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

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

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.

Template:Z33 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.

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 on the page 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!! Andre.levy.al (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]