User talk:Scosco62

Hello, Scosco62! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! LittleOldMe (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

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)