User talk:Batesbum

You know well the history of the Onesies material. Please stop removing cited content that is relevant to the article topic as it stands, and supported by talk-page consensus, or you will be blocked from editing. DMacks (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the latest edits accurately reflect the status. If not, please edit.Batesbum (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks -- actually, I just read the domain name decision you cited. At page 4, footnote 2, the panel actually concludes that Gerber HAD protectable trademark rights. I will plan to change the entry accordingly. Let me know if you disagree. Batesbum (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It's important to state that there is a protectable trademark (and that it is vigorously protected). But it's also apparently true that the term is used colloquially for this type of item regardless of manufacturer (it's "genericized"), so the article should also state that (WP is not just for officially-sanctioned usage of the term). DMacks (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with that. See what you think about the last edit to make sure it is accurate (I also repaired one of my typos). If you have any issues, let me know and we can work it out together. Thanks.Batesbum (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! DMacks (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]