User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 18

WP:ANI
Hi Katie! There is a discussion at ANI regarding an issue in which you have been involved. I thought I should let you know in case you have been too busy to notice it there. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  03:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!
Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 09:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies
Hey, I hadn't noticed that you had refused In fact's request for rollback right; and unfortunately gave the user the rollback right without first checking with you. Firstly, my apologies for doing that - wouldn't have done the same in case I had noticed your refusal beforehand. Secondly, in case you wish to remove the user's rollback right, you may. Thirdly, I gave the rights in good faith, yet will be watching the user for sometime to ensure the right is not misused (that is, in case you allow the right to remain). Again, my apologies. Thanks, best regards.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  12:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor changing naturalist/physiologist etc to biologist
I've raised this again at ANI as it's continuing. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Whip My Hair edit
Why did you erase the things I added to the whip my hair info, the song did use a line from a soulja boy song so he does get credit, the writer/producer is mad about his claim, and I had a reference from ABC. I don't understand, how was it vandalism? (I don't know what tildes are) (talk


 * huh?!?  K rakatoa    K atie   03:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

RB
Hi, There is a message for you in here. *** in fact ***   ( contact )  05:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Zhealm (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC) additional entry Zhealm (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Katie.

I'm wondering if I can make additional inputs on some of the paragraphs and factual information you wrote about senator villar's page. I think I have something for to add to it. al though we wanted to take away some of it's negative parts, for it implies negativity on the part of the senator, we choice to add something to the topic instead to clarify things.

I would really appreciate your reply to this.

thank you and god speed.

Zhealm (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC) yours, Hazel Marie Online Team


 * I'm sorry, but I can't understand a word of this. I make hundreds of edits each day, and I don't remember all of them. Please be more specific and I'll try to help. Thanks. :-)  K rakatoa    K atie   05:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Independent intervention"
Would you consider yourself independent in ? If so, could you chime in? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback / Edit Review
Hi Katie, I've made an additional ~700 edits and was wondering if you could give them a quick once-over and see if it'd be ok to begin using Huggle. Thanks! Nick Wilson (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A favor
Hi Katie. Hope you had a wonderful New Year. One of the things that really bothers me is when I believe I know someone in real life that is vandalizing Wikipedia. Heard a friend of a friend may fall into this category. Unfortunately, I've been having trouble tracking down the non-constructive edit that I heard about through word of mouth. I wanted to just run over the user's edits to make sure they fall within policy. I believe the user might be the same as the user that created the deleted article Marco De Leon. I was wondering if you might be able to access the edit history and just give me the user name that created that article so I can run over their edits. I don't believe this is in violation of WP:HOUND, but if it is, feel free to deny my request.

Additionally, I've never asked for access to a deleted page before (and was trying to avoid it by using other tools such as various article blamers), so if coming to you directly is outside of policy and there's a more appropriate venue for my request, just let me know. Thanks in advance! Have a great day! -- Gnowor TC 19:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed
Hi, not sure what action I should take now. The Bambu promoters are back at it again from a different angle. They re-attacked Rolling paper but this time they went after a brand that must compete with them. They altered the competitors date of formation without any reference. While I want to revert their work, I don't want to just undo it b/c I don't want to take the side of the brand they altered. For all I know they own both of them and this is some sort of trick. When you're unsure what the right thing is to do, what approach do you recommend? Nahome (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not an arbitrary date This year comes from trademark registration site which Nahome used to bring "references" to Bambu's origins. I simply used the same establishment date (trademark registration site) used to determine Bambu's founding date. link: http://tmview.europa.eu/tmview/welcome.html. If we are not using the rule of a company is as old as it's oldest business entity, these "trademark findings" should be presented across the board.. Am I wrong? ( there will be extensive editing needed on Worlds Oldest Company Page). --ArnaudMS (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ArnaudMS/Sockpuppet, This is already being discussed on the WPI, and it is inappropriate for you to post a response to a question that was not asked of you here. Nahome (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What the Hell (song)
Hi Katie, I saw that you full-protected the above page. May I know whether it can be unprotected? I want to move this to that page and it needs to be deleted first. Thanks, Bejinhan   talks   13:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Katie, I meant this page. =) It hasn't been deleted yet... which page did you delete? Bejinhan   talks   12:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I'll ask another admin to restore the revs. There is already some "rumblings" on the talk page. :P Bejinhan   talks   03:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit war
Did you even read the stuff I put on the discussion section and the message I left for Jdfdw (One of the admins?) I was the one who did not revert any of his edits (the other side). If it was an edit war why would I even leave this message for the other admin? Dr. Persi (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Additionally for your attention. As per your request I have not made any more edits to the page. Would you be so kind as to look at the statements which he is inputing on the page under his source, and perhaps take a look at the source? I looked at the source and could NOT find anything that stated it. Again, my point is not to argue his CONTENT but the way he is synthesizing data. Thank! Dr. Persi (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NSONGS
Please don't honor creation requests for articles like What the Hell (song) in the future. The guidance at WP:NSONGS is pretty specific: singles should redirect to parent albums or artists until they chart, win an award, or the song is covered by multiple notable artists. There's no allowance in WP:NSONGS for future singles at all. Essentially, an article about a single should never be created until at least a week after the release date, if at all.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I knew that. I think I was tired and somehow my brain didn't put together that yesterday wasn't January 11. Seriously. I have a sick kitty and he's keeping me up, and I guess it showed yesterday. :-( At any rate, I've got it. Thanks. :-)  K rakatoa    K atie   03:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Needs until January 18, at least. It can't chart until a week after release, and it's not going to win an award or be covered by multiple notable artists before it charts.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hold It Against Me
Thank you for changing the date of protection expiration! I hope the disputes don't start again; I agree, they were terrible. -- Cprice1000 talk2me  19:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Something odd about Twinkle interacting with RPP?...
I think Twinkle could possibly be placing RPPs in the wrong area on the RPP noticeboard. On January 7th I did an RPP for an article using Twinkle edit and from your edit and edit summary edit it looks like my Request was placed by Twinkle in the wrong area (just like the one you were referring to). Shearonink (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, this is a Twinkle mistake, and a not at all uncommon one. Happens around once a day... Courcelles 05:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and it always happens when I get over to RFPP, and for some reason it makes me want to throw something at someone. So I get mad and SHOUT. Twinkle's out to get me. Don'tcha think? It has that cute little name - "Twinkle! Look how wonderful and sweet I am, because my name is Twinkle! I 'Twinkle' at everybody! See?? I'm cute! I'm Twinkle!" - but it's actually a massive conspiracy to get me to shout in edit summaries. Sorry about that. I'm blaming Twinkle, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. ;-P  K rakatoa    K atie   05:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, Katie,,, have a nice cup of cocoa. (Or Scotch, if that's your speed)... the scripts are buggy, they mess up one time out of ten.... and we couldn't live without them. I set Twinkle on a 300-item batch deletion, and it decided to leave eleven of them alone just tonight, but it sure beat mashing the delete button 289 times manually. Didn't we used to have a bot to put that RFPP header back?  Or could we rework the page to not need that header as a separate item?  It'd be work, but if it saves your sanity.... Courcelles 06:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Katie - I saw your edit summary and, remembering my last RPP, was thinking maybe I had also done something wrong until I poked around a bit in my own edits...good to know that happy/shiny/sweet/cute Twinkle (shhhh... it's a conspiracy!) is the one at fault. Shearonink (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Huggle screws up sometimes too. I love when I tell it to only revert one particular edit and it reverts them all! Makes me look like a fool. Calls itself Huggle, like it gives you big warm hugs! Hmmph! It hugs you alright … all the while shivving a dagger between your shoulder blades! . —  Spike Toronto  19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't use Huggle because I don't do Windows, and I don't want to mess with Boot Camp to try. Not going there. I was thinking about fixing the header the last couple times I've fixed it. I think we need the 'current requests for protection' heading and the instructions _out_ of that box. And another thing: can we transpose requests like AFDs are transposed? It would fix the problem of returning to the RFPP page to close the request only to find the 'edit' link you clicked is for a different request. Or is that too much trouble?  K rakatoa    K atie   03:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I cannot use Twinkle since I use the dreaded, archaic Microsoft Internet Explorer. So, alas, I am only familiar with the oh so cuddly Huggle. Good luck with your ideas though. Let’s hope they see implementation. —  Spike Toronto  20:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

DRV
G'day there - it struck me that you don't appear to have been told of this deletion review of one of your deletions. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

E-mail
Sent you one... Courcelles 05:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tune
You're right, it is a very catchy song! I remember parts of it from when I was very small (post-1945 viewing, way post..but still).. Dreadstar ☥  07:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Channel 39 in Dallas, every weekday morning from 0700 to either 0730 or 0800 - I think it was the former. Isn't it funny how things like that stick with you? ;-)  K rakatoa    K atie   08:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edits made to Archives
Katie: You might be interested in this edit and this revert. —  Spike Toronto  07:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Well, that takes it to an interesting level, doesn't it? Let's see what happens at the article itself before you decide to resurrect the ANI thread and tell everybody he's tried to sneak his way into the archives, because if you do you should propose either a restriction or a topic ban. The guy is articulate and he has a lot to offer, but it doesn't seem like he can restrain himself here. Anyway, that's your next step - topic ban/restriction. Unless there's loud dissent, I'll put it in place, but only if he keeps going.  K rakatoa    K atie   08:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn’t really suggesting any action now. I’m not really sure what would be appropriate. I just wanted to keep you in the loop. I think he just wanted to have the last word. And, because he is so unfamiliar with how things are done around here, and won’t acquaint himself with any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, he most likely did not have any idea that archives anywhere on WP are not “editable” (is that a word? ). Sigh. I think what drew him to it was this edit. I purposely hadn’t responded to his diatribe on the article talk page because I thought it would be like poking the bear. However, his posting there indicated that he simply didn’t get it. Moreover, it was both insulting and reputation-damaging to both myself and Jæes. In my own case, he commented, “Spike writes a bunch of things defending Maclean’s assertion that Quebec is a corrupt province.” Well, no, I did not. What I did was review the two secondary sources he had provided and added more of the information contained therein to the Maclean’s wikiarticle. What I did not do was cherry pick only those things from those articles that supported my thesis. Which meant adding to the article that La Presse, the province’s largest circulation, French-language daily, agreed with Maclean’s, while the Montreal Gazette, the province’s largest circulation, English-language daily, disagreed with Maclean’s. To do otherwise — to fact pick — is not to bring the article into compliance with the policy at Neutral point of view. Thus, while not responding to him on the talk page meant not poking the bear, leaving the talk page with only his diatribe there could create the impression that he’s right. So, since the statement was essentially defended in the report to ANI, I thought it appropriate (albeit unusual) to add a link to the discussion. It could act as our response. (For similar, not-wanting-to-poke-the-bear reasons, I did not post a comment on his talk page explaining archive editing policy. I figured it would just start everything back up again.) In the meantime, I’ll keep monitoring the article and its talkpage for any policy/guideline-violating activity from the editor under discussion. I think he has potential: he writes clearly and he footnotes perfectly (the latter being an extreme rarity here at Wikipedia). But, he wants Wikipedia to bend to his will, and he won’t adapt to its policies and guidelines. As for a topic ban, I thought about that, but is that not usually reserved for editors who elsewhere in Wikipedia have shown that they can follow the rules, but are unable to control themselves in a particular topic? It’s just that since this editor is that sub-species of single-purpose account known as the agenda account, we’ve yet to see that he can comport himself properly elsewhere in Wikipedia. On the other hand, it would be sad to indefinitely block an editor that could become a good editor if he would assume good faith and learn our ways. But, then other editors thought to be good contributors have been indef’d for failures of comportment. Eek! Speaking of diatribes, sorry this is so long. Thank you for your continued efforts in this matter. —  Spike  Toronto  19:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 *  UPDATE :   You might be interested in this and this. Don’t shoot the messenger … . —  Spike  Toronto  02:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, now he can't say that his rebuttal was lost/stolen/exploded in agony, 'cause Jaes put it out there for all to see. KW may be done now, or maybe not. I'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Meanwhile, everybody back off of the guy and see if the whole kerfluffle will die down. If we're still at this in five or six days, it will be time to put some restrictions on the article.  K rakatoa    K atie   02:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I am avoiding poking the bear, so have not interacted with him since he left his last message on my talk page. To be honest, I wish that I had thought of doing what Jæs did since it, as you said, “put it out there for all to see.” Thanks Katie. —  Spike Toronto  06:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I could not keep my mouth shut. Sorry. —  Spike Toronto  22:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's fine. I tend to believe that when few admins respond a particular issue like this, silence is more or less assent, albeit with a short leash. KW knows he's supposed to stop. If he doesn't stop after he's been caught editing archives and sneaking around, I'll block him, with increasing lengths as we go. But I'm pretty sure that he's either done or almost done here. He's said his piece and he's going to move on. Be alert for a puppet show, though.  K rakatoa    K atie   04:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, a puppet show. I hadn’t really thought of that. When it happens, I think that, in his case, it should be easy to spot, at least on that article. Also, I think that there already was some block evasion during one of his blocks whereby he edited anonymously. I think that might have been the motivation for Courcelles’ page protection. The edits I suspect were the basis for the protection were these and this one. The first set were made while there was a block on his registered account. This would be block evasion. The later, single edit was made after the block had expired — if I’ve done my math correctly — and so might be a single instance of sock puppeting, or merely forgetting to log in. I believe he sort of admits to either the batch of edits, or the later single edit, here, but I’m not entirely sure. You’ll note that the IP address from which the edits made during the block occured has only ever edited the Maclean’s article. The other IP, from which the later, single edit was made, had previously edited one other article (also a Canadian subject), so it may not be the same editor. Only CheckUser can confirm any of this. (However, both are Rogers Cable IPs based in Toronto (see here and here). We have to ignore the postal code as it is the postal code for the Rogers Cable internet site itself. Anyway, is it a duck? Or, is it merely logical that edits to Canadian subjects would be made from Canadian IP addresses and that the odds are fairly good that a Torontonian would be editing from a Rogers IP since it is such a huge conglomerate?) As for my ANI post, if there was going to be tacit assent through silence, I didn’t want the impression left that we had really committed the sins of which we had been accused. Mind you, his tone is so conspiratorial that it lessens the believability of his claims. I think you are right that he’s through with us. Now that he’s convinced that Wikipedia exists to bury the the truth, and that many of the more established editors receive stipends from various corporations, he’ll believe that making any contributions would be a waste of his time. If only he’d read our core policies, dry and boring as they may be, he’d see where we were coming from. On the one hand, I’d be more than willing to mentor him. On the other hand, I’ve read that editors who have displayed this particular editing behaviour cannot be mentored. Thanks Katie for your continued efforts in this matter! —  Spike Toronto  06:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It’s back in the archives now (see here). It’s more complete now. —  Spike Toronto  22:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Dear Katie, thank you for the prompt reply! I shall certainly check with the links you provided me with, and try to find as much as I can. Best wishes, Cherurbino (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I've looked through the links… today is too late for anybody to launch '-tracert' command. As for the 'hacker' who used proxy — what he wanted to, he already did on January, 6: launching the process of deletion of the article outside his 'native' wiki, in the English area. It could be a good idea to nullify this deletion request, as is, since it came in the dirty way, from proxy. Also, some grounds in his application are a product of his fantasy. E.g. he mentions 'links to U-tube', and I do not find them. Thus the entire process (Articles for deletion/International Delphic Council), initiated from behind the German proxy looks like a vandalism (?) or at least an action with minor underlying goodwill. What would you recommend me to do in this case? Cherurbino (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI: I've just posted |a formal request at Admins’ noticeboard. Thank you again for the co-operation Cherurbino (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin Coaching
Hi, I was wondering if you work with me on some Admin Coaching. I have been here for over a year and am nearing 4,000 contributions to the project, I saw your name in the "Coaches List", saw that you did not have any students, and have had previous (minor, albeit) interactions with you. Thanks, T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 15:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Page Created here (this sounds better) Thanks! I don't really mind the talk page thing T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 20:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did you want a more thorough reply? I wasn't sure so I just created the page :P. I assume everything from now on will happen there? T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 01:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Gimme a few minutes, will ya? Yikes! :-P :-D I have three grown cats and one grown husband here and I'm trying to herd all four of 'em. Parked husband in front of the Bluray disc of Ironman 2, two kitties outside, one on my lap, so I'll get over to you shortly, buster. But I gotta read the news (AN and ANI) first, so twiddle your thumbs or somethin' for about 15 minutes while I catch up on today's war stories.  K rakatoa    K atie   01:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean to sound urgent (not how I mean to come one :)) I didn't even realize you were online, I think I'll do a bit of NPP :D. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 01:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Verizon vandal appears to have a new name
I came cross the edits of this user today: The account was registered on 10 January, 5 days after the Verizon vandal seemed to disappear. What red-flagged the account initially was all the random wikilinking, but this edit set off alarm bells. Changing names to "Chanel" is a long-term trait of the Verizon vandal, although the name isn't always Chanel. This is typical too. This edit, changing "things turn cold when she refuses" to "things turn go down on a love thermometer when she refuses" is also the sort of thing that the Verizon vandal does. There are a few other edits that seem familiar but those I've listed make me hear ducks quacking.

Although probably unrelated, some of the edits made by the Verizon vandal seem eerily familiar to an earlier annoyance who kept changing female names to "Deanna Roshini Parvati Goonasekera" or something similar, often adding "Sadly Now:" before the name, such as in this edit. Thos edits were to a similar range of articles and the ISP was also Verizon. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on your extension of the block to indefinite, do I take it you agree with AussieLegend's assessment that 729gabby is the Verizon vandal? If so, I'll bear this pattern in mind if I see the same pattern of editing again at the Hannah Montana articles. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup. I replied on his talk page but with the heading 'oh, good grief' which is what I usually say when he brings the latest articles to me to semi. As I said over there, I don't feel like wasting more Krebs cycles on this guy, and we've already had multiple discussions here and there and at ANI, so let's just indef him and be done with it. Maybe give him one 24- to 31-hour block for the first offense, just to make sure, but his style is pretty easy to recognize by now.  K rakatoa    K atie   01:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Bambu
Thanks for the input at AN/I. I hadn't realized you were also involved. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for arriving late today - been watching football. No, I can't come up with any thoughts other than a topic ban for ArnaudMS. I don't think an RFC/U would help because WP:EA and WP:3O and COIN have done zilch to move it along. To me, this has always been a user conduct issue. And there are IP socks and/or meatpuppets who are churning this up over a period of weeks and months, not days or hours. ArnaudMS is just the username.


 * Nahome has cited the page and line of text in the Spanish trademark book thingie, and ArnaudMS just will not accept it. We created WP:TEND with this guy in mind. As I said, if it were up to me I'd topic ban. I just don't know what else to do.  K rakatoa    K atie   02:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I haven't read up on this case as much as you have, but I trust your judgment. I would probably take this to AN next, what do you think? --John (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's the next step if he edits the pages again, now that protection has expired and that first ANI thread is archived. There's not much history for you to review - several IPs have worked sporadically over several months to insert or remove things the company does not like or approve. I guess this trademark date issue really gets under their skin, though I'm at a loss to explain whyI'll keep one eye on the article's history. I'm a RFPP regular and Nahome usually goes there for help. That's actually how I got dragged into this mess.  K rakatoa    K atie   01:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. Should I warn the editor of this ahead of time? --John (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I went ahead. Hope that's ok. User_talk:ArnaudMS. --John (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately they're back at it again. The page protection expired and of course...they came back.  I requested page protection but the admins there don't know the history. Could you lend a hand and thank you!  Nahome  04:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahome (talk • contribs)
 * Since Nahome made his post just above, I am glad to see that another admin has restored the semiprotection on the article. ArnaudMS has not made any edits at Bambu rolling papers since John's warning of 11 January. Any further edit by ArnaudMS ought to trigger a response, in my opinion, and John's idea of a topic ban would be suitable. There is now a whole litany of warnings at User talk:ArnaudMS which have had little or no effect. It's not a question of a new editor who hasn't received a proper explanation. Another option is a block. Stubborn people at WP:COIN who won't modify their behavior are sometimes blocked for disruptive editing for one to seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed I agree with you but think the article needs permanent protection. ArnaudMS likely won't use that user name to post on the Bambu article but instead "someone" went IP-buck-wilde yesterday with around a dozen reversions until the article was semi protected. Then ArnaudMS removed text from the talk page that was negative for the Bambu brand.  I don't think it will stop, there seems to be too much at stake for them.  The only way to stop it is to permanently protect the page and let Admins be the ones to modify it as they see fit from a truly neutral standpoint. I would be very shocked if the page is not attacked as soon as the current protection expires. Or the Bambu promoters will set up various additional sockpuppets to get over the small hurdles we have implemented. Of course this is only my opinion, it's become a bit of a cat and mouse game now.  Who knew Wiki editing could be so exciting ;)  None of my other watched pages have seen so much controversy - not even Palin!   Nahome  17:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahome (talk • contribs)
 * Would you mind having a look at Bambu rolling papers again? An admin inadvertently made it into a puff piece and deleted every reference that was disputed by the Sockpuppets.  In short, the Sockpuppets won.   Nahome  15:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahome (talk • contribs)

Nobody has won or lost. You can still edit the article, Nahome - admins are editors just like you and we have no final say. SlimVirgin just took it back to bare bones, as a starting place for this point forward. Make your edits, then the bold, revert, discuss cycle will begin anew on the talk page, hopefully without. She's not a sockpuppet of Bambu or anyone associated with the company or ArnaudMS. On the contrary, she's a very good editor who has nothing but the encyclopedia's best interest at heart. She's a good one, and she'll work with you instead of against you. :-)  K rakatoa    K atie   04:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You were right with the above, SlimVirgin is not slanted and seems very fair, although just a bit of a stickler ;) Unfortunately Arnaud is back at it again.  Even after all of the warnings he immediately entered the 1764 years back in as soon as he could.... see Bambu 1764 on Rolling paper and also right back on that list of oldest companies which their Bambu.com site happens to link to..  Bambu 1764 back on list of oldest co's please help - and thank you. He was warned that he would be banned if he did it again, but he can't resist I guess. Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Katie, it seems Nahome has a COI too. Central discussion at WP:COIN. Cheers, SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)