Welcome to Wikipedia. This account was created for you. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or place {{helpme|your question here}} on this page, and someone will be around to help. Again, welcome! -- AccReqBot 01:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot 17:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi!

I noticed a tag that says "This Section Reads Like an Advertisement" on the Frieling USA page I created a couple of weeks ago. I have already made a couple of changes in the entry, and now I'm brainstorming how I can reword more of it.

I'm new to this. Is there any advice you can give me on how to reword or rewrite the article?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scsbn4 ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

You will want to have the article be written from a neutral point of view... The facts of the company, history, location, business partnerships, writeups in trade magazines, etc. Things like listing the product line are the things that tend to skew the article towards Ad-like status, especially the way they are written in this article. Now, if a product is itself notable, then it is ok to have it in the article. For instance, saying that Microsoft makes the Windows OS would not be considered ad like, but to say "Microsoft makes the Windows OS, the fastest, most stable, and fun way to get your work done", would be flagged for Ad-like.

Also, if there are any independent reliable sources that have written about this company, including them will go a long way towards keeping the article neutral. Hope this helps! Arakunem 15:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello again!

I edited the Products section of the Frieling entry, and added more references that are from trade magazines. I still mentioned the Milk Chiller by name, because that really is what the company is noted for, but I shortened the copy on it. What do you think?

If you don't think it meets Wikipedia standards, I'll try again.

I have another question too. Is there a way to test material on Wikipedia? Would there be a way to have you or another editor look at a posting before it goes up? I read a little about the sandboxing, but I'm still sort of confused as to how it works. Will I get feedback from doing that?

Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scsbn4 ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

It does look less ad-like now, yes, and the addition of external references helps as well. As far as getting other eyes on the page, there is the Request For Feedback section, where you can ask for other editors to review and comment on the article's content and offer tips for improving it. The link I added above will take you to the main page for that. Hope this helps! Arakunem 16:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

One piece of advice I can offer is: Most articles normally begin with an overall introductory statement, such as "Freiling USA is an American company that (manufactures, imports, resells, etc...)", which is then followed up by the info on the founders and such that you already have. Arakunem 16:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Fixed, thanks for noticing! :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi... Users are entitled to remove warnings from their pages, so User:Thepurpledragen is free to remove them himself. I was not trying to drive him away, merely to get him to stop removing the speedy deletion templates, which he continued to do after multiple warnings. If you wish, place a welcome template on his page and add a personal message telling him he is free to remove the warnings. -- Rrburke^{( talk)} 02:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Greetings. Recently, on Tue 16 Oct, I constructed a disambiguation page for the various fish known as chubs. After having done so, I began to contemplate whether that page and the current Chub page might be better named. I posted a discussion on the Chub page but it's not yet received any comment. I noticed from the article's revision history that you had made one or more contributions to the page. Consequently, I thought I might profit from your advice at Talk:Chub#Page title if you have a moment or two to spare. Thanks. — Dave ( Talk | contribs) 03:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for restoring SteveBaker's comment after I reverted. I was in the middle of doing the same, but with this molasses-like connection I'm for some reason stuck with, even a child could have beaten me... — Steve Summit ( talk) 02:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Arakunem. I appreciate your looking at some of the cases on the noticeboard, and adding your views. Everything you've said so far looks astute and fair. Where have you been all this time? We need more COI patrollers.. EdJohnston 19:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the kind words! I plan to try to help out with a lot of the behind the scenes "machinery" like that, that keeps Wikipedia running smoothly. I look forward to working with you further! Arakunem 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I want to make sure you are OK with this diff: [1] - Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Yep, I have no problems with it, as the issue appears to be resolved, and he only deleted comments that I had struck out anyway. The historical record is always there if it is ever needed. Thanks for the notification! Arakunem ^Talk 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I am Arakunem on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Arakunem. Thanks. -- Arakunem ^Talk 16:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for supporting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks a lot. But why do they call it a ball? Is it because of that ball at the far right? What is that made of? 64.236.121.129 16:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi - Regarding the copyvio on this article. I saw it reported on Admin Incidents Noticeboard and I think the last good revision is here [2] before Acts 1 & 2 were replaced w/ the Sparknotes copy. As far as I can tell, subsequent acts weren't copy-pasted from Sparknotes - maybe they got bored? Anyway, I'm not clear whether I can revert to the older version of the plot section or should I should leave it, now that the copyright infringement template is in place? Thanks -- Kateshort forbob 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Ooh, great! Thanks very much for sorting it out. -- Kateshort forbob 16:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi!

A couple of months ago, you suggested I post the questions I have concerning future posts on the "Request for Feedback" section. Well...I did just that, and no one responded. I posted one a couple of months ago, and a second a few weeks ago. Am I doing something wrong?

Anyway, if you don't mind, could you take a look at another entry I posted named "Capresso"? It has a few stamps on it, but I made drastic changes on the article months ago. I'm pretty sure it fits Wikipedia standards now, and I would like to see if those stamps could be removed. If the entry still needs work, can you give me some tips on how to improve it?

Thank you for your help! ~

Hi.

Please have a look at meta:User talk:Arakunem. Thanks, — DerHexer  (Talk) 05:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, there.

Thank you so much for your feedback on the Capresso page. I'll let you know when I post my changes in the next few days. I am learning so much from you!

Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scsbn4 ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi,

I've already completed the edits. I think it looks pretty good now!

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.149.119.220 ( talk) 20:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there,

I took your advice and made all of your suggested edits to the Capresso page a couple of weeks ago. Since the stamps have not been removed by the editor who placed them there, I was wondering if you could take a look at it and let me know what you think?

Thank you for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scsbn4 ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Oops! You signed your prod to this article. I removed it. Cheers! -  CobaltBlueTony™  _talk 16:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

On 29 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hebert box, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Royal broil 05:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for stepping in at Real Life Ministries, I have neither the time nor the patience for Round 2 of that minefield. I am still watching it and can lend a hand if needed. TravellingCari 17:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

might be worth keeping an eye on this. I think we're acquiring some puppets. TravellingCari 21:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Will do, thanks! Arakunem ^Talk 21:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. It's my fourth day, and I am still learning. EricDiesel ( talk) 18:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Not sure where you would like me to talk but since I haven't seen you on the Real Life Ministries page nor answered conserns I had with the discussed proposed edit, I figured you might have been done with the page. If so, I thank you for your input. If not, I'd like to ask you to try something for me. I've claimed that the pastor and BG357 is controlling the press and edits on the wiki pages to make RLM smell like a rose. I personally know that Jim Putman had the articles removed. I've seen the uneditted emails. I've seen the articles disappear while comments and opinions were being posted. I know they control the CDA press when it comes to articles against or commented on against RLM. I dont want them having any control over the edits here. I would like to prove that RLM is controlling the press. I think if you see this for yourself, it'll give you more of an idea of what some people are up against. Please go to the two articles that are being commented on the press' website. Here are the links:

http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2007/05/21/editorials/letters/letter15.txt

http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2006/06/24/editorials/letters/letter03.txt

Try to post a comment on them. It will show that your comment was submitted but will not be posted. You'll see. They are stopping the free expression of opinion. Others have it but not when it comes to posting about RLM or about the issues they raise.

It appears BG has made himself a second "sock" account and posted a comment on TheNeutralizers talk page. After I told them not to hold their breath that BG will not say what his affiliation is to RLM. Is that too much to ask of BG, since he only claims he's not an employee. Is asking if he's a member too much to ask? Obviously, I have said what my affilation is... a former member and that can COI me out. So could a current member and I think it's only fair to ask what his REAL affliation is and where he lives. I don't think that's too much to ask is it?

Thanks again for all your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 ( talk) 05:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I have not given up on the page. The discussion has calmed down and both sides have expressed an interest not to edit war, so I'm hanging back and watching. As for the additonal Letters-to-Editor, or what happened to them on the CDA site, I don't consider that relevant for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about "the free expression of opinion", so that discussion, and any other around RLM controlling the press coverage, etc., is best left to another forum, unless it can be proven as a fact, and not just implied by other actions, however compelling they may be. The RLM article needs to be encyclopedic, and neutral. Any opinions that crop up there have to be removed.

Wiki editors are allowed to edit pseudo-anonymously. BG's membership or lack thereof would be covered by WP:COI, as we've been over on the talk page many times. So far, his edits have been neutral and supportable by cite. Removing unsourced negative opinions does not mean he us editing the page with a pro-RLM point of view.

I can appreciate the passion you have in regards to RLM, but this is problematic when it comes to keeping the article neutral. All the disagreement over what the RLM personnel are doing behind the scenes, if anything, is not appropriate here, unless you have citeable facts to support the claims. People venting in Letters-to-the-Editor, and in comments from readers on the CDA web site are, by definition, opinions, so can not be sourced. As I mentioned on the talk page the RLM response to the first letter gave it credibility enough to mention both. All the comments from readers afterwards are too POV either way to be useful...

As for the new accounts involved, let's just say there are several eyes on them. Arakunem ^Talk 14:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I suspect you are right but can yuou let it run another 48 hrs - I think the discussion has suffered from being among a small number of people and just want a final chance to draw in a wider set of views. Is 48 hrs okay? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your post on my talk page. I am new to Wikipedia and I think I understand the rules better now. I do not want to break the rules and will follow whatever people decde on my other articles. I am sorry for starting out with some articles that I should not have added.

I do have some pieces to add to articles about people already in Wikipedia that will not be a conflict of interest. I would like to ask the favour that if you see any problems lik these in my next posts you please let me know. Thank you, and sorry for making mistakes. GCA-Info ( talk) 05:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You are hereby awarded this barnstar for warring against vandalism— Tetracube ( talk) 16:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply

On 30 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article vaporized hydrogen peroxide, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen ( talk) 08:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

..to thank you for this Revert. You are quite faster by using popups ;) Cheers, — ^ossmann talk 20:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks! Right tool for the right job I suppose. :) Arakunem ^Talk 22:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

On 2 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charlie Hillard, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the good work! B G 7even 15:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Just "F Y I" ...
Re 66.196.192.226: It appears that, the same user (or, someone at the same IP) also vandalized Fast_of_Gedalia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fast_of_Gedalia&diff=242535339&oldid=242510401) . I do not know what to do (other than to report it). There seems to be a warning [from you?] at the IP talk page (" User talk:66.196.192.226"). Thanks. -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 21:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the info. That IP has been warned, so the next time he vandalizes he is likely to be blocked. He's been quiet for a while, so we'll wait to see what he does. Arakunem ^Talk 21:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

read the title of this post —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.155.114 ( talk) 22:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

srry my little brotehr was fooling around with my computer while i was a work... srry for the vandalism and stuff. i think im gona put a pass on the computer cuz this is like the 4th tim e hes done this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.155.114 ( talk) 22:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

On 4 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gene Soucy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen ( talk) 04:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

hello people if this is working tell me plz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.112.150 ( talk) 19:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

O RLY? MY GLASSES ARE TOO BIG TO FIT ON MY FACE —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC). reply

The edit I made to National Zoological Park India was not vandalism. It was simply a typo, where I meant to type "0" instead of "7"

Ah ok, thanks for clarifying. I think you can see why "May 37" would raise some eyebrows. I'll retract the warning. Thanks! Arakunem ^Talk 00:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Indef blocked and tagged. Thanks! -- Avi ( talk) 00:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I set up the entry 'Roger Howard' and am now trying to delete it asap! Can you help me get rid of it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger TT Howard ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Looks like it's been taken care of. Thanks! Arakunem ^Talk 19:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Just so you know, this user (whom you recently left a message with regarding COI and use of his copyrighted material on WP) has been leaving messages on his talk page requesting your input in the discussion there. — Politizer  ^talk/ _contribs 05:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you more in the future!-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply

My 14-year old son thinks that he is funny; I apologize for any irritation he may have caused you. Unschool ( talk) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for your kind comments. I appreciate getting the benefit of your experience. Also, thanks for removing the spamming tag on my talk page. I submitted a username change request, and I hope to hear from you again. FrankLloydGallery ( talk) 20:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Please read my exchanges regarding NEOTU with FABRICTRAMP. Now I would prefer to remove any English version of Neotu Gallery in Wikipedia. It is why I erased the content. I strongly regret it. But I do not appreciate FABRICTRAMP's position by adding a warning on the top of the article. A more positive attitude would have been for FABRICTRAMP to check on the Internet, on books, on other Encyclopedias online, all the references on NEOTU and start being a contributor to the NEOTU article which I started very objectively. I do think that I am not the ONLY one who can contribute to the article and I do think that Wikipedia needs real contributors who are not only "copes" . I am very disappointed that some Wiki contributors instead of starting learning something (furniture design for instance) prefer to censure an article and menace to erase it. I prefer do do so by myself. Yours Gerard Dalmon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotu ( talk • contribs) 02:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings Neotu, I have read the discussion on FT's talk page. My revert came because you deleted a large chunk of the article without explanation. Just to let you know, when that happens, many people who watch the recent changes to Wikipedia notice it, and wonder if some vandalism is happening. Regarding FT's "conflict of interest" tagging of the article, I encourage you to read the COI policy at WP:COI. The COI tag that FT placed in the article merely states that one of the editors (yourself in this case) has a close connection to the subject of the article (the gallery). This does not mean that you can not edit the article still, but that tag just notifies people who watch for possible conflicts to look over this article and see if it is staying within Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and verifiability. As you continue to edit, those COI-patrollers may tweak the text to keep things neutral. Discussion of those changes should be made on the article's talk page if they get contentious, rather than just reverting or deleting chunks of text. Once you have the article in a "final" version, if it has stayed nice and neutral, the COI tag can be removed (again, after discussion of this on the talk page). I hope this helps clear things up some. Arakunem ^Talk 02:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your answer. I really prefer to interrupt my contribution to Wikipedia. It was my first intervention. Now I realize that I cannot spend to much of my time in this activity. I though that my contributions on Neotu were VERY NEUTRAL, there are all based on my memory indeed but also on references: bibliography and external links that I provide. If what I did so far does not fit Wikipedia's policies I would prefer that the all article be erased. I am sure that you will understand my point of view. Best. Gerard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotu ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Arakumen, I am coming back to you to see if you could help me concerning this problem of CONFLICT OF INTEREST in the English version of the article Neotu. Is it a question of presentation? Could you tell me precisely through some examples taken within this article why there is something wrong? I am ready to correct all the text to fit THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. I read this article but I cannot tell where I fail. All the contents in Neotu article are verifiable, it is why I provide a Bibliography and External links. Of course this information has to be checked by someone. Thank you in advance for your answer. Best. Gerard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotu ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't see a problem with NPOV or COI as the article stands right now. As I mentioned above, the tag put at the top of the article did not imply that there was a problem with your edits. It just put the article into a group of articles that had been edited by people closely connected to the subjects. From what I see in the article right now, it looks very neutral and factual, so I think you are ok with the article as it is now. Arakunem ^Talk 21:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much. You were very helpful and encouraging. Have a good day. Gerard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotu ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 19:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

sorry for the vandalism i won't do it again.

Thanks for reverting on my user page too :) Gail ( talk) 16:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I am very sorry for giving you a hard time. Please accept my humble apologies. 140.174.9.14 ( talk) 15:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Huh...encountered a lot in vandal fighting today! Could you do me a favour by reporting 87.203.133.133? I would, but I'm using IE w/o Twinkle. :/ Cheers. Sincerely, Imperat§ r^{( Talk)} 00:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Ugh...bad link. Here's the correct one. [3] :) Cheers. Imperat§ r^{( Talk)} 00:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Already blocked! Thanks! Arakunem ^Talk 00:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Shows do not meet speedy deletion criteria. I put a prod on it. Schuym1 ( talk) 19:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I was just restoring the tag that the page creator had deleted though. Arakunem ^Talk 19:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply