User talk:Kent Westlund

The subject company is notable; reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it... my article linked to several articles in major publications... http://www.forbes.com/sites/marciaturner/2016/10/18/lularoes-secret-to-becoming-a-direct-sales-powerhouse-facebook-live/ Kent Westlund (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's very discouraging to spend an afternoon working on a contribution, only for it to be deleted near-instantly and without any discussion.Kent Westlund (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the company's growth, the article mentioned overloaded IT systems and delays receiving inventory. I don't think anyone would read that as a compliment. Kent Westlund (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article also mentioned comparisons of the firm’s business model to that of a pyramid scheme. Doesn't seem like unambiguous advertising. Kent Westlund (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The small criticism section stated such things as fact like "incredible growth" contributed to delays getting inventory and that the company does not meet the definition of the pyramid scheme. It was largely unsourced and included very promotional language throughout. The criticisms section appeared to be an afterthought and written/placed in such a way that it was not at all negative toward the company. It appeared to be there only to make the argument that the article wasn't promotional, even though the entirely unsourced body of the article was filled with overtly promotional language. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criticisms mentioned were: 1) Pyramid Scheme Comparisons, 2) High Minimum Investment 3) Lack of Financial of Transparency 4) Growing Pains (leading to overloaded IT and shipping delays), 5) Inconsistent Product Sizing, 6) Variable Product Quality. I was careful not to call the firm a pyramid scheme, because it has the same business structure as Amway and other MLM firms.Kent Westlund (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, while I was writing the article I was concerned that I was being too hard on the company and was spending too much time on the various criticisms. In any case, if the article read a bit too positive, shouldn't the article have been flagged as such, rather than being deleted without a trace? I can understand why a Speedy Deletion feature is needed, but surely this isn't the kind of issue it is intended for? Kent Westlund (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My article didn't actually say "incredible growth"... it said "LuLaRoe’s explosive growth in 2015 and 2016 lead to the company struggling to keep up with demand. New and existing consultants have reported difficulty with overloaded IT systems and delays receiving inventory." Forbes magazine said: "The near-startup is on track to hit $1 billion in sales this year – yes, that’s billion with a “b” – and has been growing at an average rate of 25% per month for the last 24 months..." My article was more restrained than Forbes, I think. Kent Westlund (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before this discussion continues, perhaps it would be well to remind you about our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure . this are considerable more exact rules than when you first joined WP, so you should review them DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The FAQ on disclosure of paid contributions is interesting, but it doesn't apply in this situation because I am an unpaid volunteer, and entirely unaffiliated with the subject company. I infer from your message that my contribution was vaporized because it was incorrectly flagged as a paid edit. Kent Westlund (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So where do I go from here? I feel like half a day of my effort has been flushed, because my work was mistakely assumed to be a paid article. Isn't there supposed to be an assumption of good faith? Kent Westlund (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really asking us to believe that purely as a volunteer, with no connection to the company, you wrote an article on the firm that included the sentence "LuLaRoe’s fashion consultants now total about 35,000, with thousands more waiting to join the team."? This is pure advertising. If you did it as a volunteer, you nonetheless created advertising for them. The article was deleted as advertising,and would have been deleted as such, regardless of who wrote it. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a volunteer with no connection to the company. Back in October, a Forbes magazine article said: "To-date, the company has signed up more than 24,000 fashion consultants and an additional 16,000-18,000 are waiting to be added to the team". Pure advertising? Or a relevant factual statement? http://www.forbes.com/sites/marciaturner/2016/10/18/lularoes-secret-to-becoming-a-direct-sales-powerhouse-facebook-live/ Kent Westlund (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I was a shill for the company, would my article have included the sentence: "Some customers have found LuLaRoe clothing to be disappointing in terms of workmanship; reporting prints that do not line up across seams, thin fabric, tiny holes, and otherwise defective materials." ? Kent Westlund (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kent, I've restored the article (or am about to, rather) to

WP:G11, and if substantial changes are not made to it, I or another admin may re-delete it after a reasonable period of time. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok thanks Rob; I will make the changes you have suggested. Kent Westlund (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Kent, that articles was published as part of Forbes, but they do not claim editorial responsibility for it:

"Marcia Layton Turner , CONTRIBUTOR. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." this is an advertorial, and best seen as the perversion of honest journalism--because just as you did, most readers will not pay attention to the disclaimer--even though Forbes put it right at the top, or if they do notice it, will not understand its significance. There is similar content in many otherwise reliable sources--most notably perhaps in the Huffington Post, which we no longer recognize as a reliable source for Biographies. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that Forbes article is just a paid advertisement then I was taken in. It does seem to be on the gushy side. Kent Westlund (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2017 (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 SwisterTwister was:

This submission appears to

independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability

of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Deleted this week for clear advertising and the "criticism" section is especially outweighed by the other advertising, because it simply focuses with what would be advertised to clients, and the sources are simply business announcements, interviews, press releases and similar; there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone.

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:LuLaRoe
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 23:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at

Draft:LuLaRoe. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at

Draft:LuLaRoe. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 00:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at

Draft:LuLaRoe. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 00:59, 22 January 2017 (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 Zppix was:

This submission appears to

independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability

of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:LuLaRoe
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 03:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Kent Westlund, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 03:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [Draft:LuLaRoe]]:

Per SwisterTwister's advice, I've removed the following references that came from regional newspapers: - The Daily Express - The Indianapolis Star - The Times Leader - The Democrat and Chronicle - The Times Herald

I've retained the references from major independent news publications: - Forbes Magazine - The Boston Globe - Business Insider

I've retained the references that highlighted controversies: - Consumer Reports - Pacific Standard - Saving Advice - Racked

I've removed these two reference that don't mention LuLaRoe by name: - USA Today - Federal Trade Commission

I've removed this reference that SwisterTwister called a blog: - Yahoo Style

Kent Westlund (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Pinging addressee. --JustBerry (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at

Draft:LuLaRoe. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Kent Westlund (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at

Draft:LuLaRoe. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 29 January 2017 (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 DrStrauss was:

Still reads like

unnecessary citations

thrown in to appear notable.

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:LuLaRoe
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DrStrauss talk 13:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not keep adding citations to https://www.forbes.com/sites/ to

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in

notable

and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Still sounds a bit like an advert. Except a few news publications, I can't find other reliable sources to support such an article

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:LuLaRoe
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Yashovardhan (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kent Westlund. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]