Talk:Mary Kay/Archive 1

message: When posting here in the Talk section please add four tildes ~~~~ to the end of your post so it is dated and easier to differentiate from other posts. --WikiWikiP 20:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:SIG | Please Sign Your Posts!]]

message: Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset is a good place to start.
Or for more details..
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Wikipedia:Verifiability
Wikipedia:No original research
Wikipedia:Reliable sources
From Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources..
Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor.
=== Function of the Talk Page ===
The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page.
Wikipedia:Talk Page Guidelines
Wikipedia:Talk Page
Focus on discussing the article, not the subject, nor authors, nor their websites on this page.
67.136.137.114 07:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked through the history page of this Talk Page and discovered that a number of comments have been deleted, or edited by individuals other than the one that posted them. There are three options here.  Firstly, ignore any and all discussion on the Talk Page, and simply edit and revert information in the main article;  Secondly, provide explanations here, knowing that they will either be distorted, or deleted, the next time one edits the main page;  Thirdly, abandon this article, because the pro-MK side, and the anti-MK side will not even agree on the basic facts about Mary Kay Cosmetics.
Amber luxor 17:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has everyone completely forgetten what Wikipedia is????  This is an encyclopedia.  It is for a completely factual and neutral entry about the company.  These inflammatory terms like "inventory loading" are inappropriate.  A section entitled "Criticism of the Company" is absolutely laughable.  I don't care which side of the fence you are on, can you at least be a little intelligent about this???  Facts, strictly facts.  Not comments about how one thing or another screws over the consultants.  Just the facts - what is offered, what it costs, the history of the company, the different levels.  Leave it at that.  The silly commentary (generally done by the anti-MK side) is completely inappropriate. Give it a rest! BlueAmy 05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Copying from the Talk History page "2006-12-05T15:45:09 4.246.207.142 (Talk) (Reverting to last edit by HagermanBot. This constant censorship even in the talk pages should tell people something.)"  Who else find it ironical that that edit was a deletion of a comment?  : It also reflects the gulf between the two sides.   Maybe abandonment is best.
Amber luxor 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am really annoyed that my comments are changed to reflect views other than those I wrote. 
Amber luxor 05:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apology accepted.  Amber luxor 06:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Rules - Have you read them?

message: The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page.
Wikipedia:Talk Page Guidelines
Wikipedia:Talk Page
Focus on discussing the article, not the subject, nor authors, nor their websites on this page.
67.136.137.114 07:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked through the history page of this Talk Page and discovered that a number of comments have been deleted, or edited by individuals other than the one that posted them. There are three options here.  Firstly, ignore any and all discussion on the Talk Page, and simply edit and revert information in the main article;  Secondly, provide explanations here, knowing that they will either be distorted, or deleted, the next time one edits the main page;  Thirdly, abandon this article, because the pro-MK side, and the anti-MK side will not even agree on the basic facts about Mary Kay Cosmetics.
Amber luxor 17:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has everyone completely forgetten what Wikipedia is????  This is an encyclopedia.  It is for a completely factual and neutral entry about the company.  These inflammatory terms like "inventory loading" are inappropriate.  A section entitled "Criticism of the Company" is absolutely laughable.  I don't care which side of the fence you are on, can you at least be a little intelligent about this???  Facts, strictly facts.  Not comments about how one thing or another screws over the consultants.  Just the facts - what is offered, what it costs, the history of the company, the different levels.  Leave it at that.  The silly commentary (generally done by the anti-MK side) is completely inappropriate. Give it a rest! BlueAmy 05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Copying from the Talk History page "2006-12-05T15:45:09 4.246.207.142 (Talk) (Reverting to last edit by HagermanBot. This constant censorship even in the talk pages should tell people something.)"  Who else find it ironical that that edit was a deletion of a comment?  : It also reflects the gulf between the two sides.   Maybe abandonment is best.
Amber luxor 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am really annoyed that my comments are changed to reflect views other than those I wrote. 
Amber luxor 05:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apology accepted.  Amber luxor 06:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Function of the Talk Page 

message: If you have a new entry in the article that does not currently have a reference, at the end of the entry (end of line, sentence, paragraph) you add something like the following:
Mary Kay Corporate Press Kit 2006
AND then later in the article if you have to reference this same item/document at the end of the entry (end of line, sentence, paragraph) you simply add:

This will create one footnote entry for the source of reference and add numbers to it to link to each time it is referenced in the article. More details can be found at WP:FN. --WikiWikiP 19:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HOW-TO Cite Your Source or Add References/Footnotes at End of Article

message: Amber luxor wrote this on: 22:17, 1 January 2007 Amber luxor (Talk | contribs) "(Revewrted to a vfersion tanht the Kay bots hate, becuase it reprewents a more accur4ate picture of Mary Kay Inc)"
Could we please pay attention to what is being done here on this article?  Let's refrain from name-calling.  Yes, "Kay bots" is name-calling.  Amber luxor does not necessarily write the most NPOV.  The statement above clearly shows a bias against Mary Kay Cosmetics. 
I have deleted a couple of specific portions because there is no verifiable source for those statements.  I have also edited a couple of words here and there to reflect a greater degree of accuracy and NPOV.  The history on the article will show the specifics.  
Is it really necessary to do the whole revert thing when simply editing a couple of words or phrases will reflect accuracy and NPOV?  Enough already.  Rsue 06:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will delete the section PinkTruth on sight. Every version of it has been POV.  It looks like it is being added purely to get around the current consensus that this article is to have no external links that are not references for information cited in this article. Amber luxor 04:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If way2happy continues editing the article to include the pinktruth site there are other ways to deal with it on wikipedia if you are interested, read the help section. If they do it more than a few times in a given period of time there are consequences. Look into the Help section of Wikipedia, it may be difficult to find but its there. There are also templates you can use to officially warn users, I'm not completely familiar with them but if this continues, I may have to become familiar. Now you also have to deal with 66.174.79.235 and x.x.x.234 reverting back to the previous version of this article. While I agree that this current version needs work, not sure that it should be completely reverted. --WikiWikiP 05:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The version that the anonymous person is reverting to is far better than the current one.  I agree that we should revert to that version, and then start adding these things.  The current article has so many ridiculous and irrelevant sections (as noted below) that it is horrible.  So let's revert and then add things back slowly.  This guy who has put all this crap up and now insists that we can't delete or change is being ridiculous. BlueAmy 07:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which sections are irrelevant, and why are they irrelevant?
* Company History is redundant, since the tables "Markets Mary Kay is In", and "Mary Kay Sales Figures" contains the same data;
* The section "Products" needs to be fleshed out;
** As far as the Date Codes go, I purchased a product with a date code of 2C20 earlier this year.  Keep it in, as a "public service"; 
* The entire section "The Sales Force" needs to be copy edited;
* The "Rewards" section is missing information about the Mink Coat. PETA originally protested the Mink Coats that Mary Kay Ash gave out --- not the animal testing;
* There are some issues that "Criticism of the Company" does not list. See the section "Controversy Section Discussion" on this page for more details;
* The section "Cultural Influence" is iffy. At least two images of Mary Kay have found their way into popular culture. The "Pink Cadillac" was immortalized in a popular song;
* There is information in this article that Mary Kay (Corporate) will probably want πeople not know about. "The Ninety Day Clause" being an obvious example.
Amber luxor 18:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I reverted the entire article.  Discuss and edit sections.
Amber luxor 06:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe the Date Code section can be formatted differently so it doesn't take up so much space. Formatted more horizontal than the way it currently is, vertical. --WikiWikiP 19:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I converted the date code into a table. [For RSue, I took care of that stale product a couple of months ago.]
Amber luxor 23:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Both "Inventory Loading" and "Front Loading" are standard jargon within the MLM Industry.  The issue --- both within Mary Kay, and other MLMs --- is how inventory can be reasonably sold within a reasonable period of time. Go back up that "Wholesale Volume Consultant Figure" and for the US in 2005, it is $1,818.
Can a business case be made that the average consultant will sell more than $1800 of product in a year?  That is sapphire level.
Amber luxor 23:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a place to debate the legalities of Mary Kay or opinions about sales and recruiting tactics.  As such, this article shall be kept unbiased and factual. BlueAmy 02:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hold on a minute. Removing terms from an article because you disagree with the people that use them is POV. Don't do that. Leave the terms and explain why they are used by critics. That's the right way. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: For BlueAmy and RSuse.  One of the controversies with Mary Kay, is whether or not it operates within the confines of US Federal Law. One issue that hasn't been mentioned in the talk page, or the main page, is whether or not the contracts with Mary Kay are legally binding, or not --- which is the core issue in Blackmon-Dunda v Mary Kay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.136.137.130 (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: While the section needs work to remove excessive quoting and WP:OR -- hell, the whole article needs work -- exclusion is not a way to improve the article. Fox News is arguably a suitable media source under policy. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with what the source said. It matters that the material and source are notable. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting Sections / Reverting the Article

message: This is possibly the worst Wikipedia entry I have ever read.  There are way too many stats that just repeat themselves, spelling errors and non-neutral language, as well as too many cliches.  Shame on whoever wrote it!  Sarah Wepman Sarah Wepman 00:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a major rewrite done by an anonymous user over the past few days. The previous version of the article is here.. Revision as of 03:43, 11 October 2006 by 70.223.50.124. I haven't taken the time to read the new version to give an opinion. --WikiWikiP 01:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the rewrite is absolutely horrible.  What is this guy doing?  He is posting a zillion revisions to his own horrible rewrite.  Lets revert to the original article and make SMALL revisions as necessary, and lets make sure that kid backs off. 66.174.79.233 02:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it all really crap? I mean besides the spelling and grammar, isn't there quite a bit of new and good content? Spelling and grammar can be corrected if thats the only issue. The Notes/References at the bottom are all messed up too. 68.120.230.131 04:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: One of the founding principles of Wikipedia was Be Bold in Editing.  Obviously somebody was very bold in their editing here.  Correct the misspellings, and the grammar.  Look at what needs to be edited, and at what is  missing: 
* The "unknown" tags in the Mary Kay Sales Figure Table need to be filled in;
* The income figure for 2003, and 2004 need to be corrected. The 2003 cite says "nearly 1.8 billion dollars.  The 2004 cite says "just over 1.8 billion dollars.  This obviously contradicts the statement "Other than the period from 1979 thru 1985, the company has reported double digit growth every year" found in the second paragraph of Company History;
* Directors and court cases for the section The 90 Day Clause;  
* An online link to the following documents:
** The Beauty Consultant Contract;
** The Director's Contract;
** The Mary Kay Corporate Press Kit 2004;
** The Mary Kay Corporate Press Kit 2005;
** Mary Kay (Canada) Reported Earnings for 2004;
** Brochure: Your Future in Mary Kay;
** Brochure: Mary Kay Career Car Plan Guidelines: February 2005;
** Brochure: Mary Kay Career Car Insurance Program: August 2005;
jonathon 00:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Who is Jonathon Blake? Where does it show that this person made these edits? The references for this article are way way way out of control, the same referenced material shouldn't be replicated so many times, instead it should be named once and have numerous references to that single entry. Perhaps you should register a username here, your opinion may carry a bit more weight (or not). I'm still overwhelmed by the article, can it all really be nonsense? The previous article was much more readable, but doesn't necessarily mean it was better. I'm the one that did the majority of that previous article, but not sure that I'm ready to revert back to it myself or put much time into merging them. If you feel strongly enough about reverting back to it, go for it, but be prepared for some backlash. Again, register a username here at wikipedia (although the person that did this major rewrite was IP only and no username). Perhaps the person responsible for this latest major rewrite should register a username here too so its easier carry on a discussion. After all you did to the article, please do, why not? --WikiWikiP 04:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The "crazy numbers" relate to the size of Mary Kay, in terms of wholesale sales volume, or number of Consultants, Directors, and Nationals. These, in turn, relate directly to the issues of front loading and  market saturation; 67.136.147.125 04:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The current version of the article contains everything that was in the article before the rewrite that started 9 October 2006 --- with the exception of the external links, which are in the middle of an edit war that started in Auguest; 67.136.147.125 04:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Article Discussion

message: In the general discussion section above it was mentioned that it might not be a bad idea to add separate section to this article titled "Controversy". A good example of this is in the Amway article. And as I mentioned above, it is well written and even though it is Controversy, it remains written in as  NPOV (neutral point of view) as is possible, and it refrains from getting emotional and personal. Those of you that are leaning more towards the anti-MK side if you are interested in doing the same for the MK article, please keep this in mind. Also consider  registering at Wikipedia to take responsibility for your posts and to make it easier to recognize who is involved in the discussions here (four tildes will sign your post with your login name). --WikiWikiP 18:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rsue, don't delete comments other people make in the talk section.  Also sign your name when you do add something in the talk section.
The question: "How many times in the last twenty years has Daphne Lewis been a featured speaker at Seminar?" is legitimate, in a discussion on whether or not Mary Kay emphasizes recruiting over, or at the expense of retail sales. The fact that she has only spoken once at seminar, despite being the perpetual Queen of Court of Sales does have implications here. 
Likewise the question "Why is Ms Lewis the perpetual Queen of Court of Sales?" is relevant both because of the low population density of where she lives, and her (MS Lewis's) stated desire to not keep that title, in terms of whether or not Mary Kay emphasizes recruiting over retail sales.
64.40.60.88 02:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: a) Ms Lewis has expressed that desire to no longer be Queen of Court of Sales in several of her training sessions on retailing MK Products.
b) I would strongly urge you to spend several hours reading what, where, and when the wikipedia guidelines apply.
24.18.201.137 02:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In Re Kescott (86 F.T.C. 1106) esentially ruled that all MLMs were pyramid shemes. In Re Amway (93 F.T.C. 618) essentially said that if an MLM met specific criteria, it was not a pyramid scheme. Those criteria have become known as "The Amway Safe Harbour Defence", and, as such, are case law.
Amber luxor 23:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Re Koscott (86 F.T.C. 1106) the ruling was the MLMs were not legal. In Re Amway (93 F.T.C. 618) the court essentailly said that if you follow these guidelines, you are not a pyramid scheme.  In Webster v. Omnitrition, 79F.3d 776, 782, 784 (9th Cir, 1996) the court ruled that having a set of rules is not enough. The rules must also be enforced. Since then, the FTC has braodened its defintion of what is unacceptable. One point that they have made very clear is that adherence to "The Amway Safe Harbour Rules" does not suffice.  Since 1996, their strategy has been more along the lines of filing the take down order, then going to court. 67.136.137.140 03:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Section Discussion

message: : I seek to remove the biased and irrelevant information from the article.  That is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyblue (talk • contribs) 
:: AmyBlue you have done eight page reverts in the last twenty four hours. One a day is considered excessive.  Three reverts in 24 hour period is grounds for blocking.
:: You have not provide any objective reason for deleting any of the controversial issues. You have not provided any objective reasons for considering the deleted material to be irrelevent.
Amber luxor 04:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think she's reverting because she doesn't buy into the whole "because Jonathon/Amber said so" theory.  Jonathon/Amber - you're the one who wrecked this article to begin with, making 100 or so changes to it within a week.  I think it's time for you to back off and let the rational people deal with this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.174.93.104 (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except what is being reverted is information that is sourced.  And the reverts include information that is demonstrably false.
Amber luxor 16:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Three Revert Rule

message: A last note just to clearify.  I have removed my commentary and ceased editing the article in main because of 1) constant, repeated vandalism and deletion of information in the "Criticism" section by those who do not want anything negative to be known about this company.  I believe this is because they either want the victimizing of innocent women and their families (esp. inventory loading and the subsequent debt in most cases) to continue so that they can profit therefrom or they are simply malicious roaming vandals with nothing better to do with their time, 2) the failure of Wikipedia Admins to stop these proven vandals.  What's the point of contributing under these circumstances?  The editor of PT simply did not want to be associated with the article in any way as it is and I can fully understand.  
My recommendations are that 1) either the "Criticism" section be locked or the criticism section be given its own page to be edited by the anti-MK side but with arguments hashed out by both sides in the Talk section first and 2) that the vandal(s) who have had repeated warnings (see their personal talk pages) be dealt with.
If anyone wants to see what the Criticism section looked like before the current "editing" they can find it here.
If any one wants to see what the Talk page looked like before they can find it here. 
If anyone wants to find out the other side of the issue they can visit these sites:
*My Mary Kay Truth
*Pink Truth
*Pink Lighthouse
*The Pinking Shears
*Mary Kay Voices
There is another side besides the company line (I know from the personal experience of a family member), that deserves a fair hearing here just as on any other controversial Wikipedia page.  
Hopefully this last comment won't itself be vandalized (see Wikipedia:Etiquette last point under "Here are a few things to bear in mind").  Apologies to any I may have personally offended. 4.246.201.148 17:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I Stopped Editing This Article

message: Do you have to have an adminstrator to lock the article so that newly registered people or people who do not have an account cannot edit the article?  I think that would help keep the vandalism down a little bit anyways? 
Eric 18:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested that this article be Semi-Protected because of constant vandalistic edit wars between many users. Eric 03:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock this Page 

message: Please remember that when you are making edits on Wikipedia that this is an encyclopedia not a place for advertising.  We really should have more information about the company rather than having 85% of the article be about Criticism and court cases that don't even belong on Wikipedia. Eric 02:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I count 531 words in the pro-MK section.  The "Criticism" section has 554 words (including the initial statement in the "Inventory" section).  Pretty close.  Note I did not count the "Consultant Turnover Rate", "Woolf v Mary Kay Cosmetics", "The 90 Day Clause", or the "Inventory" sections as criticism since these are more historical/business fact. 4.246.206.60 15:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Woolf V Mary Kay" gets to the core of one criticism of Mary Kay. "In Re Amway" is the case law on the difference between a pyramid scheme, and an MLM. "Blackmon v Mary Kay" is a current court case involving an individual who was NIQ (National Director in Qualification) prior to being terminated for contractual violations. These cases form the legal foundation of the criticism of Mary Kay.67.136.147.109 18:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly these are not positive issues for MK but they are more of the nature of relatively obscure historical business events that have no real impact on the average consultant.  The criticism in the Criticism section is broader applies to everyone.  It is legitimate information that the new recruit especially should know (and be allowed to know) before plunking down hundreds or thousands of hard earned dollars on makeup. 4.246.204.171 19:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is too early to say what the exact fall out from "Blackmon v Mary Kay" is. The other two cases provide a framework from which legitimate criticism of the company can be constructed.  The material under the heading "Criticism of the Company" that is not under a subheading is more in the way of an "I Story", and as such, does not belong on Wikipedia. There shouldn't be more than 20 words to introduce "Criticism of the Company".67.136.137.104 20:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  The Pink Truth Blog contains memos that purportedly are from Mary Kay Corporate that demonstrate their concern about the criticism of MK on the anti-MK blogs. These issues affect both the short term, and long term viability of MK.67.136.147.109 18:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't believe that the Pink Truth blog is on the page is it? 4.246.204.171 19:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Pink Truth Blog is one of the sites listed in the notes section. 67.136.137.104 20:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Is the information from Pink Truth blog verifiable? Is it accurate? Is it disinformation? Compare the PDFs from Pink Truth Blog with those from InTouch. 67.136.147.124 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedia

message: Can somebody archive the talk page?67.136.147.154 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving the talk page 

message: This section is composed mainly of text copied verbatim from an article. I believe we should "cite" the source, and not copy it in its entirety. Someone should summarize what the sections of the article demonstrate (that Mary Kay is a pyramid scheme, MLM, etc.) and use a reference to point to smartmoney. I'm afraid something not copied will become POV, but I'll try to do my best to avoid that. fetofs Hello! 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the source being quoted on The Way Back Machine?  If so, have a link to that as an alternative, in case the original dissapears.67.136.147.124 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I just added/rewrote the section Earnings.  "Flopportunity" doesn't begin to describe the income that one can earn. 86% earned less than $100 Canadian in commission. Even coupled with a theoretical $4,257.93 gross retail income, (MK Wholesale sales in Canada divided by number of consultants in Canada) the financial picture looks bad.67.136.147.124 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the Company section 

message: Yep folks, here we go again!  Would someone please, please lock the article already?  These scammers are not going to leave it alone otherwise.  4.246.202.117 04:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Mary Kay Vandals Are Back!!!