User talk:Scosco62

eNom
Hi Scott, your POV tag on ENom has generated a edits that simply remove material that meets Wikipedia's WP:V and WP:RS standards, and that has withstood the scrutiny of experienced editors. Would you mind either discussing your concerns in more detail on the ENom discussion page, or editing the article yourself?

For example, look at the existing citations and correct where the article falls short in its representations of them; or add new citations that meet Wikipedia's standards and add the perspective you perceive to be missing.

Also, note that there are some pretty mixed reviews of the company further down in the article. This later content might be more along the lines of what you were expecting.

I'd appreciate your more in-depth involvement because I made fairly significant revisions in response to flags and comments about POV bias in the other direction -- a few months ago, the ENom article contained almost no positive content and lots of negative. My search for reliable sources turned up the stats and mixed reviews that are now in the article.

It would be helpful if you'd either edit the article, discuss specific concerns on the article's talk page, or remove the POV tag. Thanks. Thirdbeach (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Revised Thirdbeach (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Absent your input, I asked for other editors' input and the consensus has been that the POV flag is not warranted. It's been removed. Thanks, Thirdbeach (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Propellor
Propellor and Propeller are just variant spellings, rather than the former being a mis-spelling. Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion
In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk)  18:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)