# Talk:WE Communications

Not even a tiny row of Criticism in article? Let's speak about of PR company of the Master of Embrace, extend and extinguish strategy, and aren't critique episodes?
I think stuff like this [1] or worst...
88.149.227.95 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on WE (firm). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150104152422/http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/05/58836 to http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/05/58836
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems the article was mostly gutted in a few edits by a single user that was supposedly getting rid of old information. Whatever that means. Seems their only edits have been to this article also. I'd suggest either the content they removed is put back or the GA status is re-reviewed. Personally, I'd like to see the deleted information put back. Since it's not clear why it was removed in the first place. Plus, old information is still completely relevant to the article and subject. I'd also suggest a banner be placed on the article stating that it was edited by un-disclosed payed editor or whatever the proper banner is. If no one else does it, I eventually will. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I just happened  across this article looking at GA-status articles about PR firms, and I noticed the same thing with the gutting of the article. I agree with your take – seems like either revision or reassessment is due. Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)