Talk:Encore Capital Group

[Untitled]
The best way to deal with BLP problems will be to remove the sections on the executives--it isn;t encyclopedic content in any case except for the CEO. I'd do it mmyself except I don;t want to edit thru full protection unless some other admin agrees.  DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, though the BLP issues have mostly targeted the CEO, so it may not solve the problem. However, you are correct about the names of the executives.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Entry
This looks like a gripe session attack page. I have found a very biased slant towards in these cases against businesses.--RedmondKane (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible source
Not sure if anyone will want to use this as a source or not -- but I found this to be an interesting reference to a subsidiary of this company: http://www.californiacollectiondefense.com/top-5-mistakes-sued-midland-funding/ Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 01:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but I don't think this would qualify as a reliable source.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Full overhaul due to Neutral Point of View requirement
Hello, I was looking into the 2015 litigation which led me to see the note on Encores Page, I would like to go ahead and use Portfolio Recovery Associates page as sort of a template given that it is unbiased and also very similar to this company. Is there a way for me to get some specific notes of the Bias, or is it the entire entry? --Elvarath (talk) - 8/3/2017 8:38AM PDT


 * I think the current template on the article is outdated. It was previously tagged when it seemed like someone working for Encore was editing the article and making it overly promotional.  Since then, most of the edits have gone the other way, and, if anything, the content has become a bit unbalanced against the company. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yea that's what I was seeing big time given some of the wording/very specific cases touched on. It seemed as though someone with an agenda against them added some of the sections. Thanks for the input on it! Will be helpful to take into account for the changes. --Elvarath (talk) 8/7/17 12:15PM PDT —Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Just finished rewriting the page and condensing the information/updating data/and improving template. Let me know if there is any changes you feel should be made! --Elvarath (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I have reverted your last edit because Wikipedia is not censored and looks down upon euphemisms. I have checked the sources of the sentences that you have changed and — with one exception — the sources do say those things and do use these words. The only change I would agree with is the one relating to the October 2020 settlement, because the source does not use the words of the original language. We can go ahead a discuss the sources in more details if you want to.

However, let me remind you of one thing: Wikipedia has strict policies on conflict of interest and paid editing. I have notified you that such policies exist on your talk page. Let me underline that some of these policies are part of Wikimedia's Terms of Use. If you subject to these policies and edit Wikipedia without disclosing your interests, you may end up loosing your editing privileges.--JBchrch (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)