Talk:Artcraft Fluorescent Lighting Corporation

Explanation:

AUTHOR'S NOTE(S)

This company is out of business as of about 2002 therefore this is not an advertisement. It has emphasis of historical significance. You should not serve me as a contributor.

Perhaps if experts wish to contribute to the lead and references and links, that would be greatly appreciated, although they should be from a lighting institute, university, or similar bent.

It is not a wiki fork POV, and indeed is a NPOV. Avoiding characterization in an unbiased manor has been taken at every step to ensure accuracy. As Wikipedia strict guideline state, in part: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals companies or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia the editor stands in a conflict of interest ". And historical interest, certainly does not conflict.

If interested to assist, {{R from plural}} {{R to plural}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boggle987 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the majority of references relating to this article are housed in a Private Family Collection, there is only simple basic information provided for a reason. The sources are of the highest authority and great appreciation for remaining intact, as such, from your auto bot or supervisor(s) is, of course requested from the management of wikipedia.

The sheer fact of being one of the first three companies to manufacture fluorescent fixtures on a wide-scale and being one of the three leading manufacturers obivates the need for an individual cite reference although the CFO did mention that while General Electric held the patent to the bulb, the corporation developed and produced it's own fixtures that are so widely known today as can be found and cited in authoritative books, journals, etc.

There remains not what so ever a conflict of interest from the author as provided content from the author is not the originator of the information.

You appear to misunderstand Wikipedia. There is no management and there are no supervisors. There are just people, who will come by and will make changes to this page.

No one can require that editors of this page be experts. You, as the original author, receive no special provisions for determining page content. Wikipedia articles are 100% open to editing by the public-at-large. If you do not like this, we suggest that you not write articles here.

Now, I only have two fairly minor points about the article as it stands. You keep removing the category, which I don't understand. We like to categorize articles as a method of sorting them. While you are free to add, remove, and change categories as necessary, please do not remove all of the categories from this page.

The "External links" section currently consists solely of links to other Wikipedia articles. These are called "internal" links, because they link to somewhere else inside of Wikipedia. "External" links are links to websites other than Wikipedia. I've removed them from the bottom of the page and integrated them into the body text where possible. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your recent explanation and assistance. More work needs to be done to this page and I hope others like you can offer a hand in assisting.

And thank you to all who are assisting in making this article better. 4-2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.198.37 (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As better comprehension of this page is taking place with editing and assistance from others, pictures, photos, and video suggestions are welcome. There are a number of pictures and photos I wish to add to enhance the article, yet I would like your input, either expert wikipedians or beginners. That would be much appreciated.

Thanks for the recent condensing of notes and remarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boggle987 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any relation to...?

[1] in Montreal? No relation? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Since the company information dating back to 1955 is unclear at the moment, presently, I am unsure if there is a relation to your entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boggle987 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]