User talk:Rex074104

-- Welcome!

Hello, 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 (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

--
 * 1) User talk:Rex071404/archive1
 * 2) User talk:Rex071404/archive2
 * 3) User talk:Rex071404/archive3
 * 4) User talk:Rex071404/archive4
 * 5) User talk:Rex071404/archive5
 * 6) User talk:Rex071404/archive6

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

'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Rex071404&action=edit&section=new 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)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

I thought that you might be interested in this request for adminship: 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)


 * 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 . Anyways I still appreciate your opinion. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 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. Yuber(talk) 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. 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 Articles for deletion/Fitzmas. I assume that you'll therefore want to vote to delete it. 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 because we appeared to have reached a point of diminishing returns on the talk page. JamesMLane 11:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Accountable 1135
You might enjoy Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Problems_with_several_users - David Gerard 14:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's way too easy, there has to be something else going on here--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). Rex071404  216.153.214.94 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 this, I've deleted the page you requested. If I've messed up, let me know. Jdavidb talk &bull; contribs]] 14:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks Rex071404  216.153.214.94 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. 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)


 * 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)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

John Kerry
No problem. My reasoning is simple: 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)
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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.

K.i.s.s.
Thank you. - brenneman (t) (c)  12:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

welcomes
just to point you that usually, welcome messages are left on user talk pages, not user pages. -- ( drini's vandalproof page &#x260E;  ) 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?

Rex071404  216.153.214.94 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. a ndroid 79  14:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Please consider joining the welcoming committee. Walter Siegmund (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

Zeq 09:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop...
...placing welcome messages on peoples' user pages. They belong on talk pages. Thanks. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 15:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR
fyi: a report has been filed about your reverts, a link is in JK 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. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * No problem. Enjoy. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 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)

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. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 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. 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. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 19:17, 7 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; Katefan0(scribble) 00:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

POV fork
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 to a page? There is no discussion on its talk page. I posted in Village pump (policy) that it is a new guideline. I also checked 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)

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 &trade; 07:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)