User talk:Andre.levy.al

–What happened on Henry Sobel? Looks like you erased most of the previous article in trying to create a new article? William Ortiz (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the content of Henry Sobel onto Sultana Levy Rosenblatt to kick off her page. I didn't mean to delete Henry Sobel's page. Andre.Levy.AL (talk)

Classical liberalism[edit]

Can you please respond to the issues I raised on the talk page before reverting. TFD (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you raise them? How do I find them? Andre.levy.al (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016[edit]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Pizzagate. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it PRECISELY because the language of "conspiracy theory" is NOT neutral. How is "investigation" not neutral, Ian?? Your reversal is what's in violation of "Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy". Please do NOT reverse it again. Andre.levy.al (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzFeed explains the source of the conspiracy theory and shows that there's no evidence, The Daily Dot describes how Turkey has been using the conspiracy theory to cover up their own problems, Inquisitr documents how Pizzagate believers have been sending death threats, the New York Times debunks it, PolitiFact debunks it, Washington City Paper debunks it, The Washington Post debunks it. Do you have any reliable sources that demonstrate how it is not debunked? Do you have any reliable sources that show this to be anything more than the result of a 4chan post, a conspiracy theory forum post, and a Tweet from a white supremacist account being bred into its current form by a crony of professional crank David Icke before in turn being plagiarized by alt-right fake news websites? It is a conspiracy theory, it is false, you are wrong -- deal with it. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you said it yourself, Ian, our opinion as to the veracity of the claim is IRRELEVANT in an encyclopedia. What it OUGHT TO reflect are the opinions and claims on ALL sides of the argument. That is PRECISELY what being NEUTRAL actually means. Wikipedia is a COLLABORATIVE encyclopedia, and this means you ADD information; it's not a license for you to censor it. Do NOT reverse the edit. Andre.levy.al (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say about an issue. The reliable sources say it's a bunch of fabricated lies. Neutrality does not mean permitting defamatory falsehoods (i.e. libel) in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reflects ANY relevant information in the public domain. It is NOT incumbent upon Wikipedia editors to JUDGE source reliability. That is a BREACH of Wikipedia NEUTRALITY. Do NOT reverse the edit. Andre.levy.al (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough: collective administrative patience on this topic is scant per ANI and elsewhere. Acroterion (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Pizzagate shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is very clear YOU are the one who started this edit war by reversing my edits toward NEUTRAL language, Ian.thomson [1] Andre.levy.al (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using bold and all caps doesn't make you right. You need to cite reliable sources. We don't pretend that a random 4chan post is reliable, we don't pretend that an alt-right tweet is reliable, and we don't pretend that any associate of David Icke's is reliable. The Pizzagate conspiracy theory is just those things combined and spread by fake news sites -- as has been explained to you. If you refuse to believe it at this point, it is your choice to be delusional. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any claims other than to say it's an investigation, Ian. The burden of proof is YOURS, if YOU are claiming the accusation is false. Your opinion about these sources, none of which I even mentioned, are YOUR opinion, NOT encyclopedia material. Andre.levy.al (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already posted several mainstream journalistic sources that debunk the conspiracy theory and describe it as such. You have posted no sources -- the burden is now on you to prove that it is anything other than a conspiracy theory, and was always on you to demonstrate that there's any truth to the investigation whatsoever. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I didn't post any sources BECAUSE I MADE NO CLAIM. Unless of course you're referring to the very existence of the investigation, which I'd be happy to chip in with what I saw from it, but how can I do that, if anything I post is immediately reverted?? There is a CLEAR CONCERTED EFFORT here to CLAMP DOWN ON INFORMATION. This is WORSE THAN THE SOVIET UNION! And, by the way, here's what a FORMER SENATOR has to say about your moniker "fake news": [2] Andre.levy.al (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing for debunked info to be presented as plausible is effectively making a claim. If you think this is worse than the Soviet Union, I have to ask who is making you work in a gulag in Siberia, because it isn't us. You are not a freedom fighter, you are a disinformation spreading crank. Your role in this is not like Galileo, Carl Bernstein, or Edward Snowden, it is like Ken Ham, Jenny McCarthy, or David Icke. The sources debunking the theory have been presented. It is your choice if you decide to continue to be delusional. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The sources debunking the theory have been presented." - Excellent, did you put them on a public page? Where? Here is an example of a page about a case that was proven false: [3]. It's not deleted; it simply shows what the case was about. OBJECTIVELY! Andre.levy.al (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to let us know when the people your ilk are accusing of crimes are arrested, charged and brought to trial for them; at that point, we can write about it. Internet detectives putting two and two together to get eleventy-seven are not that. You cannot supply a single reliable source which takes the claims seriously or considers them anything other than false and debunked. Wikipedia is based entirely upon reliable sources, so your problem is with the sources, not us. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked by me for disruptive editing before the template was placed. As I noted above, administrative patience on this matter is scarce due to the violations of the biography of living persons policy that people keep adding. Acroterion (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How was the biography on any living person violated if no living person was even mentioned, Acroterion?? It is VERY clear who started this edit war and who is USING Wikipedia as a vehicle for his OWN opinions. Andre.levy.al (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may not game the policy by giving credence to gross defamation of living persons and then claiming that you mentioned no specific person: the nudge-and-wink approach to defamation is not acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does NOT give credence to ANY information, Acroterion; everyone knows that (or should already). The credence is supported by the SOURCES given; hence why a citation is required when claiming the accusation to be false (as it would also require if claiming to be true). What Wikipedia OUGHT TO reflect is not the veracity of the claim but that the investigation exists, and what the various sources say for and against it. NEUTRALITY means Wikipedia ought to reflect ALL points of view, not just YOURS. It is up to the READER to decide which sources are more trustworthy, not you. Your blocking of my account is DIRECT VIOLATION of Wikipedia policy. Andre.levy.al (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Andre.levy.al (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is VERY clear I didn't start any edit war; my edit was PRECISELY to comply with Wikipedia's NEUTRALITY policy (or please explain how "conspiracy theory" is more neutral than "investigation" and that "falsely alleged" is more neutral than "alleged").[4] Andre.levy.al (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are misunderstanding Wikipedia's neutrality policy (as explained at WP:NPOV). The intention is not to present all arguments equally or present all sources equally, but to reflect the balance of reliable sources (see WP:RS for Wikipedia's take on what those are). So when the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources say that something is false, then Wikipedia says it is false. Also, I urge you to stop SHOUTING when you converse here, as that will more likely deter people from helping than attract them. Oh, and hyperbole along the lines of "This is worse than the Soviet Union" is really not going to get you anywhere either. Read the NPOV policy, listen to the explanations of it that you are being given, and follow it properly - or you'll be heading for an indefinite block, or a sanction as per the notice immediately above this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Andre.levy.al (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You seem to be the one who doesn't understand the policy, Boing! said Zebedee. How is "conspiracy theory falsely claiming" (Pizzagate) "without editorial bias" (WP:NPOV)?? How is asking for citation for this claim a breach of any policy?? Your partisan censorship being worse than the Soviet Union is MY opinion; I may be wrong but expressing my own opinion in a dialogue in NO WAY is ground for sanction. You are in DIRECT VIOLATION of Wikipedia policy for blocking my account! And, YES, it warrants being shouted about! It's beyond ABSURD!! Unblock it at once! Andre.levy.al (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see no reason to unblock at this time and every reason to believe you're not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. When your block expires tomorrow, drop the hyperbole, accusations, and ALL CAPS BOLD. If you fail to do so, the next block is extremely likely to be indefinite. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hmm, I've only just realised it was you recently accusing the Portuguese Wikipedia of being "a culture fraught with soviet-style bureaucracy" too. So it's the admins here and the admins there who don't understand policy and won't collaborate, and not you? I've revoked your ability to edit this talk page for the duration of the block, as your continued shouty rants are only causing further disruption - the next reviewing admin is free to restore it if they think I am wrong. If you keep this up when your block expires, I can see the next one being longer or perhaps even indefinite. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the policy you're linking to. The NPOV policy states that All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. In this case, the only significant view which has been published by reliable sources about this topic is that the claims in this case are entirely false — at best they represent willful misrepresentation of the truth and at worst they are outright fabrications and lies. If you have a reliable source which disagrees with this point of view, you'd need to present it on the article talk page for discussion and consensus once your block expires. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are the sources claiming the accusation to be false cited on the page? No. I asked them to be cited. What was done? Markdown reversed. Then accused of vandalism. Then blocked. For what?? For asking that Wikipedia policy be followed?? How is that neutral?? It isn't. And neither is the language "conspiracy theory". The people investigating this don't see it as conspiracy; they see it as possibly plain crime. This is one of first major worldwide crowdsourced criminal investigations in human history, and all you're interested in is censorship. I wonder why. Andre.levy.al (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:DABREF. Disambiguation pages do not include references. Pizzagate is a disambiguation page. This has come up on the talk page several times. Whining about it further will only make it hard to take as a sign that you're here in good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the page for this particular case then, Ian.thomson? Deleted? [5] How convenient. Do you realised that by obstructing this investigation you may be acting as accessory to crime? Do you realise that, if the accusations pan out, you are making yourself an accomplice? Andre.levy.al (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ok, so not only are you throwing good faith out the window, you aren't paying a bit of attention. Pizzagate links to the section in the Comet Ping Pong article describing the matter. Did you even bother looking at the page since you were blocked? And you do realize that, both America and Wikipedia operate on the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty", right? Also, you do realize that, if the "accusations" remain debunked conspiracy theories, you are helping destroy an innocent businessman's life and encouraging unstable individuals to try to murder pizzeria employees, right? Or have you just so out for blood that you never considered the possibility that you're wrong, and never considered the consequences for your zealotry? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Draft:Pizzagate was moved to Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). Do try reading more often, that will often answer your questions about this site before you have to ask them. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your statements toward Ian.thomson are out of line and prohibited; you're very likely to be indefinitely blocked as not being here to build an encyclopedia. I suggest you retract and apologize immediately. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which statement exactly would you like me to apologize for, NorthBySouthBaranof? That obstructing investigation may be construed as accessory to crime? That's a fact, and not even about Ian.thomson. Andre.levy.al (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have to be the one to break it to you, but you are not conducting an "investigation" and removing libelous nonsense from an Internet encyclopedia is what we do as editors. Good luck with your unblock request. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Andre.levy.al (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You accuse me of me of disruptive editing, Acroterion, but it's not me going around patrolling other editors and relentlessly undoing their edits. And without justification! These are the people that ought to be blocked! Not those donating their time and content to Wikipedia. This a travesty of Wikipedia's founding principles! Andre.levy.al (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You do not appear to have the faintest understanding of what you're doing wrong here, despite the amount of explanation offered by numerous people, and these ongoing personal accusations suggest there is little chance of any change. I concur with the removal of talk page privileges, below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Based on reports of disruption by this user elsewhere [6], a global block by stewards may be appropriate. Acroterion (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked[edit]

I have removed your talk page access because you still cannot discuss things like an adult. Your last chance for a possible unblock is WP:UTRS. If I see that you continue to make personal attacks there, I will remove that option as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Andre.levy.al (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17049 was submitted on Dec 05, 2016 08:28:57. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:SultanaLevyRosenblatt1950.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:SultanaLevyRosenblatt1950.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]