now.Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

No problem with removing it. As reliable sources have noted, Temple Mount is the common name. The attempt to use ngrams of “Aqsa”, a personal name/mostly a reference to the Intifada and various groups, by falsely claiming these are all references to the mosque, is a violation of WP:DNTL and has already been refuted by multiple editors. It is not necessary to “address something” that one has already been addressed just because of a “ping”. As an aside, Onceinawhile has twice presented blatantly false information on the talk page, first by misrepresenting Ngram results, and then by making up false statistics regarding Jews and English. Drsmoo (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

That there is, present tense, a dispute on the neutrality is evident on the talk page. You are wasting your time and energy edit-warring over tags. Besides the basic factual errors in the above about again promoted in recent years by radical Islamist Palestinian militant groups, it is manifestly evident that there is a POV dispute. Maintenance tags have requirements, if you click the link where it says Learn how and when to remove this template message youll see the when not to remove section. When any of the reasons to not remove are true you should not remove it. It is obviously true that There is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue. I am going to restore the tag, and Tombah if you have not noticed a lot of the people you may identify as "pro-Palestinian" recognize that you can be an exceptional editor here, and even if some of us disagree with some of your edits we dont doubt your value. Things like this chip away at that very fast.  nableezy  - 13:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)