User talk:Rex071404: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Rex071404 (talk | contribs)
7,103 edits
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Owing to the fact that my unit has been activated and I am Being pOsted tO a new location for an extended tour of duty, I will no lonGER be in Texas. For your information, I've been able to edit from several IP's including my current home in Texas because I was able to persuade a few friends and family to let me run RealVNC on their home computers/game servers/office PC's. However, now that my sockpuppets have been killed off and because I am being relocated and because I think I've made my point, and because we all have to grow up someday, I am content to quit for the indefinite future. Due to relocation issues beyond my control, I will not have internet access on any kind of regular basis for 18 months, which at my age, is a lifetime. If and/or when I ever return, it will be under a single new user account and I will not be a source of trouble. However, in order for this promise to be binding on me, I ask that my request (which I am making here now) to delete and protect my user page and user talk page (same as [[user:katefan0]] did) be honored. Basically, why I came back as Merecat was to prove that conservative editors are always opposed and I feel that I proved that. The RfC on Merecat [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat]] made clear that Merecat was not as bad as [[User:Rex071404]], but he was still opposed. Now as to how you can believe that I will not be a source of trouble, I'll just tell you that over the last 20 months I have run a parallel user account (my last undiscovered sock) who edited 0 political articles and was actually promoted to Admin. Regarding this admin, I quit using that account about 6 months after getting promoted. Eventually, you'll find some idle admin accounts and you'll probably guess which one was mine. One clue is that I had [[User:Kevin Baas]] on my watch list and occasionally reverted him as a logged out IP editor just to piss him off. Also, I am absolutely sure that [[User:Prometheuspan]] is a sockpuppet (takes one to know one), but if you guys can't see it, oh well. So you might ask yourselves "why would anyone bother with all this?". Well, it was simple; the wiki was (and still largely is) overrun with America hating left-wingers. My father served in Vietnam and he was injured a lot worse than that doofus [[John Kerry]], so it just sort of pissed me off that Kerry was doing so much bragging. As for voting, I wasn't even able to vote in 2004, so I've never voted for Bush. I guess fighting the Liberals on the Wikipedia was my way of trying to help. As for why I seem "weird"; I was home schooled and I am borderline dyslexic. Sometimes, I have to go over things 5-6 times to understand them. So, you might imagine that when others on the wiki insulted my editing skills as deficient, I took it personally. As for [[User:Kizzle]], I never replied to you before because I knew I'd be bailing soon, so what was the point? Sorry if I hurt your feelings. Also, as far as when I got myself "outed" as so-called [[User:Anon Texan]], you guys should bear in mind that I was well aware that those IP's were being tracked and I was also aware of the few IP footprints I left which connected Merecat to Rex071404. But at that point I didn't care, because I knew I would be bailing this month anyway. Also, what you guys were not aware of, is the editing I did after April 05 (when Merecat was created) under my non-political sock. And again, why go through all the trouble? Well it's very simple: As I told Kizzle, in order to have expectations, you must 1st communicate. I needed to test, measure, test, measure, before I could conclude my views about Wikipedia. My conclusion is that at any given time there is a small group of biased editors such as [[User:Commodore Sloat]], [[User:RyanFreisling]], [[User:Kevin Baas]], [[User:Nescio]] (and others from before such as [[user:Gamaliel]], [[User:Derex]], [[User:JamesMLane]]) who camp at political articles, quickly writing every negative snipe they read at DailyKos, DU and other crappy places. But these same editors are extremely slow to remove bad information once it becomes clear it's bad. However, as my victory over Nescio at [[Rationales to impeach George W. Bush]] proves, there is also now a core group of good editors such as [[User:Thatcher131]], [[User:Tbeatty]] and [[User:Morton devonshire]] and others who are now beginning to turn the liberal tide. So all that said, I agree to quit and go away, likely to never return, (and certainly to never return as a sock or 3RR type) provided that I am allowed to actually quit and my user page and user talk page are both deleted (and protected against restoration), leaving only my quit message (see below). PS: I have no other sock puppets which I am keeping - kudos to your checkuser staff for sniffing me out, except please note that you missed these alternate accounts: [[User:Korn2bmild]], [[User:Hdtopo]], [[User:Armand Tanzarian]], [[User:Armin Tanzarian]], [[User:Armen Tamzarian]], [[User:Armen Tanzarian]] and [[User talk:ソックスのパペット|ソックスのパペット]]. FYI: Hdtopo is abbreviated Spanish for "Mole man". I was going to move him forward as a trojan horse, but I lost interest. Get it, "mole" man? As in KGB mole? Also, there was another [[Simpsons]] tie-in there. Anyway, best wishes,
----------
[[User:Rex071404|'''R704''']] 03:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
'''Welcome!'''


Ps: "Rex" was my ferret. I had to give him away last year because I was not allowed to bring him with me. That's why I chose "Merecat" because it reminded me of [[Meerkat]] which reminded me of Rex. Cal Burrattino was a twisted translation from "sockpuppet". Wombdpsw stood for WillieOnMichael'sBigDaddyPelicanShitWheels. Neutral arbiter was an obvious ploy to bug my foes. The un accountable IP addresses came from login on via friends PC's. The Texas IPs are my local ISP who I use here and the Google IP is accessed via this link: http://www.google.com/gwt/n Now I suppose revealing that Google link is going to piss off a few wiki editors because by my count at least 3-4 others have recently edited (legitimately) from that address, but I figured since I aggravated you guys enough, I owed you a good turn. So, like I told you all, the Google edits were done from my desktop, not a cellphone. It's up to you guys to decide if you want to block that. Also, will note that this request also applies to my IP page of [[User:216.153.214.94]], which is where Rex always edited from and where this edit is coming from now via VNC (you can check your logs). Also, this .94 address was a game server behind a firewall on which I was one of the sysops, but that server is being booted off line this month as our gaming group is disbanding and we are taking that PC it's DSL line. (for that reason and for the reasons posted above, I won't be able to edit from .94 again, so this is the last time I can ask you from here to please delete the user and user talk pages there too.) Oh well, thanks for reading this. Final note: My initial Wikipedia editing adversary Ben ([[User:Neutrality]]) really did become a valuable wiki member. I was really surprised by that. I guess anything is possible. Please delete my pages and post my quit message as follows:
Hello {{PAGENAME}}, and [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome]] to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
*[[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]
*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]]
*[[Wikipedia:Help|Help pages]]
*[[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Tutorial]]
*[[Wikipedia:How to write a great article|How to write a great article]]
*[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages|sign your name]] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out [[Wikipedia:Where to ask a question]] or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --


<center><br><div style="align: center; width: 60%; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px gold; background-color: black;">
----------
'''<font color="white">R E T I R E D</font>]'''</div><br></center>
#[[User talk:Rex071404/archive1]]
#[[User talk:Rex071404/archive2]]
#[[User talk:Rex071404/archive3]]
#[[User talk:Rex071404/archive4]]
#[[User talk:Rex071404/archive5]]
#[[User talk:Rex071404/archive6]]


<center>'''This user left Wikipedia in June 2006.'''</center>
Last update: 06:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

<center>{{Wikipedia:Picture of the day/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}_{{CURRENTDAY}},_{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}</center>


<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px black; background-color: darkblue;">
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Rex071404&action=edit&section=new <font color="yellow">Please click here to leave me a new message.</font>]'''</div><br>

comment moved to [[Talk:John Kerry]] [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <b> [[User:216.153.214.94|216.153.214.94]]</b> 07:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

==Please fix your sig==
I am posting at the top of this talk page becase you won't be able to read anything at the bottom. Would you please fix your sig? See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=28334572&oldid=28324506 this edit] for an example of what I mean. Regards, [[User:TacoDeposit|Taco Deposit]] | [[User talk:TacoDeposit|Talk-o to Taco]] 23:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

== Revert ==

Hey rex. Actually oceanSplash's edits are not fine. OceanSplash was invited off a forum on an anti-Islamic site with the mission to go an make wikipedia articles anti-Islamic. Oceansplash is very likely Ali Sina himself, his edits on previous articles have shown this and Ali sina is also non-notable. Google search only gives 121 unique hits, most of which are linked to his own website. Regardless, he is using this to promote/advertise his website. Therefore, I will remove the sina quote, but keep the other there. Thanks, --[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m''']] <sup>[[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']]</sup></font> 23:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Some of those quotes were from mainstream web sites and I have no problem with them. As for the other, I'd have to look more, but at this poiint, I have no problem with your suggestion, either (above). [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b> [[User:216.153.214.94|216.153.214.94]] </b></sup>23:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

:Thanks. I have done just that and kept the notable sources, but please watch the page, Oceansplash is known to engage in revert wars and will undoubtedly readd the material to promote his webpage. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m'''</font>]] [[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']] 23:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

::John Kerry? I'll see what I can do. As for stolen honor, maybe later - I really don't know much about it. ;) --[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m'''</font>]] [[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']] 23:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b> [[User:216.153.214.94|216.153.214.94]] </b></sup>

::What is the dispute at Kerry? Is it about shrapnel wounds? --[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m'''</font>]] <sup>[[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']]</sup> 23:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It's Gamaliel and JamesMLane - they revert me and delete all my edits, regardless of how well reasoned my explanations (as shown on talk pages) for my edits is. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b> [[User:216.153.214.94|216.153.214.94]] </b></sup> 23:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

:Yeah, I see what you mean, but I don't really see a big difference between the two versions (they both seem fine). I really don't want to get involved in a revert war as I am dealing with vandals right now on other articles. I will keep an eye on it though. Thanks. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m'''</font>]] <sup>[[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']]</sup> 23:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought that you might be interested in this request for adminship: [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor]] Make sure to read my commets in that page. Cheers [[User:OceanSplash|OceanSplash]] 21:02 24 October 2005

== Hello ==

Sorry rex. Just had to know, what was it that resulted in your opposition? Which particular bias are you referring to? Thank you for your help. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m'''</font>]] <sup>[[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']]</sup> 21:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

:Oh. I actually thought those were my strong points. I always resolve all my disputes and compromise frequently (as shown on the page I worked with you on). :) But I think it should be noted that many editors still have bad feelings towards me. One such user is oceansplash. If you read his little speech on the vote page, you will see how biased he is against, not just me, but all Muslims or look at this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OceanSplash#Arbitration]. Anyways I still appreciate your opinion. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m'''</font>]] <sup>[[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']]</sup> 22:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

==Useful idiot==

I know that you have been involved with this page, and I just want to let you know why I am reverting OceanSplash. OceanSplash keeps adding quotes from Ali Sina, a non-notable person who uses a pseudonym and self-publishes on his own website. I have nothing against the rest of the quotes OceanSplahs has added. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 23:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

== Killian documents ==

Thanks for the heads up, I appreciate it. I disagree vehemently with JML's view of this article, but I think the accusatory theories should be there and the (lack of) evidence for them as well. Of all of the revert/edits I think Gamaliel's changing your addition of bloggers after "Republicans" was the most egregious violation of NPOV, but at least your text is back in. [[User:Kaisershatner|Kaisershatner]] 01:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

== AfD vote ==

In the past you've displayed little interest in AfD (formerly VfD), the main exception being when you were checking all the edits of someone you disliked, and followed that editor to a deletion discussion so as to vote the opposite way. To save you the trouble of checking my contribs, I'm alerting you that I voted "Keep" on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fitzmas]]. I assume that you'll therefore want to vote to delete it. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 02:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

== RfC about ''[[Stolen Honor]]'' ==

You've participated in editing ''[[Stolen Honor]]''. I've started a Request for Comment at [[Talk:Stolen Honor#RfC re scope of this article]] because we appeared to have reached a point of diminishing returns on the talk page. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 11:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

==Accountable 1135==

You might enjoy [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Problems_with_several_users]] - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 14:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
*Sorry, but that's ''way'' too easy, there has to be something else going on here--[[User:Quickie smalls|Quickie smalls]] 21:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

==Reverting the George W. Bush military service controversy page ==

Rex - reverting a page, as you've done twice now, without specifically saying that you're reverting it, is misleading, and could even be seen as dishonest. More importantly, while you main point seems to be to remove any mention of Harriet Miers, your reversions also are (a) removing the editing I did to the first paragraph to make it read better (where I was following in your footsteps, since the paragraph was out of date), and (b) removing minor changes to other parts of the page, including a link to the [[George W. Bush substance abuse controversy]].

If you want to have a discussion about whether the Miers link is appropriate or not (and about any other of my edits that you don't like), I invite you to do that on the Talk page for the article. Otherwise, please stop doing total reverts.

(I note that a google search on

"Harriet Miers" Bush "military service" "National Guard"

generates more than 19,000 link results. I hope you agree that it's fair to say that this controversy resurfaced in 2005 with her nomination.)

Thanks.

- [[User:John_Broughton]]

Since the above editor does not even have a user page, I presume he's a "sockpuppet" or hiding out for some other reason. As for whether or not Harriet Miers oughtt to be mentioned right in the opening section of the page under discussion, well it's so obvious that she shouldn't and that my edit summary sufficed to support my edit. Lastly, I give very little credence to cries of "dishonest" when they are made by obviously skilled editors (see above) who don't even have a talk page (see red link above). [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b> [[User:216.153.214.94|216.153.214.94]] </b></sup> 22:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


Rex -

I'm a bit new to this; I just added a user page, so the link above should work. (I'm not sure how I prove that I'm not a sockpuppet, but I'm happy to state that I'm not. So: I'm not a sockpuppet.)

To return to the discussion: if you don't think that the Harriet Miers should be mentioned right in the opening section, then feel free to move the information to someone else. (I hope you're not arguing that 19,000 web pages that mention Harriet Miers and her role with the Bush military records and/or link to Bob Barnes, are somehow irrelevant.)

And I'm puzzled why you refer to "my edit" when in fact your last two changes were simply to revert the page to what it was before, removing not only the Miers information but also other changes that I made.

-- John

== Deleted your edits tracking page ==

Based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kizzle&diff=26597792&oldid=26596252 this], I've deleted the page you requested. If I've messed up, let me know. [[User:Jdavidb|Jdavidb]] <nowiki>[[</nowiki>[[User_talk:Jdavidb|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Jdavidb|contribs]]]] 14:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b> [[User:216.153.214.94|216.153.214.94]] </b></sup> 14:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

==[[Talk:Stolen Honor]]==
Hey, I just saw that and I was wondering if I could give a word of advice: you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] is only going to oppose you more if go ad hominem, I know him, I respect him,I haven't talked to him in a long time, but like me, he hates people who try to insult others in order to get them to agree on something.

Just a word from advice from a neutral party. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 04:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

:I've been dealing with JML for a long time and I feel you are right, "hate" is the operative word with his mindset towards my edits and talk page comments. Eh, you knows he could change his mind, and hopefully he will. However, it's hard to speak super-gently to him, as much of what he says and does, I feel, requires a firm, direct answer. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b> [[User:216.153.214.94|216.153.214.94]] </b></sup> 04:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I could try to speak "super-gently" to him if you'd like. While I agree with him politically, here on Wikipedia, I consider partisanship to be irrelevant compared to trying to bring people together towards working on a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedia. Arguing over little things doesn't help anybody, left or right. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 16:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

==Block Warning==

Rex, you're wasting everybody's time with all this "rules-lawyering". I think I should supsend your editing priviliges for a few days. Would that be okay with you? Take a little time off and try to remember what you came here for in the first place?

We are looking for editors who can help us make good articles. You're not helping with the John Kerry articles. Either submit a workable plan for how you intend to collaborate with the rest of us, or I'm going to start taking steps. [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 16:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

:Ed, are you joshing? On what grounds are you going to block me? Because you think you should? Please list the transgressions you contend I have commited that give you grounds to block me.

:Have you been reading [[Talk:John Kerry]]? How can you say there is no plan? Virtually every suggestion I make there is attacked by Kizzle, JameMLane and Gamaliel. Regarding "We are looking for editors..." who is the "we" you refer to? Are you asserting that you have a side agreement with those three?

:Ed, this is the 2nd time you have threatened me without valid grounds. I expect that if you follow through on your unfounded threats, I feel I may be forced to take you to ArbComm. Is that what you want?

:As to this statement of yours: "You're not helping with the John Kerry articles"; this is your opinion and you are welcome to it, but I venture to say that I have made more viable edits at [[John Kerry]] than you. Why don't you show me even ONE viable edit that YOU'VE made to [[John Kerry]] recently?

:Also, please show me where your accusation of "rules-lawyering" is in any wiki guideline, etc., as-being prohibited - along with an official (not your personal view) statement as to ''what'' "rules-lawyering" is, ok?

:Ed, I frankly feel that you are bullying me and wrongly so.

:Lastly, I find this statement of yours "you're wasting everybody's time" to be so utterly false, one-sided and cruel, that I question your impartiality. I suggest you need to recuse yourself from any admin duties addressing me.

:You've really hurt my feelings here - I think you are out of line.

:[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b> [[User:216.153.214.94|216.153.214.94]] </b></sup> 23:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

:As much as I disagree with Rex on most grounds, I believe his conduct hasn't warranted any punitive measures, so I personally think blocking Rex is a bad idea, Ed. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 23:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


==Vandal==
Someone (I assume) vandalized your image and replaced it with the "Silicon Dildo". I reverted to your previous version. If you did that I;m sorry, but it came from a differetn IP and looked vandalous to me, so please forgive me if I made a mistake. Otherwise, I saved your page. -[[User:Goeagles4321|Voltaire]]|[[User talk:Goeagles4321|Talk]]|[[User:Goeagles4321/Desk|My Desk]]|[[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Goeagles4321 Français]] 01:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on your page and revert anything suspicious; you can always get it back. -[[User:Goeagles4321|Voltaire]]|[[User talk:Goeagles4321|Talk]]|[[User:Goeagles4321/Desk|My Desk]]|[[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Goeagles4321 Français]]

Hey, sorry for all the Vandilism you've been getting, it wasn't me but i feel bad that it happened. [[user:scnd|Scnd]]

== A Favor? ==

I was wondering if you would vote for me to become an admin since I helped you out with your vandal? Do it [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Goeagles4321|here]]. Thanks so much -[[User:Goeagles4321|Voltaire]]|[[User talk:Goeagles4321|Talk]]|[[User:Goeagles4321/Desk|My Desk]]|[[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Goeagles4321 Français]] 14:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, but the others think I need more experience, even thought I know that I know what I'm doing. I guess since they don't know me, all they to have to base their opinion on is my edits and my time at Wikipedia. When I run again in a month or so, I'll tell you about it. Thanks again. -[[User:Goeagles4321|Voltaire]]|[[User talk:Goeagles4321|Talk]]|[[User:Goeagles4321/Desk|My Desk]]|[[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Goeagles4321 Français]] 20:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

==[[John Kerry]]==
No problem. My reasoning is simple:
#Is there good factual basis for the claim? I haven't done your level of research, but from what I have read, the answer is Yes.
#Does the fact add to the article? Wounds vary greatly in severtiy. If the word "wound" is used by itself, the reader could eaisily make an incorrect assumption about how bad the injury was. In this case, one word adds a lot of value, so the answer is Yes.
#Is it NPOV to include the fact? I think a reasonable arguement can be made that it is POV '''not''' to include this adjective. Since the reader could easily picture a more severe wound than actually occured, leaving out the qualifier could be seen as elevating Kerry on a pedastal due to his combat wounds. Now, of course it would be POV for the article to say something like "Kerry's camp claims he received war wounds, but in actual fact he just got a bo-bo and wanted a medal". I don't think you are trying to say that. You seem to be trying to stick to the facts. If the facts are presented in a careful, balanced way, then they aren't POV, even if some people don't like them. Therefore, I think the answer to this is also Yes.
If there is ever a staw poll on this topic, please let me know and I'll go over and register my opinion again. [[User:Johntex|Johntex]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 17:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

== K.i.s.s. ==

Thank you. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 12:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

== welcomes ==

just to point you that usually, welcome messages are left on user talk pages, not user pages. -- ( [[User:Drini|drini's <small><sub>vandalproof</sub></small> page]] [[User talk:Drini|<big>&#x260E;</big>]] ) 06:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

?? most of the ones I've seen are on blank user pages
How did you know I was welcoming people?
Is there a written guideline?

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b> [[User:216.153.214.94|216.153.214.94]] </b></sup> 06:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense to leave welcome messages on user pages, as the user won't get a "you've got a message" orange bar, and won't even notice the message unless they've got their user page on their watchlist (unlikely for newbies) or notice the distinction between having a redlinked vs. bluelinked username (also unlikely). You'll note that [[User:EricN]] ''already had'' a welcome message on his talk page and has been contributing for some time. '''''<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|a]]</font>'''''<font color="green">[[User:Android79|ndroid]]</font><font color="purple">[[User talk:Android79|79]]</font> 14:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Please consider joining the [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee|welcoming committee]]. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 12:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

== Please see this ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mel_Etitis#Zeq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeq#RfA

[[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 09:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

== Please stop... ==

...placing welcome messages on peoples' user pages. They belong on talk pages. Thanks. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 15:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

== 3RR ==

fyi: a report has been filed about your reverts, a link is in JK talk. [[User:Derex|Derex]] [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 21:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

== Meh. ==

To be honest, if you look at the way that they have been persecuting SlimVirgin I really don't care. I suspect this will make you annoyed with me, sorry if that's the case. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 01:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
:Rex, [[User:SlimVirgin]]. See [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia watch] for more info. Also has been making lots of unfounded legal threats. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 01:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

== Much appreciated ==

Thank you, Rex, for lending me some personal attacks. I feel my talk page doesn't have quite enough at present. ;-D [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 01:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

:No problem. Enjoy. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b> [[User:216.153.214.94|216.153.214.94]] </b></sup> 01:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

== the gun ==

Glad you finally acknowledged that. Apparently you missed the intended irony though:

:Unacceptable. Kerry already gets a positive inference with "wound". The rebuttal gives him two "thumbs on the scale" to one. If another thumb goes in for Kerry, either "wound" must come out in favor of "injury" or "minor" must go in. On top of that, Kizzle's sentence (which I just now deleted, because '''he jumped the gun without waiting for attempt at consensus here''') of "However, a subsequent Naval review found John Kerry's wound to be correctly given under Naval regulations" has the famously disqualifying "however" in it. So to reiterate: If another thumb goes in for Kerry, either "wound" must come out in favor of "injury" or "minor" must go in. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 23:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[[User:Derex|Derex]] [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 00:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


It was fine with "most gun control measures". It was you who started getting specific with (inaccurate sporting uses/Assualt Weapons point). Perhaps I should not have added handgun, but "most gun control measures" is correct. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b> [[User:216.153.214.94|216.153.214.94]] </b></sup> 00:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

:Dude, read what I wrote. Here, I'll bold it for you. Get it now? I was quoting ''you'' on "jumping the gun" in my edit summary. Which phrase pissed you off, when it was applied to you. As always, you want to apply one set of rules for yourself (i.e. none), and a different set to everyone else. Sheesh. [[User:Derex|Derex]] [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 02:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If the differnce between a talk page dialog and an edit summary escapes you, then me pointing out that my edit had a discussion under way at talk and yours did not, won't help. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b> [[User:216.153.214.94|216.153.214.94]] </b></sup> 19:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

:what? [[User:Derex|Derex]] [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 22:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

== It's really simple ==

I am not growing hostile. I call things as I see them. Your edit summary was indeed misleading, whether deliberately so or not I made and make no judgment. However, you did more than fix a typo, you reverted the word "wound" as well. Therefore it was misleading. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 00:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

:To me Rex, you are trying to get Katefan riled up and "broken" so you can get her into a shouting match. So that's why you keep pounding on this and pounding on this. Move on. Until you do, you are going to get nothing done that you want done on the article. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 19:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken and are wrongly judging me. [[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 19:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:POV fork]] ==

[[Wikipedia:POV fork]] is a new guideline as of November 1st. I couldn't find any references to finding consensus. Is it appropriate for an editor simply to add <nowiki>{{guideline}}</nowiki> to a page? There is no discussion on its talk page. I posted in [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] that it is a new guideline. I also checked [[Wikipedia:POV]] and, while this page is referenced in the policy, there is no discussion of it (I also posted a link on the NPOV talk page.) It seems to have been pushed through by editor [[User:Radiant!|Radiant!]] without consensus. I talked to a previous editor on that page but as soon as I told him I was in a dispute about Intelligent Design (I asked if he would check it out seeing as FeloniousMonk accused me of "POV forking" though he did not reference the page) he flipped out and talked about my dispute. I just ignored him since he seemed to be more interested in the dispute than checking to see if the guideline was appropriate. So I changed it to 'proposed' and then he flipped again and reverted--even though previously on that page, when someone had also marked it 'semi-policy' he had complained with something like "this is too new to be policy, changing to proposed." If you read the history you can see a strange back and forth, Radiant actually turned it into a Wikipedia:essay and removed the 'proposed' tag completely for a while. Hopefully you don't flip out and you know whether or not this tag is appropriate for the page and can make the necessary changes if needed, or conversely you can tell me how it came to be a guideline because I always thought there has to be consensus. This is driving me crazy!--[[User:Benapgar|Ben]] 07:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

== My RFA ==

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on [[User_talk:Alkivar|my talk page]] so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again! &nbsp;[[User:Alkivar|<font color="#FA8605">'''ALKIVAR'''</font>]][[User_talk:Alkivar|&trade;]][[Image:Radioactive.png|18px|]] 07:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

==CfD==
If you got a minute can you take a look at [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7#Category:Soviet spies to Category:Aed Soviet spies]]. This is a challenge to the sourcing of Venona project materials & direct related article series. Thank you. [[User:Nobs01|nobs]] 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

== Hmm... ==

Well, I'd encourage you to pursue whatever avenues you feel necessary, though that threat was rather empty (either do or don't do, but don't threaten me). But I must say that I wasn't intending to delete your comments, I was tidying up the vote. It seemed like you were attempting to open up new votes on these other topics that I didn't think directly related to the current vote. Anyway, maybe it was just a formatting issue; as I said, I wasn't meaning to delete commentary. Maybe you could format them so they don't look quite like you are opening up 5 other votes? Please do restore them if you like, but maybe you could format them differently this time. Just a misunderstanding, I meant no ill will. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 22:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

:They are indeed votes, directly related to the invalid basis of the current "vote". Please keep your hands off my votes.

[[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 23:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
::As I said, just a misunderstanding. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 23:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)



== 11.08.05 New Kerry 1st PH consensus version ==

As per "John Kerry; 00:46 . . Titoxd (Talk) (reading the talk page discussion, issue is now solved, modifying to version with consensus and unprotecting)"

====First Purple Heart====
During the night of [[December 2]], [[1968]] and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of [[Cam Ranh Bay]] together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading [[sampan]]s at a river crossing, who began to run. These men failed to stop when ordered, and Kerry and his crew of two enlisted men then opened fire with machine guns destroying the sampans and quickly left the area. During this encounter, Kerry received a [[shrapnel]] wound in his left arm above the elbow. [http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp] Subsequently at [[Sick Call]], the shrapnel was removed and Kerry was treated with [[bacitracin]] and bandaged. Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol. Kerry was later awarded a [[Purple Heart]] for this wound. During the 2004 presidential campaign, various critics such as [[SBVT|Swift Boat Veterans for Truth]] suggested reasons that this injury did not merit a Purple Heart.[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/] Also in 2004, after a limited review prompted by [[Judicial Watch]] the [[Ronald A. Route|Naval Inspector General]] "determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved".[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-17-kerry-navy-awards_x.htm] For more information, see [[John Kerry military service controversy]].

== Derex started making changes to to the new consensus version within 1 hour ==

Within one hour of the so-called new "consensus" version being announced, Derex is already modifying it back to his preferences:

*(cur) ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&diff=27776929&oldid=27776721 last]) 01:34, 9 November 2005 Jtdirl (rv to Derex version. (Admins out there, please protect this again again. Rex is up to his old POV tricks.)
*(cur) ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&diff=27776721&oldid=27776585 last]) 01:31, 9 November 2005 Rex071404 (rv to "consensus" Derex, please ratify consensus prior to any more changes)
*(cur) ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&diff=27776585&oldid=27776523 last]) 01:29, 9 November 2005 Titoxd m (Reverted edits by 152.163.100.195 to last version by Derex)
*(cur) ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&diff=27776523&oldid=27776472 last]) 01:28, 9 November 2005 152.163.100.195
*(cur) ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&diff=27776472&oldid=27773332 last]) 01:28, 9 November 2005 Derex (→First Purple Heart - copyedit (probably foolish), tried not to step on any toes or change the meaning)
*(cur) ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&diff=27773332&oldid=27666599 last]) 00:46, 9 November 2005 Titoxd (reading the talk page discussion, issue is now solved, modifying to version with consensus and unprotecting)

[[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

here's my position: use my earlier version as a basis and (a) use <nowiki>[[Sick Call|clinic]]</nowiki> and clarify that article (b) let James mention the bandage if he cites it. i'll fight for that version.

clinic: i explained in talk. bandage: it is a citable statement, so i don't see any reason to object. personally, neither bandage nor bacitracin seem worth mentioning. obviously you would try to keep even a splinter, much less a shrapnel wound, from getting infected in jungle-river warfare. removing the shrapnel, period, seems enough to me. but, i guess there's been enough contention about this article that james feels the need to be absolutely clear about the treatment. [[User:Derex|Derex]] [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 01:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

::it just occured to me that it's already in the sick call report, don't know how i missed it. "dressing" is medical lingo for a bandage[http://www.wordreference.com/definition/medical%20dressing] ... often gauze. so he applied bacitracin either under or on a bandage ... that's "bacitracin dressing". [[User:Derex|Derex]] [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 02:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not fully true, all wound coverings are dressings but not all dressings are bandages. Bacitracin alone is indeed a "dressing". I explained this already in detail, with full proof on talk. [[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 02:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

:Um, no it isn't, [[Bacitracin]] is an [[antibiotic]], a dressing, is, well, '''not''' an antibiotic, so I actually have no idea what you're trying to say--[[User:152.163.101.14|152.163.101.14]] 02:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

:::: Hey anon, please sign in with an account and I will answer you regularly. If not, then this is the only time: A dressing is a wound covering, typically an antibiotic salve or ointment. Often, though not always, it may be applied to the wound with gauze. Other times, the ointment alone is used. After the dressing, if the injury warrants it, a bandage may be applied over the dressing. Other times, no bandage is used. The official SCTR does not say "bandage". "Dressing" is a distinct step which differs from "bandaging" see link below. [[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 02:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::cite it. i gave you a dicdef that it's a cloth. show me a dicdef, or otherwise ''explicit'' statement, that a medical dressing is "typically" an ointment. [[User:Derex|Derex]] [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 02:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

:what proof? i didn't see any ... back it up. plus, i'd say that a medic who wrote "appl[ied] bacitracin dressing. Ret[urned] to duty" isn't going to throw in a "dressing" for the hell of it if he's not even going to write full words. any medic would know what bacitracin is. [[User:Derex|Derex]] [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 02:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

(copied fron [[Talk:John Kerry]])

That record '''does not''' say "bacitracin '''and''' a dressing", which ''might'' imply a bandaging. No, what is says is "appl (sic) bacitracin dressing". >>> Note the absence of any statement such as "wrap arm with bandage". <<< [[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 02:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see '''Dressing the wound''', [http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/wounds.jsp here].

"The wound should then be covered with a clean dressing and bandaged to hold the dressing in place."

Note that "dressing" and "bandaged" are separate steps.

[[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 02:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
*Please note that, [[bacitracin]] '''is an antibiotic''' not a type of bandage, that's like saying that I put mustard on my sandwich, therefore my sandwich is called 'a mustard'--[[User:152.163.101.14|152.163.101.14]] 02:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

:From your reference (just above) "Direct pressure is applied by placing a clean cloth or dressing over the wound". so, you're going to stop bleeding by pressing on an antibiotic? no, in your quote "dressing" meant gauze, held in place with a (sticky) bandage. obviously gauze doesn't stay there by itself, it's covered with tape. [[User:Derex|Derex]] [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 02:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
::No of course not, you apply bacitracin to anything that's going to touch an open wound, that includes, a bandage, a dressing, whatever, just both of you, stop mangling 'big' words, just to make yourselves sound smarter--[[User:152.163.101.14|152.163.101.14]] 02:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

:::what 'big' word? i'd say rex is a pretty smart fellow, though i disagree with him almost always. he doesn't need a ten-dollar word to show that. i'm a bit slow upstairs though, so to me it is a big deal to understand my native tongue. [[User:Derex|Derex]] [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 02:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

To get to that, you are required to infer that the injury was more than the "fingernail scrape" that Hibbard described it as. Certainly a small scrape can be sufffiently treated with a dressing of Bacitracin. Also, there is no proof Kerryy's wound was bleeding at treatment. Suffice it to say, "dressing" and "bandage" are not the same. They are discrete stpe and I have proven that. There is no proof in the SCTR that the step of "bandage" was required or taken. [[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 02:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

:The only reason they would have used bacitracin was if there was bleeding, unless medical scinece was so backwards in the *gasp* 70s that they believed in skin eating gram negative rods (''everyone knows flesheating bacteria are gram positive'')--[[User:152.163.101.14|152.163.101.14]] 02:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

what you haven't proven is that "dressing" means ointment. as i explained to you, and cited to you, dressing means a sort of cloth. often this cloth is integrated with a sticky tape whence the unit is called a bandage. sometimes the cloth, esp. gauze, has a separte sticky tape wrapped around it ... the "bandaging" process, whence the constructed unit is again referred to as a "bandage". so, yes it can have two steps ... but that doesn't make cloth into ointment. [[User:Derex|Derex]] [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 02:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You missed [http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv229.shtml this link] at Kerry talk because the talk page is so big. It is a plain guide to English and it says "dress a wound by cleaning it and covering it". All of these can be a "dressing":

* Mercuracrome alone
* Mercuracrome with gauze
* Petroleum Jelly alone
* Petroleum Jelly with guaze
* Bacitracin alone
* Bacitracin with gauze
(and others)

:I just read it, and I don't see any of those things in your list mentioned. Nor do I see any evidence that an ointment is called a dressing. Did you give me the wrong link? [[User:Derex|Derex]] [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 02:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

See this [http://www.nohsc.gov.au/OHSInformation/NOHSCPublications/factsheets/frsta1.htm Govt link] from Australia. "A first aid kit should be well stocked with dressings and bandages, disinfectants, fasteners, safety pins and other equipment such as resuscitation masks, scissors and splinter forceps." Dressings and bandages are clearly not the same thing. [[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 02:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Bacitracin it is an antibiotic infused petroleum based topical ointment. It can be used as a dressing alone, or in conjuction with gauze; in which case, the two of them together are also referred to as "dressing". However, even together, those are not a "bandage". Bandaging, when done, would be done over a "dressing" as a discrete step. [http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/wounds.jsp] The fact that there is no mention of any bandaging procedure in in Kerry's Sick Call Treatment Record, clearly infers what I have said all along: the wound was "minor". So minor in fact, that it did not warrant a bandaging, only antibiotic ointment. As to whether or not gauze when on with the ointment, your guess is as good as mine. There is nothing in the offical records which says either way. [[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 02:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

See this [http://www.nohsc.gov.au/OHSInformation/NOHSCPublications/factsheets/frsta1.htm Govt link] from Australia. "A first aid kit should be well stocked with dressings and bandages, disinfectants, fasteners, safety pins and other equipment such as resuscitation masks, scissors and splinter forceps." Dressings and bandages are clearly not the same thing. [[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 02:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

:see my explanation of your "two step" process. now, show me where someone defines dressing as ointment. i showed you where it is defined as cloth. and, i explained how dressing and bandage can be used in the same sentence with complete consistency. [[User:Derex|Derex]] [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 02:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
::It's an oinment '''now''' since in the last 3-4 decades it's been overprescribed to the point of useless, and as such, has been deregulated, and can be sold OTC, but that is now, and the Vietnam War, is not now, it was still a potent broad spectrum antibiotic back then--[[User:152.163.101.14|152.163.101.14]] 02:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

=== Bacitracin ointment dressing ===

See [http://www.vivacorporation.com/extranet/test2.php?filename=04-26-05-4d.htm this link] for "Bacitracin ointment dressing" used in context which proves that Bacitracin alone is medically referred to as a "dressing". Please note that the wound was left "open" (not bandaged) even though a dressing was applied. [[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 02:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


:See the date on your link ''filename=04-26-05'', 2005???--[[User:152.163.101.14|152.163.101.14]] 03:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
::Not to mention, even in the bizaire context you're using, they're refering to '''packing a surgical incision with gauze''', that doesn't sound like something you'd do for a ''minor'' wound--[[User:152.163.101.14|152.163.101.14]] 03:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Anon, your comment is an inane non-sequiter. We are discussing the medical term "dressing"; not the merits of Bacitracin as a dressing, but only that it is called a "dressing" even when used alone. [[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 03:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
*No, you're talking about the severity of a wound, except that you're playing semantics, and ignoring the obvious--[[User:152.163.101.14|152.163.101.14]] 03:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

:rex, you have just proven the exact opposite.[http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=%22packed+open%22+wound&btnG=Search] you can't pack something "open" with an ointment, see the link. plus "bacitracin ointment dressing", isn't it redundant to say "ointment dressing" if those mean the same thing. [[User:Derex|Derex]] [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 03:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

::: Derex, your error is thinking that "packing" and "bandaging" are they same thing. They are not. As far as the redundancy goes, it is rational to think that this could mean the dressing can be more than just Bacitracin. That's why your google turned up some links that mention gauze. But as you know, gauze soaked with bacitracin does not self adhere. If it were applied to a surface injury, it would have to be taped on or a bandage would likely be put over it. Since there is no mention of a bandage, we are left guessing. My point here is that we are again at the place of making our own inferences. Personally, I might guess that Kerry got Bacitracin, with gauze and surgical tape. If you want to use that language, I'd agree. Bandage is the next level up from that and is not supported by the SCTR. [[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 03:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


::It wasn't a damn ointment in the 1970s, it wasn't deregulated back in the 70s, therefore it '''couldn't possibly be an OTC ointment'''--[[User:152.163.101.14|152.163.101.14]] 03:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

"[http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4623 Ointment]: A medication preparation that is applied topically (onto the skin). An ointment has an oil base whereas a cream is water-soluble. (The word ointment comes from the Latin ungere meaning anoint with oil)"

[[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 03:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

*There was '''no such thing as OTC bacitracin ointment''' in the 1970s, how else can I argue this, it '''didn't exist'''--[[User:152.163.101.14|152.163.101.14]] 03:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
**Aren't you now supposed to post a link to a website defing the word [[exist]], to prove that my definition of '''didn't exist''' isn't as good as yours?--[[User:152.163.101.14|152.163.101.14]] 03:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Orver-the-counter or not has no bearing on its status as an oitnment. [[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 03:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
:'''Stop''' and think for a moment, it '''not existing''' has no bearing on its status as an oinment?--[[User:152.163.101.14|152.163.101.14]] 03:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Derex, are you contending that in Medical Terminology, the words Dressing and Bandaging are interchangable? If that's your contention, you are wrong. And further, such a contention would buttress my "wound" "injury" contention, which you are opposed to. [[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 04:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

Very much for your kind support of my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MC MasterChef|adminship]]. I'll do my best to live up to your and my other supporters' expectations. If you have any comments or concerns on my actions as an administrator, please [[User_talk:MC MasterChef|let me know]]. Thank you! '''— [[User:MC MasterChef|MC MasterChef]]''' '''::''' Leave a '''[[User_talk:MC MasterChef|tip]] —''' 14:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

==[[User:Johann_Wolfgang|Johann Wolfgang]]'s RfA==

[[Image:WikiThanks.png|left]]
Thank you for your support on my [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Johann_Wolfgang|RfA]]. If my RfA passes I will use my new abilities with the common interest in mind. If you have any questions please feel free to [[User:Johann_Wolfgang|contact me]].
<br>
<br>
[[User:Johann Wolfgang|Johann Wolfgang]] <font color="blue"><nowiki>[</nowiki></font>
<font color="green">[[User_talk:Johann Wolfgang|<small>T</small>]]
</font>...<font color="orange">[[Special:Contributions/Johann_Wolfgang|<small>C</small>]]</font>
<font color="blue"><nowiki>]</nowiki></font> <font color="307D7E"><small>18:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)</small></font>

== Philwelch's RfA ==

Thanks for supporting my successful Request for Adminship! — '''[[User:Philwelch|Phil]]''' ''[[User_talk:Philwelch|Welch]]'' 03:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

== arbcom rulings till binding ==

affirmed [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Rex071404]]. all but 3&4 are active, as i had asserted. [[User:Derex|Derex]] [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 00:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

== Rex is correct about ArbCom, re: reverting ==

Please read [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raul654&oldid=28187716#User:Rex071404 this]. Please take note of '''"It appears that enforcement #7 (the penalty related to reverting articles) is in relation to remedy 4.1 (the prohibition on reverting articles). As such, it appears that enforcement 7 expired when 4.1 did. →Raul654 07:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654"'''.

As I told you Derex, I am not being a d*ck and I am trying to do my best to stay within both the letter and spirit of the rules. You do see that I did not just jump right in with edits in when [[John Kerry]] opened up for a while again today, yes? Frankly, I fail to see why you won't support the removal of "bandage". I've already agreed to drop "minor" if bandage is removed. Why is that not a good compromise? [[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 08:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

:I don't take a stand on that issue. I'm there to referee and to get the consensus implemented. The consensus is that it should use bandage and wound and not "minor". That's the only basis I'm using. You are making the mistake of assuming that I'm "arguing" for a side. I am not. We have a consensus...and have had one for awhile now...and I'm trying to get that implemented and then we should move on. You are blocking consensus. I have no opinion on what should and shouldn't be included. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 08:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

:And btw, continually bucking the consensus and being disruptive is as arbcom worthy as violating old arbcom decisions. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 08:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

==Do you==
know why they've prevented me from editing the John Kerry article, it seems like the pro-kerry editors have some how frozen the article in it's current pro-kerry POV heavy version, how can I go about changing this?--[[User:Anonrtgtt|Anonrtgtt]] 00:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

:Curps isn't alone in the sockpuppet accusations, it's quite suspicious. Plus, how does this new user even know who you are? [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">dwolf24</font>]] ([[User talk:Redwolf24|talk]]) 04:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I could ask you the same question. [[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 04:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

== User:Anonrtgtt ==

You can't fix what you consider to be a incorrect page by making an edit that you know to be equally incorrect. It's not a sockpuppet of Jtdirl. I don't wish to get involved in the dispute, but you should find some other way to deal with it other than simply substituting Jtdirl's name for yours. -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 04:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It's bull. Why does he get to make that slanderous category and accusation? [[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 04:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

== Arbitration ==

Please see [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Rex071404]]. An arbitration case has been opened up against you. You need to make a statement. Thanks. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 06:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

==Suggestion==

Since you've been exceedingly reasonable in the past, including a self-imposed ban, I was wondering if you would consider similar actions to avoid this arbcom case - perhaps an agreement to not revert [[John Kerry]] at all? [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 07:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That might be viable. I am on IRC right now with Kizzle, seeking common ground [[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 07:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This log was started approx 35% of the way into the IRC chat of tonight, after a few others dropped out (Rex23 is Rex071404). This log contains some statements which are raw opinion from Rex071404. Please do not read it if you are easily offended. [[User:Rex071404|'''''Rex071404''''']]<sup>[[User talk:Rex071404|(all logic is premise based)]]</sup> 09:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Session Start: Mon Nov 14 02:45:42 2005
Session Ident: #johnkerry
* Logging #johnkerry to 'C:\Documents and Settings\Rex\Desktop\#johnkerry.freenode.log'
*<kizzle> bandaged is a bit more objective than minor
*<rex23> ?
*<rex23> i'm here r u?
*<kizzle> so when brinkley mentions it
*<kizzle> yeah
*<kizzle> when brinkley mentions it
*<kizzle> it means he would be flat out wrong
*<kizzle> minor is just subjective
*<kizzle> so I'm not really sure that both of those terms should be treated equally
*<rex23> u r saying that it's not possible to for Kerry miself to have mischaracterized it to brink?
*<kizzle> of course I'm not saying that
*<rex23> if he did and we don;t know he didn;t
*<rex23> then brinly could tell truth as he knows it and be wrong
*<kizzle> but you can't assume first that he mischaracterized
*<rex23> thats hy primarcy source should control
*<rex23> eliminate risk of error
*<rex23> go with SCTR = primary source = dressing
*<kizzle> then i just need to ask james if bacitracin dressing necessarily means "not bandaged"
*<rex23> no more than is means "no sutures"
*<rex23> SCTR says what was done
*<rex23> nothing else was done
*<rex23> ?
*<kizzle> so wait
*<kizzle> does SCTR mean "not bandaged"
*<kizzle> or your contending it is only supplying "bacitracin dressing"
*<kizzle> as in is it the case that SCTR is -(bandaged) or +(bacitracin dressing)?
*<rex23> only bacitracin dressing
*<rex23> ?
*<kizzle> so just +bacitracin dressing and not -bandaged
*<kizzle> SCTR alone
*<rex23> SCTR says "appl Bacitracin dressing"
*<rex23> it says nothing about "bandage"
*<rex23> ru you chatting with JML on another channel?
*<kizzle> no
*<kizzle> he's not on
*<kizzle> i was just going to post on his talk page
*<kizzle> so then we're in agreement
*<rex23> what is proposal?
*<kizzle> SCTR states +bacitracin dressing and not -bandaged
*<rex23> SCTR says "appl Bacitracin dressing"
*<kizzle> Does brinkley state +bacitracin dressing +bandaged, or both?
*<rex23> I do not want to read anything into or out of that
*<rex23> SCTR is primary source
*<rex23> nrinley is secondary
*<rex23> brinklely
*<rex23> yes:
*<rex23> right?
*<kizzle> right
*<kizzle> what was the answer to my question though?
*<rex23> then why try to trump SCTR?
*<rex23> ?repeat?
*<kizzle> Does brinkley state +bacitracin dressing +bandaged, or both?
*<rex23> JML quotes Brinkely narrative of "JK's arm was bandaged"
*<rex23> Brinkley does not address treatment so far as I know
*<kizzle> so Brinkley is just +bandaged
*<kizzle> ?
*<rex23> so far as I know
*<rex23> if I udnerstand your point
*<rex23> do youunderstand my issue with the hagiography of article?
*<kizzle> k last question
*<rex23> who carea baout chocolate chip cookies?
*<rex23> or reason for name of boat?
*<kizzle> how is chocolate chip cookies hagiographic?
*<kizzle> real last question
*<rex23> or list of books and movies?
*<kizzle> is bandaged != bacitracin dressing
*<kizzle> ?
*<rex23> bandage *<> bacitracin dressing
*<rex23> bacitracin dressing = bacitracin dressing
*<rex23> bandage = bandage
*<rex23> medical dictionary makes individual meanings clear
*<kizzle> so is bandaged not bacitracin dressing?
*<rex23> I have shown links
*<kizzle> as in
*<kizzle> if SCTR says bacitracin
*<kizzle> is this necessarily contradictory to bandaged if SCTR does not say -bandaged?
*<rex23> wait
*<rex23> let me illustrate
*<rex23> why not say "with his arm sewn up" Kerry went back to duty?
*<rex23> what is problme there?
*<kizzle> wait
*<kizzle> answer
*<rex23> need to set context for answer
*<rex23> plese accomodate me
*<kizzle> i don't know if there's a problem
*<kizzle> say the answer
*<rex23> from editorial standpoint, who would "sewn up" be supported?
*<rex23> how would
*<kizzle> rex
*<rex23> yes
*<rex23> ?
*<kizzle> 1) SCTR says +(bacitracin dressing) AND NOT -(bandaged)
*<kizzle> 2) Brinkley says +(bandaged) AND NOT -(bacitracin dressing)
*<rex23> verbatim words on SCTR are "appl Bacitracin dressing"
*<kizzle> is 1 false?
*<rex23> what is unclear about that?
*<kizzle> i'm just laying down premises
*<rex23> there is no affirmative negatives on SCTR
*<rex23> only affirmative positives
*<kizzle> so 1 is true then?
*<rex23> "remove shrapnel appl Bacitracin dressing"
*<rex23> verbatim is affirmative postive only
*<kizzle> exactly
*<kizzle> that's what 1 says
*<rex23> ok then
*<rex23> point?
*<kizzle> "AND NOT -(bandaged)" means there are no affirmative negatives against bandaged
*<kizzle> k
*<rex23> we arrive at bandage by imputing it into fact set
*<kizzle> No, bandage comes from Brinkley
*<rex23> why not also impute tenus shot
*<kizzle> so
*<rex23> who also said "minor" and not "serious"
*<kizzle> 1) SCTR says +(bacitracin dressing) AND NOT -(bandaged)
*<kizzle> 2) Brinkley says +(bandaged) AND NOT -(bacitracin dressing)
*<kizzle> are 1 and 2 mutually exclusive?
*<rex23> do you yes or no concede that dressing and bandage have distinct medical meanings and are not the same?
*<kizzle> that's what i'm asking you
*<rex23> I am asking you
*<kizzle> answer first
*<rex23> did you read the medical discitonary links I supplied?
*<kizzle> probably, though i don't remember
*<kizzle> given no affirmative negatives, are "bacitracin dressing" and "bandaged" mutually exclusive?
*<rex23> it's quite possible, as evidenced by the lack of understanding between the differneces amonsgt wki editors
*<rex23> that brinkley
*<rex23> was sloppy in his word choice
*<rex23> calling a "dressing" a "bandage" does not make it one
*<rex23> that's all he did
*<rex23> was use the inacurate term of bandage
*<rex23> when referrign to the actual treatment of dressing
*<kizzle> given no affirmative negatives, are "bacitracin dressing" and "bandaged" mutually exclusive?
*<rex23> he could not have done othwerwise
*<rex23> because no other treatment was given
*<rex23> no bandage treatment was given
*<rex23> brinkely's use of "bandage" is eithe came form him or kerry
*<rex23> neither of whom's subjective characterization
*<kizzle> so you're answering yes to my question?
*<rex23> tsupercedes the SCTR
*<rex23> whic is
*<kizzle> it only supercedes if they're mutually exclusive
*<rex23> brinkley/Kerry are mischaracterizing the dressing treatment as bandage
*<kizzle> sigh....
*<kizzle> rex
*<rex23> a shoe is not a sock
*<kizzle> given no affirmative negatives, are "bacitracin dressing" and "bandaged" mutually exclusive?
*<rex23> a bandage is not a dressing
*<rex23> dressing is like sock bandage is like shoe
*<rex23> they are not the same
*<kizzle> so then bacitracin dressing necessarily means not bandaged
*<rex23> minor wounds do not get the "shoe"
*<rex23> that's why kerry got only dresing
*<kizzle> so then bacitracin dressing means not bandaged?
*<kizzle> necessarily that is
*<rex23> wait
*<rex23> unless the SCTR says "wrap arm in bandage" or something like that, nothing else was applied after the dressing. period
*<kizzle> wait
*<kizzle> so then you're saying the SCTR *is* saying -bandaged?
*<rex23> no SCTR is saying "bacitracin dressing"
*<rex23> SCTR does not support inference of anything else
*<kizzle> but does it support an affirmative negative of bandaged
*<kizzle> ?
*<rex23> what is supports is only the direct facts as verbatim reported
*<rex23> anything else is supposition
*<kizzle> that's not what I'm asking
*<kizzle> exactly
*<kizzle> so then you're answer is no?
*<rex23> wo what
*<rex23> I've answered?
*<kizzle> Does SCTR support an affirmative negative of "bandaged"?
*<kizzle> yes/no?
*<rex23> wait
*<rex23> no. it supports only a sole affirmatove positive, nothing else. Anythign read into it beyond "bacitracin dressing" inferes that the SCTR is not accurate in that it omiited facts
*<kizzle> ok
*<kizzle> that's fine
*<kizzle> i agree with you
*<kizzle> you're saying it only supports an affirmative positive of "bacitracin dressing"
*<kizzle> anything else
*<rex23> saying "bandage" = saying SCTR is not accurate
*<kizzle> including affirmative negative of "bandage" is speculation
*<kizzle> correct?
*<rex23> correct
*<kizzle> if SCTR does not contain an affirmative negative of "bandage"
*<rex23> why stop with bandage
*<kizzle> then Brinkley's affirmative positive of "bandage" is not in conflict
*<rex23> why not tenuss shot?
*<rex23> why not sutures?
*<kizzle> rex
*<kizzle> stay focused
*<rex23> Brinkley's affirmative posiitve is presumed less accurate as it is a secondary soruce
*<kizzle> right
*<kizzle> but in order for one source to supercede the other
*<kizzle> they must be mutually exclusive to each other
*<rex23> there is a presumptio of accuracy and completness in a SCTR
*<kizzle> if brinkley's affirmative positive of "bandaged"
*<kizzle> is not contrary to SCTR's affirmative positive of "bacitracin dressing"
*<kizzle> without any additional affirmative negatives
*<kizzle> the two are not in conflict
*<rex23> the connecion is that brinkley's "bandage" is a mischaracterization
*<kizzle> how do we know that?
*<kizzle> you assumed that before
*<rex23> wait
*<rex23> the SCTR is presumed accurate yes or no
*<kizzle> yes
*<rex23> the SCTR if accurate, must also be a complete record of all treamtnet given yes
*<kizzle> i'm not so sure about that one
*<kizzle> but it is a record
*<rex23> then it's not acurate
*<kizzle> no
*<kizzle> you're saying that the record must be a complete record
*<rex23> is it accurate yes or no
*<kizzle> as in contains everything that happened
*<kizzle> it probably only lists the key features of the treatment
*<rex23> is it accurate yes or no
*<kizzle> accurate yes but not necessarily all-encompassing
*<rex23> probably = guess
*<rex23> here is the lynch pin
*<kizzle> so wait
*<rex23> you are guessing i a way that makes wiggle room for "bandage"
*<kizzle> you're now saying the SCTR *does* contain an affirmative negative against "bandage"?
*<rex23> does not need to
*<rex23> wait
*<rex23> if its an accurate record of treatment given
*<rex23> it records all the saleint facts regarding the treament
*<rex23> dresing and badnage are distinct slaient steps in treatment
*<rex23> not all wounds get a bandage
*<rex23> the non mention of bandage makes clear that bandage was not given
*<kizzle> so then you are arguing that SCTR and Brinkley are in conflict
*<kizzle> SCTR deductively implies no bandage was put on
*<kizzle> whereas Brinkley states there was a bandage
*<rex23> I am saying that brinkley could very well have decided as you did that there is no big diff
*<rex23> and said "bandage" when "dressign" is the correct temr
*<rex23> term
*<kizzle> could very well = guess
*<rex23> indeed
*<rex23> so elimiate guess
*<rex23> quote sCTr verbatim
*<rex23> now answer me
*<kizzle> no, eliminating your guess doesn't mean eliminating Brinkley
*<rex23> wait
*<rex23> now my turn
*<rex23> do you yes or no concede that medical dicitonary has distinct entries for "dressing" and "bandage"
*<kizzle> (by the way, i have to go to bed in like 2 min)
*<rex23> ok
*<rex23> answwer please
*<kizzle> don't know
*<kizzle> post links?
*<rex23> links are on tlak page
*<rex23> give me minute
*<kizzle> rex
*<kizzle> talk page is about a billion lines long
*<rex23> so you contention is that Brrikley is presumed to be using bdanage accurately and that he is saying that beyond the dressing there was also a bandage, yes?
*<kizzle> well
*<kizzle> the evidence that would sway me otherwise
*<kizzle> is if bandage and bacitracin dressing are mutually exclusive
*<kizzle> I agree
*<kizzle> primary sources above secondary sources
*<rex23> agree what
*<kizzle> what i just said
*<kizzle> but I don't see that SCTR and Brinkley are mutually exclusive
*<rex23> bandage and dressing are not the same got look at dict klinnks
*<kizzle> as in simple mention of "bacitracin dressing" is mutually exclusive to "bandaged"
*<rex23> it's not supportabel with out addiitonal ino
*<rex23> info
*<kizzle> alright post those links on my talk page
*<rex23> if brinkley is valid for that
*<kizzle> i have to get some sleep
*<rex23> and we prresume that he can tell a bddnage form a dressing
*<kizzle> i'm down to keep it up later tommorow
*<kizzle> i'm sure you'll be on
*<rex23> them he's also able to tell a severe wound from a minor one
*<kizzle> i'll post on your talk page when i'm around
*<rex23> wait
*<rex23> another RfA was filed against me tonight
*<kizzle> yeah
*<kizzle> i told woohoo
*<rex23> this time for the false allegations of sockpuppetry
*<kizzle> you're persistant
*<kizzle> well
*<kizzle> rex, lets be honest
*<rex23> wait
*<kizzle> you were using a sockpuppet last year
*<rex23> I am not using socks
*<rex23> I was not
*<kizzle> I believe you
*<kizzle> it just looks bad
*<kizzle> and yes you were
*<rex23> wait
*<rex23> listen
*<kizzle> you denied for a month that 216 was you
*<rex23> that was toungue in cheek and you know it
*<rex23> now listen
*<kizzle> not for the first several weeks
*<kizzle> k listening
*<rex23> As of this IRC chat, I am persuaded that you are an ok guy.however, I have zero respect any more for Derex
*<rex23> wait
*<rex23> and I am 100% convicned that JMl is a POV warrior
*<rex23> Also, I think woohoo is left field
*<rex23> and Mr. Tibbs is a sock, probaly for Neutrality,
*<kizzle> well woohoo's had minimal contact on JK
*<kizzle> he came in for the last part
*<rex23> wait
*<kizzle> keep going, i'm still listening
*<rex23> Suffice it to say, I;ve lost interest
*<rex23> and I am quitting the wiki forever after i post the log from this chat to my talk page
*<rex23> wait
*<kizzle> interesting about tibbs
*<rex23> I was madated to prove my contested eidtos with sources
*<rex23> I sourced "minor" to Brinkley via WAPO
*<rex23> this gets countered with crap like snopes
*<rex23> It's impossible to reason with peopleunder thos conditions
*<rex23> I joined the wiki because I was cnvinced that JK article is biased
*<rex23> now I prefer term hagiographic
*<rex23> suffice it to say
*<rex23> I have concluded that non-hagiographic edits by me will not be allowed
*<rex23> I am the one who added the current 1st PH BBC link as a test
*<rex23> that's a pro-kerry link and it stuck
*<rex23> noting else I have eveer added to Kerry wasn left unmolested.
*<rex23> I have started some nice articles on wikie
*<rex23> but I have n interest in letting liars win
*<rex23> JML is a liar, plain and simple
*<kizzle> hmmm
*<rex23> those who accuse me of socks are liars
*<rex23> what more is there ot say beyond that
*<rex23> Soory that we dd not become friends
*<rex23> you are a nice guy
*<rex23> best wishes
*<kizzle> before you go
*<rex23> ?
*<kizzle> couple things, none of them nasty
*<rex23> k
*<kizzle> your conduct since you've been back, as I expressed in the email I sent you
*<kizzle> has been leaps and bounds better than last year
*<kizzle> you are persistent
*<rex23> break in
*<kizzle> but I think that those who began belittling you and telling you to shut up
*<rex23> FYI
*<kizzle> were in the wrong
*<rex23> I am an active memebr of a large camng community
*<kizzle> camping?
*<rex23> had I wqnted to hiack via extra editors I could have
*<rex23> I have about 20 friends that would have edited wik with me
*<kizzle> what is camng?
*<rex23> what I wanted was truth, not victory
*<rex23> but truth eludes those with shifting standards
*<kizzle> wait, what is camng?
*<rex23> gaming
*<kizzle> are you talking about freerepublic?
*<rex23> gaming
*<kizzle> gaming community?
*<kizzle> what game?
*<rex23> yes
*<rex23> rather not say
*<kizzle> video game?
*<rex23> yes online
*<kizzle> ahh
*<kizzle> don't have to say which one
*<rex23> JMLs standards are not consistant
*<kizzle> but is it a massive multiplayer rpg?
*<rex23> he's a hypcrite in that he expects of me that which he does not do
*<rex23> to me thats a liar
*<kizzle> well
*<rex23> anyway
*<kizzle> hmm
*<kizzle> anyways
*<kizzle> what I was saying before
*<rex23> go on
*<kizzle> I don't think that you should take this as a defeat and leave wiki forever
*<rex23> it's not a defeat
*<kizzle> there are other things less contraversial
*<kizzle> if you have to leave wiki, I consider that a defeat
*<rex23> it's the conlusion of my information gathering
*<rex23> I have gathered info
*<kizzle> irrelevant of the strength of either of our arguments
*<rex23> anylized it
*<rex23> and detemined
*<rex23> that unelss I want to be a dick
*<rex23> thee is no way to make JK NPOV
*<rex23> it will remain pro kerry
*<kizzle> its really funny
*<kizzle> because i really really don't like the guy
*<kizzle> and I guess I just don't see it
*<rex23> the JML triad is too well regarded and has too may allies to dislodge in the amount of time I wish ot apply
*<kizzle> especially in describing it as "wound"
*<kizzle> i understand your position
*<kizzle> and its not that I personally disagree with some of what you're saying
*<rex23> tthe botom line is I did win
*<kizzle> but there's a difference in what we are allowed to write under the guidelines of an encyclopedia
*<rex23> I prved via the standards in place
*<rex23> that the wound is minor
*<kizzle> JML triad?
*<rex23> you can lead a horse to water
*<rex23> but you cannot make hm drinkl
*<kizzle> you made a compelling case
*<kizzle> but that's irrelevant to the issue
*<rex23> JML/Derex/Gamaliel and various others
*<rex23> ok give me a minute
*<kizzle> uncited subjective characterization doesn't belong, especially in a summary paragraph
*<rex23> I contend this:
*<rex23> Every aspect of your life falls under on or more of three categories
*<rex23> there are only three categories for every aspect of life
*<rex23> Be
*<rex23> D
*<rex23> Do
*<rex23> own
*<rex23> be do own
*<rex23> what is your reaction to that
*<kizzle> interesting
*<rex23> reaction plese
*<kizzle> continue
*<rex23> true or false
*<kizzle> prima facie makes sense
*<rex23> name something abut your life
*<kizzle> like i said, it makes sense prima facie, on first glance
*<rex23> I've tsted it, it's rock solid
*<rex23> here's another
*<rex23> Communicate
*<rex23> expect
*<rex23> inspect
*<rex23> reward
*<rex23> all huma though follows that patttern
*<rex23> human
*<rex23> reaction
*<kizzle> hmm
*<rex23> not joshin
*<rex23> reaction
*<kizzle> interesting to frame it that way
*<rex23> its infallible
*<rex23> test
*<rex23> try challnegd
*<kizzle> hmm?
*<rex23> offer a test
*<kizzle> no i'm not disagreeing with you
*<rex23> wait
*<kizzle> it's just an interesting framework to set thought against
*<rex23> all expectations are based on communication
*<rex23> all of them
*<rex23> 100%
*<rex23> either things we think
*<rex23> or heard
*<rex23> hear
*<kizzle> well almost everything's based upon communication
*<rex23> or read
*<kizzle> but continue
*<rex23> all expectations are
*<rex23> 100%
*<rex23> it's impossible to coedit wth an editor
*<rex23> JML
*<rex23> who refuses to elucidate the framework by whic he evaluates edits
*<rex23> with no agreed upon framework
*<rex23> you can never satisfy his expectations
*<kizzle> i think he believes that he's said everything before
*<kizzle> he's not one to repeat himself when he feels he's already made a point
*<rex23> I ask him to elucidatee his editors frameworl
*<kizzle> well i disagreed with you when you tried to do that
*<rex23> we wont list listvalditiy measuring criteria
*<kizzle> because we already have a framework
*<rex23> he wont list his validity measuring criteria
*<kizzle> use reliable, notable, verifiable sources
*<rex23> wait
*<rex23> the framework we have is a schematic
*<rex23> do you know what those are?
*<rex23> electronic schematic
*<rex23> ?
*<kizzle> i know what schematic is
*<kizzle> i understand what you're trying to do
*<kizzle> i just was saying we already have framework
*<rex23> each disrete component has assigned vlaues yes?
*<rex23> values
*<rex23> yes?
*<kizzle> right, but there is much more rigidity in an electronic schematic
*<kizzle> language is a tricky beast
*<rex23> JML adjusts his values to suit his current edits
*<rex23> this is why he wont list them
*<rex23> so he cannot be held to acccount to his own standard
*<rex23> that is a one sided deal
*<rex23> such deals do not interest me
*<kizzle> if what you're saying is true then of course
*<kizzle> I just don't see what you see
*<rex23> Snopes is ok for JML but not me
*<rex23> Brinkely is ok for JMl but not me
*<rex23> Kerry's pals get quited, but not Hibbard or Schachte
*<kizzle> you are ignoring the difference in citing "bandaged" vs. citing "minor"
*<kizzle> its not that its ok for JML but not for you
*<rex23> I cited minor to brinkly
*<rex23> the fall back agaisnt that was "subective"
*<rex23> I have to fught JML for one thing
*<rex23> and you for something else
*<rex23> it simply is not proven reu that brinkly used subjective citeria for "minor" and objective criteria for "bandage"
*<rex23> not proven true
*<rex23> the key issue is the criteria Brrinkley used, not the conclusion he came to
*<kizzle> brinkley didn't "use" subjective criteria
*<kizzle> "minor" is inherently much more subjective than "bandage"
*<rex23> subjective "I think it's this"
*<kizzle> that's just a study of language
*<kizzle> read wittgenstein
*<rex23> objective "the facts say its this"
*<rex23> yur are simply wrong
*<rex23> subjective is "i think x"
*<kizzle> that's not what objective/subjective is
*<rex23> obejctive is "verrified facts say its x"
*<kizzle> it's whether the characteristics that make it up are clear and distinct
*<kizzle> something like that
*<rex23> no, tthat's clarity of facts
*<rex23> not objectivity
*<rex23> if all my facts are my personal views
*<rex23> then they ar crappy, subjective facts
*<rex23> example
*<kizzle> rex
*<kizzle> bedtime
*<rex23> "Looks likee a bandage, mudt b eone"
*<kizzle> wait until tommorow for your self-exile
*<rex23> oh well
*<kizzle> i'll post on your talk sometime later tommorow
*<rex23> perhaps not likley
*<rex23> best wishes
*<kizzle> u2
*<rex23> John 3:16
*<kizzle> huh?
*<rex23> Bible verse
*<rex23> book of john
*<rex23> chapter 3
*<rex23> verse 16
*<rex23> read it
*<rex23> best wishes
*<kizzle> i hate catholics
*<kizzle> just kidding ;)
*<kizzle> gotta kid
*<kizzle> :)
*<rex23> how to exit
*<kizzle> lighten the mood
*<kizzle> you can just close
*<rex23> :)
*<rex23> good night
*<kizzle> like i said, wait till tommorow for your self-exile
*<kizzle> u2
*<rex23> perhaps
*<rex23> goodnight
*<kizzle> peace
Session Close: Mon Nov 14 04:13:59 2005

:With regard to the above transcript, I'll answer Rex's question, "why not say 'with his arm sewn up' Kerry went back to duty?" The answer is that no source supports such an assertion. The assertion that there was a bandage, on the other hand, is supported by Brinkley, a fairly well-known professor who's written other books, ''and'' -- a point that Rex and kizzle didn't get into -- it's supported by Letson, who was a harsh Kerry critic. There's simply no good-faith dispute about the point. The genuine disputes that were raised were that the wound was minor, that it was self-inflicted, and that there was no enemy fire. I favor leaving all those details to the daughter article. The version I favor doesn't take a position on any of those points. Furthermore, as I and others have repeatedly said, the objection to "minor" is that it's not an observable fact; rather, it's an inference/characterization. Flatly asserting that the wound was minor (citing Brinkley) would be like flatly asserting that Kerry acted heroically (citing Brinkley). That we look at Brinkley's account for facts doesn't mean that we can cast aside the NPOV policy and report Brinkley's opinions as facts. I won't bother to comment on the rest, including Rex's attack on me as "a liar". [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 13:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

::Rex, here's your problem: define "minor wound". I can define bandage. Some people will see "minor" and think, it's just a scratch. Some people will think "oh, he didn't lose an arm". It doesn't mean anything specific. I could go on. But, in the end you view this as a pissing contest. Other people view it as trying to write a decent article. You're still mad about "minor", because that's what started the whole thing a year ago. My god man, give it up. Have you nothing better to do than try to settle a year-old grudge? I might be wrong to try to shut you up; but I wouldn't have if you had come back argueing about something new. Just this same old ridiculous dispute. Truth told, just like Kizzle I don't like Kerry either, though I did vastly prefer him to Bush. I sure as hell hope Kerry doesn't run again, so I've got no personal agenda here. I just don't like you coming in here trying to push the same old smears. You can't back it up with the facts, so you try to back it up with spin. You know damn well that under the regulations Kerry deserved that PH. You can't possibly look squarely at the evidence at not believe that ... the medical record shows they pulled shapnel out of his arm, and the regs specify that if medical treatment is received he gets a PH. There are only two possible ways he didn't deserve it (a) he shoved it into his own arm, and if you believe that, you're batshit crazy (b) he did it to himself accidentally when not firing at an enemy. But you're not even argueing either one of those most of the time, and there's ample evidence against (b) anyway. You're hung up on this "minor" crap as though that would disallow the PH. And you ''know'' that's why you're hung up on it, that and a year-old grudge. Kerry was properly awarded that PH, and you know it. And I'm sick of you trying to spin it as though he didn't. I don't like lies, or liars, and the irony of you calling JML a liar beggars belief. You lionize liars, the ones who share your politics.
::Keep your freaking smear campaign off wikipedia. Leave it to a conservative to attack a veteran because he didn't get wounded worse. Whoops, nope you guys jumped over Max Cleland too for only losing 3/4 limbs, ''literally'' morphed him into Osama freaking Bin Ladin in a TV ad. So, leave it to a conservative to attack a veteran for not dying. So, now there's more than 2000 folks you can't smear. But, at least you can still smear their mothers for asking why their sons died. And you can cut veterans benefits to save a buck, while passing ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%. Bush started a fund for private donations to help the dispossed in Iraq. You know how much was in there, as of last month? 300 freaking dollars, literally. Send 'em a couple ipods why don't you, you blood-thirsty hypocrites. Torture -- the debate of the day is just how much torture the United States of America should allow. At what point exactly do we lose the moral high ground? We invaded a country on the pretense it might attack us, known then to be false. Yes, that pisses me off, I've got family getting shot at in a FOB every fucking day over there. We torture people, obviously without trial, on the grounds that they ''might'' know something. Half the evidence the Bush crew based the invasion on came from lies made under the duress torture ... it obviously works real well, beyond the moral repugnance of the idea. You support all this, and yet have no respect for me ... because of a tiff on an internet site? God forgive you. Poor Rex, someone opened an RFA on him at wikipedia. How's that for a personal attack. Because yes, I take what you and your ilk are doing to my country very personally ... when the questions of the day are how much to torture, how big a secret gulag to build, is firing white phosphorous shells into a civilian area ok because it is not technically banned as a chemical weapon even though it literally melts the flesh off anyone in a 200 yard radius, how much to cut veterans benefits, how much to cut medicare, what tiny shred of the planet to not destroy for oil, whether a 0.5% reduction in GDP is worth paying to leave an intact planet rather than a hothouse to our children, how badly to discriminate against two people for loving each other, whether to ok a vaccination against genital warts which can produce cervical cancer because more teenagers might have sex if they weren't worried about dying. I take it personally. [[User:Derex|Derex]] [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 23:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

==Thank you==
Thanks for your help at [[:Category:Soviet spies]]. My pleasure to help if you need assistance. [[User:Nobs01|nobs]] 18:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

== Welcome msg ==

Thanks for the welcome to wikipedia and the helpful links.

==Arby case against you has been accepted==
[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4]]. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 10:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

==Final decision in your arbcom case==
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 4]]. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 20:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

== You might be interested to give your feedback on... ==

[[Garneau User Group]] . Specially the nomination for deletion and the [[talk:Garneau User Group]]. 19:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)~

== talk ==

gidday,
not sure about what to say - but I am a REX... a taurus and a gay man from australia

hope you are doin ok

My email address is

rexmini2002@yahoo.com

so dont be shy
email me...

==Request to reopen your prior RfAr==

I'm doing you the courtesy of posting this here, and on the relevant sockpuppet. Please be notified i've made a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_reopen_hearing_.27Rex071404_4.27 request to reopen] your RfAr #4. -- [[User:RyanFreisling]] [[User_talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 23:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

== freedom of speech ==

Hey Rex071404, there's a vote going on concerning Wiki admins being able to censor what editors say off Wikipedia, and possibly use it punitively against other editors. Please go here to vote on this policy. Thanks...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Poll:_Off-wiki_Personal_Attacks ''Maggie'' [[User:Thewolfstar|thewolfstar]] 00:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

== 6 month anniversary message ==
{{unblock|How can I be a sockpuppet of a sockpuppet?}.}
It's been 6 months since I quit the wiki and I stopped by to check in. I am interested to know, if I am a sockpuppet, wouldn't that make the other user I am accused of being ''not'' a sockpuppet? If Merecat = sockpuppet of Rex071404, how can Rex071404 = sockpuppet of Merecat? Two users can't be sockpuppets of each other - that's an endless loop. [[User:Rex071404|'''R704''']] 21:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
:Why can't you just be normal? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 04:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

::In a weird way, I've got to hand it to Rex. There are some sick fucks out there harassing people outside Wikipedia. Like what happened to Gator1 and Katefan0. Rex is not that ugly sort, despite the ugly conflicts here. We've fought like cats and dogs, but I don't doubt he's a decent fellow (though deeply politically misguided). ... Rex, I'd like to apologize for my 'idiot' jibe at Merecat. Very frustrated, I was, but that was inappropriate. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 20:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Derex, Merecat is a much better editor than Rex was. However, currently Merecat is blocked as a sockpuppet of Rex and Rex is blocked as a sockpuppet of Merecat. This makes no sense. They can't both be sockpuppets of each others. At the very least, Rex should be unblocked, so he can request that the Rex071404 account be terminated in favor of the Merecat account. After all, if the community is going to deem that Rex = Merecat, then Rex should be able to speak for Merecat, right? [[User:216.239.38.136|216.239.38.136]] 07:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== [[User:Rex071404]] request unblocking ==


Rex071404 is currently blocked in error. [[User:Merecat]] is blocked as an acccused sockpuppet of [[User:Rex071404]]. But, [[User:Rex071404]] is also currently blocked as an accused sockpuppet of [[USer:Merecat]]. Either Merecat is a sock, or Rex071404 is, or neither is. They can't both be blocked as socks of each other. That's an endless loop. [[User:216.239.38.136|216.239.38.136]] 07:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

: Don't worry about it, from what I've seen neither are particularly welcome. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 10:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

::If that is in fact Rex, I would agree with him. But, some anon ip making a complaint bears no weight. Rex, you need to use the "unblock" template.

::That said, Rex could legitimately be banned on other grounds, such as the new "exhausting community patience" standard, or maybe based on the arbcom judgements. If he's to be indefinitely banned on all accounts, it shouldn't be by accident, as this appears to be. Personally, I'd rather he keep the name Rex than start a new one again. I don't see what's to be gained by the indefinite block. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 16:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:::This anon is Merecat, see template for evidence.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]]<font color="green"> [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]</font><sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</font></sup> 19:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

:::: In any event, Rex is now blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeting. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] ([[User talk:Ral315|talk]]) 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

== Unlawful Combat ==

Why is there no Unlawful combat article?

Revision as of 03:20, 5 June 2006

Owing to the fact that my unit has been activated and I am Being pOsted tO a new location for an extended tour of duty, I will no lonGER be in Texas. For your information, I've been able to edit from several IP's including my current home in Texas because I was able to persuade a few friends and family to let me run RealVNC on their home computers/game servers/office PC's. However, now that my sockpuppets have been killed off and because I am being relocated and because I think I've made my point, and because we all have to grow up someday, I am content to quit for the indefinite future. Due to relocation issues beyond my control, I will not have internet access on any kind of regular basis for 18 months, which at my age, is a lifetime. If and/or when I ever return, it will be under a single new user account and I will not be a source of trouble. However, in order for this promise to be binding on me, I ask that my request (which I am making here now) to delete and protect my user page and user talk page (same as user:katefan0 did) be honored. Basically, why I came back as Merecat was to prove that conservative editors are always opposed and I feel that I proved that. The RfC on Merecat Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat made clear that Merecat was not as bad as User:Rex071404, but he was still opposed. Now as to how you can believe that I will not be a source of trouble, I'll just tell you that over the last 20 months I have run a parallel user account (my last undiscovered sock) who edited 0 political articles and was actually promoted to Admin. Regarding this admin, I quit using that account about 6 months after getting promoted. Eventually, you'll find some idle admin accounts and you'll probably guess which one was mine. One clue is that I had User:Kevin Baas on my watch list and occasionally reverted him as a logged out IP editor just to piss him off. Also, I am absolutely sure that User:Prometheuspan is a sockpuppet (takes one to know one), but if you guys can't see it, oh well. So you might ask yourselves "why would anyone bother with all this?". Well, it was simple; the wiki was (and still largely is) overrun with America hating left-wingers. My father served in Vietnam and he was injured a lot worse than that doofus John Kerry, so it just sort of pissed me off that Kerry was doing so much bragging. As for voting, I wasn't even able to vote in 2004, so I've never voted for Bush. I guess fighting the Liberals on the Wikipedia was my way of trying to help. As for why I seem "weird"; I was home schooled and I am borderline dyslexic. Sometimes, I have to go over things 5-6 times to understand them. So, you might imagine that when others on the wiki insulted my editing skills as deficient, I took it personally. As for User:Kizzle, I never replied to you before because I knew I'd be bailing soon, so what was the point? Sorry if I hurt your feelings. Also, as far as when I got myself "outed" as so-called User:Anon Texan, you guys should bear in mind that I was well aware that those IP's were being tracked and I was also aware of the few IP footprints I left which connected Merecat to Rex071404. But at that point I didn't care, because I knew I would be bailing this month anyway. Also, what you guys were not aware of, is the editing I did after April 05 (when Merecat was created) under my non-political sock. And again, why go through all the trouble? Well it's very simple: As I told Kizzle, in order to have expectations, you must 1st communicate. I needed to test, measure, test, measure, before I could conclude my views about Wikipedia. My conclusion is that at any given time there is a small group of biased editors such as User:Commodore Sloat, User:RyanFreisling, User:Kevin Baas, User:Nescio (and others from before such as user:Gamaliel, User:Derex, User:JamesMLane) who camp at political articles, quickly writing every negative snipe they read at DailyKos, DU and other crappy places. But these same editors are extremely slow to remove bad information once it becomes clear it's bad. However, as my victory over Nescio at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush proves, there is also now a core group of good editors such as User:Thatcher131, User:Tbeatty and User:Morton devonshire and others who are now beginning to turn the liberal tide. So all that said, I agree to quit and go away, likely to never return, (and certainly to never return as a sock or 3RR type) provided that I am allowed to actually quit and my user page and user talk page are both deleted (and protected against restoration), leaving only my quit message (see below). PS: I have no other sock puppets which I am keeping - kudos to your checkuser staff for sniffing me out, except please note that you missed these alternate accounts: User:Korn2bmild, User:Hdtopo, User:Armand Tanzarian, User:Armin Tanzarian, User:Armen Tamzarian, User:Armen Tanzarian and ソックスのパペット. FYI: Hdtopo is abbreviated Spanish for "Mole man". I was going to move him forward as a trojan horse, but I lost interest. Get it, "mole" man? As in KGB mole? Also, there was another Simpsons tie-in there. Anyway, best wishes, R704 03:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ps: "Rex" was my ferret. I had to give him away last year because I was not allowed to bring him with me. That's why I chose "Merecat" because it reminded me of Meerkat which reminded me of Rex. Cal Burrattino was a twisted translation from "sockpuppet". Wombdpsw stood for WillieOnMichael'sBigDaddyPelicanShitWheels. Neutral arbiter was an obvious ploy to bug my foes. The un accountable IP addresses came from login on via friends PC's. The Texas IPs are my local ISP who I use here and the Google IP is accessed via this link: http://www.google.com/gwt/n Now I suppose revealing that Google link is going to piss off a few wiki editors because by my count at least 3-4 others have recently edited (legitimately) from that address, but I figured since I aggravated you guys enough, I owed you a good turn. So, like I told you all, the Google edits were done from my desktop, not a cellphone. It's up to you guys to decide if you want to block that. Also, will note that this request also applies to my IP page of User:216.153.214.94, which is where Rex always edited from and where this edit is coming from now via VNC (you can check your logs). Also, this .94 address was a game server behind a firewall on which I was one of the sysops, but that server is being booted off line this month as our gaming group is disbanding and we are taking that PC it's DSL line. (for that reason and for the reasons posted above, I won't be able to edit from .94 again, so this is the last time I can ask you from here to please delete the user and user talk pages there too.) Oh well, thanks for reading this. Final note: My initial Wikipedia editing adversary Ben (User:Neutrality) really did become a valuable wiki member. I was really surprised by that. I guess anything is possible. Please delete my pages and post my quit message as follows:


R E T I R E D]

This user left Wikipedia in June 2006.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rex071404&oldid=56938819"