User talk:Combatant

Some random stuff...

Where is the tone mockery?Contrivance

Here we go, Contrivance, you have been told numerous times about your tone. I am not the first one. Your writting tone is one of demeaning. Look for instance your past edits about his mission, how about your nitpickins of his presentations. The page leaves much more to be desired in context and tone.Combatant (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometime" is not speculative in the least. Sometime between 2/08 when the last wayback archive was made and December, the claim to 15 rescues was deleted. I happen to know it was late in the year, but I can't prove it.Contrivance

You said it, you cannot prove it. My point.Combatant (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is mocking about pointing out that the claim was next to (and slightly below) the paypal buton? It's a technical observation. Also one of some legal consequence, as I'm sure you're aware.Contrivance

Technical? It is not even important. Your tone is to try to push pins that he asks for donations to do his mission, it is pretty evident.Combatant (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this phony distinction you make between being "a witness" and "experiencing"? Experiences are what make a witness. How does the distinction make the observation that Rodriguez' claim of experiencing explosions was not in the lawsuit "speculative"?Contrivance

Many others already pointed out that there was never discovery process in the lawsuit. Others pointed out, with links, his statements against the lawsuit and the lawyer. He experienced an event, he was a witness, but not a witness to an explosion from a bomb itself. He clearly says on many videos that he is not an expert on explosives and he speculates about that, but his problem is that this explosions were not investigated.Combatant (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Scoop and Szymanski are not acceptable, take them out. Fine with me. Then the first time Rodriguez alleges that he "experienced" explosions is moved all the way up to 8/07, the C-Span--unless we can find an acceptable source for the 2006 show. I inserted my change to try to be fair to Willie by pointing out Szymanski was his mouthpiece. Contrivance

"You called Szymanski his mouthpiece. The first time he mentioned that he experience "explosion" was on CNN en Español on the afternoon of 9/11. Sadly we cannot use copyright CNN videos but you can find it on "The Last Man Out"-Final Cut-documentary. I saw it at the LA Film Festival, it is apparently still on the film festivals circuit so we will have to wait for the actual copy. A note is that he has many of the victims that he helped in it. Let's wait until it is available and you can poke your satirical fun to it.Combatant (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion (and experience--and many people have told me) that Willie's audiences are "enthralled". Do you deny that it's a fact?Contrivance

Yes, I have seen him and I am not enthralled, I admire what he did, but not to be enthralled by his ability as a speaker.Combatant (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point about the time of 9:03 for the 22-story collapse. If Rodriguez admits he was wrong about the time, why don't we put that in. Isn't that significant that in June 2006 in LA, almost five years after the event, he was so confused about the facts?Contrivance

And the fact that he received more than 2 hours on C-Span to tell every detail. Even the ones that was missed by the 2006 event where there were many speakers and all of them given an alloted time slot. Nitpicking again isn't it?Combatant (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your quibble about the Daily News sources. Are you saying we need to check them? How does that make my edits speculative and unfair?Contrivance

Because you are speculating about who said what.Combatant (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Like" is wrong. You can say "Like A, B" if the two things are comparable. "Like Roger, George was reckless." But here you're saying "Like most witnesses, Rodriguez' evidence was private." You're not talking about Roger and George, you're talking about people and evidence. Apples and Oranges.Contrivance

Personal interpretation.Combatant (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Good Karma you really don't get the concept, do you? Good Karma is not a good source for facts, I agree--except they are excellent evidence on the awards they give. Same thing with Barrett--he's am excellent source on the press releases he wrote. Why do you want to keep the Humanitarian award out? Contrivance (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it? do you? This is not about Good Karma or the stupid awards they give, this is not about your nemesis Kevin Barrett either. Is out because as you mentioned "Good Karma is not a good source for facts"Combatant (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Contrivance (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise what was unfair and speculative about my edits of 12-29-08. Also what is wrong with the tone of the article. I don't think there was anything unfair and speculative about them and I suspect that you are simply fact-averse with respect to William Rodriguez. Many people are. Contrivance (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is one of mockery.Combatant (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make it easy for you. Here are my edits:

I changed "recently" to "sometime in 2008"Contrivance

'sometime is speculative.'Combatant (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the fact that the deleted claim of single-handed rescues was featured on the website next to a paypal button.Contrivance

Mockery again and it is not next to paypal button. It is a tone to ridicule.Combatant (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I specified the date of the NIST testimony to help it fit better in a testimony timeline.Contrivance

'No problem there, I will reinstate it.'Combatant (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the observation that Rodriguez' lawsuit did not allege that he had witnessed any explosions.Contrivance

Speculative, since he is known for not being a witness but for "experiencing" explosions.Combatant (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the important point that in the internet article (Scoop) where Rodriguez is first alleged to have claimed there were explosions, the reporter relies on Greg Szymanski's hearsay report of what Rodriguez said.Contrivance

Greg Szymanski's hearsay or writtings are not aceptable sources. As I understand, Rodriguez attacked him in the past for some of his writtings. Scoop is not aceptable.Combatant (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence putting the 8/07 quote on the explosions into its context. Do you deny that Rodriguez' audiences were enthralled?Contrivance

This is your opinion and point of viewCombatant (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added further context to the claim of the 22-story collapse--the information that Rodriguez was four floors beneath the alleged collapse zone. I added the point that Rodriguez also said he heard the plane hit tower two about that time. That's important, I'm sure you know, because the plane hit the south tower at 9:03, 17 minutes after the plane hit the north tower.Contrivance

Right on the time wrong on the delivery, Rodriguez stated quite clearly, in the C-Span Special that at that moment(39th floor) that's what he believed, and emphatically clarifies "not that it was! but that's what I thought afterwards" time stamp 01:39.50 to 01:40:13 dispelling any doubts. He was not close to any windows and "speculated" wrongly but openly admits it as a mistake.Combatant (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced legalistic "prior to" language with vernacular "before," and removed "it is claimed" from information cited from a NY Daily News article. Are you saying the Daily News is not a reliable source?Contrivance

Can you clarify who is speaking to the Daily News? apparently they had different sources for the story.Combatant (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced "Like" with the more grammatical "As was the case" and removed the redundant "only".Contrivance "Like" was the correct one.Combatant (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added information on the Good Karma Humanitarian award, adding that Good Karma endorsed Rodriguez's claim of 15 single-handed rescues.Contrivance

Good Karma is a Public Relations company that has worked with or for Rodriguez as a paid event organizer, therefore is not acepted as a wikisource.Combatant (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now what was speculative or unfair about any of that? Contrivance (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There you have it.Combatant (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full Page protection of William Rodriguez

Thanks for your email, full page protection has been applied for. manadude2 (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. The William R page needs protection from Combatant, an obvious sock puppet of Sharphdmi, WTCSurvivor, Celeronel, and who knows who all else, who is suspected of being none other than the subject of the article, who has no interest in any other article except occasionally to vandalize my work elsewhere, whose agenda is clearly to obstruct and when necessary obfuscate facts. Contrivance (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you do not even deserve a response. Combatant (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Do I insist on restoring material that is not true, that is misleading, that obfuscates, or is ungrammatical? Do I remove important information? Do I refuse to discuss, justify, and negotiate my changes? Who made you the judge that decides who deserves what? Contrivance (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrivance, next time you wish to notify me of anything on your talkpage please add {{talkback|Contrivance}} on my talkpage, this way I know that you want to speak to me. The page cannot be protected from just one person. If it is protected, it is protected from the whole of the Wikipedia community. Then only established users can edit it or admins. I have added the 3RR template onto both yours and Contrivance's talkpages to attempt to stop this edit war. It is better for the William Rodriguez page to be left alone by you two for a while, just take some time out. Thanks manadude2 (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on William Rodriguez. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Another clarification: 3 reverts in 24 hours is an outside limit, but people can still get blocked for less, if admins decide they are acting in the "spirit" of edit warring or that they are trying to game the system. For example, if someone reverts twice, then waits for 24 hours to pass, then reverts twice again, it makes it look as if they're trying to edit war without getting blocked for 3RR, so they might get blocked anyway.

Anyway, we're not issuing these notices to single you guys out; we're just trying to help get the article issues solved and keep you from getting yourself blocked. I have left some suggestions at User talk:Contrivance#Rodriguez about seeking outside mediation for this article. Thanks, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Rodriguez

Combatant,

I see you're editing the article again. Remember, manadude2 and I have asked both you and Contrivance to refrain from editing a bit, pending further mediation—continuing to edit will just make it harder for other editors to get to the bottom of everything, and might escalate an edit war.

I am not going to revert your edits outright, because some of them seem uncontroversial and beneficial (such as the removal of "an uncommonly handsome man"), but I would appreciate it if you could hold off on editing for a little bit. Manadude2 and I are doing are best to help end the edit war and keep you and Contrivance from getting blocked, but we need your help as well. Thanks, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I will take a break. My apologies. To both.Combatant (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wtcsurvivor for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. manadude2 (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Email

Thank you for your email, but you must remember that evidence points to you being a sockpuppet of Wtcsurvivor and that you also have been engaged in an edit war. Contrivance is alos in the wrong for being involved in an edit war. As for the details supplied in the email, which I shall not reveal, they are of no concern of mine. I have taken the other details into consideration for when I deal with Contrivance. Thank you manadude2 (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]