Talk:Bambu rolling papers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 19 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

i don't think this should be speedied. afd if necessary, but it is a brand of rolling papers found in every store in the US. also the cheech and chong album Big Bambu named after these papers. needs a rewrite to be a good stub, but no reason to speedy it. --Heah (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

    • AD - Needs Rewrite or removal** Unfortunately the son of Nancy (owner of Bambu who lives in Long Island NY) keeps trying to use WIKI to promote their family's brand. Everything has been tried to stop them, but they just keep putting up promotional text and using various IP's to try hide who they are. The article needs a Neutral write up and the promo text has to be removed. There are two or three of us fighting against the Bambu employees who keep rewritting our text and posting promotional information and illegal images / false text. In short, Wiki staff has to get involved and turn this stub back into a NEUTRAL STUB, (not an Ad).

FYI, Bambu is not even in the top 10 selling brands according to www.tobonline.com ! They are certainly not available in any store where I live in California and seem to be popular only on their home turf in the NY area. I have not seen them in Chicago other then 1 head shop, but certainly not at any real tobacconist. Job, EZ Wider, Zig Zag, Juicy, seem to rule the market at stores I go to. I write for pubs so I do make a point to visit many stores when I am in a town. Sorry, the truth hurts but it is still the truth.... --Mrtobacco 11:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

    • REWRITE**it's an ad! lvrby

Contents

[edit] ya know

i see all this hubbub on the talk page about the pov and stuff, but after removing the one sentence it looks fine to me. i think that the advertisement template is unnecessary. your thoughts? Joeyramoney 16:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't break Wiki Rules Please

It is against wiki rules for anyone except an admin to remove; template:bias template:advertisement

I know this might frustrate you, but please wait for Wiki staff to make a decision on this page before they remove the tags.


No, those are not wiki rules at all. anyone who wants to is entitled to remove such tags provided the bias has been fixed, or it is decided on the talk page that the tags are unneeded. Please engage in discussion and if you have problems with the article, bring the specific problems here to the talk page, where we'd love to discuss it with you. i'm going to work on the article a bit and take down the tags when i'm done; for the most part, it isn't an ad at all, but the page needs some work. --heah 18:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I've rewritten the article for stylistic and bias concerns. it should all be good. please don't place pictures willy-nilly all over the page; it doesn't look very good. an article this small has no room for half a dozen pictures. a link to that spanish newspaper article would be helpful, mr tobacco; putting a picture of the newspaper article in this article on wikipedia is not how we do things here. --heah 18:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Used your changes to make further ones, I really don't want the tags down or the discussion on making the page correct will also end :( --Mrtobacco 19:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You didn't make further changes, you reverted to a previous version with all the silly pictures and etc. intact! bring your problems here, and then we can discuss. referencing the cheech and chong album, for instance, is not bias or advertising! until you tell us what problems you apparently still have, they can't be fixed, and you haven't done this. if you want to put the tags back up fine, but please LEAVE THIS VERSION for now so we can discuss it.--heah 19:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
That isn't what I did! What happened is you and I were editing at the same time and thus the images went up for only a moment. Check the text now it should be OK? --Mrtobacco 19:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
hmm, i dunno what happened. anyways it's my version that's up now . . . Like i said, if you want to put the tags back up go for it, but if you have problems with the article still please bring them here so we can fix them. personally i'm not sure what objections you would still have . . . --heah 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting annoyed with these Bambu employees who keep changing this page..

Just to prove that they are lying as usual, here is a link to show you that Bambu is sold in Spain (Duh) http://www.papeldefumar.com

Bambu is made by Miquel Y Costas and they sell it themselves in Europe. It does contain wood & esparto and therefore does come under "fire" in the recent criminal case against Miquel Y Costas.

Please don't remove the truth or modify posts to try and cover up the criminal investigation of the producer and European seller of Bambu papers. The public has a right to know.

[edit] Check with Mr Tobacco - that article is right (I can read spanish)

The reverts are certainly necessary. There is fragrant vandalism going on by that user above using various AKA's. As a medical marijuana user I am very offended to find out that the papers I used to use were carcinogenic. That information is very important to me and my user-group.

I can see why that guy who 'may' work for Bambu or that paper manufacturer would try desperately to delete it and cover it up. However they should be ashamed of themselves. They know that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of people out there like myself - and they are peddling cancer-causing papers on people that have cancer?

if there is a hell, they will certainly be sent there.

--66.38.129.154 20:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)