User talk:Wikiacademiceditor

Introduction to contentious topics
StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I didn't edit anything concerning the Arab–Israeli conflict. Sad to see wiki go into the realm of propaganda. -Disappointed Academic Wikiacademiceditor (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Concerning Anti-Defamation League
Hello...you're invited to discuss your intended changes on the article talk-page. You have been reverted by 2 different editors. Lectonar (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It's just a simple edit to bring clarity to the entry. I'm not very political, but the ADL rejects mainstream human rights organizations findings on the Israeli issue of "apartheid". I'd like to be part of WIki as an academic, but if it's going to be a political bot-fight, I'm out. Wiki mneeds more academics and fewer political lackeys. Wikiacademiceditor (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by a "political bot-fight". More academics would be nice, but even academics have to back up their edits with reliable sources. Your opinion may well be correct -- that the ADL is a right-wing organization -- but to say it in Wikipedia's voice needs more than our opinions. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 17:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not my "opinion." I don't like the "left" and "right" labels and would remove it from all Wiki pages if it were up to my "opinion". I consulted the similar Jewish activist page "Jewish Voice for Peace" and it was described as "left wing", so in order to maintain a semblance of consistency I used right-wing. BUT. "The original word I used was "controversial" because there are a TON of third party voices (especially Jewish voices) in academia and journalism that have been super critical of the ADL. Your circular logic is f'd and obviously there's some close guards on the ADL page if the word "controversial" is going to be scrutinized. Wikiacademiceditor (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources take care of everything. "Controversial" is quite scrutinized; see MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 17:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is an attempt to make WIKI a "reliable source"... If I were an average punter looking at the ADL on WIKI, I'd think it mainstream organization that was nonpartisan. A simple googl;e search shows 50,000+ sources that argue the ADL is not what it seems. How many of these 50,000 sources would you like to sort through and OPINE about their reliability? Wikiacademiceditor (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. Since I was the one who reverted you over the term "controversial", I'll respond here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not like your allegation that me or any other editor were politically motivated in our reverts. ADL is of no interest to me (be it personal or political), nor is the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area of much interest to me. I have many articles in my watchlist and sometimes I do intervene when the policies and guidelines need to be enforced, even if the article isn't in my topic area of interest. As far as I know, no organization on Wikipedia is described as "controversial" in the first sentence, so this would probably be a precedent. Be it for organizations or individuals, "controversial" comes off as a vague term, especially in the first sentence. Your talk page isn't the best place to discuss these things though and if you want to discuss improvements regarding ADL, you're free to do so on that article's talk page. It will allow more editors to engage in the discussion. Just please remember to assume good faith. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Diplomatic response. Would be reasonable, but there are other wiki entries that use the word "controversial" in relation to political organizations and people. That's where I got the idea. There are also Wiki entries describing orgs and people as far right and far left. That's where I got the idea. I've edited other Wiki pages in a similar manner under other user names in the past. Never had this much flack... so yeah... It's pretty darn obvious that this ADL page is politically motivated. Wikiacademiceditor (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see other stuff exists, but it could be that these other articles you have seen are properly sourced, or are improperly sourced and just not dealt with yet by a volunteer. It depends on the situation.   is absolutely correct that you need much stronger sourcing, showing that the use of that term in reference to the ADL is used by a preponderance of sources.
 * Accusations of political motivations are serious accusations that require serious, hard evidence. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Mmm no. Nothing different than my edit. The ADL page is just guarded by politically motivates "editors" that keep the ADL wiki entry in a state of inaccuracy/propaganda. Wikiacademiceditor (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023
Hello, I'm SunDawn. I noticed that in this edit to Modern Hebrew, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   20:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * An explanation was given. Glitch? Wikiacademiceditor (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Unconstructive"? "Vandalsim"? Yikes. Unconstructive is simply deleting factual information from a WIki page. I call it "polishing" a page... For example, the reverted page gives a misleading description of the CUFI page.Factual information gives the reader a better understanding of the natureo f the organization at hand. Ah.. longing for the good old days of wiki before politicisation spread its maggots on the place... Wikiacademiceditor (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Christians United for Israel. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Christians United for Israel was changed by Wikiacademiceditor (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.861486 on 2023-12-23T14:03:18+00:00