Talk:XPO, Inc./Archives/2017

Thank you, @Diannaa!

Sincerely, thank you! After the ridiculousness that happened a few months ago with WKDash, I come back and check on the article every couple weeks to see whether or not he's returned. It looks like he didn't, but someone else did and posted a crapton of copyrighted stuff? Whatever it was, you rock for cleaning it up!

The other changes that the IP address made -- the ones you left -- aren't written very clearly and kinda, well... all the talk of proprietary-this and PR-speak-that is quite frustrating. I'm busy tomorrow, but I'm going to log in on Sunday and try to clean some of it up.

Thanks again!

Aussietommartin (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm such an idiot. I didn't see a way to notify myself whenever someone changes a page on my watchlist under my Notifications settings, not realizing that that option is under the main preferences at the bottom.

Le sigh.

Well, no more running back after two or three weeks and checking whether someone's been obnoxious. =) Aussietommartin (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, changes made! I did a final re-read of the article just now and... oh, boy is it dry. I think I've looked at it too long. I'm going to go edit some other stuff in the supply chain universe; try to learn more about the field so I can be a better editor. I also noticed a couple absences that would be cool to fill, like contract logistics -- there's not a page for that! I've never created my own article before, but maybe that's a good place to start? Dunno, I'll have to think about it.

Thanks again for helping out with those copyrighted edits, Dianna! Aussietommartin (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Potentially malicious removal of Awards and recognition section

I just reverted an edit by a user who deleted the entire Awards and recognition section. A cursory glance at this user's edit history and talk page shows a wealth of similar deletions across the site -- most of them quickly reverted by other users, and many resulting in frustrated conversations on his Talk page where he accuses anyone who doesn't agree with him of being malicious themselves. It's clearly a stance he's taken for quite some time, and equally clear that others don't agree with him.

Maybe the Awards and recognition section could do with some trimming, but actions like these feel angry and blunt. In the future, I'd encourage him to talk about possible changes of such magnitude on the relevant Talk pages before he implements them. Aussietommartin (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If you don't want to respect Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I will not respect it.

When I look a your contribution : You only contributed on subject related to XPO and related to Bradley S. Jacobs, the CEO of XPO (contributed to subject on the CEO of a entreprise is the archetype of a paid editor). Moreover you have deleted the negative aspect of the article and you don't accept the suppression of the promotional content about the article... So I'm very doubtful that you don't have a link (or a financial link) with XPO Logistics. I remind you, if have a financial link with a subject, the Termes of USe force you to deplace explicitely that you have a link with the subject.

I copy the text :

"Paid contributions without disclosure

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

a statement on your user page,

a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or

a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure.

A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page.

For more information, please read our FAQ on disclosure of paid contributions." --Nouill (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nouill,

You're right, I've only significantly contributed to two articles in the 1.5 years I've been an editor. I tried my hand at a few others early on, but found that going back and forth with other editors was exhausting. I never intended to work on these two for so long, but they -- especially this XPO article -- has become my baby. I tried stepping outside of them to do other ones, but my heart just wasn't in it. It IS in these, but only because I've spent so much time on them! I've written and rewritten, taking an article that used to be an advertising-filled monstrosity and slowly adding to it, evolving it. Take a look for yourself at what it was like before I stepped in. I like to go back every so often to see where things were.

I freely admit I've become protective of this page, and probably to my detriment. As you can see on this talk page, I've fended off malicious users in the past, and was grateful then to get the support of other Wikipedians. That's probably why I reacted so bluntly to you, and for that, I'm sorry! I try to be very aware of advertising language, but am also wary of going too far in the other direction. That's why I try to stick to the facts, and source absolutely everything I add. It seems safest.

I'm not being paid to write this, though I don't know how to prove it. All I can do is point to the full body of my edits, and hope they speak for themselves. I even agreed with you that the content you deleted came off as promotional, and deleted more than half of it. But I explained why I did this, as clearly as possible. I tried to provide context, because I believe context is important.

I'm frustrated that you used my example of Adaptive Insights to take down yet another Awards and recognition section on yet another article. Would you mind explaining why you feel that these sections are inappropriate on articles about companies, but not on articles about people or products? It seems that the focus of your edits is almost entirely on these sorts of sections, but you never provide a reason beyond "it's promotional." They are statements of fact, no more or less promotional than awards listings on biographical articles. What is the difference? Aussietommartin (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If I might chime in with my 2-cents. @Aussietommartin: I am glad to see you are so dedicated to maintaining this article. Is is clear the article has gained a lot from your efforts. But please do keep in mind that no single editor owns an article, and that removing content is also part of the editorial process.

and @Nouill: I am glad you continue to take such a strong interest in keeping advertisements out of WP. A noble cause. However, WP:CIVIL and "Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs" apply to everyone, even if you feel you have been wronged.

Both positive and negative information on a company are encyclopedic, but you both are correct that the article must have a NPOV. As a compromise solution, might I suggest what has found consensus elsewhere: Avoid a lengthly list of random awards, which often looks like puffery. Summarize the awards as prose rather than using lists. And simplify and combine when the same award has been won repeatedly. If controversial, the exact prose/style can be discussed here.Dbsseven (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Nouill-

I have been looking around Wikipedia for a while and came across XPO a few years ago. You seem to make a leap from someone making edits and cleaning up what was a really messy article to that person having to be a paid editor pretty quickly; what if someone said, "well, he is quick to undo this and that is a sign of someone paid by a rival". If I'm not mistaken, @Aussietommartin: was requesting, in fact pleading for other editors to jump in and work on the page well over a year ago. Sorry, but that does not sound like a paid editor to me. Some people work on just a few articles and do so because they invest time in them, try to bring them into line with others like them and do spend a lot of time on them. That doesn't make them paid editors, just people who like things done right. I see awards and recognition being akin to awards and recognition for scientists, politicians and even members of royal families or military people; if the list is not correct, then say why it is not correct. Deleting huge amounts of material without going to the talk page does seem quite discourteous and an "assume" good faith is simply an assumption and not binding on anyone if there is any evidence that a load of material was removed without explanation. Time to step back from the allegations and mudslinging. If someone wants to improve articles and make it a labour of love then why not let them?

Global forwarding subsection

Hello, everyone! I stared at the Global forwarding subsection that a nonexistent account added (it looks like it was specifically created just to modify this page, then was deleted, so... yeah, corporate much?), and finally just deleted it instead of rewriting. The intro paragraph to that section (Goods management) already talks about global freight forwarding, and there's just nothing useful to add beyond "they do it." I ended up getting rid of it instead of rewriting it, because that advert tag was right, it was just pure schlock.

I also reverted the edits to the introductory graf at the top of the page, the ones that switched "U.S." for "American" and inserted LTL as though it's all the company does. It's not. Also, using "American" instead of "U.S." seems a little rah-rah to me, but I could be overstepping my bounds here.

Dropped the advert tag because I deleted the advertising content, but put in this talk page if there's something else that needs fixing / removal. I'll skim the page right now and go through it more thoroughly on Sunday; I'll need an escape from family anyway! Merry Christmas, everyone. Aussietommartin (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)