I redirected the Willard Kennedy page. Please see further comments there. This all touches a bit of a nerve (in a good way) as the "Superman" series was my favorite show when I was a kid, followed closely by "The Lone Ranger", so you can see that I was into good-guy heros as role models (excluding the suicide part of the story, though). To give you an idea of my age, when I started watching "Superman", some of them were first-run episodes. Yikes! P.S. Your self-promotion of your web page did not escape my intention. Unless you're making money from it, I don't care. But someone else might. Just don't say nobody warned you. :) Wahkeenah 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I take it you know him from his TV series in Detroit. All I know of him is from Superman. I took several screen captures from my DVD. He's only on-screen for maybe 30 seconds in two separate clips in "Joey", although he also provides the fake call on the horserace, which is actually stock footage from Santa Anita. That brings up a funny sidebar - "Metropolis" is always assumed to be New York City, but the 1950s series was filmed in Hollywood, and presto! Metropolis = Los Angeles! Makes me wonder whether "Smallville" in that context was actually Fresno. Wahkeenah 03:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I found the quote I was referring to, from Gary Grossman's Serial to Cereal, in an addendum to the small paperback edition, not in the full-sized original edition. Kennedy told Grossman that Charlie Chaplin, of all people, was in the studio when he recorded his Superman intros and other such stuff, and complimented him on his voice. Now, does that sound like a tall tale, or would it likely be true and be worth including in the article? Wahkeenah 03:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You didn't say anything offensive. One editor is just sensitive to that word. It bugs him a bit,[1] and he thinks it annoying.[2] He considers those that use the word to be "Wii-tards."[3] I thought it was really funny that he edited your comment. It was probably so offensive that it was found necessary to ignore the talk guidelines to emend it. Have lots of fun and don't take things too seriously. See you around. :) Jecowa 05:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Brugal pp.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Zenith Space Commander 600.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the ((GFDL-self)) tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 20:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for adding the link to Linotype machine. I wrote the section on TTS but silly me, never bothered to see if wp had an article on Linotypes! Some fascinating and amazing stuff there. Jeh (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This doesn't appear accurate. Do you have some (reliable) source that shows that Atria's product wasn't derived from DSEE? Tedickey (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry and thank you for cleaning up the mess I made with the Drink entry ( -_-") Purely unintentionally and I do hope to not get "blacklisted" or negatively marked in any shape or form. I felt like contributing as of late something that WP seemed to lack in conjunction with my recent ventures in the field of bar tending.... Just wanted to give back a bit..... Catc1h22 (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Atari BattleZone Screenshot.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sasikiran (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, this red link removal was a little bit too fast. It was a formerly-not-so-red link, damaged by the not-so-constructive editor. Not panned, just FYI. Skarebo (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No I am not a bot and sorry about that I did make a mistake on the Clint Catalyst page thanks for pointing it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob5539 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for rubbing my nose in my mistaken reverts in your message User talk:Wtmitchell#Silly edit war, I do appreciate it. You're right, it was my mistake. I have apologized to User:Binksternet here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed you were involved with a discussion on Talk:Casale Media. Do you mind weighing in on a Casale Media dispute again? User 12.64.18.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/12.65.6.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has reverted a court evidence citation: first with out reason, then with "unsubstantiated claim" in the edit summary. The document is directly referencing quotations from an email. Your opinion would be appreciated. Talk:Casale Media#court evidence reference.

Thanks R.Vinson (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rees11, in order to prevent stirring up unnecessary disputes due to my COI status, may I request your help to review the proposed redrafting of the article by BL here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Creation_Church#Making_the_Article_Neutral and provide your comments, if any? Thank you very much!Tanlipkee (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't it ironic that I altered one spelling mistake, and then created another spelling mistake in the same word! Thanks for correcting it - my excuse is that it was an incidental edit when I was checking a link from another article, and saw that! PhantomSteve (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Susan Singleton, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Singleton. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Smartse (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to drop me a note of encouragement on my talk page. Appreciate it! Have a great day!121.7.42.98 (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Tanlipkee (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am citing two examples of inconsistencies made by various Wikipedia “Administrators”.as to why the author of this article now prefers its deletion. Some Administrator’s views claim that they cannot count on Google search for examples to bring forth information to back up information in articles in contrast to other Administrators who are pursuing Google search for information.

Second example is Wikipedia’s choosing to conceal important news worthy events from the public as cited below and on MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow’s Show”.

In concluding, I request that this article be deleted as to protect who the article was written about from any further manipulative commentary and negative innuendo by Wikipedia Administrators concerning the article’s content. Other articles about people written by this editor will also hopefully be deleted.Borismule (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=new+york+time+wikipedia+rachael+maddow+David+Rohde+&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

http://www.mediabistro.com/Arianna-Huffington-profile.html

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit-eaton/technomix/wikipedia-dabbles-dubious-morals-save-kidnapped-journo Wikipedia and 'The New York Times' Suppress Facts to Save Kidnapped Journo BY Kit EatonMon Jun 29, 2009 at 5:15 PM

Last week, journalist David Rohde escaped after a seven-month kidnap by the Taliban. It's fabulous news, and it's been partly attributed to the fact that The New York Times suppressed it in the first place. But today we learn that Wikipedia did so too.

That raises a couple of very interesting questions. The New York Times worked very hard to keep facts about Rohde's kidnapping out of the media, with the intention of denying the Taliban the media coverage it desired and thus helping Rohde's chances of release or escape. The technique obviously paid off in this case, and it's certainly been done before. But in a Times piece yesterday, the paper also made it clear that it had the help of Wikipedia staffers who suppressed the news popping up there too. Since Wikipedia is crowd-sourced and openly editable, the news did manage to arrive on the online encyclopedia several times, whereupon it was quickly erased and sometimes the offending page was frozen to prevent any further user-editing. Rohde's own Wikipedia entry was even edited by a colleague immediately after his kidnap to enhance the Islam-friendliness of Rohde's previous journalistic work. This information dance on Wikipedia all happened with the specific help of the site's founder, Jimmy Wales. But while commenting on the moral angle of the Wikipedia tampering, Wales noted: "We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source...I would have had a really hard time with it if it had." And that's where this story gets interesting to people who believe in freedom of information: In essence The New York Times suppressed the info themselves, and by influencing other old media outlets, which then enabled the new media outlet of Wikipedia to feel okay about continuing the propagandizing. It's a journalistic moral ouroboros, for sure, and it raises a couple of questions. Did Wikipedia damage its reputation as a crowd-based and open-access information source? The answer is yes, a little (and it's not the first time Wikipedia's admins have been caught manipulating entries). Wikipedia isn't a traditional media outlet, and therefore has no hard or soft journalistic moral code to abide by, which means it can be more flexible in its actions--and the fact a life was at stake here is a mitigating fact. But Wales' excuse still sounds particularly weak. As a result, the next questions about Wikipedia are: What other news pieces is it hiding? And will users trust in the site as a news source take a hit? [via The New York Times]

You can make article deletion requests at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Rees11 (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call it peacock if you wish. However, the statement of the Sunday Times's lead financial journalist saying "I respect" means that he is "respected," and not just as a matter of semantics, thus it is not unsourced. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The talk page looks like a mess (the ramblings you mentioned) but I don't think the article itself is in bad shape. I made one small change and brought up a couple of other issues on the talk page for discussion. I'm glad that Zulualpha is going through WP:COIN and not being contentious. I actually think it's healthy to have COI editors giving a company's POV on talk pages as long as they don't try to own articles. I've said before that I think the most productive articles are the ones that have people with opposing POVs who can work with each other, as opposed to articles where the editors have no POV at all. -- Atama^chat 00:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work updating the article! I went ahead and moved it to its new name at Imagination Station. Thanks again for your hard work, — Kralizec! (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crikey, someone knows their whisky... Good spot with the awards though. The standard whisky has won awards though (http://www.welsh-whisky.co.uk/16878.html), is it appropriate to mention this? If so, is there a good way to say so without peacocking? Cheers, Luke Luke.ab09 (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I didn't know whether publishing the result of the WHOIS for 98.173.201.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) would breach WP:OUTING. However. If you have a look at the WHOIS, you will see why I think there is a clear breach of WP:COI. I'm not on here much anymore and didn't see the unsigned comment until the other day. TorstenGuise (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I already did that but missed the part about it resolving to mail.seymourduncan.com. I don't think it's outing to track down an IP, which has no expectation of privacy. Thanks for pointing that out. I will note this on COIN, but since the editor hasn't been on in months, I don't think there is much to be done about this. Rees11 (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I won't miss him. Sure he was a bit entertaining but he was only using Wikipedia to hype a book full of stupid nonsense and I have little tolerance for complete bollocks.Simonm223 (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re your two recent edits here and here to Help:Merging, you state "User:AnomieBOT says mergefrom has been replaced by merged-from" - exactly where is that stated by User:AnomieBOT? ((mergefrom)) is for use before the merge occurs, being placed on the article; and ((merged-from)) is for use after, being placed on the talk page - they are not synonymous.

I am aware that User:AnomieBOT sometimes replaces ((afd-mergefrom)) with ((afd-merged-from)) but that is not a general case; it is done under special circumstances as part of a cleanup. I suspect that you spotted the amendment made by User:AnomieBOT from this to this but please note on the first one the sentence "Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with ((afd-merged-from)).". Another example: compare this with this. Therefore, the initial use of ((afd-mergefrom)) was correct. These two templates are unrelated to ((mergefrom)) and ((merged-from)), and different rules apply. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood the use of the term "obsolete." Rees11 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mea Culpa, Google maps get link seems to be cursor dependent, but I'll cheat and copy Iberville Projects ((coord)).

Never mind, saw your edit. C'est la vie

Snap!
I just edited this at the same time as you. You put what I wanted, but the words and figures in the source were a bit off, so I've changed them. I trust that's OK with you. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes,I see what you mean about the quote. I've had a go at fixing it, thus. Moonraker12 (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the good feedback here.RevelationDirect (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I accept your point (see my latest - and last - comment on the matter on the Monty talk page). My apologies. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hey rees, i am one of the co-creators of the closed system drug transfer device page. 'safe handling' sit across from me in the same office. we have been given the task by our bosses to write this page. our brief was to for phaseal to 'own' the closed system drug transfer device term on wikipedia. i know that no-one can 'own' a term here, but hey, i gotta do what my bosses tell me!!!! if you do a little research into this industry, you will find out that there are four or five competitors. the thing is that phaseal IS the only closed system drug transfer device, and that the competitors all use a filter system, and filter systems leak like, well, a filter. you can see this for yourself, and you can get an idea of what we are trying to do by watching this video on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm5Q1qN9L8o&feature=related... the thing is that bengt gustavson did invent the closed system drug transfer device, and this device did become phaseal. yet you and our other editor don't think that this is relevent, or you are thinking that this is a promotional statement. its not, and my problem is that there is nothing published out there in internet land. so here is the question: what do you think that i can say so that phaseal can be associated with a closed system drug transfer device? we tried linking it to the 20+ scientific studies backing phaseal, but this was taken down (my whole scientific studies relating to a closed system drug transfer device page was deleted). next i try and link phaseal as the name given to the original CSTD, and that is also deemed promotional... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan tate (talk • contribs) 07:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((cite book|publisher=Simon and Schuster|title=Lost illusions: American cinema in the shadow of Watergate and ..., Volume 9|author=David A. Cook|page=325))

((cite book|publisher=Univ of Wisconsin Press|title=The American Film Industry|author=Tino Balio|page=556)) — Rlevse • Talk • 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Icouce's post below yours on my talk and on [{Talk:Uppsala Mafia]]. The mess isn't over. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Talk:Uppsala_Mafia#Reliable Sourcing and Verbatim Quotes — Rlevse • Talk • 23:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it weren't so poorly written I might think I had somehow landed on the Weekly World News website instead of Wikipedia. Rees11 (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is nothing in MOS:BIO that I can find that expressly says a person cannot, or should not, be noted by the place of birth, especially when that has been a point of note in later years. In fact, in the article, the year of his US citizenship is cited to a source that does not at all say what year he became a citizen and actually contradicts other content in the article regarding when he came to live in the US. For Hope, that he was born in England is a salient point that is frequently made. I don't believe MOS says anywhere this is "forbidden", especially when the citations are in error and in my view, citing Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) as the justification for the change is not valid. For the record, however, I resent the comment you left on my talk page that claims I was "trying to start an edit war". I would appreciate a bit of assumption of good faith instead of accusation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found that info in a contemporary article in The New York Times article on ProQuest. There appears to be some about that time here as well.Shortride (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am working on a Bio of a living person and Rees11 has deleted some content that may be in violation of wiki guidelines. I have made adjustments to the page and need to know if the changes are satisfactory. (Robert94704 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Hi Rees11

You have edited a number of entries I made, and I'm a little lost about how to properly deal with them. Please help me.

For instance, I added information about two audio CDs of lectures given by Aldous Huxley that are commercially available (through Amazon and other online and brick-and-mortar retailers), fully legally licensed from the Vedanta Society of Southern California where the lectures were given, and are a very valuable resource for any Huxley scholar, student, or fan. They are the only CDs of Huxley's lectures that are available (other then bootlegs).

I am somewhat of an expert on Huxley, given my own 40 year association with the Vedanta Society of Southern California and having worked closely with Christopher Isherwood, Huston Smith, and other friends and associates of Huxley. I personally conducted a video interview with Laura Huxley shortly before her death about Aldous and Huston Smith. I have had articles published about themes that include Huxley's writings and even gave a talk before the International Aldous Huxley Symposium held in LA in 2008, sponsored by the Centre for Aldous Huxley Studies at the University of Munster, Germany.

You flagged the entries about the 2 CD as being spam - but, they are legitimate entries - just as if Harper (Huxley's book publisher) had spotted that one of the Huxley novels was not listed - and added it.

Please let me know how my entries can be better documented and more acceptable.

Thanks,

Jon

JonMonday (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have addressed some of these concerns at JonMonday's talk page. You may want to add to the discussion. Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...sent to AfD. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 09:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Rees11. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Natasha Wheat, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G4: Not identical to the deleted version. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wheat's notability is questionable. You may wish to pursue deletion via PROD or AfD. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Daddy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Daddy. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Atama頭 19:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This strikes me as odd comment.

Sorry for your confusion. Will try to follow policy in future.

Honestly I don't understand the trouble.

Thanks for comment.

Please refrain from adding comment to my talk page.

Rather, please make comments on relevant article pages.

Thanks. Calamitybrook (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding your recent edit here, I did check one of the more reliable reference sources when it comes to album titles, band names etc., that is Allmusic. All the album sleeves I looked at had the name as Rocket 88's, for example - [4]. That is why I double checked and edited accordingly - I accept your comments about plurals, possessives et al; but grammar rules rarely, in my experience, unduly trouble the naming of bands ! Google searches brought up 88's far more than 88s too. I am not precious about this, or intend to re-edit the article, but just thought I would point out that I did not undertake the edit in a flippant manner.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'll admit I did assume you were clueless and I apologize for that. I'm not a fan of the "google test" but I am sensitive to the spelling preference of the subject. See my comments in the article discussion. Rees11 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I have, and that's fine. I suspect, if anyone every reads the main article alone, that they may inadvertently try to edit the apostrophe in or out as preference suits. At least your considered and balanced note may stop a stupid edit war on the matter. As I have already stated, I intend to let it lie. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rees11. You have new messages at Talk:USS Los Angeles (SSN-688).
Message added 02:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

-MBK₀₀₄ 02:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And again -MBK₀₀₄ 13:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem and thanks for pointing that out. I see that the article is very close to a B class so I am going to make a few improvements over the next couple days to bring the article up. Please let me know if you need anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rees. Just thought I'd say a big thank you for your help tidying and keeping this page in policy check. I see you've been working hard on it and am most grateful for all the input and keeping me in line. I have only created 3 pages for Wiki and am trying hard to keep them within guidelines, albeit on a controversial subject. I know we maybe don't quite see eye to eye on it, but that's what wiki's about I hope... and don't worry, I won't start creating articles about UFO theories, odd genealogies or anything I think we'll have to quarrel about too hard. Any advice and ideas always welcome. Kind Regards, Paul Bedson (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your kind message and encouragement. I could kinda see you had the common sense to see that I am trying to get fully edited, verified, noteable and (perhaps more importantly than I had realised) neutral articles. Thanks again for your assistance with this and help producing what I hope will be some excellent articles for Wikipedia and the world. Paul Bedson (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that 'tablets' is correct. One is a cylinder, for instance, and are you sure that the group of texts is one tablet? I've been thinking about that for a while but haven't been sure how to put it. There seems to be no way to verify this, which of course is another problem. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea, can't find any good sources, and know little about the subject. If you're talking about the table, it already called them "tablets," I just moved that from the rows up to the column header. The two of you seem to be the experts, and you seem to disagree, so I don't really know how to move forward. I hope I've been some help but I'll probably have to move on soon. Rees11 (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, thanks for your work. Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Rees11,

Thanks for your help with the cleanup of the Gallet & Co. article to better comply with Conflict of Interest (COI) and Neutral point of view (NPOV) guidelines. As you can see, I have also attempted to do my small part, and will continue do so.

I have been reviewing the help pages to understand the proper protocol for removing the associated tags that are still appearing at the top of this article, but am still unsure of how to accomplish this without doing something inappropriate.

I would be most grateful if you can provide a little guidance in this matter. Galletgroup (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed your edits to Gallet & Co. Thanks for your help with further toning down the "ad copy" and correcting my silly typos. For a while there, I feared that my hard work of providing a useful encyclopedic reference for fellow enthusiasts would be lost. I realize now that my personal enthusiasm with the subject had somewhat compromised my objectivity. Thanks again for everything...Time Maven (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And thank you for your effort. What at first I feared would be another battle with a spammer has turned in to a valuable contribution from an expert in the field. By the way I'm more of a Hamilton fan myself but appreciate a good watch wherever it's made. Rees11 (talk)

Hi Rees11

I added a few brand name stubs back in December and you edited or marked for deletion a number of entries.

I used other stubs as a framework (see Dog Chow) and would like to know how my entries can be better document and more acceptable. I am working on re-building all listings to my userspace page but, here is an example to get us started: [5].

I look foward to hearing from you and appreciate your help. Lbuser (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I doubt very much that there is any way to create articles for any of these products, because they do not appear to meet the General notability guideline. Note that although the Dog Chow article does not establish notability, there are over 8500 results from a Google Books search on "dog chow" but none for "Integra Labels". Rees11 (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The generic term Dog Chow may have 8500 results, but this stub doesn’t use the generic term, it’s about a corporate trademark—i.e, it’s not about dog chow, it’s about Purina Dog Chow. If you google that, all the corresponding entries are strictly related to the Purina product line—they are not about “dog chow”. How do you distinguish Purina’s page about their trademarked non-generic product, from this trademarked non-generic product[6]? By the same argument, if you google just Labels (the generic category rather than the trademark), there are 107,000,000 results. Can you please further clarify your point above. I would really appreciate your help to better my user space pages before reposting and expanding pages that are already live to wikipedia. Lbuser (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to nominate Dog Chow for deletion if you feel it meets the criteria. Rees11 (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Reese11,

I had edited the page on Havana Club Rum towards the start of March, and recently saw that you removed all my additions on the basis of "unsupported by sources", though in fact my research was all done extensively over several months at the University of Washington libraries, and had sources, as well as newspaper articles from reliable sources listed. I'm just curious, do you consider academic sources and media newspaper and journal articles to be illegitimate? I added an extensive amount of information to the page for you to delete it within hours for an unfounded reason. In that amount of time, less than 5 hours, were you in fact able to go gain hard copies of all the books, as well as look up all my journal articles in order to show that it was unfounded? Or did you really just not like what you read and decide to remove it with absolutely no basis in reality by stating it was "unsupported information"?

Thanks for your time!

Endoda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endoda (talk • contribs) 18:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take a look at it. Please discuss this on the article talk page. Rees11 (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We do not need to provide a source to prove that his appointment as successor was a surprise. It's common sense, and common knowledge. He was not well known and he didn't hold high office within Nazi Germany. It was well known throughout the Third Reich and abroad, that in case of Hitler's death, Heinrich Himmler would have succeeded him as Führer since Himmler was already Reichsführer (a position that was second only to Adolf Hitler within Nazi Germany). So of course Dönitz' appointment was a surprise. A high school senior could even tell you that. However, I did add a reference. Veronica (talk) 04:23, 09 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for adding the source. You may want to read wp:v. Rees11 (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Your efforts on Shane Salerno have not gone unnoticed. Mine, curiously, were just reverted. We've got one motivated publicist on our hands. Trigger happy indeed. Thanks again. Jim Steele (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fear it could be a losing battle. Rees11 (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You instincts are likely right, but I am pulling for a Pyrrhic victory. From your point of view, isn't it eerie the guys IMDB and wiki page are so alike? And now I see evidence of sockpuppetry...I just hate self-aggrandizement on this site. It makes me ill.

Jim Steele (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't help noticing that JAWW123 never actually answered the question as to whether he has a COI. Rees11 (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rees11. First, thank you for apologizing for your unprovoked attack on me and for retracting the unsupported charges that you made against me. To be crystal clear, I have no COI. You can do all the reporting that you want. But when it comes back as unfounded and it will, I am going to post that fact on all of the pages in question and demonstrate your obsession with reporting anyone that disagrees with you. You have a long documented history of these reports.

As you must be aware by now from various logs, experienced senior editors have rejected your arguments regarding advertising. Your obsession about posting on these issues and reporting anyone who objects to various boards has been noted by other users. As others have pointed out, the fact that your Wiki user page provides a quick link to a site that sells your music CD, promotes your wife’s business and gives a link to your Amazon wish to buy you and your family gifts speaks volumes and reveals the hypocrisy of your arguments. I have no desire to continue an exchange with you. However, if you continue to make unfounded charges against me, delete legitimate and properly cited material from pages I work on, I will have no choice but to respond in every single instance and to raise serious issues about your posting history and reporting patterns.

You will surely feel compelled to respond, my recommendation is to move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAWW123 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What a shady post. Someone who opens an account not more than two weeks ago, writes an article on an encyclopedia like it is one for Entertainment Weekly, then gets called on the promotional tone of the whole thing and ends up attacking a "senior experienced editor's" family. Speaks volumes of you as a person, dude. You must be connected to Hollywood.

Jim Steele (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bloomex. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloomex (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again! I just thought I'd mention that Kharsag is now being nominated for deletion (and rescue). I would very much appreciate your thoughts and vote on the matter in it's discussion page. Thanks. Paul Bedson (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make a comeback mate!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]