User talk:Contrivance

Answered
Yes I have answered your questions at the discussion page. You just did not like the answers.Celeronel (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Answer the question, please. Where did I lie? Contrivance (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You claimed the Glasgow Herald article was was wrong (you didn't say what about) and you claimed you were going to digitize a video and prove it. When are you going to prove your case? Contrivance (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Your answer is at the talkk page of William Rodriguez. Now answer this, why did you put back the book part on the top when you received no conscencus from a single editor of the page? Do you think your edit is more special than the others? Are you going to reach conscencus ever? 67.85.126.95 (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you know what consensus is. Can you spell consenso?  I put the book part on top because it's an important point to help people understand about the great sacrifices WR makes to protect his integrity.  Million dollar movie deals he turns down!  Wow, what a hero!  Contrivance (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me know when you finish doing your vandalising so I can go and start fixing it. I give you a week free rein, let's see how dishonet or how honorable your edits are. Time will tell.67.85.126.95 (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Accusing other editors of vandalism is contrary to wiki rules. If I'm vandalising, it's your duty to the integrity of the wiki project to fix my vandalism immediately, and not let it stand just to try to prove your point. I suspect that you are not am established editor and thus are not qualified to edit the WR page and so you're bluffing about that like you're bluffing about knowing who I am, you're bluffing about the Herald article, you're bluffing about the Power Hour resignation statement. Contrivance (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is more likely. Just finish and we can research it. You can suspect many things but I always prove you wrong. Go ahead and test it. You are taking this as a game, I don't bluff and do not think anybody here does it either, including you.

Now be more responsible with your edits and your statements and we can be the same. "We" is everybody else that edits here, before you start calling insults without proof. Again let's see how dishonet or how honorable your edits are. Time will tell.67.85.126.95 (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why Did You Undo My Revisions?

 * It seems you don't know the difference between showing my edits are wrong, and claiming they are wrong. I have shown how your claims are wrong.  Please advise when and where I lied.   I am pushing a neutral point of view on the edit page.  You are trying to censor the facts.  I didn't say call anyone "bitch".  I said "When I don't get answers, I bitch."  That's not bitching about not getting my way.  That's bitching about not getting answers from editors who think they can do wholesale reversions and don't have to explain themselves.  Do you quote me out of context because you are a liar or because you are incompetent to read English, or both?  It looks like you're the only one who answered the call on 911blogger for Truthers to come and sing Willie's praises, and you're trying to disguise yourself as a skeptic by attacking Richard Gage.  You have the process backward.  It is by reasoning together that we arrive at consensus.  Your demand that we have consensus first, when you refuse to be reasonable, is in effect a demand for capitulation on my part.  I note you are still making wholesale reversions and refusing to explain them. 

Contrivance (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here we go again with this. You have been proven wrong on your edits many times. You have been advised the places you have lied in the past many times. Is getting ridiculous from your part to keep asking and "bitching" because you do not agree with the answers. Wholesale editing without proper linking, acceptable sources and mere speculation on your part, requires the same from others. Being Sarcastic about my English will not get you any closer to get an understanding. You did this to others in the past. Nobody laughed at youe mexican food joke. Richard Gage is a phony who is using other people's research to spew the same bs out there. apparently Richard Gage employs the person who started this attack, so it is fair to clear the reasons why he said the statements on radio. Also his statements, you like always take them out of context. If you are  going to comment, please do, but state it is your personal take so we can post the counter arguments. I am not unreasonable, I just do not appreciate your insistence of pushing your point of view on everything you edit.Celeronel (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverting without providing reasons is rude in any language. Contrivance (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

For vandalising the page. The items were placed on proper areas and you still continued to move them to the top. Why do they do not go on the top. First because it does not make sense. Second because it is obvious your insistence to create controversy. By putting the stuff continually there, you invite people to post rebuts and argumentations to counter your statements supposedly link to others. Why do you keep doing this? are you looking for banning? are you looking for making a statement? what's up with you?Celeronel (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You demolish nothing, the opposite. Point by ppoint I have shown how wrong your edits are. If you are going to attack semantics, language and other personal aspects, be prepared to be attacked on your character and your lies. Uncooperative? You have been trying to push your point of view on the editing page instead of a neutral point of view. Your sarcasm is evident and you just seem to enjoy to engage in an argument, as you said "Bitch" when you do not get your way. Apparently, you have not received any support by anybody here and that is also part of Wikipedia. When you are able to get a conscensus, then we can reason.Celeronel (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously you don't know what vandalism is. How did my stuff compromise the integrity of Wikipedia? What was improper about my placement?  The Colombia trip and the Tango TV belong in WR's new mission.

Obviously I do and you are doing it. Integrity, you do not know what you are talking about. Colombian Trip goes to Travels. Tango show was done 6 years ago an just released on the internet website of the TV station, learn how to read.Celeronel (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The top is an introductory paragraph that tells who WR is, why he's important, and tries to intrigue the reader with interesting facts. Why doesn't the stuff I put at the top belong there?  Why doesn't it make sense?  What's wrong with controversy?  Ever hear of thesis, antithesis, synthesis?  Isn't that what Wiki is about?
 * I give you controversy then. No wiki is not about that. Read wiki's mission statement again.Celeronel (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What's up with me? I'm trying to tell the Willie Rodriguez story in an engaging truthful way. What's up with you?  What are you trying to do?  Write a commercial advertising brochure for his disaster management consulting services?  Contrivance (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Engaging point of view way, yours. Pushing and changing meaning of statements is not engaging but libelous. You changed his radio show statements to imply the whole movement and all the leaders, even though he was clear about it. You changed his experience to imply he lied aboutthe doors even though he was on CNN with David Lim besides him. You also tried to lie about he never meeting John Schroeder. You lied about his conection with Barrett insinuating that he was a bigot and anti semite because he was introduced by Barrett in the past but did not provided negative, obscene, antisemite statements on these presentations by either one of them. You lied about him going to Ireland and being presented there by Shyler. You lied about him about his exclusion of the Loose Change video without any evidence to support you. You lied about him never getting supported by Kenny Johanneman when in fact they both met before his suicide. You lied about him on the book deals since ou did not provided the counterargument that after those statements were made, hi self published his own without the help or enticement of publishers. You lied about his tour in different ocassions. You lied about his key, without providing evidence that it was not important. You lied about his esperience on that day. Apparently, you knew the experience better than him and you have to re-tell it your way. You only relied on the Glasgow Herald as your only point of attack, when given various other dissenting links, you disregard them. Funny you keep trying without being inpartial. This will be posted on your page.Celeronel (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already explained that I did not make any Mexican food joke. Radio hosts at the abovetopsecret site made the joke in a two hour radio program that seemed to be one claimed by one of Willie's fleas to answer all my questions (it didn't).  Many accusations have been made against me of lying.  Name one that I have not refuted.  When do I take Willie's statements out of context?  Contrivance (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your obvious hidden racist comments about others english skills and your obvious lies already stated has not made you look like a cooperative member to work with. Other lies are the creation of the truth movement. It is your view that it started b3fore 2005, evidence posted by your own statements that it did not really existed until after the 9/11 Commission was created. You lied about the Jersey Girls, the Family Steering Committee etc. Show us were these groups abide by the claims that 9/11 is an inside job as claimed by the 9/11 truth group. You still have not provided this information. ALso your postings of 9/11 websites is not acceptable as explained to you many times before. If you continue, postings of 100's of websites can be added as couterarguments as well.Celeronel (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your opinion of course. Where is the link from wikipedia? was it a claim from the staff or just from an anonymous editor like you? Bush did it demonstrations on your opinion was the begining of that movement? Please explain, with exact dates and post links to it.Celeronel (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Learn to google. Try "911 Truth movement wiki"  Answer the questions: name one instance where I was charged a lie and did not refute the charge.  When did I take Willie's statements out of context.  You accuse me of doing what you do.  Your most recent edit is vandalism:  You put in bad grammar, you put in unjustified inferences, you take out important information without evidence that its false.  You make no attempt to make it right.  Contrivance (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You google it and post your links. Of course reliable ones, not claims by 9/11 websites. You are making those claims, not me. Rxactly agree that you are putting unjustified inferences, I will correct you placing the actual statements that you take out of context and the reasons behind it. The evidence is there on the same links you provide.Celeronel (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
Schfifty Three  03:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC) because is a negative one obviously and it is showing everywhere. So you are saying that the use of that key did not save anyone correct? Just answer for the record. Also you are saying that he saved those people. So what is it, did he saved people or not? Where is the mention of Saltalamachia for example? Kenny Johanemaan, Ivan Alemdariz Etc etc.? Let me ask you asswipe, if it was you there on 9/11, would you have stpped everyone and told them hey by the way give me your name and number, will you have Id'd them? Will you have changed bussiness cards? As understand and your hero Grvy as well, he has one of the biggest email database of families and survivors. Don't you think they already went through this? Also even Roberts recognizes WR heroism!!!69.116.203.23 (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

When did I attack WR? Is asking for evidence to support his claims attackimg him? Contrivance (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WR Claims he Saved Hundreds of People Who Were Trapped Behind Locked Fire Doors
BBC "North Country" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5861152043407678584  see 0:57 to 1:04

At the LA symposium he describes climbing up from the 29th floor: "I turn off the radio and I continue going up the building… by myself, opening doors, letting people out until I got to the 33rd floor."

He says he was "letting people out."

Here's the transcript http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/heroism-of-william-rodriguez-amazing.html

Here's the Dutch TV program  http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=6397746163648527211

4:05 "There were five master keys for the building, and I had the only one available at that moment, and I went floor by floor by floor, opening the doors so the people could escape."

5:05 "I was recognized for saving hundreds of people, but the people I wanted to help I was never able to help."

Just curious--why are you trying to deny that Willie made the claims that he's famous for?

(Note in LA symposium video, at 22:43 he displays the key--might make a better picture than the one used.)

Contrivance (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see nothing of him saying "behind locked doors", you said that. Implying by him does not makes it so. So the quote is absolutely unaceptable from you. Twisting the words is a good tool you have used before as I can see in many of your edits. You should refrain and only post fact-exact quotes, reliable sources ( you have used established unreliable sources before. ie- The Power Hour press relaeases ( WR does not even mention this as far I can research), Alex Jones material)and copywright unaceptable you tube content. Many firemen said similar things on the New york Times "102 minutes" book. I disagree he was famous on those statements you claim on him. There are more detailed information of his larger than life conection with 9/11 and the victims. 69.116.203.23 (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Your claims as to '102 Minutes' and "detailed information" are completely empty. WR said he was "letting people out." The only way that is possible is if they were locked in. Contrivance (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Response
Hi, Contrivance.

Just so you know, I responded to your posts on my talk page. {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)}

Sharpdhmi, many of your edits have been extremely goofy. Frequently the reasons you cite for them are not true.
Contrivance (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "remove npov"? Doesn't that mean "remove neutral point of view"? Why do you want to remove a neutral point of view? Why are you consistently removing descriptions of Rodriguez' mission? You've removed Rodriguez' characterizations of himself, his descriptions to audiences of his heroic acts, and the description of the Herald of his status in the 9/11 Truth movement. Why?

What do you mean, the key should be corroborated?

If Rodriguez' travels around the world are relevant to the lead paragraph, why does a brief characterization of what he talks about not belong there? Contrivance (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should you move a description of Rodriguez' status in the Truth movement and his characterization of himself as "Last Survivor", material which clearly belongs in the lead paragraph, to Notable events? They're not events. They're descriptions. Why won't you answer my questions? Contrivance (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Contrivance or should I say, Mr. Brian Good ( see: http://www.911blogger.com/node/16545#comment )Wikipedia is not the place for your agenda for or against Rodriguez. Stop your efforts. Thanks. I will ask the page to be placed for moderation. Sending this to the admins.Sharphdmi (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How can you accuse me of having an agenda if you don't even know if it's for or against Rodriguez? Why won't you answer my questions? Why do you object to highlighting Rodriguez' statements detailing his heroism in saving hundreds of lives? Isn't that what makes him notable? I don't understand. Contrivance (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Very simple Mr. Brian. For what I have googled, it is clear your what your agenda is. for what I have researched, you like only to debate your 9/11 views and NPOV and not to arrive to conscencus. I will not play your game here. Wiki is not your personal blog. End on conversation.Sharphdmi (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Will you please explain your edits and answer my questions. You seem to be assuming bad faith based on unjustified assumptions. You seem to be confusing me with somebody else (a basketball coach?) Maybe you're misinterpreting much of what you read? How can you characterize your recent changes as minor edits? How can you accuse me of thwarting consensus when it's you that refuses to discuss the reasoning behind your edits? How can you accuse me of making this my personal blog when you've only ever edited this one page yourself?

Contrivance (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I wish you would explain the reasoning behind your removal from the lead block of information characterizing Rodriguez' mission, the image he projects, and the stuff he talks about in his presentations.

It seems to me that's exactly what belongs in the lead block. Contrivance (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sharphdmi, you have a pattern of moving stuff around, and losing stuff when you do it.

It makes it difficult to tell if you're doing it deliberately or accidentally. Re: "Last Man" claim, it seems you want to cite it in UK news report, but you want to claim it's a POV issue when its specious nature is discussed. If you want to reference Rodriguez' recanting of the claim, please do so with appropriate quotes and time stamps. Don't remove the information that it's not true.

Contrivance (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I wish you would stop removing stuff on the basis that some two-hour interview on some Conspiracy radio station allegedly explained it away

If you want to make claims like that, give us a time stamp. Contrivance (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You go and hear the interview.Sharphdmi (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to listen to two hours of Conspiracy bullshit to find out it doesn't say what you claim it says. If you want to cite it, give us a quote and a time stamp. Contrivance (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 05:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop being an ass and do the research.Sharphdmi (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop being an ass and support your claims. I'm not going to listen to 2 hours of bullshit to find out that what you say is in there is not in there. Is this the abovetopsecret show where they start out by joking about ordering Mexican fast food, and they promise there's going to be some heavy emotional stuff in the show, but it turns out they cut all the emotional stuff out? Contrivance (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey asshole, I am Mexican. Keep your shit on the level. Do your own research and stop bitching. Do me a favor, do not even contact me, do it on the discussion page and not my personal page.Sharphdmi (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked you a simple technical question in an effort to establish whether the radio show you cite is one that I have already heard. It was the radio hosts that made the dumb jokes about fast food, not me. Could it be that you are not familiar with the content of the show you cite? Please try to remain civil. I do my own research, and then you delete it. The issue here is that you aren't doing YOUR research. You cite a two-hour radio program as explaining all conflicts, but you won't give us quotes or time stamps.

The discussion page is broken--new comments can be seen only in edit mode, and if you had made any effort to explain your edits you would know this. Contrivance (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your "contextualizing" of the Herald quote adds no value.

I didn't take it out of context. The context reinforces it, but your lengthier quote obfuscates the point, which is lack of corroborating evidence. Your statement "comments about his beliefs of the official version" makes no sense. Since when does Rodriguez believe the official version? You have not answered any of my questions on this page. Not one. Contrivance (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Bogus Edits

Are we supposed to take the word of an anonymous wikipedia editor that the Ireland trip never happened? Google lists several events lists that advertise it. Your edits for clarification are not clarifying. Why do you change touring europe to being invited to tour? Are you claiming that never happened either? Are you ever going to start answering questions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contrivance (talk • contribs) 17:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Still More Bogus Edits

Walter financed Rodriguez's travels to Europe, Malaysia, and Venezuela, did he not? Von Kleist's press release says they were traveling together. Do you have evidence that they were not?

Is Sharphdmi a wikipedia-approved source for the lack of an Ireland tour? Did you watch the Machon video? She says "We are actually doing a national tour with William Rodriguez." Who is "we" if not Machon and Shayler? Since you seem to have personal knowledge about Ireland, why not share your personal knowledge about Scotland?

Also, when you cut the Ireland info you also cut the Herald writeup of the Glasgow appearance. Careless, careless.

Contrivance (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Walter financed the tour to Europe. Malaysia was financed by the IIF, who invited them separate from each other, therefore they did not "Travelled together", two separate invitations. They were also invited separately for the Japan 9/11 Conference. Walter's lives in Vienna and Rodriguez lives in USA. I wrote to Walter, WR and Annie Machon. Also wrote to IIF and they all confirm this except WR who did not respond. When Machon said we, she refers to the UK 911 truth.org, MAchon was not anymore in any relationship with Shayler to be a "we". Rodriguez allowed Shayler to introduce him in oneevent in the UK only and it was under strict guidelines not to even talk about his personal views on 9/11 that clearly clashes with his own views. Wr has attacked and has been attacked by the "no-planers" for a long time. Common knowledge on the truth movement.Sharphdmi (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Sharphdmi (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

because is a negative one obviously and it is showing everywhere. So you are saying that the use of that key did not save anyone correct? Just answer for the record. Also you are saying that he saved those people. So what is it, did he saved people or not? Where is the mention of Saltalamachia for example? Kenny Johanemaan, Ivan Alemdariz Etc etc.? Let me ask you asswipe, if it was you there on 9/11, would you have stpped everyone and told them hey by the way give me your name and number, will you have Id'd them? Will you have changed bussiness cards? As understand and your hero Grvy as well, he has one of the biggest email database of families and survivors. Don't you think they already went through this? Also even Roberts recognizes WR heroism!!!69.116.203.23 (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is my POV negative? Please show an example. You are very emotional. Perhaps you are not thinking clearly. I already said quite clearly: please provide information that WR's key saved anyone. I've never seen any. Who's Grvy? What makes you think he's my hero? What about Saltalamacchia? Did WR rescue him? When are you going to start amswering questions? Contrivance (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Brian, my error,not cnn, 2 hour C-Span television special was televised on september 8th 2007. It was then rebroadcasted several times that week. I have seen it and it does debunks most of your bullshit. Go to C-Span, not CNN and search for it. C-Span will be able to sell you a copy for 29.99.69.116.203.23 (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

by your own admission, you said"Who cares about my point of view? Is there any evidence that the key saved anybody? WR evacuated Felipe David. He helped to free Salvatore Giambanco and an unidentified man from the elevator shaft. The key had nothing to do with either of those. If you have evidence that he saved anyone else, please share it. Contrivance (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)" therefore he indeed helped save many people.69.116.203.23 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Please identify what "bullshit" the C-Span talk debunked. Please provide time stamps for the debunking. Please answer my questions. Please explain why you think asking you to share evidence that WR's key saved people has "established hate" for WR. Why are you so defensive about WR's story? Your belief that you know my name is amusing. Contrivance (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Brian, when you get your copy of C-Span, let me know and I will point that bullshit to you. It is established as anybody can read trough it. Why I defend Rodriguez? I don't. I admire what he did on 9/11 and tried to understand what happened on that day. I am fair with the edits and can see where you are going. We can all see the agenda. 69.116.203.23 (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't expect me to spend $30.00 on a DVD until you identify the "bullshit" that the DVD allegedly debunks. Why won't you answer questions? How does asking for evidence for WR's claims "establish hate"? Where did you get the crystal ball so you can see my agenda? Did you get it from JRandi, maybe? Your statement in the edit history "If he was recognized for act of heroism, is obvious why" is extremely naive. You accusing me of attacking WR and having "established hate" and an agenda is accusing me of bad faith. Such accusations are against Wikipedia rules. Contrivance (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Pay the money and find out. Since your mission ( as established in your talk page ) is to edit WR page, I guess it will be fair for you to do that. I am accusing you of attacking him. That is correct. So I guess his recognitions were naive as well, by the governments and polititians that recognized him. Correct? 69.116.203.23 (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

When did I attack WR? Is asking for evidence to support his claims attackimg him? Contrivance (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to your query on my talk page
FYI, I answered the recent message that you posted on my talk page.{Jazz2006 (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)}


 * Contrivance, FYI, I have answered the most recent message that you left on my talk page as well. {Jazz2006 (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)}

Biography articles
I notice you have been editing the William Rodriguez and Kevin Barrett articles, both which fall under Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. Under the policy, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." As well, material needs to be reliably sources and must avoid synthesis of various sources to advance a view point. So, under the BLP policy, adding something saying Kevin Barrett is a Holocaust Denier without solid, reliable sources is not acceptable. Regards. --Aude (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Contrivance is very skillful in doing poorly sourced allegations.Celeronel (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My allegations are all very well sourced. Your belief that they are poorly sourced is based on your misunderstanding of what the allegations are. Contrivance (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have answered your questions at the discussion page. You just did not like the answers.Celeronel (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You responded to some of the questions (not all). I'm not sure that you answered any of them. Contrivance (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

William Rodriguez
I have noticed that you seem to be claiming the above article for your own. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia. You have been warned. manadude2 (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. See comment above. manadude2 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't claim ownership of the article. I do object to Combatant's constant reversions to a version that contains errors of fact and grammar, and removes important information.  Combatant clearly has an agenda, for she only edits the article on William Rodiguez, and acts to undo my work on articles about other 9/11 activists.  Combatant refuses to discuss her changes.  Contrivance (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Three-revert rule
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Take some timout!
I have added the 3RR template to your talkpage. Take some timout from editing William Rodriguez. Stop edit warring too. Thaks manadude2 (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Rodriguez
Hi Contrivance, thanks for your thoughtful message at my talk page. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was singling you out at manadude's talk page; the truth is I'm not familiar with the discussion and the whole history of the article, so I don't have a big enough grasp on the article to be able to know who's right and wrong, or who's been civil and who's been incivil. Mainly I was just concerned about all the reverting, because the edit warring rules state that even if you're totally in the right and the other guy is totally wrong, you can still get blocked for participating in an edit war; furthermore, I think the admins at 3RR, like me, will not be able to delve deep enough into the dispute to get a clear picture of who's right and wrong, and therefore might just end up temporarily blocking both of you if the reverting continues. As frustrating as it can be, the best thing to do now is probably to avoid the article for a bit (it looks like you've already started, which is good) and get in touch with someone who's familiar with the topic and could help review the issues (Dravecky just made some edits to the article and I know him to be an experienced and fair editor, so getting in touch with him could help; barring that, you could leave a message at the talk page of one of the WikiProjects that the article is part of, or at the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard. Thanks, Politizer talk / contribs 15:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Contrivance
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as User:Contrivance, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. manadude2 (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Some details
I have received an email from Combatant who is now indefinatly blocked from editing (not by me). It states that you have had involvement in editing the William Rodreguez pages at:


 * "Democratic Underground" as the user "Petgoat"
 * "YouTube" as the users "Truetruther" and "punxsutawneybarney"
 * "911blogger" as the user "Petgoat"

You also made a page on "Google Groups" as the user "Brian Good" with the title "Strategy Idea: Be the WikiMEDIA" whch can be found here (Evidence 1)

You also have made negative attacks on the Wikipedia users "Kevin Barratt" and "Carol Brouillet". It can be seen on another "Google Groups" and explained by Carol herself that this user has a vendetta against the 2 parties mentioned: Evidence 2.

Please reply on my talk page with further details. manadude2 (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Contrivance, thank you for your input, it is appreciated. Combatant has been blocked from editing, so you don't need to worry about him anymore. I don't know if the information above is correct or not. I was just drawing it to your attention. Just don't become too obsessed with the William Rodrigues page please. manadude2 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
Your actions are being discussed at WP:AE. Kevin (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As a result of the discussion at WP:AE, you are banned from all articles and talk pages related to the September 11 attacks for a period of 1 year. The relevant arbitration remedy is ARB911. Kevin (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Review needed of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/September_11_conspiracy theories?
You are listed as having negative sanctions filed against you.

See: Proportion of 9/11 defenders restricted compared to 9/11 conspiracy theorists

Although I do not support the views of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and will not lead a review of this arbitration, I think that a review maybe warranted, and I am floating the idea, with all parties who may have been unfairly censored.

A review can be created simply by adding a section:
 * ==Request to review: September 11 conspiracy theories==

On Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories.

Ikip (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)