User talk:SueHay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives /Archive 1

Contents 1 Business Plan 2 Re: Once a great article 3 Category management 4 Marketing strategy 5 User Dintelliment 6 Business and econ portal maintenance 7 Joint Audit 8 Your A-class assessments

[edit] Business Plan

I responded on my page, but wasn't sure if I was on your watch list. BTW what is the protocol for user talk re: where to put responses? Egfrank 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I just finished the first cut - despite the length, it still really is little more than an outline and some notes. A lot needs to be filled in, but go ahead and wikify or add content if you have relevant info.

I also reorganized the talk page to make it easier to keep track of on-going discussions.

Thanks again for your help, Egfrank 21:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Saw your edits - thanks. Egfrank 06:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comment about attribution - the information I added to the bizplan page was in my own words except where I salvaged wording from the previous version, which I assume had no plagerisms or unattributed sources (???).

In terms of where the content came from - anything that is uncited represents an amalgum of information acquired through almost 20yrs in consulting and business, consolidated and extended via an MSc in management (Sloan Masters Fellow, London Business School, 2000). Based on those experiences, I would view the content I added as "common knowledge". I realize the reader may not have a professional or academic background in business that would help them assess the "commonness" of knowlege. Furthermore, judgements of commonness may in themselves be POV. Any citations (or corrections) you can add for specific sections would be most welcome. As I'm sure you know hunting down and reconstructing all the sources for one's profession or area of expertise can take considerable time - though of course it must be done. Egfrank 07:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed you undid an unexplained edit - thanks. Does this kind of thing happen often? Egfrank 21:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Some articles get vandalized daily, others get hit about every week, some rarely get hit. You can see how common it is by looking at an article's history page. Often it's not even really vandalism, it's just someone goofing around in Wiki and messing up. Once you get the text and references into Business plan it'll be easier to keep the nonsense out. Right now it's pretty open to whatever anyone wants to do to it. --SueHay 00:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Once a great article

Thank you, Oxz! Truthfully, I don't know HOW to restore it, but I thought it ought to be restored. I'll try to link the references to the text over the next few days, and also remove those vandal-attracting lists. --SueHay 04:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, here's how to restore an old version of the page (if you spot vandalism or something). Open up the page history and find the last good revision (for most vandalism, this will just be the previous revision, i.e. the second one from the top). Click on the timestamp of that revision to view it. While viewing it, press the "edit this page" button – when the edit page comes up, the edit box will contain the old revision instead of the current one. (You can tell if you've done this right because a big pink message box will appear above the edit box telling you it's an old one). You don't need to make any changes in the edit box itself, just type "revert" (if it's obvious vandalism) or something more specific (if it's not) into the edit summary field and save the page – Qxz 05:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, Oxz! Your guidance is MUCH appreciated. --SueHay 05:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's Qxz, by the way :) – Qxz 05:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the correction, and I'm sorry I got it wrong. Qxz, THANK YOU for your help! --SueHay 05:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category management

User Positivepurchaser mixed up the Category management links in January and February. He created an article to advertise positivepurchasing.com at Category Management - Purchasing, copied the Category management info to Category Management - Marketing, and redirected Category management to Category Management - Purchasing. I'm not sure how to fix all of this. --SueHay 15:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reversed all his changes. —Centrx→talk • 16:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marketing strategy

User ShaliniSamuel redirected Marketing strategy to Markets chapter 1 on March 26. This redirect makes no sense, and everything links to Marketing Strategy. Can someone reverse his edits? --SueHay 18:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Done! You can move pages yourself – just click the 'move' tab at the top of the article. I'll also put a note on the article's talk page to remind folks not to do things like moving pages without discussing it first. Happy editing - KrakatoaKatie 18:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Dintelliment

I think user Dintelliment was WP:SPA. If you think so, can you revert his edits? I'm still not quite sure about doing this sort of stuff myself. --SueHay 01:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Comex21 also. --SueHay 01:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. These edits were from August. Also, an SPA is usually used in voting like AFD and RFA. They've all been overwritten by now. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are their edits still there? --SueHay 01:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit's don't go away, beca but they can be reverted (which is just taking out what that user put in, though it's considered a new edit.) I think this is because all edits must be attributable for reasons I think pertain to the GDFL. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. Could you rephrase that? --SueHay 01:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

People's edits can't be erased, but they can be undone. This person's edits have been overwritten already. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The stubs on Digital intelligence and Digital Business were created by those two users and interlinked. They're empty nonsense, and they still exist. They need to go away. What's it take to do that? --SueHay 02:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added them to candidates for speedy deletion. However, it's still not considered a single purpose account because it's article writing, not voting. Please re-add the help me in the future, as I must go now. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, TeckWiz! --SueHay 04:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Business and econ portal maintenance

The B&E portal has been unmaintained since Nishkid64 became temporarily inactive due to an operation. I'm not exactly sure how to maintain this portal. I looked at the past edits and such, but I'm not sure I have the technical ability or overall knowledge of B&E to maintain the portal. I'm truly sad that the portal is basically a skeleton right now. The B&E project is a bit slow these days. But I'd like to see the portal back in acion. I could use some help here to figure out how to get the portal back in action. There's a lot of editing from Wikinews to Wikipedia involved, and I don't want to spend a lot of time translating from Wikinews to Wikipedia, because I'm more interested in longer-term trends than in ephemeral news. Can you help with suggestions? --SueHay 02:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't be of much help, but starting at WP:PORTAL might be interesting, you might want to send messages (on talk pages) to other members, and see if someone else wants to take responsibility. (Feel free to readd helpme if you need more advise) --NigelJ ^{talk SIMPLE} 03:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, anything I can do to help? Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 03:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, help. --SueHay 03:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of answering any specific questions you might have :) Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 03:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joint Audit

Hey, SueHay. (it rhymes!) I read the article, and I noticed you re-formatted the article completely. It was a complete mess before, but you did a very good job fixing it up. I think anyone who is not from the Business WikiProject wouldn't understand it, and would've probably been deleted if it wasn't for your edits.

However, I think the article's subject needs a better definition. My research points to joint audits being a combined effort to audit any entity on any subject, and produce a report. It doesn't necessarily have to be on financial statements and it is not limited to public accounting firms. [1] But I think the biggest problem is that the article seems to contain some original research and nothing is attributed. The article is not new, so I guess it was abandoned until you picked it up.

I'm going to try and do some research to expand the article, as well as try and start an article on dual audits. However, I'm pretty tight on time, so it'll probably have to wait until this weekend. Send me a message to see how we can collaborate, or if we should assign each other the articles. Thanks. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 13:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your A-class assessments

I've noticed you've assessed several articles (like Edgar Schein) as A-class while they are clearly no better than start-class. I'm awfully sorry, but I'm afraid that this way you're doing nobody a favor. You're doing an awful lot of work, and others have to do it again. So please conform to the standards that apply, or stop rating articles. Unrated articles are better than articles incorrectly rated as A-class. Errabee 16:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. --SueHay 16:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned one article, but you said that I incorrectly assessed "several" articles. Could you give me some more examples? I make mistakes, like anyone else, but I'd like to know if I've been making ongoing errors during the past month. I've been doing my best to reasonably rate articles for this project, given the guidelines and my level of experience with Wikipedia. I'd appreciate specific examples of past errors so that I can improve my future evaluation of articles. --SueHay 03:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)