Talk:Fastway Couriers

CLOSURE OF FASTWAY COURIER FRANCHISES

It is a TRUE fact that FASTWAY COURIERS have closed down all Franchisees in Canada, The Netherlands, Spain, Luxembourg, Singapore, France and Belgium have all been closed down. Fastway Only exists in Australia, Germany, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Fastway Couriers try to cover this fact up.--BremEllingham (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC).

They have now closed in Germany, England, Wales and Scotland (2011). It concerns me that the link to the Fstway Courier cover up is suspended also. Anyone who's worked for Fastway knows, they rule by intimidation and bullying. As covered by the Australian Trade Union report on Fastway Depos.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.87.44 (talk • contribs) 14:33, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this article from editing for 2 weeks based on a request at WP:RFPP. The hope is that editors interested in this article will discuss their issues here in order to produce an article that meets Wikipedia's polices. I have no objection to any administrator unprotecting this page when consensus is reached. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have helped, once protection expired they just came back to start re-adding the same stuff again. Q ^{T C} 04:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You talk about "Protecting" against the truth. That's called censorship - not protection. When an organisation gets a reputation for abusing its franchisees (see the article from Australia’s trade unions) – the truth will out.

Protection Proposal

I propose that this article is protected as there have been frequent people editing this article and tagging for deletion. The frequent 'vandals' editing this specific article really upsets me and I know it will also upset others. Please can a moderator think of protecting this article. --Jakingsbeer (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it "upsets" you as you are an employee of Fastway couriers. There is no vandalism... only many people reporting the truth. To protect this page would be to stop the truth. --Theeggdavid (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC) You use the term "vandalism." here again, the truth is not vandalism. Fastway is a very narcissit controling organisation - you call for contol, but give no good reason - other than you wish to have total control. The truth will out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.205.238 (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Accurate article

The original article does not present an honest or accurate reflection of Fastway couriers this is why it has been edited. Fastway has gone bankrupt in a number of countries that are listed in the article, and many Courier and Regional franchises have also gone bankrupt or lost all the money they invested. This true fact is not shown in the original article. Fastway is on the verge of collapse in a number of locations. The article also does not mention fastways exploition of a workforce without any rights, whish is hidden under the guise of it being a "Franchise" The public are entitled to know the reality of getting involved with Fastway couriers. Freedom of speech must be allowed to continue without large companies crushing the truth and reality of what they are doing to peoples lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funtimes888 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is true, the comments added are not vandilism. It is the truth, if you do a little digging the truth about Fastway can be found.--Theeggdavid (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

They might not be "vandalism" per say, but they are clearly inappropriate. You can't add your personal opinion to the article, nor can you add negative information without providing a source. Such edits are will continue to be reverted. If you really think the article is unbalanced, then do some research and find reputable sources to back up the information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi ThaddeusB I have added some references of note is: http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/ This list the hundreds of Fastway Franchises that have gone bankrupt in the UK (proof that cannot be argued with). Also of note if you search for Fastway Couriers Canada and Spain (amoung others) you can see they once existed in those countries but the have all been closed.--Theeggdavid (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You are going to have to do better than an instruction to search for references - specially, you are going to have to find sources yourself. Further, even if accurate in principle the language you are using is extremely biased and inappropriate. You can say things like the company changed its organizational scheme in order to take advantage of its workers. I think it is pretty obvious you have a personal grip with the company, and as such I doubt you can edit the article neutrally as required by policy. I suggest you either edit something else or post your sources here (the talk page) and let others do the actual editing.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, ThaddeusB: I have added two references that can be verified from the British Govt and a trade union investigation. I wanted to change the original text in the article as it is misleading and does not show the truth of the organisation. I have modified the text I have used to show a more neutral approach. I am Brazilian University student so I feel i am fairly neutral. I am writing a paper on Fastway Couriers and I have uncovered alot of information on their operations. It is possible that my english is not too good. The person who originally created the article is most likely an employee of Fastway and as such does not present a balanced view of the company.--Theeggdavid (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter if the text is -ve, +ve or neutral, without reliable sources it should not be here. WP:V is very clear about this. The knife will be falling soon. --Triwbe (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If we only judged article by their current state 50% of Wikipedia would be deleted. Instead, we judge article by their potential and this one has plenty of sources available. If you are truly concerned about the current lack of RS, I suggest you add some. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, 50% (or more) of WP would (maybe should) be deleted. WP:A, WP:V and WP:BURDEN put the onus on the editor support his edits. Otherwise Wikipedia risks becomming a WP:SPAM and WP:GRAPEVINE platform for anyone. That's not the WP I want to see. --Triwbe (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to waste everyone's time, go ahead & send it to AfD, but it will almost certainly be kept because of the available sourcing. If you want to actually improve Wikipedia, feel free to reference the article (or any other unsourced article). --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Who mentioned AfD???? The company passes all requirements for WP:CORP. I just want to see Wikipedia core policies adheared to, as should all editors. --Triwbe (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I assumed "the knife will be falling soon" meant the article would be deleted. If that's not what you meant, then I apologize. In any case, I certainly agree the article needs a lot of work, but I am personally occupied by more pressing matters so I can't fix it myself right now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought we may be speaking on different things. I mean things like the phrase "largest courier franchise" (That should be possible to source) and the whole section "Brand identity" - too spammy for my taste, and finaly all the POV stuff in History, who defines all these "sucesses" it has had? These need sourcing or cutting. --Triwbe (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that "fastwayaustralia" is attempting to modify the artice. The view of Fastway Australia is highly biased. I have added a couple of references from the London gazette of confirmed cases of fastway Bankruptcy cases in the Uk. there was a total of well over 100.--Quentinbryce (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC) user: Fastwayaustralia - also mention that fastway is franchised in Spain. Even on fastways own webpages there is no mention of a Fastway franchise in that country. More proof that Fastway was shut down in Spain as it was in a number of contries —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quentinbryce (talk • contribs) 05:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Those edits were reverted & the user blocked before you even made this post. I am sure you were aware of that fact and were just posting it here to further your own agenda of pushing a negative POV. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fastway Couriers is adding posts which are biased from an IP of 203.96.64.126 which is registered to fastway-comb.akcr8.global-gateway.net.nz. Their posts should be reversed. A company cannot add posts which is self promotion, and its posts are untrue and unsupported.--Quentinbryce (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's start this article again from scratch

I've left(below) untouched, but please note, the comment of "reliable source" means, any negative comments. Reliable sources, are ment as those coming from the companies PR agency or website. So controlling - just google Fastway couriers - plenty of negative comments out there they havn't yet closed down (and they're working full time to close the truth down). Trouble is - abuse enough franchisees, it catches up with you. We've got you out numbered - and we have the truth on our side. The truth. You can fool some of the people......

I've removed everything from this article that isn't reliably sourced (i.e. Fastway is controlling this - the only references in the main article are from the Fastway website - please - Fastway is so narcissic it hurts). I would point out to anyone editing this who is either involved with Fastway or with any camaign against Fastway that any attempt to manipulate Wikipedia to conform to your point of view could very well lead to adverse publicity that could backfire on you and severely damage your reputation. Wikipedia is one of the most read web sites in the world, so the media are very interested in picking up stories about that sort of activity. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, the edits by "Fastwayaustralia" were mostly netural - I blocked the account based on the username alone. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that account was the negative POV pusher trying to make the company look like it was editing the article - after all that person jumped right on it to further their agenda. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

IP address of 203.96.64.126 fastway-comb.akcr8.global-gateway.net.nz is registered to Fastway Couriers who are trying to self promote their company. The contents they posted are not correct and read like an advertisment. Fm MarkCurrie —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkCurrie (talk • contribs) 01:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's all fine & good except for one thing: 203.96.64.126 didn't write the current version of the article - I did. So unless you are accusing me of bias I suggest you stop reverting to your highly negative, highly biased version and leave it alone. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying what you are writing is biased - the text you have used that was originally written originally by Fastway couriers are incorrect and reads like an advert. Also Fastway is not franchised in 9 countries as you report (New Zealand, Australia, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Germany and South Africa) ...As England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland are NOT countries. They are part of the the United Kingdom. That is like saying Ohio, Alaska, and Hawaii are 3 different countries, when they are all part of the United States. What I have written in not negative. I don't not understand how it can seen as that. It is neutral, just reporting the facts. I want the truth to be reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkCurrie (talk • contribs) 10:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting to the much worse version is not the answer. If you have a problem with the text, try editing it instead of reverting to a highly biased junk version created by a known POV-pushing sock puppet.

I am well aware that England, Scotland, and Wales are not countries by the usual definition, but that isn't the only definition of country. Some people, including the news story used as a source, consider them separate countries. Since the news story referenced says "9 countries" that discrepancy has to be explained, hence why they are listed out. Ireland, however, most certainly is its own country by any definition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the section in regards to the number of countries Fastway operate in. It only operates in 5. It did operate in more but Fastway closed all these areas down. For PROOF see article at: http://www.ceoonline.com.au/case_studies/overseas/pages/1_13_731.aspx "There are now seven master franchisees covering England, Malaysia, Germany, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the Irish Republic. Master franchisees for Morocco, Spain, France and Portugal were near the end of their training in June 2002...McGowan shut the Singapore franchise" On Fastways own website it does not list operations in: Malaysia, Germany, Germany, Morocco, Spain, France, Singapore, Canada and Portugal. This is proof that operations in these countries were shut down. If you google Fastway Canada there is proof that Fastway Canada used to exist also, but does nto anymore.--MarkCurrie (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed comments removed self promotion edits that came from Fastway Couriers Auckland, New Zealand 203.96.64.126 fastway-comb.akcr8.global-gateway.net.nz - This is highly unethical for a company to self promote its self--MarkCurrie (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Reputation Section

I have been deleting references to reviews on specific websites, e.g. Product Review and Google Reviews. These are primary sources, and unreliable ones at that. Wikipedia is not a product review aggregator. See policies WP:PRIMARY WP:DIRECTORY.

Other pages for Australian couriers, e.g. Australia Post do not have review sites as references despite similarly low reviews, probably because their pages receive more attention. Consumer reviews about couriers, especially in Australia, are almost always low anyway.

Usually these changes are made by IP users, and are tidied up by registered users. Assuming good faith, I don't fault the registered users, but it's seems possible to me that the IP users represent either an opposing interest or random disgruntled consumers of Fastway's services.

If an article from a trusted independent source writes an article containing discussion of the level of service of Fastway, this would be a much more valuable reference for a reputation section. As it stands, I am just going to delete the section and will request semi-protection if it re-appears. DpEpsilon (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Unlike Australia Post, Fastway is persistently extremely difficult to deal with, to the point where consumers feel the need to warn others about the company. Quantitatively, the reviews on Product Review, Google, etc. look similar as all couriers rate poorly on a numbers basis. However, qualitatively, there is a difference in the type of commentary in the reviews Australia Post complaints are often about some specific employee being rude (see the first page of the AP Product Review for examples), slow deliveries that are still within the advertised delivery timelines, or insurance payouts that are as per the product's terms and conditions, but didn't meet the needs of a particular person who failed to read them. Fastway consistently fails at delivering items as advertised within the advertised time frames, often adding weeks of delays and is often uncontactable. Read carefully and you'll see the difference.

Also, given that Australia Post is the country's national postal service with hundreds of post offices and thousands of street-side mailboxes and lots of customers who don't know how to use any other service, it should have far, far more disgruntled customers than Fastway. Fastway competes with a number of other courier companies for a much smaller slice of the market and yet its number of complaints is almost as high as Australia Post, and its rating is worse.

Additionally, it would be almost impossible to get a good secondary source providing evidence of Fastway's poor performance. News media typically don't publish articles about relatively minor companies as they don't impact enough people to be newsworthy, and even if they did, they'd only be able to base their articles on personal accounts or on product review aggregators.

I also notice that DpEpsilon has performed relatively few edits overall and many edits on courier companies' websites (Toll Group, Fastway). It looks to me probable that this user has a vested interest in interpreting Wikipedia policies in order to remove the only viable source of information rightly warning consumers about companies' poor service.

59.167.194.61 (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I note that you are not using an account, but the fact that you are responding to this implies to me that it is quite misguided for me to infer ill-intent on your part from this.

From a pure policy perspective, an editor including a statement on Wikipedia based on their own interpretation of product review commentary data is original research WP:NOR.

The inability to find a good secondary source is a valid point to make in certain situations, but in this case it appears to be because Fastway's poor consumer satisfaction is not notable. In addition, the one primary source you refer to may not be particularly useful as a source, as such a source is easily confounded or manipulated. Fastway tends to be most commonly used for shipping of beverages, chosen by merchants for their pricing model which ignores weight. This alone could be a confounder. (This is just an example of a possible confounder)

I also gave the Australia Post article as an example of a similar company. Again, this is just an example. You will notice that product reviews are not aggregated on Wikipedia pages about companies. It just generates controversy especially if the edits are not made to WP policy.

Wikipedia is not a "viable source of information rightly warning consumers about companies' poor service", let alone the only one. Choice magazine in Australia serves this purpose quite effectively. They don't even have a review for Fastway because their services are mostly marketed to and paid for by merchants. Consumers who have a problem have no buying power here, they can either complain to the merchant, stop buying from the merchant, or inform the ACCC (within Australia) in particular circumstances. There is no utility in using Wikipedia to indicate consumer satisfaction, especially when they do not choose the courier service and where it may fluctuate wildly.

Your ad hominem attack is quite offensive to the intelligence of the community here. Regardless of being a poor practice, is in this case ill-informed, misleading, and amusingly hypocritical.

Since you've invoked it, standard disclaimer: I am not being paid to make edits on Wikipedia. I do interact with a wide variety of courier businesses who have fleets in Australia because of my work, most of which are all in competition with each other. I read pages related to logistics because of my work. I edit pages on Wikipedia to improve their quality. I follow policy to remove bias from pages and to avoid introducing my own bias.

As far as I can tell, in this instance, the Wikipedia policies are working as intended, avoiding biased and unverified statements.

Thank you for not unilaterally reverting my edits and instead trying to discuss. I was expecting to come back to this page and see the reputation section included again with no note made here, though I suspect the reaction to that would have resulted in edits from your IP address being banned without an account. DpEpsilon (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I had forgotten about this page until I saw a couple of other edits on an unrelated page that were reverted due to some obscure Wikipedia policy just now. You are correct in that I don't have an account on Wikipedia, because I usually just read articles rather than modify them. Obviously in this case there was a pressing concern that seemed to have been ignored.

I don't agree that reputation should be excluded from a Wikipedia article, and in practice it is not excluded from other articles. If you have a look at Goldman Sachs page, for example, you'll find various references to the reputation. It is a fairly obvious statement to make that reputation affects a company, and thus is an important aspect of the company's operations. That is why companies have marketing departments. Certainly there seem to be a lot of previous 'editors' (if you can call them that) of the article whose overall views about Fastway are similar to mine, although many of those people have expressed them in a less articulate manner.

Perhaps the real point of this is that consumers often don't realise that their merchant is using Fastway, because in reality I suspect merchants are the only reason why Fastway gets any business. Of course, this would be another one of these pieces of general knowledge that while widely known would be difficult to cite in an academic manner. I doubt that any newspapers or company websites would publicise such things. However, there is certainly merit in the idea that the public should be informed about such matters, as it would help them to avoid using merchants that use Fastway if they have not yet been stung by an undelivered or damaged parcel from Fastway. If it's not in Wikipedia's mission to provide useful information to people like this about the topics documented in Wikipedia, then it ought to be, because it is definitely in the public interest.

While you say that Wikipedia policies make you a neutral editor, I don't find the deletion of reputation information neutral, especially when it is so overwhelmingly negative; it just happens to be that you are entitled to do so within the letter of the law, as the saying goes. I note that you have since deleted a lot of the other content of the article, however. If you delete positive and negative content at the same time, that is a more neutral approach than simply deleting anything negative about the company, which would make you look like you have some kind of ulterior motive. Incidentally, expressing concern about an author's neutrality is not 'ad hominem', it is expressing concern about a potential conflict of interest, which ought to be a valid concern to raise, especially since I note that a few other authors have been flagged as having a conflict of interest and thus barred from editing the article.

Since you say you don't have a conflict of interest, I will leave it be, but I don't buy that the intellectual integrity of a public community is in some way impregnable, or that the rules prevent biased information from being entered into Wikipedia. Rules can always be gamed in the favour of people who are willing to make an effort to understand the letter of them and find loopholes. Just ask a lawyer. Your integrity is a matter for you to assert on your own based upon proof or plausible explanation, not something for which you can point to an inevitably manipulable book of rules to reinforce. In this case you have provided a plausible explanation, but given your edit history and the edit history of the article, you should not have been surprised at the suggestion.

I must say, I remain concerned that this article has been, and again will be, once re-filled, more positive about the company than the company reasonably deserves. Its proponents - speaking generally here, rather than about you - seem to have an unfair advantage, or probably just more time to read Wikipedia's rules. A company that is a villain in the eyes of the recipients of a good proportion of its parcels - very consistently, based on review sites and even the reactions to this article - should not have an article that reads like the previous one, which read like the heroic journey to victory of hard-working entrepreneurs, completely ignoring the true nature of the shambolic mess of a service they provide. If you want to truly prove your neutrality, you could find some way to express the pros and cons of the company in a more balanced way, or suggest some alternative way in which it would be possible to express the continued stream of consumer disgust and vitriol that the company receives in a way that is permissible on Wikipedia. 59.167.194.61 (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Article was a mess, now more of a stub than before

I've removed some parts of the article that made it sound like an advertisement to potential franchisees.

Most of the edits to this article have been part of an edit war between biased IP users and sockpuppets.

A quick Google News search implies there are plenty of trustworthy neutral sources, including about real controversies, so I may at the very least come back and fix the gaps in the citations. It's definitely possible to improve this article.

DpEpsilon (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)