 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The most recent edits to this page by D Dresner are marketing spin and not suited to an encyclopedia.
To delete the text about a number of unsuccessful acquisitions and instead describe the period under Mr Gough as of "limited success" is oxmoronic. They were either successful or they were not. Given the company shrank in size, made successive losses, was forced to re-sell acquisitions at fraction of their cost, and right-off others, this is not success (limited or otherwise). Unsuccessful is a valid description.
Secondly it is NOT possible for any UK company to restructure through liquidation, perhaps in limited circumstances during administration. But the company was liquidated. Removing all references to liquidation and the relevant footnotes to verifying sources and also removing the references to the financial difficulties of the pension scheme is dishonest. As is the attempt to imply administration and not liquidation. The company was liquidated and new company was created and trades in the name of the old company. This is not restructuring by any reasonable interpretation. No Reasonable Person (not implying any insult to the editor, but the UK legal definition of "A Reasonable Person") would describe the purchase of the MG brand and certain IPR from the liquidators of MG Rover by SIAC as "a major restructure of the organisation via administration". NCC now operates in the same manner.
Perhaps the new company bought some of the assets and IPR of the old company, if so then this should be declared and which assets. If not it is simply trading on a name an is in fact the "new" NCC. This does not denigrate what it does but is simply fact but should be declared for an encyclopedia. It is certainly assumed it did not take on all the liabilities. The path from Redholt Ltd to NCC should be explained. Also is the current company not for profit, like the old one.
A quick Google search shows that D Dresner worked for NCC and it is assumed this is the same person who edited the article. It is suggested that rather than simply restore the previous version, D Dresner is given time to provide an accurate version more suitable for an encyclopedia. PS. The name is Chris Pearse not Chris Pearce.
83.198.143.71 ( talk) 14:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The latest edits do not help the neutrality or accuracy of this article. They seem to be more marketing for NCC Group and its CEO rather than the History of the National Computing Centre. Also the claim regarding the NCC Group FD "who also took over control of the Escrow division and returned the Group to profitability" which implies NCC Group was loss making and seems to be at odds with the published accounts. There does not appear to be any evidence the NCC Group was ever loss making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.104.78.111 ( talk) 15:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the marketing team at Redholt Ltd trading as NCC, are embarrassed by their chequered past and fall from grace and are trying to compact the facts to confuse the reader. Redholt does not continue the spirit of what of what the NCC was formed for and bears no relation to it. Wikipedia is is an encyclopedia and it is clear to the independent reader that the facts need to reflect what happened to the original organisation formed in 1966. It appears, that all that is left is the financially successful organsiation, NCC Group as well as NCC Education which is not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.232.59.6 ( talk) 10:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Generally agree with the above comment, but I am not convinced reverting the last edit helped. It would seem that the intent of the previous edit was to concentrate on NCC and not spin the story. Some previous edits were marketing spin from Redholt/NCC. This page is about The (original) NCC and does not need to contain any information about NCC Group after NCC sold its shares in NCC Group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.107.54.16 ( talk) 15:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I someone disagrees with the "Key people" please make a comment here and stop simply deleting the whole field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.198.124.112 ([[User talk:83.198.124.112|talk]]) 11:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.107.25.150 ( talk) 23:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The article has developed but the reader benefits from a clearer definition of the events. NCC was sold to it's management by a pre pack arrangement, there has been no dramatic rebirth and it has continued do some of what it did before albeit in a very small way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.232.59.6 ( talk) 09:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
NCC Group has according to all their public statements over 15,000 customers and supplies 94 of the FTSE 100 companies, which is a large customer base by any B2B company's standards. They are the largest provider of their escrow product (which will have had to be verified to be included in the prospectus) and state they have the largest pen test team both of which have been signed by the auditors over the years. Adding these metrics to the article is not really necessary as it is intended to be a brief summary and as it is a dynamic set of numbers is probably more applicable a section on NCC Group, if they can ever be bothered to write one.
The auditors responsibility is to the members of the company and they are duty bound to report on all statements contained in the annual report other than where they specify that they do not. The operational review and before that the chairmans, chief executive and finance directors reports all have to be verified as factual accurate by them, so it would be fair to say that they will have asked management about the targeting process and will have seen from the financials that all bar one acqusition has paid it's earnout in full. This suggests that the assertion that they were carefully targeted, they certianly appear complimentery, and effectively managed seems a reasonably fair statement?
The state of NCC Services finaces can be determined as follows, it was acquired as a loss making company on 31 May 1999 per the 2000 accounts note 12. It traded profitably until Christmas of that year as it received a lot of benefit from Y2K awareness schemes that it ran especially in Africa as stated in the listing particulars. This stopped and the company failed to replace the revenue and traded for a number of months unprofitably before the change of strategy took place and the company focused on escrow.
I hope this clarifies the points and we can finally close these points off as the piece reads pretty fairly, especially compared to some other company articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.232.59.6 ( talk) 10:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we can settle on "successful" for the acquisitions as this is less subjective. I think someone suggested my edit were self promotion. I don't understand this as I have never worked these companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.106.66.129 ( talk) 23:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Clearly Michael Gough was extremely unsuccessful in his role and strategy, but there is no benefit in having a witch hunt alerting his current employers to his errors. Reholts accounts are still not filed and NCC Group appears to have flourished further hence the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.232.59.6 ( talk) 13:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I have removed all references to Vaughan Shayler from this talk section somebody on 18/12/11 seems to have mischievously changed the name D Dresner in this section to Vaughan Shayler and then someone claiming to be Mr Sayler has got angry at this but if you follow the edits the article and discussion on NCC has never mentioned Mr Shayler, whoever he may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.105.210.207 ( talk) 01:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not not agree "the legacy of the white heat of technology was destroyed" surely this not only lives on, but flourishes in NCC Group.
Some of the recent edits smack of marketing rather than encyclopedic content. If the recent editor wishes to make assertions regarding the "success" of any CEO after Mr Gough, any change in strategic direction or other claims about the liquidation of the company or its current status then please provide details or links to verifiable content. However, simply deleting sections of other peoples writing for no apparent reason is really not acceptable - if its is wrong and not vandalism then please correct any error with links to verifiable sources. Demonchef ( talk) 13:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
86.165.53.205 has again deleted large block of this article which the edit history shows but has made no comment. A review shows that the deleted sections have had several authors, discussion and revision over a period of time which the community seems to feel is valid, and somebody just deleting these with no explanation or reason is not acceptable and breaches the AUP. Demonchef ( talk) 19:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Tidying up of some minor points and reflecting on the above comments that NCC Group certianly appears to be carrying the "white heat of technology" forward according to their recent announcements.
Yet again large amount of text that has had several authors and with links to citations have been deleted. As usual no reason has been given on this page. Deleting items that are generally agreed and cited with no explanation or reason is not acceptable and breaches the AUP. From the user names of the editors, the deletion's smack of an attempt to spin the NCC story by person's linked to the failed company. Demonchef ( talk) 19:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
It is disappointing to see the following posted on a Wikipedia RfA. "My name is Keith Vooght I am the Manging Director of The National Computing Centre and also the Managing Director of NCC Filetab Limited, I also have major share interests in 4 other IT comapnies. The Wikipedia entry for "National Computing Centre" is continually being vandalised with malicious content, including personal comment on previous directors, We need to prevent this abuse. Is administration the onloy way we can do this? Please help." It would seem that somebody disagrees with this article and although there have been some minor vandelism such as the silly "open sauce" comments this article seems well balanced and has been developed by a number of editors who have sought to shed light on the subject. If anyone disagrees with article or can shed further light please do so by making suitable comments here. 178.106.181.155 ( talk) 17:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Key people are Directors or executives, Tom Barnard was not one.
NCC Ltd are now a sham organisation, operated by an individual with no employees offering no services to customers. It has treated former staff, pensioners, suppliers and creditors with disdain by once again refusing to meet their obligations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.232.59.6 ( talk) 12:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
While I may agree with the above comments, the recent edits are not of a suitable academic tone and need to be revised. Demonchef ( talk) 22:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
On reflection it is correct that some of the sections deleted by Getittrite7002 contain opinion, supposition or information unrelated to the subject, however a few facts that were pertinent to the subject were also lost in the edits. Given the insolvency of NCC the flotation value and subsequent market value of the business spun off only a few years earlier and which it still had a substantial shareholding in until one year before its flotation are relevant. To put this in perspective if in 2003/4 NCC had maintained some or all of its shareholding in NCC Group (rather than liquidating it all and spending all the £6M funds received by 2008) it would now have an investment worth up to £80m at today's share value. The date of of departure of the CEO and the commercial failure of the newly developed services are also relevant facts. I have tried to re-instate this but without opinion or commentary. Demonchef ( talk) 23:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on National Computing Centre. 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/20120426055523/http://www.ecipartners.com/news-and-media/news/ncc-is-winning-investment-for-eci.go to http://www.ecipartners.com/news-and-media/news/ncc-is-winning-investment-for-eci.go
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926074059/http://www.nccgroup.com:80/AboutUs/History.aspx to http://www.nccgroup.com/AboutUs/History.aspx
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 10:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on National Computing Centre. 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:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nccgroup.com/AboutUs/History.aspx
- Added archive https://archive.is/20120720125439/http://uk.linkedin.com/in/mgough to http://uk.linkedin.com/in/mgough
- Added archive https://archive.is/20120907184527/http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/national-computing-centre-ncc-acquires-pmp-uk-ltdnotes-editors to http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/national-computing-centre-ncc-acquires-pmp-uk-ltdnotes-editors
- Added archive https://archive.is/20120729010407/http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Steve/Markwell to http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Steve/Markwell
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 21:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Between 1975 and 1980, I bought copies of a brilliant booklet with this title from NCC for all the members of the Gesellschaft für Informatik. Is its text still accessible anywhere? As NCC was non-profit, it should be. -- Wegner8 09:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- C-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- C-Class software articles
- Low-importance software articles
- C-Class software articles of Low-importance
- All Software articles
- All Computing articles
- C-Class United Kingdom articles
- Low-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- C-Class organization articles
- Low-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- C-Class Greater Manchester articles
- Low-importance Greater Manchester articles
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The most recent edits to this page by D Dresner are marketing spin and not suited to an encyclopedia.
To delete the text about a number of unsuccessful acquisitions and instead describe the period under Mr Gough as of "limited success" is oxmoronic. They were either successful or they were not. Given the company shrank in size, made successive losses, was forced to re-sell acquisitions at fraction of their cost, and right-off others, this is not success (limited or otherwise). Unsuccessful is a valid description.
Secondly it is NOT possible for any UK company to restructure through liquidation, perhaps in limited circumstances during administration. But the company was liquidated. Removing all references to liquidation and the relevant footnotes to verifying sources and also removing the references to the financial difficulties of the pension scheme is dishonest. As is the attempt to imply administration and not liquidation. The company was liquidated and new company was created and trades in the name of the old company. This is not restructuring by any reasonable interpretation. No Reasonable Person (not implying any insult to the editor, but the UK legal definition of "A Reasonable Person") would describe the purchase of the MG brand and certain IPR from the liquidators of MG Rover by SIAC as "a major restructure of the organisation via administration". NCC now operates in the same manner.
Perhaps the new company bought some of the assets and IPR of the old company, if so then this should be declared and which assets. If not it is simply trading on a name an is in fact the "new" NCC. This does not denigrate what it does but is simply fact but should be declared for an encyclopedia. It is certainly assumed it did not take on all the liabilities. The path from Redholt Ltd to NCC should be explained. Also is the current company not for profit, like the old one.
A quick Google search shows that D Dresner worked for NCC and it is assumed this is the same person who edited the article. It is suggested that rather than simply restore the previous version, D Dresner is given time to provide an accurate version more suitable for an encyclopedia. PS. The name is Chris Pearse not Chris Pearce.
83.198.143.71 ( talk) 14:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The latest edits do not help the neutrality or accuracy of this article. They seem to be more marketing for NCC Group and its CEO rather than the History of the National Computing Centre. Also the claim regarding the NCC Group FD "who also took over control of the Escrow division and returned the Group to profitability" which implies NCC Group was loss making and seems to be at odds with the published accounts. There does not appear to be any evidence the NCC Group was ever loss making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.104.78.111 ( talk) 15:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the marketing team at Redholt Ltd trading as NCC, are embarrassed by their chequered past and fall from grace and are trying to compact the facts to confuse the reader. Redholt does not continue the spirit of what of what the NCC was formed for and bears no relation to it. Wikipedia is is an encyclopedia and it is clear to the independent reader that the facts need to reflect what happened to the original organisation formed in 1966. It appears, that all that is left is the financially successful organsiation, NCC Group as well as NCC Education which is not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.232.59.6 ( talk) 10:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Generally agree with the above comment, but I am not convinced reverting the last edit helped. It would seem that the intent of the previous edit was to concentrate on NCC and not spin the story. Some previous edits were marketing spin from Redholt/NCC. This page is about The (original) NCC and does not need to contain any information about NCC Group after NCC sold its shares in NCC Group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.107.54.16 ( talk) 15:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I someone disagrees with the "Key people" please make a comment here and stop simply deleting the whole field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.198.124.112 ([[User talk:83.198.124.112|talk]]) 11:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.107.25.150 ( talk) 23:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The article has developed but the reader benefits from a clearer definition of the events. NCC was sold to it's management by a pre pack arrangement, there has been no dramatic rebirth and it has continued do some of what it did before albeit in a very small way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.232.59.6 ( talk) 09:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
NCC Group has according to all their public statements over 15,000 customers and supplies 94 of the FTSE 100 companies, which is a large customer base by any B2B company's standards. They are the largest provider of their escrow product (which will have had to be verified to be included in the prospectus) and state they have the largest pen test team both of which have been signed by the auditors over the years. Adding these metrics to the article is not really necessary as it is intended to be a brief summary and as it is a dynamic set of numbers is probably more applicable a section on NCC Group, if they can ever be bothered to write one.
The auditors responsibility is to the members of the company and they are duty bound to report on all statements contained in the annual report other than where they specify that they do not. The operational review and before that the chairmans, chief executive and finance directors reports all have to be verified as factual accurate by them, so it would be fair to say that they will have asked management about the targeting process and will have seen from the financials that all bar one acqusition has paid it's earnout in full. This suggests that the assertion that they were carefully targeted, they certianly appear complimentery, and effectively managed seems a reasonably fair statement?
The state of NCC Services finaces can be determined as follows, it was acquired as a loss making company on 31 May 1999 per the 2000 accounts note 12. It traded profitably until Christmas of that year as it received a lot of benefit from Y2K awareness schemes that it ran especially in Africa as stated in the listing particulars. This stopped and the company failed to replace the revenue and traded for a number of months unprofitably before the change of strategy took place and the company focused on escrow.
I hope this clarifies the points and we can finally close these points off as the piece reads pretty fairly, especially compared to some other company articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.232.59.6 ( talk) 10:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we can settle on "successful" for the acquisitions as this is less subjective. I think someone suggested my edit were self promotion. I don't understand this as I have never worked these companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.106.66.129 ( talk) 23:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Clearly Michael Gough was extremely unsuccessful in his role and strategy, but there is no benefit in having a witch hunt alerting his current employers to his errors. Reholts accounts are still not filed and NCC Group appears to have flourished further hence the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.232.59.6 ( talk) 13:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I have removed all references to Vaughan Shayler from this talk section somebody on 18/12/11 seems to have mischievously changed the name D Dresner in this section to Vaughan Shayler and then someone claiming to be Mr Sayler has got angry at this but if you follow the edits the article and discussion on NCC has never mentioned Mr Shayler, whoever he may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.105.210.207 ( talk) 01:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not not agree "the legacy of the white heat of technology was destroyed" surely this not only lives on, but flourishes in NCC Group.
Some of the recent edits smack of marketing rather than encyclopedic content. If the recent editor wishes to make assertions regarding the "success" of any CEO after Mr Gough, any change in strategic direction or other claims about the liquidation of the company or its current status then please provide details or links to verifiable content. However, simply deleting sections of other peoples writing for no apparent reason is really not acceptable - if its is wrong and not vandalism then please correct any error with links to verifiable sources. Demonchef ( talk) 13:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
86.165.53.205 has again deleted large block of this article which the edit history shows but has made no comment. A review shows that the deleted sections have had several authors, discussion and revision over a period of time which the community seems to feel is valid, and somebody just deleting these with no explanation or reason is not acceptable and breaches the AUP. Demonchef ( talk) 19:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Tidying up of some minor points and reflecting on the above comments that NCC Group certianly appears to be carrying the "white heat of technology" forward according to their recent announcements.
Yet again large amount of text that has had several authors and with links to citations have been deleted. As usual no reason has been given on this page. Deleting items that are generally agreed and cited with no explanation or reason is not acceptable and breaches the AUP. From the user names of the editors, the deletion's smack of an attempt to spin the NCC story by person's linked to the failed company. Demonchef ( talk) 19:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
It is disappointing to see the following posted on a Wikipedia RfA. "My name is Keith Vooght I am the Manging Director of The National Computing Centre and also the Managing Director of NCC Filetab Limited, I also have major share interests in 4 other IT comapnies. The Wikipedia entry for "National Computing Centre" is continually being vandalised with malicious content, including personal comment on previous directors, We need to prevent this abuse. Is administration the onloy way we can do this? Please help." It would seem that somebody disagrees with this article and although there have been some minor vandelism such as the silly "open sauce" comments this article seems well balanced and has been developed by a number of editors who have sought to shed light on the subject. If anyone disagrees with article or can shed further light please do so by making suitable comments here. 178.106.181.155 ( talk) 17:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Key people are Directors or executives, Tom Barnard was not one.
NCC Ltd are now a sham organisation, operated by an individual with no employees offering no services to customers. It has treated former staff, pensioners, suppliers and creditors with disdain by once again refusing to meet their obligations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.232.59.6 ( talk) 12:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
While I may agree with the above comments, the recent edits are not of a suitable academic tone and need to be revised. Demonchef ( talk) 22:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
On reflection it is correct that some of the sections deleted by Getittrite7002 contain opinion, supposition or information unrelated to the subject, however a few facts that were pertinent to the subject were also lost in the edits. Given the insolvency of NCC the flotation value and subsequent market value of the business spun off only a few years earlier and which it still had a substantial shareholding in until one year before its flotation are relevant. To put this in perspective if in 2003/4 NCC had maintained some or all of its shareholding in NCC Group (rather than liquidating it all and spending all the £6M funds received by 2008) it would now have an investment worth up to £80m at today's share value. The date of of departure of the CEO and the commercial failure of the newly developed services are also relevant facts. I have tried to re-instate this but without opinion or commentary. Demonchef ( talk) 23:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on National Computing Centre. 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/20120426055523/http://www.ecipartners.com/news-and-media/news/ncc-is-winning-investment-for-eci.go to http://www.ecipartners.com/news-and-media/news/ncc-is-winning-investment-for-eci.go
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926074059/http://www.nccgroup.com:80/AboutUs/History.aspx to http://www.nccgroup.com/AboutUs/History.aspx
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 10:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on National Computing Centre. 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:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nccgroup.com/AboutUs/History.aspx
- Added archive https://archive.is/20120720125439/http://uk.linkedin.com/in/mgough to http://uk.linkedin.com/in/mgough
- Added archive https://archive.is/20120907184527/http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/national-computing-centre-ncc-acquires-pmp-uk-ltdnotes-editors to http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/national-computing-centre-ncc-acquires-pmp-uk-ltdnotes-editors
- Added archive https://archive.is/20120729010407/http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Steve/Markwell to http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Steve/Markwell
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 21:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Between 1975 and 1980, I bought copies of a brilliant booklet with this title from NCC for all the members of the Gesellschaft für Informatik. Is its text still accessible anywhere? As NCC was non-profit, it should be. -- Wegner8 09:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- C-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- C-Class software articles
- Low-importance software articles
- C-Class software articles of Low-importance
- All Software articles
- All Computing articles
- C-Class United Kingdom articles
- Low-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- C-Class organization articles
- Low-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- C-Class Greater Manchester articles
- Low-importance Greater Manchester articles