–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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
00:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
02:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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
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)
–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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
00:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
02:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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
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)