Talk:Ensto

Paid contributions tag
A paid editor made contributions to this article, and has disclosed that fact on this page, therefore the paid contributions template is a matter of fact and does not require discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the policy "if you place the Paid tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." As a paid editor I'm not allowed to remove the tag myself, but if any volunteer editor thinks that the neutral point of view of the article is ok, they are free to remove the tag as told in the Template:Paid contributions instructions: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."Jjanhone (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No comments in about 9 months so I'll ping the editors of this article to see if some of you you have ideas about things that are too promotional or possible problems with the neutrality as there are two warning tags in this article now. So cheers DannyS712, Giraffedata, Toteemipaalu, Emeraude, Донор, Bearcat, Magioladitis and Petpat I'd really appreciate to get your ideas and thoughts. Jjanhone (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * There are serious problems with this article. Firstly, paid editing is always suspect, unless its neutrality can be established. Secondly, of the 25 citations, 20 are in Finnish and four are from the company itself. This makes verification difficult (how many independent readers of Finnish edit Wikipedia?) so neutrality is impossible to check. Emeraude (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Suspect is one thing, but according to the template documentation, the contribution has to be problematic for the tag to be appropriate. No one has identified a problem with this paid contribution except that it is a paid contribution, and the template documentation obviously doesn't mean for that to be enough of a problem to justify the tag.
 * In Wikipedia, sources are often not available to the community at large (e.g. printed books), and we don't assume the article isn't supported by the sources just because most editors cannot verify that they are . Instead, we assume the article is good until someone close enough to the subject to have access to the sources claims otherwise.  The same applies to neutrality.  We cannot assume the article is omitting some huge embarrassing fact about this company just because no editor has proven that it doesn't.  All we can do is wait for some other expert on the company to notice the article and make the claim.
 * I have no independent knowledge of the subject of this article, but I read it, and its tone is entirely neutral except for one sentence. It is not promotional and I have no reason to believe this paid editor didn't edit ethically and responsibly.
 * The one sentence is, "The business culture is based on trust, openness and equality". This is simply not a verifiable fact and though I haven't read the source, I know it doesn't reliably present this as fact.  This sentence is a lot like a mission statement.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)