Talk:R+L Carriers

Conflict of interest
is clearly involved with the company, as evidenced by this comment. TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (via my post to TnxMan)    Hey tnXman. I see that the R+L Carriers page has just been tagged for a 'conflict in interest'. I don't see how this is a problem if the article is strictly factual and the content has outside sources. Via Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations


 * "To put it another way, articles should be written in natural, but neutral, language and merely summarize factual information from third-party articles, studies, reports and books that are already in print. This is in contrast to what many people with a conflict of interest do, which is to write in a promotional tone summarizing their own highly favorable personal knowledge and opinions of the topic. If you can write articles just by summarizing sources in a neutral tone, it is much less likely that you will run into any kind of problems with other editors."


 * I don't believe that there are opinionated sections on this article. Could you lend me your expertise on this topic? Thanks again. I appreciate it. TruckTech (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you are finally attempting to make the article neutral but the fact remains that you are connected to the company the article is about, which means that, regardless of your intentions, that you have a conflict of interest. TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * TheJazzDalek, thank you for your response and input. Could I ask you for your assistance in making this article hold up to yours, the other moderators, and the wikipedia standards?  I have taken many moderators advice so far, and I think the article has been backed up by as many neutral sources as I could find thus far.  I believe that the neutrality that wikipedia provides is essential to its purpose and I believe that this article can be a strong neutral article given more revision.  I have been careful to remove any promotional sounding prose and anything else that does not explicitly state a fact.  I really hope that we can decide on some sort of game plan or strategy before coming to a hasty deletion.  Thanks again. TruckTech (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)