Talk:Market of Choice

message: From what I understand, the points system and the interview procedures are not unique to this company and therefore are not particularly encyclopedic or notable. Nor is it particularly notable for a company to "greenwash" it's image and/or claim to be somehow "green" or "politically correct" while simultaneously possibly exploiting its workers. If a publication such as the Register-Guard or the Eugene Weekly has done some sort of exposé on the company, that might be grounds for mentioning any controversy in the article. Note that I know full well the plight of the working class, however, Wikipedia is not here to provide a forum for disgruntled employees. Katr67 (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what you understand it is not unique... that would be a personal view point... kitchenclerk (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. It is. And this is a talk page. Please read WP:TALK and WP:POV for more information. If you feel the information is notable, please reintroduce it using citations to reliable sources and please remember not to edit war. I recently had a conversation with someone who talked about the "point system" where they work. The workplace was not Market of Choice. This is what my opinion is based on. This is what is known as "original research." Note however, that I am not introducing my original research to the article, where it does not belong. Katr67 (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Employment practices, "PCness", etc. 

message: This article is now 100% cited. --76.105.154.250 (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cited

message: Just because one or two or ten other companies uses a point system does not mean that stating which companies use such a system is not encyclopedic.  It would not be encyclopedic if every company used such a system.  But it would be my option that not every company use such a system.  And since you used your option to change this page I would say that you used your WP:POV I also have notice that in the history of this page you refer to this person who has appeared to do a WP:POV edit, as a kitchen clerk, courtesy clerk, and a apprentice clerk.  As a regular customer of this store I decided to ask if these potions even exist there.  It turns out all three do.  I am curious what you affiliation to the company is to know about all three of these positions and to get the confused.  As a regular customer I did not even know about these positions.  I do not want to edit this page with out discussion because of all of the problems it has seemed to have as of late.  User:Katr67 you seem to have a knowledge of what is going on here if you could please explain this to me I would appreciate it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.41.136.11 (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2008
:I can't answer for User:Katr67 regarding the affiliation, but I just want to point out that the use of points/occurrence systems is not unique to this company or the customer service industry, and while this information may be useful to employees, Wikipedia is not an employee policy manual.  Please see WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  Thanks! Kameron (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My affiliation? I used to shop there. But the affiliation question is actually some odd sort of trolling. See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon#Market of Choice and User talk:Katr67#Market of Choice. Katr67 (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs clarification 

message: The logo on the page is an outdated version. We would like to update it since Google is using Wikipedia as the source of the logo when you search from the company. The new logo is reflected at the top of the Market of Choice website.
Dturell (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The code on that website made that much harder than it should've been. As an fyi, Wikipedia isn't responsible for where Google gets its info. Grayfell (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed logo update

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Market of Choice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925184256/http://www.marketofchoice.com/about_us/ to http://www.marketofchoice.com/about_us/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Market of Choice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100918232058/http://betterbricks.com/DetailPage.aspx?ID=946 to http://betterbricks.com/DetailPage.aspx?ID=946
*Added  tag to http://rgweb.registerguard.com/news/2007/03/02/3.tk.bestgrocery.0302.p1.php?section=bestof
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed the following citation from the article and found the information supported in existing sources.  Originally I only came to repair the link error and search out this {dead-link}.  After locating the archive and reading the article I find there is no relevant information in it to support any statement in the article.  I am placing this here as both explanation for my actions and for any future editor to find useful, although to be truthful, I found the article to be near useless and is the reason I removed it.
* 
--->  Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed content  

message: The content sounds like advertising and I highly doubt the Wikipedia needs it. --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C3F:46ED:C254:50EF (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple issues including notability