Talk:Aytzim

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Materials, moved from article[edit]

—Ynhockey (Talk) 23:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet encyclopedia-like[edit]

In its current form, this reads more like a PR statement than an encyclopedia article. Additional contributions need to make it more of the latter. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Zionism[edit]

Green Zionism currently has its own page... I propose to make it a redirect to this page. Feel free to join the discussion at Green Zionism#redirect! L.tak (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Severe POV issues[edit]

It appears that there are a number of anonymous editors with great interest in this article, and anonymous editors rarely read the talk page, but in hopes that these guys will: please note that the article still reads like an advertisement and has severe POV and COI issues. For example, it misrepresents sources by mentioning proposals as accomplishments, and other problems. It should probably be rewritten as prose in a neutral language. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of edits[edit]

I have reverted the inappropriate reversion made by SPA IP editor 216.164.60.237, and am explaining it here.

I had removed generally unreliable sources including: 1 to Electronic Intifada, 2 to Facebook, 5 to Twitter. Left remaining included 13 citations using primary source aytzim.org (not counting the two normally allowed ones: infobox and official website). The 13 primary sources warranted the tag Template:Primary sources. The tag Template:Advert was based on my opinion after READING some of the article. The tag Template:Unreliable sources was added because there remain several BLOGS used as citations, and blogs are considered Questionable and self-published sources.

The removal of the material was warranted and should have been obvious to anyone looking at the edit differences. The tags are also appropriate and should motivate one to correct the article, not write reams in edit summaries about how my removals 'caused' the tags (which they didn't). The solution is to fix the article if one doesn't like the tags, not revert an edit that was clearly made to improve the encyclopedia.

IP editor 216.164.60.237 's contributions show they are a single-purpose account and he or she should learn more about Wikipedia policies including: Wikipedia:Advocacy, Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, and Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia.

— Normal Op (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Dear "Normal Op,"

I am sorry to report that you are incorrect on several accounts. First, the reversion was not inappropriate as you did not provide any explanation for your major changes, or for your insertion of tags, until after they were reverted. In other words, your explanation was only post-facto after it was discovered that you made major changes without explanation.

You also are incorrect in your use of the primary sources tag. Before your edits this article had 80 different sources, 11 (not 13) of which (or only 13.75%); afterward it has the same 11 but now only 72 different sources, bringing it up to 15 percent. This article is far from based on primary sources, as you claim.

Further, you are incorrect that the article reads like an advertisement, unless you have some weird idea about advertisements where they talk about how bad they are. I find it fairly rare that pages have a whole section dedication to criticism. This one does, and it's even mentioned in the first paragraph.

You claim that you removed sources that *you* deemed unreliable yet you added a tag that says that the sources are unreliable. This makes no sense -- if you removed what you thought was unreliable (such and Twitter and Facebook posts) then why would you add the tag for what you already fixed?

You also are incorrect in your assumption that I am an SPA. I have edited other pages and will continue to do so when I see that I will be helpful in doing so, but I also have an area of expertise and so I focus where I have a knowledge base. Everyone has their subject-matter interests.

— IP editor 216.164.60.237 19 August 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.60.237 (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following up: Replaced 6 of 11 primary sources, leaving only 5 primary sources of 70 sources for seven percent. Removed tags as explained above. — IP editor 216.164.60.237 19 August 2020 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Removed PA rant per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans." Normal Op (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@216.164.60.237:, please see User talk:216.164.60.237 for further messages. Normal Op (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@216.164.60.237: You must have some sort of connection with this subject since (a) you started your Wikipedia editing career solely for this article, and (b) you keep inserting promotional stuff that doesn't mention or barely mentions Aytzim in the articles. I have had to keep this article on my WatchList just to catch the ridiculous promotions that get added to this article. (And I have NO INTEREST in this topic at all, so I would really like to drop it and stop having to police this topic!) I have removed the content which editor JzG previously removed (correctly) and then you added it back in. There are two citations: the first mentions Aytzim only as a contributor (one of 173 organizations that signed a petition); the second citation doesn't even mention Aytzim. Do NOT reinsert the content unless you have a good citation. Normal Op (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I simply follow and am interested in it. No connection, "Normal Op." I follow and am interested in baseball too, particularly in its history; sadly also no connection to any of the baseball teams whose pages I've edited. We all have our subject matter interests. 216.164.60.237 (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of deprecated or unreliable sources[edit]

There are six citations which need cleaning up.

  • medium.com x 3 : Medium is a blog hosting service, these are primary sources, see WP:SPS
  • blogspot.com x 1 : is a blog hosting service, these are primary sources, see WP:SPS
  • foodandwaterwatch.org x 2 : I'm not sure why my wiki tool tags this one as an "unreliable source", but you should replace this citation with a more reliable source.

See also WP:RSP. — Normal Op (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Medium (3), all Blogspot (1) and 1/2 Food and Water Watch links removed. No good substitute for remaining usage but it's a reliable source. 216.164.60.237 (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see some editors are working on citations; this is good. I just wanted to let you know most of the information on GuideStar.org is a primary source. Such as in Aytzim's GuideStar profile, under "Our programs" you see "SOURCE: Self-reported by organization". That means that information is a primary source... the organization edited their GuideStar "profile" so that this information would show up. Normal Op (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aytzim&oldid=1205554501"