Talk:Bambu (rolling papers)

Sources that say 1764

• "Company history", Bambu, accessed January 13, 2011:

• "Bambu, one of the World's 1000 Oldest Companies, opened its doors in 1764, originally making Bible paper. Noticing the increasing popularity of cigarette paper in Europe, Bambu shifted production to manufacture The World's Finest Rolling Papers, always striving to stay ahead of the rapidly growing competition."

• In 2008 the company website said: "Many years ago the world was introduced to cigarette paper. How long ago you may ask? The answer is 2nd century BC in China. However it wasn¹t until much later, several centuries in fact that production of cigarette paper began in Spain. Noticing the popularity of the product throughout Europe Bambu opened their door in 1764."

• Media Decisions, Volume 14, Issues 1–4, N. Glenn Publications, 1979, p. 48:

• "Bambu sales imports Bambu cigarette rolling papers from Spain, where they have been manufactured since 1764." (The original source is almost certainly the company, but this is useful because it shows it's not just a recent position. If the sentence in question isn't visible in that link, try this one.)

• Hynek, Ann. "Shirts, Sweets and Sin City, Oh my", Fox Business, November 17, 2009:

• "Founded in 1764, Bambu’s first days were spent making Bible paper in Spain. When tobacco became more popular in Europe, the company got into the rolling paper business, going on to earn the title of World’s Finest Rolling Paper." (Again, almost certainly depends entirely on the company.)

• "Rolling paper co. sues over ‘Obama’ T-shirts", Associated Press, December 14, 2008:

• "Bambu Sales Inc.—a 244-year-old firm that proudly notes its products' inclusion in such films as "Totally Baked: A Pot-u-mentary" and the "Cheech and Chong" series—filed a federal trademark-infringement lawsuit Friday against Love Fatigues LLC." (Again, almost certainly got this information from the company.)

Sources that say otherwise

• The role of smoking and foreign market: the history of a success. Capellades cases and Alcoy (1800 -1936) Article published at The Ninth Congress of the Spanish Association of Economic History by Miquel Gutiérrez i Poch, Department of Economic History and Institutions, University of Barcelona. "Although undoubtedly the most prominent was Bambu created by Rafael Abad Santonja and his nephews in 1907." Poch cites Cerdá Gordo, Enrique. El Bambu, la marca y les bambuneres. Miseria i Companyia Edicions, 1997, p. 37.

Sources with some background information

• Gutierrez-Poch, Miguel. "Building the big, keeping the small", XIV International Economic Conference, August 25, 2006, pp. 25-26, footnote 102:

• "The papermakers from Alcoy [Spain] were very successful in branding policy. The most successful brand was 'Bambu' by 'Rafael Abad Satonja y Sobrinos." In footnote 103, he talks about a merger of several papermaking firms, including a warehouse founded in 1850. Does he say anything else about dates? Yes it says the R Abad Son.. firm merged with the other Alcoy firms except for one in 1934.

• Official European Trademark and patent office. TradeMark Name: BAMBU Application Number: M0014860 Registration Office Code: ES Kind of IPR: Application Date: 1908-03-31 Registration Number: M0014860

 Nahome  04:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

http://www.google.es/custom?hl=es&sitesearch=www.um.es&q=Bambu+fumar&meta= Thee article published at the Universidad de Murcia Universidade de Santiago de Compostela www.usc.es  Nahome  00:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nahome, would you mind writing out the citations and quotes so we can quickly see who the authors and publishers are, and what they say in English? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry getting a bit lost and 'feblungid'. These references below have the 1907 date

• ^ http://www.usc.es/estaticos/congresos/histec05/b2_gutierrez_poch.pdf "Aunque sin lugar a dudas la más destacada fue «Bambú» creada por «Rafael Abad Santonja y Sobrinos» en 1907 (Cerdá Gordo (1997), p. 37)."

Comunicación presentada a la sesión A-2: “Empresas y distritos industriales en el mercado mundial” del IX Congreso de la “Asociación Española de Historia Económica” (Murcia 9 al 12 de septiembre de 2008)

• ^ http://www.um.es/ixcongresoaehe/pdf2/Papel%20de%20fumar.pdf “Bambú” creada por “Rafael Abad Santonja y Sobrinos” en 1907 (Cerdá Gordo (1997), p. 37).

"Otros fabricantes alcoyanos tuvieron una presencia significativa en los mercados de América Latina (como “R. Abad Santonja” con su famosa marca de libritos “Bambú)"

• ^ http://www.rah.es:8888/ArchiDocWeb-RAH/action/buscarElementos?method=buscar&tipoBusqueda=6&letra=A To show the birth and death of the inventor who was born in 1851, could not have been alive in 1764

While the 2 articles appear similar they are actually different and updated. They were published at the two universities mentioned above. and There was the publication http://www.helsinki.fi/iehc2006/papers1/Gutierrez.pdf at XIV International Economic History Conference (2006). The later publication is from 2008 at “Asociación Española de Historia Económica" which is clearly another publication.

In the later publication it says “Bambú” creada por “Rafael Abad Santonja y Sobrinos” which matches other history explanations and the references done by Arnaud to show the name R. Abad Santonja on the earliest packs. In that publication it generally explains in spanish when Rafael Abad Santonja launched Bambu, his factory history and when all of the paper makers in Alcoy except for one joined into a large united enterprise Papeleras Reunidas S.A.” in 1934. Surely there must be more editors than just me that can read Spanish? I'd prefer that someone who is more non-involved offered a better explanation and translation.

 Nahome  00:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What you're saying isn't inconsistent with the same papermakers having started in the 18th century. Also, does it say that person "launched" Bambu, or just that he had success with that name, as the other source says? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping to create a list of sources here, rather than a discussion about them, so they would be immediately clear. They can be discussed in another section. The source with the name of the inventor isn't valid; see WP:SYN.

Would you mind listing the other three sources here as: Name of author. Name of paper/book. Name of publisher or conference (universities aren't publishers). Date of publication. And a quote in English of what they say about this point. As I've done in the section above. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I can work on this but it will take a few days. Give me time and I'll try to wikify the references. However can't we ask for Editor Assistance to get others to join in the fun (others who can read Spanish too).  Nahome  00:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahome (talk • contribs)

I can't see why it would take a few days to write up two citations and quotes that you've already used in the article. You're welcome to ask for other eyes, but no matter who looks at it, they're going to need to see who the authors and publishers are, and precisely what they say. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's going to take me a while to translate the articles and references like you asked. If you want me to do it in a more simple format I'll try, but still it's going to take some time. Would you mind if we bring it to Wiki Editor assistance to have others who are more skilled than I post it properly.  Nahome  01:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course you can bring it to other people's attention. But you don't have to translate the articles, just the particular sentences you're relying on. And all we need are the names of the publishers and dates of publication. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the company says that their paper making business or the bambu paper formlarion was established in 1764, and not necessarily the cigarette paper name Bambu. As there are references to first creating bible paper or parchment paper. Therefor, the company is from 1764 , and trademark from 1907. This would make the business's earliest working part from this factory. This falls in the guidlines of what the majority of the businesses on the list of oldest companies consider as legitimate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.137.247 (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC) (Actually the former text on your website said that Bambu did make cigarette paper in 1764. Please see this reference.) Nahome had a cool signature, but the Sinebot hated it. (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion but that doesn't match with the references that say the brand was created by a person who wasn't alive in 1764. I don't see how we can link the two. I see how the companies all merged in 1934 but that doesn't mean they would take the oldest merging entities date (which is what I think you are saying). I appreciate you posting though and would like you to post more. Would you mind getting more involved with the above and helping to format the links and references in the way that SlimVirgin has asked.  Nahome  01:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with above statement completely. The company itself has been making the paper since 1764. When The Bambu name was used for cigarette paper, the packaging had est. 1764 on them, and have had since. As many user have repeatedly said; the BAMBU factory was in existence since 1764. This was the earliest component of the business, therefore this is the ESTABLISHMENT date. If you look at almost all the companies on that list, this is good enough criteria for their own est date, so why not for this business? There is no argument here, you want to say that there needs to be a reference to an obscure website to prove otherwise? Also, there is no reason for there to be any correlation between Bambu the PLANT and Bambu the Cigarette paper. Nowhere in any reference is there any link between the two. This should be removed.. Along with the link to the amazon.com book on BAMBOO plant trade... and the line in the article which states "The company also offers a line of "Pure Hemp" papers which it claims are made from hemp pulp."makes it seem that wikipedia is taking the position that the company is misleading the public which does not add up.--ArnaudMS (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

In the United States, a company is a corporation—or, less commonly, an association, partnership, or union—that carries on an industrial enterprise."^[1] Generally, a company may be a "corporation, partnership, association, joint-stock company, trust, fund, or organized group of persons, whether incorporated or not, and (in an official capacity) any receiver, trustee in bankruptcy, or similar official, or liquidating agent, for any of the foregoing."^[1] By purchasing a brand out of bankruptcy and forming a new company to sell the brand, you are a new company. When Phillip Morris buys a 400 year old brand of Tobacco that doesn't make PM 400 years old. When your sister marries a 60 year old man that doesn't make you 60 years old. Again though, I beg you to POST A REFERENCE FOR 1764 - PLEASE.  Nahome  15:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahome (talk • contribs)

Back to a stub

Because some of the claims were written in what looked like a damaging tone, and were either unsourced or based on OR, I've reduced the article per WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLPGROUP to almost a stub, and based it only on sources that seem to be policy compliant. I didn't change the pop culture section, which looks uncontentious, but it could use some tidying.

If the sources and dates were the only issues in dispute, perhaps the page could be unprotected so that people can continue to work on it, assuming good sources are available. One of the problems with the article is that it consisted of original research, specifically SYN violations. It would be worth reading through that policy so you know what to avoid. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree and think you should review the history of the article and the posters first. I don't understand why you would remove all of the trademark references and published articles. The formation year of a company and articles giving the history of it are very relevant to the article.  Nahome  15:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The material was either not in the sources you provided, or the sources were very poor. The article consisted of original research and SYN violations: adding a source that says A and a source that says B to create a new claim, C. As it stands now, it's policy compliant (though the pop culture section needs fixing). It can therefore be built up again using only reliable sources—preferably secondary sources—and sticking closely to what they say. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How do I add the reference from a book on the history of Bambu that I tried to reference before? Also you added promotional text for the company "Bambú is one of the world's oldest brands of rolling paper" which needs to be deleted or the article will become an Ad and nominated for deletion. I dare say you either by accident or on purpose created a puff piece that reads like an Ad. Would you mind having a different admin take a look at the old article vs the new one to see if they agree that you slanted the article and made it into a promo puff piece?  Nahome  15:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nahome, please read our content policies. The key ones for sourcing are WP:V and WP:NOR. Company sources are allowed in articles about the company; see WP:SPS, which is part of V. Please read those policies carefully and you'll see what's required. Also, looking through the talk page, I can see you being advised several times that material in the article was not in the sources you provided. You're very welcome to ask another admin to look at this. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you say the material was not in the sources - could you provide an example? Each one of those was responded to and the editor agreed it was there. Are you trying to take a position without review?

By making a definitive statement "Bambú is one of the world's oldest brands of rolling paper" you are violating your own rules and your own recommendation. By saying "Bambú is one of the world's oldest brands of rolling paper" you are making Wiki take a factual position that this is true. I have read WP:V and WP:NOR and they do not apply to some of the references such as the one about Saccharin. A letter from the company on company letterhead stating that their product contacts Saccharin is definitely withing WP:V and WP:NOR wouldn't you agree? You made the article into a puff piece and now it would be nominated for deletion as an ad if you left it as-is.  Nahome  16:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the material I removed, some of it was contentious and it was either not in the sources you provided, or the sources were not policy-compliant (self-published material, a website that borrowed from this Wikipedia article, etc.). The first sentence: "Bambú is one of the world's oldest brands of rolling paper ..." seems uncontentious (it doesn't say the oldest, and it doesn't mention a date as fact). But as you're objecting I've removed it. The letter from the company is on a non-reliable (in our terms) website that copies material from us. And someone did upload that image, so they may have taken it from us.

Please find reliable, published secondary sources, per V and WP:PRIMARY, and build the article up by sticking very closely to what they say. That will resolve this dispute and avoid future ones. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How do I reference this book on Bambu history when I can't find it indexed online?  Nahome  17:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahome (talk • contribs)

Which book do you mean? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This Book: EL BAMBÚ, LA MARCA Y LES BAMBUNERES Nahome 17:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahome (talk • contribs)

The citation is Cerdá Gordo, Enrique. El Bambu, la marca y les bambuneres. Miseria i Companyia Edicions, 1997. It would help if you could write out citations so that people can see the author, publisher and date, without having to hunt for it themselves. The way to cite it is as I wrote it, between ref tags, plus page number, and a translation in the footnote. What does it say about this point exactly? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Saccharin

Nahome is saying the source for the saccharin claim is reliable. The sentence is: "Bambu flavored papers are flavored with saccharin and other artificial flavors." The source says it was flavored with saccharin as of 2006; it doesn't mention other flavours that I can see.

The source is a self-published website hosting an article that it says relies to some extent on this Wikipedia article, which means we can't use it as a source, per V. Its source for the saccharin claim is an image of a May 2006 letter from the company. The letter looks genuine enough. That image was uploaded to Wikipedia in June 2006, with a false claim that it was PD, so we don't know whether we copied it from that website, or they copied it from us. Given the timing, and that the website has credited Wikipedia for some of its material, the latter looks likely.

What do others think about this? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/54247204/Transparent-Rolling-Papers-What-Are-They-Made-Of is a magazine article that says that Bambu flavored papers contain saccharin as well or http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/cannabis-culture-magazine-sells-out  Nahome  17:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahome (talk • contribs)

BTW - can you have a quick look at my signature to let me know why the Sinebot is saying it's not showing up (I'm being chased by the Sinebot help!!). Seriously though please do assist so I can get my siggie to compliance.  Nahome  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahome (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Seriously - see what I mean :) I tried amending it let me see if this works Nahome 17:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahome (talk • contribs)

Are you signing with four tildes (upper left corner on your keyboard)? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I was, it even showed my name but then would chase me and re-sign :( Nahome had a cool signature, but the Sinebot hated it. (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It is very clear that flavored cigarette papers are banned by the FDA

http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/ProtectingKidsfromTobacco/FlavoredTobacco/ucm183228.htm

http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/ProtectingKidsfromTobacco/FlavoredTobacco/default.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/health/policy/23fda.html

http://commonlaw.findlaw.com/2009/09/fda-flavored-cigarette-ban-whats-covered-and-whats-next.html

These links provided by Nahome are unreliable and look to be questioning the intentions of a paper business. There is no validity to this letter and looks to be fabricated. Base from the website, you cannot buy flavored papers from them, for they are illegal. .. And on another note, it is not opinion that Bambu is one the oldest trademarks in the cigarette paper industy" it is fact. Look at the list of brands produced, how many of them are hundreds of years old, or the very least, 100 years old? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.47.244 (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry ArnaudMS, this was already discussed above. Please do not re-hash old arguments lower in order to try and re-make your point. Are you saying that Bambu never made flavored papers? Obviously they did, please sign in when you post on this page so we can then talk back on your talk page and keep the discussions all concise. Nahome had a cool signature, but the Sinebot hated it. (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Arnaud, please confirm that you are saying this letter from Bambu is a fake and they never sent it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bambu-saccharin.gif ?Nahome had a cool signature, but the Sinebot hated it. (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, when I search for Bambu Saccharin this shows up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mooki_chooki  ? Nahome had a cool signature, but the Sinebot hated it. (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Still there for sale on your Website, if they are so illegal and discontinued, maybe you should take them off? http://www.bambu.com/store/catalog/Flavored-Rolling-Papers-orderby0-p-1-c-5.html Nahome had a cool signature, but the Sinebot hated it. (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about. This flavored paper talk has nothing to do with my interests in the article. I dont know about the legitimacy of that letter, nor do I care. I looked at the links which have been posted (and now re-posted above) and see that they are illegal "for tobacco use". I see that HBI the producer of Juicy Jay engaged in a lawsuit (which it has lost) to have this FDA ban removed. The ESTABLIHMENT date is what you are questioning regaurding the business. The history which you have posted on the website is only trademark data, and is not the say all and end all in establishment date. I am waiting for this book El Bambu, la marca y les bambuneres which I have ordered, and hope you are doing the same if you are planing on using it as a definative reference. I agree with the above statment that Bambu is one of the oldest cigarette paper brands in the world, because that is just logical. Even from using your "trademark search" as I said before, it places Bambu as the actual oldest one of them all.. At the very least in the top 3 (you could say JOB and RIZLA) are older, but that would really be about it. Do you not agree?--ArnaudMS (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with you Michael. If these flavored papers are so illegal than why are they still for sale on your website? Also are they still sold in other countries? I I searched what you wrote on Google and it says Flavored papers are entirely legal to be sold for use with legal smoking herbs. Regardless of any of your bickering, your company did make them, and they are still for sale in the marketplace and thus they deserve to be in the article. The article is not about what's current, it's about the brand overall. If you prefer we can say "Bambu made flavored papers which are now discontinued" so long as you give us a reference that they are indeed discontinued. Nahome hates the Sinebot! (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What' is it you do not agree with? What are the 5 oldest paper brands which are still produced today in order? --ArnaudMS (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I will give you that answer but first I really wish you'd answer my question above. Please answer, it's important. Nahome hates the Sinebot! (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

llike I said, I do not care about flavored papers. Your are having that argument with someone else above you refereed to named Michael. My concern, as it has always been and will be is the Est. Date of the Business and your lack of understanding in regard to company date. A business is as old as its earliest working entity (this has been clearly expressed in the worlds oldest companies page). You Have claimed 1984, 1921, 1908 all as the incorporation date of the business. You have retracted statements about other brands (PAY PAY) that they were made in same factory.. You claim that the product causes cancer. You have quoted articles without even translating them which SlimVirgin has now asked you to do. Your make statements about "the bamboo trade to Europe" having to do with the establishment date, when there isn't a shred of evidence that Bambu and Bamboo are connected (is Red Bull made from bovine blood too?). There is a difference between a credible reference and just internet fodder. Im am waiting for my copy of El Bambu, la marca y les bambuneres. I hope you actually read the sources which you list as your so called references, because everything thus far has pointed to you not doing so... What is your answer to "What are the 5 oldest paper brands which are still produced today in order"?--ArnaudMS (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael, it is important that you stop posting your opinions and stay with facts. A paper named Bamboo (a type of wood) would be assumed to be made of Bamboo (a type of wood) because rolling papers are commonly made out of wood. Energy drinks are not made of blood, but I do get your point. However why would they name a paper after a type of wood if that wood wasn't used? What was the attraction? Please tell us. Your company was founded in 1984 according to that court document I think but I'm not going to pull it up to re-verify. 1921 is the year that the Original pre-bankruptcy Bambu was sold in the USA as has been proven. 1908 was the earliest trademark anyone could find including you, and lord knows you tried. When you get the book, you're going to have a lot of apologizing to do.... Or you're going to have to say that the book is full of lies and that Rafael was somehow alive in 1764 (when he was born in 1851) or somehow link Jerónimo Silvestre to Rafael a hundred or so years before Rafael's birth. Good luck with that, I look forward to your apology.

But more importantly again can you post any reference other than one by the company that says Bambu is from 1764?

Anything at all really? Even a non-verifiable one? Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Much to your chagrin, I don't know the answer to that because I do not work for the company. I only know from what I own and what I have read/spoken to collectors about. Not one of them (even ones on the site you referenced on rolling paper collections) have made connection with Bambu and Bamboo. Can you you reference this with something credible with something aside from "I would assume that the wood and translation into spanish would make this so."--- All this "pre-bankruptcy" non-sense sounds like irrelevant hearsay you have conjured up to prove a mute point. Maybe it is you who should work for the business since you find pertinence in minutia on the internet about the brand... I as again, for the third time, "What are the 5 oldest paper brands which are still produced today in order"?--ArnaudMS (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bambu owner declared bankruptcy and the trademark had liens put on it by Adams Apple of Chicago. What I or anyone else 'thinks' are the 5 oldest brand has nothing to do with Bambu's actual foundation date. We don't use opinions on Wiki, only facts. But more importantly again can you post any reference other than one by the company that says Bambu is from 1764?:Anything at all really? Even a non-verifiable one? Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Explain and reference how Bambu is not one of the oldest Brands in the Cigarette paper industry? This isn't opinion, it is fact.. You don't want to admit it is one of the three oldest and longest produced paper brands out there. You will have to come to terms with this, although I can tell it bothers you that a brand as successful as Bambu continues to be an industry leader... You can continue to read old court proceedings about the business which no one but you cares about, and have nothing to do with what is relevant to the history of the brand or wikipedia as SlimVirgin made clear to you before.--ArnaudMS (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

more importantly again can you post any reference other than one by your company that says Bambu is from 1764?:Anything at all really? Even a non-verifiable one?Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The need for good sources

Nahome, the arguments about this are missing the point, because the situation is a lot simpler than you're making it. You need good sources who say exactly what you want to add to the article, and there's no getting round that. Please read the following carefully, including the links:

• Administrators are told to be on the look out for IPs and new accounts who repeatedly remove criticism that impacts on living people, because it's often the people being criticized—or someone connected with them—trying to defend themselves.
• The Wikimedia Foundation takes the concerns of living people very seriously, and admins are told to make those interests paramount, as a default position. Read this policy and this resolution. The policy applies to material posted on talk pages too.
• This means the onus is 100 percent on the person who wants to add the material to produce high-quality, independently published, reliable sources. Read this core content policy and this one. Read this section about using self-published sources. Read this section about the need to use secondary sources. Read this section about the burden of evidence.
• Anything added to the article must say what those sources say. There can't be any extrapolation, drawing of conclusions, making of assumptions, joining sources together to reach conclusions the sources don't reach. Read this section for more information.
• The sources must be clearly added as an inline citation, with in-text attribution where appropriate. Read this guideline for how to write citations. English sources should be used wherever possible. If the sources are not in English, a translation of the key sentences must be included in the footnote. Read this section of the sourcing policy.

The onus is now on you to do the above, and all the information you need is on the pages I linked to. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Protect again please

• Bambu rolling papers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and promotional edits. Docvegetal (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Unprotection

SlimVirgin please do not unprotect the page - the deluge will come from the Bambu Sockpuppets if you do. Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)