Talk:ME to WE

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

MarthaLetter (talk · contribs) has been paid by Percepto/Veribo on behalf of We. Inadvertently revealed in Special:Diff/902072925 (editor failed to disclose and edited in violation of Wikipedia's WP:TOU).

Controversy Section?

Shouldn't there be one? Perhaps referencing Canadaland's research for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.130.230 (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be made abundantly clear that in spite of the use of misleading marketing terminology like "social enterprise" that Me to We is a for-profit commercial business. This article is written like an advertisement. How many/what proportion of the workers are paid/unpaid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.210.233.108 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the work has been cleaned up recently. Not sure the second question matters -- other social enterprises are labelled as such on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=20&offset=20&redirs=0&profile=default&search=social+enterprise+ Jumlaa (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, to whoever cleaned it up, I'm sorry to say someone uncleaned it again. The first paragraph is also made up of a large number of sentence paragraphs, so its not like its good advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F0B0:6:8021:C933:359A:B4DF:6B3F (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned commenter here again, I axed the advert in the opening lines and made it sound as objective as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F0B0:6:8021:C933:359A:B4DF:6B3F (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to take a serious look at this article to give it an advertising screen. I'm not qualified to do this Maybe lock the page afterward since a silly number of edits in the history is cleaning up corporate BS marketing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F0B0:6:8021:A483:FC75:D828:4E23 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Me to We. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111112115851/http://www.cp24.com/MeToWe/ to http://www.cp24.com/MeToWe/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed paid editing

This article was affected by undisclosed paid editing. Please see WP:COIN § Potentially an undisclosed paid editor account for details. Feel free to remove anything from the article that is excessively promotional or improperly sourced. — Newslinger talk 06:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was archived to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 157 -- 65.94.170.98 (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: i'm considering removing the UDP template from this article as several editors have effectively scrubbed this article of the content tainted by the UDP editor. In addition, I think that the off-wiki scandal Me to We has found itself embroiled in has far out-shadowed any PR nonsense that could been slipped into the article. Feel free to revert of course. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. The {{UPE}} tag is not meant to be permanent, and can be removed as soon as an editor performs a thorough review the article. The article has changed significantly since the tag was added on 29 March, so I'm sure this review has already been done. — Newslinger talk 05:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]