User talk:AhmedElMohamedi

query on your removing edit without providing reference.

Hello, my edits was directly backed up by a source. I am aware of one narrative in which Israelis and Judaism all derived from Canaanites, but that does not automatically negate the potential and indeed prevalence of cultural and technological exchange in iron-age bronze-age states. I mentioned "rising Israelite culture", i did not specifically say they were immigrants. if you want to counter that point of view, please feel free to produce your writings along with citation. WhatIsAMan (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the Israelites evolved from local Canaanites is supported by archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein and others. This is mentioned on the israelites page. You added "Palestine" and "Palestinians" to it, which serves a clear purpose. The creator of that page already discussed this months ago, and he didn’t want any modern definitions there. It’s a page about olive trees and olives in Jewish history and Israel. I have personal contact with him. He doesn’t have access to his account and told me to "look after it." There is a page about Olive trees in the Palestinian territories, leave this. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already addressed in my query to you, that I acknowledge the presence of one finding that Israelis are descended from Canaanites - and it is not an issue to me. That does not negate the potential of technological exchanges among sub-Canaanite cultures, which is supported by citation. The usage of the word "palestine" is as sinister and innocent as the way "israel" were being used on this wiki page - which belongs to the public, thanks to the creator of it - The usage of both words are historical and geographical and in the context of this wiki page, it is not political, such is the neutral view.

My edits add to the historical record and discourse for this page. They are directly relevant in tracing the path of olives' beginning both in the region towards Israel AND Judaism; and through the passage of time that around this olive plant they stood witness to a slew of change and evolution in human civilization; until this modern day. They are what happened and what is happening to olive trees, and they are all backed up by citations.

Please refrain from violating wiki policy and deleting what i put in there without cause, because what i placed here are all backed by sources. They represent valuable effort not only of myself, but the effort of those who contributed to the sources, and the effort for the preservation of knowledge. WhatIsAMan (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that you're citing sources to back up your edits. However, the issue at hand isn't about historical accuracy but the focus and intent of this specific page, which is meant to remain non-political and focused on Jewish history, particularly in relation to olives and their role in Israel and Judaism. The word "Palestine" is a geographical one, and as you might know, it is used by certain groups, especially in these times, to push certain narratives. This is something i don't want on pages that are meant to be non-political and are focused on basic history. The page is about Jewish history and culture and should remain this way. Unlike "Palestine" (a Greek term), "Land of Israel," "Israel," and "Judea" are the indigenous definitions for that territory. You could also use Caanan or Levant. Wiki policy supports the preservation of neutrality and non-political content, particularly on pages that are focused on historical and cultural topics. Therefore, while your sources are probably valid, the concern is not about their accuracy but rather about keeping the page focused on its original purpose and respecting the intent of its creator, which would be the history of Olives in the Land of Israel, Judaism and Jewish culture and only that. There is a page about olive trees planet by Palestinian Arabs. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewish and other Palestinian cultures", what are you saying? The titel is Olives and olive trees in Israel and Judaism which indicates that its a page about Jewish history. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish history is a topic of a culture that evolved over thousands of years, with its origins, its contributing elements, its offshoots, branches, and what they eventually become. Jewish people lived in diverse environment and became a diverse people in the regions where they were, where they passed through, and what they brought with them. All becoming the Jewish civilization of now and the Judaism of now.

The page Jewish history especially examplifies my point here. One should not sever the connection and retain what one consider is orthodox to Jew and Judaism and neglect the rest. WhatIsAMan (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish history did evolve over millennia, but it found its foundation in Israel. Diaspora Jews lived and still live in various environments and have adopted some aspects from their host countries. However, the cultural and genetic connection remains. Orthodox or secular, it doesn't matter. I’m not looking for active political debates. My intention is to edit pages and keep this one non-political, just as it was intended to be. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have already been warned. Please follow the rules, and edit outside the IP-area, until you have at least 500 edits, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what have i done? I didn't edit pages related to the arab israeli conflict. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You just edited Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world, which clearly has an edit-notice on it "You are subject to additional rules when you edit parts of this article....You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)" cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the 500 edits rule only applied to the israeli-arab conflict. I apologize AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junk / circular sources

Per my prior warning, you have now used the same circular source three time on Timeline of antisemitism in the 19th century, note here, here, and here. PediaPress directly copies articles from Wikipedia, and cannot be used as source. I'm not clear on how to help you evaluate sources, but when the author is noted as "By Wikipedians", that feels like a solid clue that it may be unacceptable. If you continue to ignore this warning, this account is likely to be disabled again. Sam Kuru (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I know what is right and what isn't? I'm just trying to add sources, god. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from me telling you three times in edit comments, once explicitly on this talk page, all of the material being sourced to Wikipedia in the index of the "book", and the author listed on the first page as "Wikipedians". Aside from that? Are you reading the materials you're adding and assessing the source at all? Sam Kuru (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm searching for each event and when it's there, I'm adding it. I know about certain books being Wikipedia copies but I'm not to well informed how to identify those. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]