User talk:Herve Reex

Copyright templates
Hello. I see that you removed the copyright template from the article Harry Gregson-Williams. While I appreciate your intention to help with the rewrite, please don't do not remove these templates again. The template notes on the face that it is only to be removed by administrators and copyright clerks in part to prevent copyrighted content from being restored to publication, as happened with your "clean up". For instance, compare the changes in the text.

The source:

Your text:

As you can see, almost all of this remains identical to the original. This is only part of the content you retained. This constitutes a derivative work of the original and requires permission from the source for us to retain. Please see Close paraphrasing about the level of rewriting required to erase copyright issues.

The derivative material has been removed and must not be restored unless permission is provided. If you have questions about this, you are welcome to come by my talk page. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Swilcan Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Morris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Messi
Ok, so which links I should delete in your opinion? Remeber, that there isn't India link anywhere in the article & some people might just look at the photos (not in the text), that's why the links are useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BartSmith85 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=639511020 your edit] to Roald Dahl may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * [File:Roald dahl mrs pratchetts sweetshop llandaff.jpg|thumb|right|Mrs Pratchett's former sweet

Reference error
Hi Herve if you take a look at this edit it caused a list defined reference error at the bottom of the reference section. A few articles place all the references in a list at the end of the article and then use the ref name after the text that requires it. That keeps everything tidy, especially in lengthy articles. To correct the issue it's probably best to keep the ref name "industrial" (in the Notes section at the bottom) but just substitute your new cite info for the wikilink that you originally wanted to replace. Then re-instate the ref name in place of the cite you put in. Cheers.CV9933 (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reactions to Paris attacks
I ask you to revert your misguided edits removing images because you think they are "cramping text". This is your browser issue. I do not have the same problem with my browser, and these images aren't squeezing the text any more than any other images. Never assume that someone else's browser will look like yours. Even if you thought they were cramping the text, a responsible editor would reformat as possible, not remove the images wholesale - someone would have already noticed this anyway if it were a systemic squeeze. Best, Castncoot (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

David Bowie 140m-records is inflated
Bowie only have 26 million in certification sales and 140m-figure is inflated. Please take sometime to read this LIST, carefully then you'll know that is reliable to not showing un-logical sales figure of artists which often being published for promotion and raise popularity. I hope you understand and undo my edit again for Bowie's 100m-records claim. Thank you Politsi (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

HG Wells, Hi, sorry if the form of the reference was not correct - when I looked at the given reference, I only saw mention of Bromley not the house name and number. The reference I (probably in the wrong format) gave is from the local council and does include the street number - why revert it then? or did I miss something in the original reference which did give the information? Skihatboatbike (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Mattix
I'm not sure why you want to revert my addition to the Bowie page on Mattix, but the reasons for doing so (at least the ones I could gather from your short edit descrirptions) aren't valid. What I added is that Mattix "confessed to being devirginized". That's what she did, in that video, and later again in that article. It's not "hearsay" if someone tells something on film or in print. It's not 2nd-hand information. It's not "gossip" or whatever. I didn't write that Bowie raped the girl, I didn't write the encounter actually took place (though I have no reason to believe it didn't), I just wrote "Mattix confessed to having sex with Bowie at age 15, which would [notice the "would"] constitute statutory rape". That's two facts. If you think they're not noticeable enough say so, and let's have a discussion on the Talk page (note that I already create a new section for that, even before you reversions!), but don't go reverting away whole sections for bogus reasons. Jalwikip (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)