I think you’re confused. There is no warning letter, that’s just the takedown notice sent at the same time as the takedown.

It’s been two months sir

have you tried plasma 6?

assuming you’re serious: it’s not

I’ve just realized a mistake by the signpost headline: It only wants admins and above to do that (which is better I suppose?). I’ve amended the post body.

Also, reading the 3 pages of recommendations again, I don’t think that’s what it said:

Transparent Editing History: Ensure that all changes to articles are transparent and traceable.
This helps in identifying editors who may consistently introduce bias into articles.

That sounds like normal editing history for everything to me.

The Onion writes dumb soot on purpose to amuse people while including a disclaimer of “none of this is real”.

A 'pedia written by invite only was Nupedia, which has been dead for a very long time. So basically you meant that the article suggests to add a forked history for a more neutral version? Not sure if that makes it dumber or smarter.

I won’t reply further if you can’t separate bias from objective facts, especially those that are tangential to the bias, such as the history and key persons of a white supremacist group that doesn’t involve Arabs.

The ADL is used as a source for hate groups’ backgrounds and way more than labeling their antisemitism, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity_(religion).

The revelation comes two years after a LinkedIn profile associated with Kinahan named “Christopher Vincent”—the same name on the Google account—was uncovered.

Again, labels, especially of antisemitism, are considered opinions and attributed.

Again, Wikipedia’s reliable source listings are only concerned about the quality of the source’s factual reporting. Having a horrible bias in judgement does not preclude factual reporting.

had the right to defend itself” before even being attacked

And many people think that’s wrong. Just saying that that’s the reason Israel and most publications claim Israel did that is not claiming that it was justified.

Not exactly sure what you’re arguing about the six-day war, but if you mean that it should be an unjustified invasion instead of “pre-emptive”… My first impression of “pre-emptive” is unjustified and at best marginally better than an invasion, and the UN seems to agree in Article 2 (4) of the UN charter. That “entirely different page” is also summarized in the six-day war–page’s “Controversies” section, but I assume you’re talking about the lede. “On 5 June 1967, as the UNEF was in the process of leaving the zone, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields and other facilities, launching its war effort.[28] Egyptian forces were caught by surprise, and nearly all of Egypt’s military aerial assets were destroyed, giving Israel air supremacy” does not give me an impression that Egypt planned to invade.

The ADL is one of the biggest Zionist slander lobbies that call any criticism of israel “anti-Semitic”.

Even if that were true, “there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed.” That converts it into an opinion. Nowhere have you demonstrated that the ADL has a track record of falsifying facts, not opinions such as labeling people.

Searching about it, the ADL seems to try and separate support of the Israeli government from Zionism, and defines Zionism as the belief that Jews should have a sovereign state to live together. If one thinks that Israel shouldn’t be sovereign at all and being abolished tomorrow would be very good, I’d also agree that that is extremist.

Please elaborate why they are not reliable for things other than Israel/Palestine topics, for which WP:RSP already has a small warning about that area. Just having bias and doing advocacy doesn’t necessarily mean that their reporting is unreliable, though as with other biased sources more objective sources are preferred.

Even if ADL were unreliable, that’s just one source, and I don’t see how that exemplifies that “Wikipedia is a compromised Zionist dumpsterfire”. Organizations and individuals are allowed to submit requests to edit pages for which they have a conflict of interest, and I don’t see why Wikipedia being open to review them means it’s now Israeli-ran from the top-down.

Primary sources and research cannot be cited to support objective facts. However, they can be used to cite criticism from a group. The only difference with your original reply is that being cited as criticism instead of fact does not magically make the source secondary.

That’s correct, except it’s still considered a primary source, which can be cited to see what a group said if due.

(I meant to quote from the article but forgot to style it as a blockquote)

(speaking of which, Wikipedia’s editors hate decoration, which they consider to be juvenile and include that little pastel vertical line on the left of blockquotes, in favor of the browser default of indenting the quote on both sides)

The present report does not seem intended to be an academic publication, although it has already been used as a citation in the article Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.