Talk:Deloitte/Archives/2017
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Deloitte. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Deloitte. 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/20160125185555/http://www.thecourt.ca/2016/01/19/livent-v-deloitte-has-the-fat-lady-finally-sung/ to http://www.thecourt.ca/2016/01/19/livent-v-deloitte-has-the-fat-lady-finally-sung/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Cherry-picking negative information
I am in the process of vetting the "Controversy" section and have discovered that large amounts of the information and negative sources have been cherry-picked to make Deloitte look bad. I am adding a warning tag, as this is going to take a long time to clean up. Superkatlover (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- No drive by tagging please. If you think you can improve the section then please do so rather than leaving it to others. Dormskirk (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am actually working very hard to correct the bias by removing bad sources and finding good ones. It is slow going as I am not experienced at this. Superkatlover (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- "
large amounts of the information and negative sources have been cherry-picked to make Deloitte look bad
" - that's quite a brazen assertion. Please remember to assume good faith. Zazpot (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Criticism EDD
The whole section is a bit much and reminds me of those complaint sites, but the EDD about a one time delayed payment falls under not notable one time events. There are alternative outlets outside of Wikipedia to air grievances.--WatchingContent (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. The whole thing looks like a giant scarlet letter. Superkatlover (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm unsure what an "EDD" is in this context, but there's nothing in the article anymore about a delayed payment. The remaining cases in this section seem to be notable and should be kept. Zazpot (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)