User talk:AlexanderLevian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Professor London[edit]

Your sources for LaVey's supposed lack of involvement for Rosemary's Baby are quite questionable. One is a Wikipedia page, the other an entry for IMDB, both of which are easily edited by users. Oddly enough, the role of the Devil in Rosemary's baby is uncredited. Could you please provide a better source? If you feel my edits are vandalism, you are free to report them, however, my contrib hist will show nothing but constructive edits. Professor London 16:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Professor London, I did give proper sources, Please look at ALL of the sources I cited and don't ignore the two literature sources. no wikipedia pages were used (as you can see by the edit again) and IMDB entries can only be edited by the site's administration, users are allowed to request edits however (and are required to cited sources also). I have given my official response to your claims about my sources on your disscusion page[1]. thank you. AlexanderLevian 23:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Constitution Party (United States)[edit]

Comment section is for notes which is information, what a political party stands for is political information. Bob Haran, Secretary, Constitution Party of Arizona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:FF0B:400:24EE:5AF6:D205:8AC1 (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Look at the notes for the other state parties listed. You'll noticed that they don't list political positions and slogans. They give information about the party itself (history, ballot access, previous national affiliation, etc.). Alexander Levian (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Naming Conventions and Religious Satanism[edit]

Please make proper use of naming conventions (specifically [2]) when creating disambiguation pages. I am redirecting Religious Satanism to Theistic Satanism, which is a much more popular term. If you think the article should be entirely wiped and replaced with a redirect to a Satanism disambiguation page, please make your request in AfD and gain consensus before doing so. Thanks. -- goatasaur 17:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Traditional satanism is a misleading term to redirect to Theistic satanism in the fact that no traditions of satanism in any organization have been found to have existed prior to Anton LaVey's organization. And with our current difinition of religion, it is also misleading to say that theistic satanism is the exact same as religious satanism in that LaVey's system of satanism is reconized as a religion. therefore, until proper definitions of the terms "Traditional Satanism" and "Relgious Satanism" can be changed. their definitions must dictate the redirect to the disambiguation page. this is not to praise lavey or to tear down theistic satanism. The only matter of for debate is purely in the difinitions. If there are any oraganizations of satanism (with said name "Satanism") then traditional satanism may be redirected to theistic satanism. for the time being, however, I will not revert the redirectiong of traditional satanism in that the most popular, although purely unofficial, view of satanism is that their is worship of satan. Religious Satanism, however, can by definition ONLY refer to a religion with emphasis on satan, therefore it shouldn't redirect to theistic satanism (which worship an external diety) in that it doesn't include lavey's system (which worship internal deity, or self). the redirection for religious satanism will be reverted. Thank you.AlexanderLevian 18:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Make sure you redirect to the proper disambiguation page at Satanism (disambiguation). -- goatasaur 19:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
If I didn't redirect to the proper disambiguation page, then I sincerely apologize. thank you. AlexanderLevian 19:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Anton LaVey[edit]

Hi, you'll be lucky to keep that bit on LaVey - the controversy section. I added bits in in excellent fashion regarding his real name with 100% researched citations. And a section on plagariasm but that was moved by the same guy to the book, the satanic bible, and re-written ion a way that could only be done by a LaVeyanist! Please see the talk page for LaVey under the heading "Jewish Heritage". I can give you my information on lagiarism adn his real name if you like but talke a look at the references I give in talk for now. Good luck! FK0071a 21:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look at your sources and try to reason with the Satanic community once I establish fact from rumor. I have very little free time with two kids at home. Once again thank you for the message and I hope that this will soon be over and we can all go on with our lives/edits. AlexanderLevian 19:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Rosemary's Baby/Clay Tanner (LaVey Related)[edit]

I couldn't help but notice that you left a large comment on the Clay Tanner article on the matter of him playing Satan in Rosemary's Baby (which I'm pretty confident Tanner did!) and I thought I should point to the fact that the same changes keep being made to the Rosemary's Baby page. Not sure where I should revert it to but since you'd looked into the thing (as mentioned on that discussion page) I thought maybe you'd know better how to seperate fact from fiction on the subject. --Thetriangleguy 19:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Project Occult[edit]

Welcome to the project! Lately I've been windering as to the overall state of our articles, so I was wondering if you could send me some links to disputes you've settled and their articles. Regards! --Whytecypress 00:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter[edit]

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Occult Again[edit]

Sorry If i'm disturbing you, but I relly need your help with the Occult project. There's very little member communication for such an important project. Please assist us.--Whytecypress 03:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw that you are a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Occult[edit]

I saw that you're a member of Wikiproject Occult. Would you like to participate in my new Wikipedia: WikiProject Kabbalah? I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Lighthead 04:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to WP:OCCULT[edit]

I'm sorry that my interest have led me away from occult, I problably won't be returning. My best wishes though AlexanderLevian 01:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Varg Vikernes[edit]

Hi Alex. I was afraid that the use of "ideologue" might be contentious, but I didn't mean it in a negative way, but I wanted to mean that his work is part of an ideology of sorts. I also used "racialist" because I consider that central to his thinking. He has other concerns, but it seems to me that his thoughts on paganism and politics stem directly from his opinions on race. I guess with someone like him coming up with an NPOV two-word description is kind of tough. Something like "writer" doesn't mean much though, and I wanted to give some idea of his beliefs. Bartleby 04:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you were being negative. I do, however, think that the current "Musician, Writer, Song Writer" label is the best as far as occupation goes. Currently there still seems to be a user that believes that he is a nazi and an occultist. This is contrary to his writings, and I believe her prejudice comes from a wish to demonize him for being a racialist. This is okay for blogs, but not wikipedia. please take some time to see his disscusion section, we can use the help, thank you AlexanderLevian 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I didn't know if you have noticed, but the Varg Vikernes page is mess up again. I was looking through the page history and saw you. Will you help me, I'm new and just trying to keep things accurate. 172.163.184.165 (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Satanism (disambiguation)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Satanism (disambiguation), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satanism (disambiguation). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cybercobra (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Freedom Caucus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

American Sniper[edit]

I didn't know about the Eastwood quote about it being antiwar. I thought you were just using the same reference you used on List of anti-war films. While the first source was just someone's personal analysis of the film and not enough, but the director saying it's antiwar is obviously enough. JDDJS (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Freedom Caucus[edit]

I'll accept your removal of the Slate source per WP:CITEKILL (an essay I often cite and defend). However I don't accept the idea that it's not a reliable source. No need to debate it, I just thought you should know in case it comes up later. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That's understandable. I wasn't saying it's an unreliable source. You are right that a blog can be used as a reliable source. I read the page about newsblogs as sources and I accept that. It seemed that since it was an opinion piece that it should be the one to be removed. The misunderstanding was my fault. I had fail to say it was the overciting, not the reliability, that was the reason for the removal the first time. Hopefully no harm, no foul. Thank you. Alexander Levian (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Source Request[edit]

Hello,

I'm Brad and I'm a writer at few different websites here and there. I'm currently putting together a feature on Wikipedia contributors and I was wondering if you would have the time/interest to send a few emails back and forth about your work.

Cheers, Brad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleythomasjones (talkcontribs) 19:22, 30 November 2015‎ (UTC)

Greeting. I'm not interested. Thank you. Alexander Levian (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of 3RR Violation[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLibertyLover (talkcontribs) 03:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)‎

Actually friend, it appears that you are the one that violated the 3RR (and have been blocked [3]) because you have reverted the same page 4 times within a 24-hour period and have refused to participate in the discussion on the talk page. I would appreciate in the future if you would participate in the discussion as Wikipedia is all about consensus. Alexander Levian (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Party[edit]

Hi, McCurdy is in the Jstor article source (mentioned along with Clinton and Gore) and schultz is not listed anywhere in the sources, which is why I've edited this section. WikiEditor668 (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes she is. Scroll to the bottom of the list on [4]. They just moved the page from "Membership" to "Members". As far as McCurdy, I've looked over the source and saw him. So that was my mistake and I will be moving the citation to include him. Alexander Levian (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I've added other people that are part of that coalition. Schultz is not the only member of the coalition.-WikiEditor668 (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
No one has said she's the only member. But as former chairperson of the DNC she is a notable Democrat, so mentioning that she is a member seems reasonable. Alexander Levian (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I left a reply to your response on the talk page. Do you agree? Thank you. WikiEditor668 (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. You're position that we should list as few members as possible seems arbitrary given that she isn't just a congresswoman, but the former chairperson of the DNC as well. Alexander Levian (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
My reason for listing fewer members is because there are others among the coalition who are just as or even more qualified (governors, lieutenant govs., etc.). It would make sense to condense it to just the coalition chair and the presidential nominee. WikiEditor668 (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge[edit]

50k Challenge poster.jpg You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, AlexanderLevian. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

  1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
  2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
  3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
  4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
  5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Freedom Caucus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Trace. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank You. I corrected the mistake. Alexander Levian (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking for more informed assistance/opinions regarding the political position of the Republican Party (US)[edit]

Hi! I saw that you were a member of WikiProject Politics, and was wondering if you'd be willing to give input/assistance on a task I've set out to do on changing the consensus regarding the political position (or rather lack thereof) on the Republican Party (United States) page. If you're interested, you can participate (either by stating your opinion, or responding to others regarding inaccuracies, etc) on the talk page. Thanks! HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 03:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Umm... I'm already participating in said discussions. You've even responded to one of my responses, and I'm going to post my response to that later today. But I appreciate you trying to get my attention anyway. Alexander Levian (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, AlexanderLevian. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

June 2018[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Freedom Caucus 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 one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please note that this page has a consensus Talk:Freedom_Caucus#RFC:_far-right. Also, this article is under Discretionary Sanctions and article restrictions.Lionel(talk) 11:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that I reverted more than once in a 24-hour period after the fact. So I've backed off and will take it to the talk page. The previous concensus was based on different sources and the editors were split pretty much down the middle, so a new discussion will have to be brought up. But I have no interest in edit warring, I thought more time had passed. It was my mistake and it won't happen again. Alexander Levian (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)