Talk:OnTrac

Complaints and NPOV
Seems like someone went ahead and added some negative unsourced stuff to this page. While sourced criticism is allowed, random comments with vague petitions are not. Mk17b (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Including a better business rating in an article about a corporation is relevant and meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. If you feel otherwise do not blank sections, please let me know why. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)) Mostlyoksorta (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) WP:OR: unsourced negative statements; 2) WP:NPOV : Underhanded attempt to publicly deplore a business; 3) WP:WEIGHT: This article should be about the company not about complaints about the company. FYI, your plead that your sections not be blanked out, is not how we work at Wikipedia; you need to develop your sections with RSs for them to stay. Mercy11 (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, complaints about a company are legitimate as can be seen throughout Wikipedia. So long as they are sourced. The Better Business Bureau is clearly a source that is neutral and meets Wikipedia's standards. Also, a description of the company shouldn't just include company news releases and favorable information. It should include ALL information that meets Wikipedia sourcing guidelines, which the BBB grade clearly does. Much like Academy Award nominations are included in actors wiki articles, since they are an independent evaluation, so too can independent BBB ratings be included. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)) Mostlyoksorta (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, friendly English tip, your use of 'deplore' is incorrect. I think you mean disparage. 😊 Just trying to help out. Mostlyoksorta (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Check WP:PRIMARY. That should help. Mercy11 (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I edited the source and material to fit your comments about sourcing and content. Mostlyoksorta (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Just sourcing some claim isn't enough. It must be a SECONDARY RS. BBB is a primary source. You need mainstream media sources to backup the claim. In addition, you would be in a better position if you cited several independent sources - not just citing 1 source multiple times. I suggest you take a cue from User:Mk17b's comment. Mercy11 (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This new article would both back up many of the claims and be worth incorporating: http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/09/lasership-amazons-shipping-partner-is-a-problem.html &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  19:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @MK17b - An independent media source which quotes the Better Business Bureau's rating has been added to the citations for the article. Discord Ian (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Empty sections
I removed empty sections: History, Market reach and hubs, Competition, and Customer service complaints. Leaving a note here as a reminder in case anyone would like to find something to fill them in with and restore them. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LaserShip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001183321/http://lasership.com/shipping-solutions/ecommerce-shipping to http://lasership.com/shipping-solutions/ecommerce-shipping

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs
Someone continues to replace the title of an article that does not pertain to the services LaserShip provides nor helps to further the purpose of Wikipedia articles to act as an encyclopedia and educate its readers on subjects using objective, factual information. The title of said article, "LaserShip Might Be the Most Hated Company on the Internet," is subjective therefore does not abide by Wikipedia's terms of use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idelcanto90 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a connected contributor template to the top of this page; please verify that it is correct (i.e. that you are directly compensated by Lasership and not a third-party resource). It looks like you identified yesterday on your userpage. Before we discuss any changes, does anyone else need to identify as a paid editor? See WP:PAID for the specific requirements. Kuru   (talk)  15:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello-- Yes, I am verifying that I am compensated by LaserShip.
 * The user in question has a history of vandalizing the LaserShip page. I would say about 99% of this user's edits have been made to the LaserShip, all of which are clearly to paint a negative picture of the company and is very one-sided. Here is a link to a list of the user's edit history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Discord+Ian&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=&end=
 * As claimed by an admitted PR person. I on the other hand am simply adding facts, with verifiable citations, to LaserShip's page. Idelcanto90 (talk) has made 100% of their changes to LaserShip's page, and is being paid to do it. I'm an unpaid (for Wikipedia activities, at least) photographer who's pointing out facts. If Idelcanto90 (talk) wishes to add well-sourced facts as well, instead of adding sections which link only to LaserShip's site, I'm sure nobody would question that; however, merely removing facts and adding fluff information amounting to "our competition does it too" is obvious and overt PR on the part of Idelcanto90 (talk). Discord Ian (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there's been a pretty fair number of single-purpose accounts editing this article inappropriately. I see several overtly negative vandals with obvious grudges (not you, Discord Ian, although that first edit to an attack site was pretty sketch). I also see several marketing and PR flacks trying to hide anything negative or put a spin on it in the most ham-fisted ways possible. While I think the article currently places too much weight on negative material from trivial sources, I can't imagine that there's going to be a productive discussion related to it. I'd ask that y'all to at least try; there's likely to be blocks if the material is frequently flipped back and forth. Idelcanto90 and Takencareof really need to take care as paid editors. Kuru   (talk)  00:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood, and since I was corrected on the sketchy site link, I've learned and tried to implement proper Wikipedia etiquette; I hope that this is apparent in my more recent edits, which are all sourced according to the guidelines. Please feel free to give pointers as you like, as I'm relatively new here and don't want to accidentally mess with policy inasmuch as possible. :)  Discord Ian (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * DiscordDan clearly does not understand, as he continues to to revert back changes with what you agree is inappropriate and sketchy using trivial sources. I ask that someone please agree to have this section about "customer harassment" and "most hated company" that is baseless and being used to put a purposely negative spin on the company erased.
 * As you can plainly see, I did not add back in the section you agreed was "inappropriate" (the link to the attack site); as I stated above, I learned from that mistake. What I have done - repeatedly, and again, just now - is revert vandalism by Idelcanto90 (talk). Whereas I provide links and citations to back up my edits, Idelcanto90 (talk) simply deletes them due to "weak sourcing", which is clearly not the case, being as the citations are there plain as day. In addition, further vandalism includes deleting entire relevant (and sourced) sections, and removing "customer harassment" and "property damage" from the section in question. Since there are verifiable secondary sources, with video, that depict both customer harassment (a driver returning four time following a complaint, prompting a phone call to local authorities) and property damage (a driver backing over an orange tree sapling), they're in line with the Wikipedia guidelines and Idelcanto90 (talk) is doing nothing but removing anything which points at the negative aspects of his paid employer. While the conflict of interest has been disclosed, the user is still not acting in good faith, and ought to confine themselves to editing the article in a manner which is appropriate, instead of whitewashing anything that they deem as negative towards LaserShip - perhaps by adding some additional (verifiable) sources providing alternate takes on the situation, if any can be found. Thanks, Discord Ian (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I have not had a chance to look over the article in detail and I'm unlikely to get to that tonight.Will you both agree to stop reverting each other until we reach a consensus on the changes here on the talk page? If y'all can agree to that, I'm happy to help - we can step through this line-by-line.  Idelcano90, can you identify the primary concern you have right now?  Is it the "customer harassment" part?   Kuru   (talk)  19:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happy to leave the article as-is until you can properly evaluate its contents, so long as no further blanking of the same sections occur. Discord Ian (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not okay with leaving the article as-is. I am okay with leaving previous versions of the article as-is that do not contain baseless section headers containing "customer harassment" and "property damage." There was no customer harassment, and mistakes are made, that does not mean the driver intentionally caused property damage and that it is a common occurrence. These are cited using weak sources, as mentioned in previous complaints on this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idelcanto90 (talk • contribs)
 * I understand. Since you've both indicated you'd rather contravene our policy on edit warring, I've protected the page for a week to give you time to discuss. I've left warnings on both your pages related to the reverting, and you're likely to be blocked if the edit warring continues after the protection expires. Now would be a good time for you two to discuss the additions, and arrive at a consensus. Good luck. Kuru   (talk)  13:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I do not think this will be resolved. Can we bring in someone else to review this please? Not sure what the protocol for that would be, but we need a NPOV. There is conflict of interest on my end, and for DiscordDan, as it is very obvious that he is out to vandalize this page. I think a NPOV will prevent the edit warring and bring resolution that neither of us should weigh in on at this point.

I'm inclined to think that Idelcanto90 (talk) and I will not be able to arrive at a consensus. Firstly, in the above comment, she stated that she has no confidence. Secondly, she is the paid head of marketing for LaserShip, and has consistently only edited the page to blank sections she does not like and manipulate the page to improve LaserShip's overall image. On the other hand, I have provided sourced articles that represent the prevailing public perception of the business; look around for secondary sources praising LaserShip - I just did, for about 10 minutes, and I couldn't find one that was not a press release. If you can't arbitrate this, and she and I both lack confidence in our ability to come to terms on a consensus, I'd ask that a neutral arbiter be asked to intercede. I do not know how to go about requesting one. In any case, the protection went into effect shortly after Idelcanto90 (talk) once again vandalized the page, removing an entire paragraph, etc. I'd like to see this resolved definitively by an outside person, inasmuch as I don't think that the blanking was justified, nor the alteration to the section title, nor any of her other recent attempts to turn this article into a PR piece for her company. Discord Ian (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I was the original editor who suggested using the New Yorker article. Is it ever common practice on Wiki to exclude a third party source because it covers a company negatively. New Yorker has got to be the most prominent outlet to cover Lasership so the article would def. seem noteworthy for inclusion. &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  03:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely, &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk). For example, the article on Martin Shkreli is predominantly negative, because most third-party news sources painted a negative picture of the man after the Daraprim scandal, and his following felony conviction. Some of it is biographical about his other activities, but since the predominance of news coverage is negative, so is the majority of the Wikipedia coverage, as it accurately reflects public opinion of him. Likewise, the majority of news coverage on LaserShip - inclusive of the article you mentioned, which is by far the most comprehensive - is negative. Thus, an article that, on the face of it, appears to be "negative" towards LaserShip would actually be neutral, being that the majority of public opinion on the company is quite negative. QED. Discord Ian (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The use of "customer harassment" is a baseless statement that cannot be applied to the company as a whole. This should be erased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idelcanto90 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The Time of Need Section
This section is written like a press release, and contains references to the company's website. Additionally, the entire section was added by a user whose sole contribution was writing that account in a single edit. Should the section be removed? Dmelc9 (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Def suspicious. &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  13:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I tried to clean it up a few weeks back, but went ahead and just removed the section. --Davedwtho (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)