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)

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

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

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

December 2016

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Template:Z33 Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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").[3] Andre.levy.al (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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").[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pizzagate&type=revision&diff=752390556&oldid=752390220] [[User:Andre.levy.al|Andre.levy.al]] ([[User talk:Andre.levy.al#top|talk]]) 00:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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").[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pizzagate&type=revision&diff=752390556&oldid=752390220] [[User:Andre.levy.al|Andre.levy.al]] ([[User talk:Andre.levy.al#top|talk]]) 00:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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").[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pizzagate&type=revision&diff=752390556&oldid=752390220] [[User:Andre.levy.al|Andre.levy.al]] ([[User talk:Andre.levy.al#top|talk]]) 00:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}