Talk:Rolling paper/Archives/2013

Sourced but odd

The following section seems a bit out of place? - brenneman ^{L} 01:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Some tax authorities have begun to catch on to this trend towards consumers switching to RYO (Roll Your Own) and thus new taxes have started to appear. The most recent is a $0.25 per pack tax (they say each pack is up to 32 leaves so if you have more then 32 leaves you have to pay extra) in the state of Kentucky (see http://www.ttac.org/TCN/tfp/mar-apr-2006/excise.html). This is the first real US state-tax on rolling papers and it's likely that the other states will also follow suit in the next decade or so.

I am the author of this, I felt it relevant to Rolling Papers since it is a new tax on them. Please explain why you feel this is relevant - Rolling Paper taxes affect all of us smokers! --Mrtobacco 02:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

But this is an international encyclopedia, eh? - brenneman ^{L} 02:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Here's where we say why the merge is a good/bad idea. - brenneman ^{L} 11:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose Merging I don't think it makes the least bit of sense to merge this with the rolling papers page. If you happened to look at that page, there are 22 different brands of papers listed, 15 of which have articles of their own. The material on those individual pages does not belong on the rolling papers page. However, I will concede that, because some of the different products in question are produced by the same manufacturers, perhaps collective pages could be made with additional details concerning each company. --Raoul Duke 11:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

None of the three articles suggested for merging have a single citation so at present they are actually candidates for redirection, not merger. - brenneman ^{L} 13:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merging: Job was the first rolling paper brand and has a long and significant history. It fully deserves its own article. TOP is an old, leading rolling paper brand in France and the US. Both have been expanded with references. I would ask that User:Brenneman provide a reason for the merger tag. Failure to provide reasons when placing tags on articles might be seen as "disruption". Furthermore, I would suggest that instead of making threats or complaining about references, that editors add references to the articles or use the unreferenced tag that exists for that very purpose. --JJay 15:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

STRONGLY OPPOSE MERGING; Job was NOT the first rolling paper brand (sorry that is just not true) but regardless these brands have significant histories and it would be the same as merging all Auto brands such as GM, Ford, Mercedes, etc.. into one page. That would change Wiki from an encyclopedia into a "quick synopsis guide" and basically ruin it :( --80.137.93.45 08:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

in booklet form... --JJay 10:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of tags

Removal of tags (as has been done twice now) is borderline disruption. Rolling back and replacing both unsourced material and non-fair-use imagery violates several policies. Adding bucketloads of merge tags (including red links) is also disruption. Everyone needs to learn to work a bit more co-operatively. - brenneman ^{L} 13:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Job merger tag removed per above. Other merger tags changed to disputed. --JJay 15:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I appear to be the only person even midly perturbed by the derth of sources in the articles that are claimed to be so impossible to merge, the tags may as well be removed. - brenneman ^{L} 12:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Two out of the three articles you proposed for merging have sources. Furthermore, you did not give any reason for suggesting the merge. No one claimed that it would be "impossible" to merge. The objections were based on the fact that the merge proposal made no sense given the history of the brands. Please reread the objections above in order to prevent similar misunderstandings in the future. Per your request, I will remove the templates. --JJay 18:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

HBI International

Maybe this should be linked from here somewhere? JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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 20:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The charges against MCM are pathetic!

The charges are completely BOGUS. We've been selling Smoking brand in the USA for many years and are the USA Importer of such. How can MCM be charged with a criminal offense when basically every other company is also making papers with wood in them? It's ridiculous and we stand by MCM in this! --Joshmann 21:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Top

Top rolling papers should be added to the list of popular brands.

Tally Ho?

I'm sorry but I don't know if this is a real brand or not (or if it's popular enough to be listed). Anyone know much about this brand? --Mrtobacco 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Spanish-language reference

I'm not going to try to remove it again because I'm not willing to fight a revert war over it. However, I'd like to register my opinion that:

• The "esparto" item doesn't belong in the article at all.
• If it's relevant and notable and does belong in the article, then it should have an English-language source, not only untranslated Spanish. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_you_add_content.
• The proper way for it to be mentioned is as part of the current "Developments" section, not at the top of the article. The "Developments" section could be better named, but I'm not going to attempt to rename it because edits to this material are obviously not welcomed.
• Vegetable material produces carcinogenic smoke when burned, whether it's esparto, wood, cotton, hemp, purified cellolose/cellophane, or anything else. That's the nature of the stuff. If you're going to roll it around tobacco, is the smoke from the paper really worth worrying about?

I seem to have put my foot into someone else's bucket of bees here - I was only really interested in removing comma splices and misspellings from the article, but it looks like because I touched the "esparto" sentence, that makes me a "vandal" and sock puppet. 69.63.61.39 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's because you are using only an IP address and the Bambu guys really went nuts vandalising this article over and over again. I apologize if you were mis-viewed as yet another Bambu employee trying to cover up the Esparto info. I agree with you that burning anything causes carcinogens however the LEVEL of carcinogens is the issue here. I won't mention which papers I use but I can say that I do mostly smoke a Briar pipe. On the language reference I am of Mexican descent and thus for me it reads like English does to you - so it's a bit frustrating to have you say it isn't relevant because it's not in proper English. --Mrtobacco 00:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

An example of a personal attack on a user (see below, then someone delete this please)

The reason Mrtobacco is so pushy about people removing his propaganda, is because he is a shill for HBI who is using wikipedia to stealth market HBI products. Please check his history to see what I mean. I have seen him pull the same thing in other online communities, under the same pseudonym "Mrtobacco". He uses a circular logic, trying to quote sources on wikipedia, which he added, to back up his propaganda in the forum. Source: http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1274664&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1 Basically, his contribution history will show that he makes entries to push this "esparto" issue or to promote HBI related websites (check whois info) or products (RAW, Elements). Or he makes a minor edit to some random page to seem credible. He has been accused of slanting articles to advertise products several times that I can see in his history, and each time he turns the accusation back on the accuser, saying that THEY are the stealth marketer (more circular logic). Also, if you check his oldest contributions, you will see he created the HBI International wikipedia page. The trail of evidence from then on is pretty conclusive. My intent in adding this comment is to stop his vandalism of wikipedia pages. Onyx86 01:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Lee, this post is really uncalled for. If you would take the time to READ my posts you would learn that the esparto issue is a serious one. It hurts many of the rolling paper guys. Read my talk pages, HBI's Joshmann has been pounding me about stopping those posts. He's the US distributor for Smoking and of course he wants me to stop posting this stuff! Your personal attacks are really inappropriate behavior and I must report you to Wiki for invervention. Please calm down and also stop with the threats such as what you have posted. Read and Learn, Wiki is not a place for your own personal greviences and I'm not your punching bag. --Mrtobacco 17:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we ad OCB link?

I don't think OCB is sold (much) in North America. Someone put up a link to their papers on the noted brands section and I moved it here for discussion in case people think it's worth adding. Seems we have enough brand already on the page and no need for ones that aren't super popular in North America.

• OCB(acronym of Odet-Cascadec-Bolloré), is a very famous French brand of rolling paper created in 1918 at Quimper (Brittany) {unsigned}

Yes I know that OCB is very popular in France BUT is it popular enough in the Americas to bother listing here is the question? I don't see it at any stores I visit --Put that in your pipe and smoke it (talk) 01:35,

11 January 2008 (UTC)

you are showing your age. when i started rolling my own, in indiana in 1970, you found only two common brands tops,bugler(came with the tobbaco) and ocb. since ocb was sold without glue we called them "old cheap bastards".it was only later when a "head shop" opened in about 1972 that we found the other brands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remob (talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

i hit this page to learn when did papers first come pre glued. this page is lacking in history. also, to the obove poster when did wikipedia become only american? does he think that americans invented rolling "paper"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remob (talk • contribs) 17:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Volume Comment

The removed statement which asserted that cigarette rolling papers come in “widths that can lead to a cigarette that contains 1 to 1.5 times the amount of tobacco as a Single Wide paper” is incorrect for a number of reasons. Considering, for example, Elements cigarette papers, the Elements Single Wide paper is 1.44 inches wide by 2.69 inches long, whereas the Elements 1 ½ paper is 2.56 inches wide by 3.06 inches long. When rolled into a cigarette, the width of the cigarette paper forms the circumference of the cigarette (notwithstanding paper overlap), which is approximately a cylinder. The formula for the volume of a cylinder is V = LC2/4π, where L is the length of the paper and C is the width (or circumference) of the paper. Using this formula, an Elements Singlewide rolling paper creates a cigarette containing a volume of approximately 0.44 cubic inches of tobacco. In contrast, an Elements 1 ½ rolling paper creates a cigarette containing a volume of 1.60 cubic inches of tobacco—nearly four times the volume of the Elements Single Wide paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollpaper (talk • contribs) 20:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Health Issues

I think we should include something on the health issues of the contents within rolling papers and also the notion that hand rolled cigarettes are healthier than tailor-mades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fletch 2002 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bambu but problems

There was no bamboo trade in 1764, this has been well established and is cited in many books on the subject including [[http://www.amazon.com/Bamboo-Websters-Timeline-History-3000/dp/0546865259 This book]] and countless others. Why is the current brand owner pretending that their product was made in 1764 when it clearly wasn't. There weren't even steamships in 1764 to carry Bamboo from Asia to Spain. Every time any of us try to correct them and offer proof they say we're their competitor and quickly cover up our posts. Can anyone offer any proof that there was an active bamboo trade - contrary to all research and facts, which could have somehow led to there being Bamboo papers in 1764 (before American independence)...? 216.93.191.251 (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Plesae see the talk page of Bambu rolling papers. My theory is that they listed themselves as being one of the oldest companies in the world and even link on their own bambu website to the Wiki list of oldest companies which someone added them to (maybe they added themselves?) - all based on this 1764 year. To actually be from 1907 as the University of Barcelona and the book written on the history of Bambu rolling papers, and the trademark registrations say, is very bad for their image. They might look deceptive. However I think 103 years old is still VERY old and they should be proud of that fact, instead of dedicating all their efforts to seemingly false dates. Nahome (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Bambu Promoter strikes again

ArnaudMS and the Bambu promoters/sock puppets have struck again. They changed the artitcle to change the year of some company that is older than them, to make that company "newer" than them. I guess they arbitrarily picked a year of 1910 so it would make the product newer than their brand, which was proven to be from 1907/8. Then they add "citation needed". It's disingenuous and I think it should be reverted. Perhaps the page needs to be fullly protected now to stop them? Nahome (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Nahome, Arnaud, and Lostsociety, you all need to find reliable sources for your edits that say exactly what you want to add to the article. I've added full protection to stop the reverting. Perhaps you could post your sources here, preferably secondary sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)