User talk:LoreSteenmans(CDSB)

Climate Disclosure Standards Board
Your edit summary said "CDSB is moving forward and adjusting its focus. This involves rebranding our image, and therefore the introductory paragraph on wiki was changed to correctly represent our work." Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so not a place to rebrand your organisation- your organisation does not own the Wikipedia article about it, per WP:OWN. Wikipedia works by adding information verified by reliable sources- you should not replaced properly sourced content with unsourced content, as you did at Climate Disclosure Standards Board. Finally, please read WP:COI- it strongly discourages you from directly editing this article, but suggests that you should use the article talk page to submit edit requests instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reworking your editing contribution!
I think your edits post-June 5th were well balanced. I also like that you put the name of the place you represent right in your user name. It inspired me to share my perspective and advice. Due to chronic illness, I'm pretty random and might not respond to any reply you give, but use Notifications and I might make it back here.

As the previous editor said, Conflict of interest (COI) is a good page for more information on the unique help people who represent the subject of an article can deliver to creating a well balanced article.

If you see more changes that objectively should be made, here's my personal advice:
 * 1) Focus on creating a good set of suggestions on the article's talk page.
 * 2) Create a user page that acknowledges the concerns of COI-monitoring editors and expresses your desire to represent your organization's being a good corporate citizen.
 * 3) Drop the PR-speak & corporate jargon. Readers not in the field won't understand it ("aligning" is still mostly a puzzle to me in the context you gave), and to some experienced editors here it just screams, "I'm an advertisement! Remooooove meeeee!"
 * 4) Give what the...unaligned Wikipedia editors? Heh. Give them what they need to want to incorporate your suggestions in the proper, unbiased, non-insider wording. You and I and all the rest are volunteers here. State what needs to be done, item by item. Follow each item with how you would make each edit it in your best imitation of Wikipedian style. Lastly, again item by item, suggest some good, preferably non-primary sources to speed their task. If you offer both thoughtfully positive and critical references, you'll gain goodwill.
 * 5) Continue to make small edits when you catch outright mistakes. Make them as simple as possible, with good references when needed.
 * 6) If you want to go the extra mile, consider what media your organization could donate to the Wikimedia Commons that would naturally appeal to editors and encourage them to augment any articles relevant to your organization or its focus. See how the Louvre Museum has donated media throughout the Commons and Wikidata for an example of participating actively without causing a COI. Oo, better yet, see the GLAM initiative ("galleries, libraries, archives, and museums") in general.
 * If you explain in the Description area how to verify your company's release of the media, keep the description neutral AND you make sure that your branding isn't on it (unless it's an image of your logo itself), editors will feel good will towards both the organization and the media and be more likely to use it, especially on sites such as the Japanese Wikipedia where the copyright laws are much more strict.
 * It's a small return at first, but the better looking an article is, the more likely the average reader is willing to read past the first line. Therefore, helping editors to want to make articles on the environment in general more attractive boosts long-term user education.
 * You could also ask the Project for your topic what media your company could donate that would help them, help articles in your area of focus, and not cause a COI. Hardly anybody ever does that, so they might be cautious, but it could work well. Giving them the above Louvre & Wikipedia:GLAM examples might help.

That's all the ideas your work and my experience inspired. Sorry it's a rough data-dump. I'll be delighted if this helps you or someone else who runs into this! --Geekdiva (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)