User talk:Rex071404

Welcome!

Hello Rex071404, and 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please 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! --

Last update: 06:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Picture of the day/November 16, 2024

Please click here to leave me a new message.

comment moved to Talk:John Kerry Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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, --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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). Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Kerry? I'll see what I can do. As for stolen honor, maybe later - I really don't know much about it. ;) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94}

What is the dispute at Kerry? Is it about shrapnel wounds? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

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 [1]. Anyways I still appreciate your opinion. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yuber^(talk) 23:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Kaisershatner 01:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. JamesMLane 02:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. JamesMLane 11:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accountable 1135

You might enjoy Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Problems_with_several_users - David Gerard 14:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's way too easy, there has to be something else going on here--Quickie smalls 21:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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). Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 this, I've deleted the page you requested. If I've messed up, let me know. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 14:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 14:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. 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. Karmafist 04:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Karmafist 16:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Uncle Ed 16:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. --kizzle 23:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. -Voltaire|Talk|My Desk|[Français] 01:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on your page and revert anything suspicious; you can always get it back. -Voltaire|Talk|My Desk|[Français]

Hey, sorry for all the Vandilism you've been getting, it wasn't me but i feel bad that it happened. 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 here. Thanks so much -Voltaire|Talk|My Desk|[Français] 14:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. -Voltaire|Talk|My Desk|[Français] 20:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Johntex\^talk 17:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

K.i.s.s.

Thank you. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

welcomes

just to point you that usually, welcome messages are left on user talk pages, not user pages. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

?? 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?

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. android79 14:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the welcoming committee. Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this

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

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

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

Please stop...

...placing welcome messages on peoples' user pages. They belong on talk pages. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

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

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. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rex, User:SlimVirgin. See Wikipedia watch for more info. Also has been making lots of unfounded legal threats. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated

Thank you, Rex, for lending me some personal attacks. I feel my talk page doesn't have quite enough at present. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Enjoy. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Derex @ 00:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Derex @ 02:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken and are wrongly judging me. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 19:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{guideline}} 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 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!--Ben 07:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again! ALKIVAR™ 07:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. nobs 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 23:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, just a misunderstanding. · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 sampans 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. [2] 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 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth suggested reasons that this injury did not merit a Purple Heart.[3] Also in 2004, after a limited review prompted by Judicial Watch the Naval Inspector General "determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved".[4] 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) (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) (last) 01:31, 9 November 2005 Rex071404 (rv to "consensus" Derex, please ratify consensus prior to any more changes)
(cur) (last) 01:29, 9 November 2005 Titoxd m (Reverted edits by 152.163.100.195 to last version by Derex)
(cur) (last) 01:28, 9 November 2005 152.163.100.195
(cur) (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) (last) 00:46, 9 November 2005 Titoxd (reading the talk page discussion, issue is now solved, modifying to version with consensus and unprotecting)

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

here's my position: use my earlier version as a basis and (a) use [[Sick Call|clinic]] 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. Derex @ 01:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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[5] ... often gauze. so he applied bacitracin either under or on a bandage ... that's "bacitracin dressing". Derex @ 02:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 02:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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--152.163.101.14 02:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 02:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Derex @ 02:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Derex @ 02:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(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". <<< Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 02:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Dressing the wound, 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.

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 02:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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'--152.163.101.14 02:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Derex @ 02:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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--152.163.101.14 02:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Derex @ 02:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 02:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)--152.163.101.14 02:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Derex @ 02:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You missed 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? Derex @ 02:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See this 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. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 02:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. [6] 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. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 02:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See this 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. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 02:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Derex @ 02:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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--152.163.101.14 02:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bacitracin ointment dressing

See 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. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 02:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See the date on your link filename=04-26-05, 2005???--152.163.101.14 03:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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--152.163.101.14 03:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 03:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're talking about the severity of a wound, except that you're playing semantics, and ignoring the obvious--152.163.101.14 03:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rex, you have just proven the exact opposite.[7] 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. Derex @ 03:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 03:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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--152.163.101.14 03:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"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)"

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 03:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was no such thing as OTC bacitracin ointment in the 1970s, how else can I argue this, it didn't exist--152.163.101.14 03:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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?--152.163.101.14 03:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orver-the-counter or not has no bearing on its status as an oitnment. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 03:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop and think for a moment, it not existing has no bearing on its status as an oinment?--152.163.101.14 03:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 04:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Very much for your kind support of my 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 let me know. Thank you! — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 14:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Wolfgang's RfA

Thank you for your support on my 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 contact me.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 18:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philwelch's RfA

Thanks for supporting my successful Request for Adminship! — Phil Welch 03:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

arbcom rulings till binding

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

Rex is correct about ArbCom, re: reverting

Please read 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".[reply]

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? Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 08:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, continually bucking the consensus and being disruptive is as arbcom worthy as violating old arbcom decisions. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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?--Anonrtgtt 00:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curps isn't alone in the sockpuppet accusations, it's quite suspicious. Plus, how does this new user even know who you are? R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could ask you the same question. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 04:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Curps 04:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's bull. Why does he get to make that slanderous category and accusation? Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 04:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

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

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? Phil Sandifer 07:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That might be viable. I am on IRC right now with Kizzle, seeking common ground Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 07:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]