Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Patagonia (clothing). While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Grayfell ( talk) 01:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I am new on Wikipedia. I got strated today. Could you explain what you mean by 'soapboxing'? I am a researcher and practitioner in the area of branding with 25 years experience and wanted to sharre some of that expertise on wikipedia, since I use it often. I do not and have never worked for Patagonia and the sources I cite are articles and books published by authoritative publishers or posts that draw on the latter and clearly indicating their sources. Or they simply store them online (vs paper version). Can you explain how that constitutes spam, advertising and the other labels you use? I saw that sites like MarketingProfs, Strategy Insider or Ueberbrands are used frequently in citations across Wikipedia. Thanks for your help. Markaestus ( talk) 02:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello. Wikipedia welcomes expert editors, but verifiability and neutrality are core principles.

You added this to the article: Patagonia is an outstanding and admired example of a mission-driven company that sets business goals which go beyond economic growth and the creation of shareholder return. Regardless of your motives, this is totally unacceptable language for a Wikipedia article for many reasons. Are you sincerely confused about how this comes off as promotional?

As I mention below, every one of your additions has involved adding a link masstoclass.wordpress.com. Please explain why you are doing that. As a blog, this is what's known in Wikipedia jargon as a WP:SPS, a self-published source. If JP Kuehlwein and Wolfgang Schaefer are recognized experts, their opinions could be considered for inclusion only with clear attribution, and only if there is some specific reason their opinion would be relevant beyond simple expertise. By this I mean that having many years of experience doesn't by itself mean that their opinion should be included. Their expertise would also have to be either established enough to suggest that they meet a notability guideline ( WP:NBIO) specifically as experts, or would have to be explained in the article. This would require

secondary sources, not their own websites.

Even if you have no connection to Patagonia, if you have a connection to JP Kuehlwein, Wolfgang Schaefer, or anyone else you cite, you still have a WP:COI, and it's still worth extra caution. COI or no, promotional language, as you added above, is never acceptable on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertising. Does that answer your questions? Grayfell ( talk) 02:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

(Copied from User talk:Grayfell): I understand now "admired and outstanding" are the language issue and the masstoclass blog not being a primary source is the other. How can I take out that language and change the citation then? Or is it all 'wiped out' and I have to start from scratch? I can cite articles from FastCompany, The New York Times, The Guardian or books by Godin or Stengel and many many more that talk about Patagonia as an early mission led and activist company (examples: https://www.fastcompany.com/1749656/patagonia-power-brand-transparency ; https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/patagonia-values-led-business-benefit-corp). This aspect is not mentioned in the Wiki entry and is a fundamental outage when it comes to explaining the success of this company. Markaestus ( talk) 02:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Please, before you go any further, disclose any connection you have with Kuehlwein or Schaefer, since you have cited them in every article you have edited. Wikipedia has very important guidelines regarding conflict of interest editing, especially editing which involves compensation (per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure). If you are not acting transparently on this, you are not acting ethically. I'm sorry if that's condescending, it's a big issue and a major problem, and I don't take it lightly. You may find Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide helpful.

Your contributions are still in the article's histories. You could restore them, but please don't until this discussion has been resolved.

Fundamental outrage? According to who? Wikipedia doesn't use WP:BUZZWORDs to describe things. We don't endorse business models or practices. We should reflect, neutrally, what a company does and how it does it in concrete terms, as reflected by reliable, independent sources. This content should be in proportion to such sources, per WP:DUE. If it's a "fundamental outrage", it should be possible to present this neutrally based on reliable sources. Your proposals so far have not been neutral. Grayfell ( talk) 04:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Grayfell - I can definitely see that you are 'not taking it lightly'. 'Outrage' was a typo/wrong auto-correct. What I meant (and still do) was 'outage.' And this was just my comment to you editors, not something I wrote in the article: There is an outage in the descriptions on branding and marketing on Wikipedia when it comes to modern approaches (ie. those that have been developed and applied in the past 10-20 years). The 4P model was developed in the early 60ies and event the additions discussed are from the early 80ies. A lot has happened since then. And that is not a personal opinion. Just go to the Marketing bookshelf and look at the five dozen 'new classics' that have emerged since then, open any AdvertisingAge (publication) issue and read the fans of the Ehrenberg-Bass school of thinking fighting it out with the believers in the Purpose model or segmentation/targeted marketing. One core theme (among many) is the importance of 'Mission' in Marketing. An that is one of my areas of expertise.

As to my connections with Kuehlwein, Schaefer, Spence, Stengel and others I am quoting. Yes, I absolutely have worked with them (Kuehlwein/Schaefer) and for them (Stengel) or have seen them at work/hear them talk (Spence, Godin, Kawasaki, many others) and sought to apply their principles/followed their guidance. And yes, I have researched Patagonia, Ben & Jerry's, Brunello Cucinelli and probably a hundred other brands and possibly worked on/with some of them in the past (none I have mentioned in articles so far, though). Does that really create a COI or disqualify me, though? I am NOT intending to sell their goods/services (and I doubt that a Wiki entry under Brand Management would sell more $2,000 cashmere sweaters by BC) and do NOT intend to go beyond a professional and contextual observation of what/how/why Brands/Marketers are doing. Is working with/having worked with, following/applying the work of others a COI? Can students not write about their professors? Caan professors not write about other professors?... or about the brands they research or that their students research? Can practitioners write neither about the brands nor the books nor the people they have studied? I understand that you are not to write about yourself or your brand. I have a hard time with the other perspective on COI.

I might not find your comments 'condescending' but I do find them de-motivating and I do not find them as constructive as they could be. I set down and spend some significant time crafting afew sentences and providing ample and detailed citations to support them. And 10 minutes later I find everything to be just reverted back with a short comment "stop the spam". It looks, for example, that instead of providing a link through masstoclass.wordpress which I did to allow people to actually access the academic texts I cite, your recommendation would be to just quote the journals and have people figure out by themselves how to find the texts (Henry Stewart, for example demands an online subscription or sells you the paper journal). It also seems that you do not like one editor to lean on the same set of authors more than once. Then ask the editor to use more/diverse sources, etc. - Even though you need to acknowledge that I just started and have barely written a dozen lines. I consider having cited five authors and a dozen books/articles to support those lines not that bad. If, however, your role/aim is not to coach how to improve the editing but rather to simply police it, then I understand. Thanks for you time, either way. I'll have to decide if I want to invest limited time in trying to contribute via this painful way of trial/error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markaestus ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, I apologize for the delay in replying.

On a strictly technical level, sources need to be verifiable, but paywalls, being offline-only, registration-required, etc. do not invalidate a source. Likewise, we do not require sources to be in English (although as the English Wikipedia, we obviously prefer that). If masstoclass.wordpress has a clearl, legitimate right to republish these articles, the links could be considered as a courtesy, but they do not influence reliability or due weight at all. After the threshold of verifiability has been met, they must still be evaluated in proportion to their prominence, reliability, and similar. That's the main problem I have.

Conflicts of interest are not simple, nor are they black/white. The problem is not limited to selling the products, although that is a big deal, and you absolutely do have a COI for brands you have directly worked for. The problem here is also about promoting a specific perspective in Wikipedia's voice. That it's a perspective you are affiliated with means this is a COI. This doesn't mean you shouldn't ever edit a topic, but it means you need to approach this openly and with some amount of caution.

A link to a journal in the marketing article isn't going to sell more sweaters, and I don't think anyone is worried about that. It is going to inflate the prominence of the journal and its authors. COI isn't just about selling products and services, it's about promotion in a much broader sense. The content you added, such as with this edit to Marketing, was presenting vague statements as simple facts. As one example, saying something is "particularly relevant" is a form of editorializing. The use of quotation marks without clear attribution is, likewise, adding your opinions as fact. Who, exactly, is calling it "meaning beyond the material"? By stripping that of its author and context, you are making the editorial choice to highlight this concept in Wikipedia's voice. That it was supported by references to people you personally know and work with makes this serious problem even worse.

As for Wikipedia's shortcomings regarding marketing: you're right, they are a mess. The problem is much, much deeper than this discussion, however.

Many issues that need to be considered when considering how to update these articles. One is that Wikipedia isn't the bleeding edge of information, although it sometimes seems that way. (This is especially true with pop-culture, as I'm sure you've noticed if you've ever looked-up a movie or TV series). This is, still, an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source. Content needs to reflect the academic consensus of the topic in proportion to due weight and an eye to the long-view. Old models and information are still relevant, and are almost always better covered by reliable sources. This is what we have to work with.

Another issue is that as a general-audience encyclopedia, Articles must present overviews from a neutral perspective. Deep-dives into the material need to be balanced carefully. Likewise, as we evaluate reliable sources, we have to consider if there are published expert opinions outside of the specific field. There are reputable published business experts, economists, sociologists, etc. who treat the concept of a "mission-driven company" with suspicion, to put it mildly. As an expert in this, I'm sure you're already aware of these perspectives. If Wikipedia says, as you added, [1] The company was a pioneer in introducing 'corporate tithing'... we have used a narrow sample of supportive sources to validated a controversial concept through peacock words. This is fundamentally non-neutral for many reasons.

I hope that's helpful. Grayfell ( talk) 21:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Grayfell - I have some quiet time during the holidays, re-read all your instructions and gave the edit of the Patagonia entry another try. I perceive that I eliminated anything that might sound like an opinion. I added a citation for calling the company a 'mission-based' company. I eliminated 'pioneer' and replaced it with 'early' - I judge that description is justified since I provide references that they started in the 80ies, were the first California b-corp, a reputable global newspaper headlines them as such, as well, etc. It you judge that the term 'early' is not justified, then could you eliminate/replaace JUST that word (and other words or citations you do not like) versus deleting my entire contributions again? That would be encouraging. I will wait a few days to see what you censor and then if/how I want to spend more of my time contributing to wikipedia. Many thanks and Happy Holidays.

Hello. Links to masstoclass.wordpress.com are not reliable sources, and adding many links to the same site is indistinguishable from spamming. Spamming is prohibited on Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with this site, you have a WP:COI and should avoid directly editing on this topic. Thank you. Grayfell ( talk) 01:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

An article you recently created, JP Kuehlwein, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed ( verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CUPIDICAE💕 12:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by PK650 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Does not satisfy WP:PROF either.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:JP Kuehlwein and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:JP Kuehlwein, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

PK650 ( talk) 00:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, Markaestus! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! PK650 ( talk) 00:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, Markaestus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:JP Kuehlwein, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 17:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. You admitted above to have a conflict of interest with the authors whose books you keep adding to articles. This is promotional so please stop. ThaddeusSholto ( talk) 19:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ThaddeusSholto ( talk) 20:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply