Talk:Northbrook Technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Proposed deletion 2 Info 3 Info 4 Edited for balance

[edit] Proposed deletion

I removed the prod on this. The Queen's award is one area that could be improved. With more detail and referencing it would be a definite keep. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 07:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info

I can show company communications if these are required as cited sources for the changes I made. Everything is factual. 86.12.254.70 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there are many company articles on Wikipedia where the pay, bonus and sick pay policies are described in any detail. Is there any news story reporting on this controversy? - if not, I'd suggest leaving it out of Wikipedia. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 12:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To the original submitter of the Controversy section; if you wish this section to remain in its current form, you should provide an external citation (newspaper article, etc.) It's probably best that you do not post company internal emails here unless you are willing to risk getting in hot water. If you feel strongly that you or others are being badly treated by your award-winning company (and are willing to go on the record), why not discuss it with a local newspaper? The Wikipedia is probably not the place to go with personal gripes unless these can be substantiated.Spuriousangelus (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Info

This is a very one sided view of NTNI and is in breach of the company's confidentiality contract. As the user above mentions there are not too many company articles on Wikipedia where the pay, bonus and sick pay policies are described and it should be removed from Wikipedia. NTNI (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Which sentences specifically breach the company's confidentiality contract? UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We have now referred this to Wikipedia directly via the following e-mail address: 'info-en-q@wikimedia.org' and have included the section of the company’s confidentiality statement that is breached by the content that has been removed. Due to further action that may be taken we cannot provide any further information at this stage. NTNI (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, please to not delete the section again for the reasons outlined below. Of course you can always add more information about the benefits offered by your company relative to other local employers to balance this out. This kind of censorship might seem like a good idea but it is almost always a bad move. Spuriousangelus (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edited for balance

The 'Controversy' section has been edited to correct some spurious language (such as 'mere') and stick as closely as possible to the facts presented. To the NTNI editors: is the accuracy of the section in question? If so, please amend as you see fit. Otherwise, do not delete this section as this would represent a malicious edit by a self-appointed and self-interested censoring body, against the greater interest of giving a fair and balanced view. Other editors may remove this section for other reasons (such as relevance, accuracy, lack of citations) but this will be discussed here first.

Also please note that internal company confidentiality agreements are not universal gagging orders and should not be treated as such. If the original editor was an employee and a willing signee of such a contract, you should take your issue up with them.Spuriousangelus (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Added disputed tag to the Controversy section. Please correct any factual inaccuracies.Spuriousangelus (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

. . . without performing a wholesale delete, of course. You can also raise them here, to have other editors work on them. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)