Misplaced Pages

Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.

Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.

• If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
• If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.

I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.

please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy

Thanks

Thanks for the glass 'o hooch. "May a thousand camels spit upon the tents of your enemies" & cheers! — BQZip01 —  06:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for yours and for the MASH reference. I loved that show. Fly safe and come home safe. --John (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Thanks! No disagreements with you, and hope for none in the future! --John (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A new year

Hey John, many thanks for the lovely message. 2011 should be the best year yet for us all and for the wiki, happy new year to you - Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too, John. Rockpocket 17:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Happy New Year

Many thanks for the good wishes, John, and I wish you all the best too for 2011. SlimVirgin 19:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

UK

to say United Kingdom is one of the most viewed and edited articles on the site, is a whole week of full prot really a good idea? Personally, I would have blocked the edit warriors, but that's just a different approach. Oh, and thank you for your new year message, it was very much appreciated. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. I'd be happy to rescind the protection (or for you to) if the edit-war is resolved in talk. You're welcome! --John (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it won't do any harm to leave it til the morning. I'll see if there's been any improvement then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Bambu

Hello John, can you please explain to me why the version I had previously on the Bambu Rolling paper page required page protection? How is it dfferent then is what is there other then more organized and clear? everything is fully sourced.. let me know..

Best--ArnaudMS (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

John thank you very much for protecting that page. Please review the history and block logs, and you will understand why ArnaudMS is so intent on getting it unblocked. Nahome (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but the history I see shows user Nahome making equal amounts of retractions of facts on the page as anyone (PAY PAY, factory, sundrying etc. etc.). One of which outstanding right now, the claim there "was no bamboo wood for paper production in Spain in 1764" and only referencing a amazon.com page. I am not a company rep, just a collector of tobacco paraphernalia. though I am accused of being apart of some company cabal storming wikipedia which sounds like a waste of time to me. In all of the readings, other collector sites, and company page I do not see one link between Bambu then brand and Bamboo the tree. I am not intent on anything, rather would prefer to see a page which is more organized with sections. How is the current "protected" version of this page in any way more factual then this one link: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bambu_rolling_papers&oldid=405698246? I have referenced everything there, and mostly from sources which user Nahome came up with. I just have translated all of the articles via babble fish, as well as found one of them which was already translated. I thank this user for introducing me to new readings! (you can see on my revision page). As I have maintained all, if you want to use a european trademark registration site link: http://tmview.europa.eu/tmview/welcome.html as the only verification of brand origins, one should go change theses companies:

• Smoking Paper 1923-11-03
• Bambu 1908-03-23
• Zig Zag 1908-05-13
• Abadie 1962-08-11
• PAY-PAY 1910-01-11
• JOB 1909-06-15
• RIZLA 1953-09-12

Hopefully this clarifies my point of view. There are other apsects I would like to discuss but for the sake of time won't get into :) --ArnaudMS (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Arnaud this was all discussed already on the Bambu Talk page, there were numerous facts that led to the 1907 year all with clear references that are within the parameters of Wiki acceptance. You posted maybe a dozen or more times things like "everyone knows" which are not facts and can't be used as references. The discussion has only been about Bambu, by bringing in other articles it only serves to confuse the issue. Stick to the facts and to the article in question please. The European trademark office link above only references certain countries such as Spain and GB, you have to go to the individual countries trademark offices (available online mostly) to search for the older marks. This was done for Bambu and the 1908 is the oldest mark, which matches very closely with the 1907 year of foundation as stated in the reference book and University of Barcelona History Dept articles. Nahome (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"The European trademark office link above only references certain countries such as Spain and GB".. This is not true. You have to look further at your own reference before you make a hasty reply. The trademark view site searches almost every country in Europe. (Latvia, Estonia, Benelux ?, Poland, Slovakia, Malta, Cyprus, as well as all the main ones as well.. I am not saying everyone, knows, I am applying your own logic to my argument. --ArnaudMS (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

IS there any response to the comments I have listed above so we should understand where page stands moving forward. Also, I have noticed Bambu no longer makes Flavored papers (for a few years now). In one of the revisions a way back this was included in the the page , along with links to the FDA page which shows Flavored components of a cigarette are banned. At the very least of changes there last sentence should be removed. As well thoughts on a page with sections page? link: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bambu_rolling_papers&oldid=405698246? --ArnaudMS (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'll try to respond in article talk. --John (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

• 2010 in review: Review of the year

• News and notes: Record fundraiser celebrated and debated; Board-appointed Trustees; brief news

• In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux

• Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year

• Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Evelyn Waugh

Hi. You recently made a number of edits to the Waugh article. I accept that your intention was to improve the text, but I think your changes had, if anything, the reverse effect. In places they made the prose flow less well, and your inexplicable aversion to "seasons" made the timing of some events less clear. The word "Zeitgeist" is in every reputable English dictionary, and is widely used within the English language. You are entitled to your stylistic preferences, but as the article had just completed gruelling WP;PR and WP:FAC processes, I think that in the absence of palpable grammatical or usage errors, the prose as approved in these reviews should be allowed to stand, so I have changed it back. If you think this action is unwarranted I'll be pleased to discuss the matter further on the article's talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about your edit. I couldn't disagree more. It's a mystery to me how articles get through our FAC process riddled with poor writing like this. I'll go and argue it out at article talk. Sigh. --John (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Late reply

Thanks for your note. I wanted to leave you a message about the changes my edit made to the items in the infobox but I was late for dinner with friends. I'm glad you figured things out. I thought that might happen after you looked at what my edits (as opposed to the ones made earlier) actually did in the infobox. There is never enough room in an edit summary to explain everything so thanks again for the followup on your original message and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 06:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)