User talk:Nahome

If you wish to post comments about one of my posts on any article PLEASE USE THE TALK PAGE OF THAT ARTICLE INSTEAD NOT MY PERSONAL TALK PAGE.

Please allow me to apologize in advance if my fact finding abilities cause your company distress. It's a hobby of mine and if I post anything incorrect please correct me only if you have appropriate references to back up your position. Nahome (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: Bambu

Hi - at this point, Nahome, I advise you to seek dispute resolution. There are several options listed there - editor assistance is one (go down to the bottom of the page to make sure the editor you ask is active), request for comment is another, and the MedCab will get a mediator into it. If you use editor assistance, I've seen User:Reaper Eternal and User:JamesBWatson around and both are on that list. Or you could make a request for comment, either on the editor himself or on the article talk page. Just read up on it and decide. The article's not going anywhere. Whatever you do, do not get into an edit war with anyone. Just be patient, use the resources available to you, and don't give up on WP:NPOV.

I feel that I'm an involved admin, so I can't protect the page or block anyone for issues relating to the article. However, I am going to list that image at WP:PUF. If it's available on many websites, those websites are copyrighted, and that copyright includes the images. Thanks again for letting me know about this, and keep up the good work. :-) - Krakatoa Katie 22:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for yourself...

I'm an uninvolved editor who saw the "action" come up in my watchlist. There seems to be a great deal of urgency for you about the issue. You seem to have posted in a number of places seeking assistance, and in short period of time. I don't understand the issue (nor do I really need to) but I am assuming it's important. But, you should consider whether it actually is that urgent? I dont know, or need to know the answer to that - just a question for yourself. Now that you've notified various people and boards, what would happen if you just took a step back for 48 hours and see what happens? Who knows, resolution might come in 48 hours - but i doubt it will come in 48 seconds :-) . Don't forget that important things are important but likely not urgent, and urgent things are urgent but likely not important. kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 05:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for your well written post. You are correct, I should show more patience. When the Bambu promoters attacked me I felt - well, I felt attacked and yelled for help. The way they kept posting on my talk and about me pages made me feel violated. However, I definitely did over-react and will try to step back and allow Wiki to take its course. Thank you for your post and understanding. Nahome (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Hope it's turning out OK. I can't pretend I completely avoid trouble either, but even when I don't act the smartest way, I'd like think I act on principal. Things can move slowly on WP (which is OK as we are not a news site) and they must be done in collaboration with others (who may not have a clue!). And if things are really that hot, there are another few million articles to distract one's attention. --Merbabu (talk)

Right on, I appreciate the advice really I do. You're right I should just move on but I get attracted to articles that mean something to me. I'm a smoker (but not a joker). Anyway happy new year. Nahome (talk)

Caution

Please avoid trying to contact by telephone other editors in the real world unless you get their permission first, on-wiki or by email. (You say you did this in the second 'Personal attacks' section on that page). Such unplanned contacts might be viewed by some as harassment. Please note that editors can remove messages from their own talk page. After they have been removed once, you should not restore them. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ed, the poster 71.164.114.50 said to call them "if you would like to talk maybe you should give me a call.. ---- Winnie" , which I think is tacit permission but just to be safe I won't do it again. Do you think I should re-blank that page for the IP user? Nahome (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologized to the IP user 71.164.114.50 and asked them if they really do want me to phone them again tomorrow as they had requested. I will certainly not attempt to contact them again unless they do so ask. My contact did not "actually" occur, in that the user said they were from a store called Talking Heads Gifts in Newport NH and that their name was Winnie, which turned out to apparantly be entirely false according to the store :( Nahome (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the conversation the IP user wants to delete,

Although your post is flattering, it is entirely incorrect and yet another violation of Wiki rules. You have slandered me as much as you possibly could, just because I was able to research some very interesting facts. Then you say you work for a store in Newport NH " I work at a head shop in Newport named talking Heads Smoke Shop.. " (based on your post http://www.city-data.com/profiles/19687 ) yet your IP traces to a "person" in NY... where Bambu is from... All I did was post the truth with proper references from the University of Barcelona department of History (you wrote "Your "fact finding" on University in Barcelona doesn't mention Bambu, whatsoever..." but both articles and the book all do mention Bambu and say it was invented in 1907 by Rafael Abad Santonja (the actual Spanish text says Aunque sin lugar a dudas la más destacada fue «Bambú» creada por «Rafael Abad Santonja y Sobrinos» en 1907 (Cerdá Gordo (1997), p. 37). There is an entire history book dedicated to this, called EL BAMBÚ, LA MARCA Y LES BAMBUNERES. You should read it, then you might consider apologizing for your assertions and behavior... Don't be angry that all the information we found says that Bambu is from 1907/1908 instead of the claimed date of 1764 - 1907 is a VERY long time ago and very respectable. All you have to do is change your websites (if they are yours) and change your marketing stuff. It's better to market honestly than with a falsehood. While I have enjoyed fencing facts with you (and winning), your attacks are truly inappropriate and misguided. Let's work together to keep all articles full of facts with references. Sorry I see that you wrote "I have been in New York for NYE. Please call in Monday in the shop.. ", I take it this is supposed to explain why you said you are from Newport CT yet your IP is from NY. However it doesn't explain why you are still at this NY IP and also why nobody at the store knew anything about your posts and actually seemed genuinely surprised. I understand you may have desires to protect a brand, but this really isn't the way to do it. There is nothing to protect- you should be proud that your brand is over 100 years old! That's amazing and you should boast about that every chance you get. Just don't put up false statements that are impossible to substantiate, and you'll get along with all of us just fine :)

Re. Discussion on John's page

"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. The only one "confussing everyone" seems to be you.. And please, don't claim this to be a user attack. I am simply trying to illustrate to you that your own verification process is flawed if applied to the overall topic of origins and trademark. --ArnaudMS (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have another look and you will understand. Plus it is especially important to search Benelux which includes Belgium, Holland and Luxemborg. You should be able to easily search these online separately, have a look-see. Regardless though it is irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is that Bambu was formed in 1907. Nahome (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

next steps

Who is this? You obviously have something involved with discrediting a business. Don't tell me this is a hobby. What is your Job. And what do you do? Can tell you are from california... Job explanation please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.160 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Looks like another Bambu sockpuppet :( Wiki family don't try to "out" each other, it's against our rules please don't ask anyone these sorts of questions again or you could be blocked. Nahome (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I can understand how frustrated and tired you are.

Instead of using editor assistance, I think your next step should be to put together a thorough but concise paragraph or two about the problem, with the relevant history, a list of IPs and editors, and a list of all the articles, and post that at ANI. Take a look at ANI and read how other reports are written and discussed so you'll have a feel for how to do it.

Post the report at ANI just after the next attempt to do any of the stuff they're doing on any of the articles they're hitting. There are just too many IPs and single-purpose accounts trying to game the system and the community needs to become involved.

By using ANI, other admins and editors can propose different remedies for the situation - like a topic ban from editing the articles related to and about their own company, a limit on the number of reversions allowed per article per day, and so on. And more eyes will be on the issue. I've about had enough of these people and I _know_ you have. I would make the ban myself using my discretion as an administrator, but I really do want more people to know about this problem.

Hang in there. You're doing some great work here and it's very much appreciated. Thanks. :-) Krakatoa Katie 06:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to echo the sentiments above. I read the AN/I discussion and went over part of the editor-in-question's contributions, and I have to say that you've shown a lot of patience and done a great job in an incredibly frustrating situation. Kudos to you. --bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's actually kind of exciting that one person doing research on a computer can uncover tremendous truths and expose what appears to be a falsehood. Whenever I find another fact I get sort of a rush, it feels good. The times when it feels bad is when I'm called names, attacked and I watch my hard work get covered up by Sockpuppets. With Wikipedia's help though the facts we found have stood and have been protected. If the facts we found turn out to be incorrect (if the Sockpuppets can post verifiable facts that differ from the ones we all found), we will all gladly post their facts and amend the article. I love how Wiki works! That's why I do this and I think it's why you do it too. Nahome (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Thanks

Accounts

Hi Nahome, could you let me know whether you used to edit as Mrtobacco (talk · contribs)? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I did try to contact Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you edited Wikipedia as any other account or IP address? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I was at university I used a different account but it contained part of my real name so I stopped using and would prefer not to disclose. BTW if you would let me send you that book you would know who I am, and who I am not - so maybe you would consider letting me send it to you? Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk)

Nahome, I requested a checkuser, and there seems to be a connection between you and an account belonging to a person who is linked to a tobacco company. I won't post the details, because it involves a real name. Is it you? You can email me if you prefer: slimvirgin at gmail dot com. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will contact you via email - and you know I'm going to ask you to take this book :) Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Checkuser, can you checkuser the various sockpuppets from that Bambu article please :) Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, see that you beat me to it - thank you I feel redeemed. At least you know who I am not! I'll drop you an email now and I look forward to speaking with you Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]