User talk:SueHay/Archive 1

Welcome!
Howdy,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; you seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! If you need help on how to title new articles, see the naming conventions, and for help on formatting pages, visit the manual of style. For general questions, go to Help or the FAQ; if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page. ---

Additional tips
Here are some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!
 * For Wikipedia policies and guidelines, see The Five Pillars of Wikipedia and What Wikipedia is not.
 * Find everything in the Directory.
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, the Sandbox is for you.
 * If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random article button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
 * If you have edits from before creating an account, see the page on changing attribution for edits.
 * You can also upload images. Make sure you use the correct copyright tags when you do.
 * Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Be bold
Be bold in updating pages! You can find instantaneous help any time simply by typing anywhere on your own user or user talk page.

You can find me at my user page or talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round.

Jo e  I  03:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re compound interest (comments on my user page reply)
Please, don't worry - I didn't consider this trashing the page and it is not, at any rate, "mine". In this case, I simply thought the text did not have much to do with interest per se. It also seemed to me that the source was perhaps not sufficiently reliable, but that is just an opinion. As for other suggestions, please go ahead and be bold and edit.

That said, I disagree about compound interest - it is the norm as far as I am aware, and I haven't seen any references to the contrary. You may want to see the interest page, there is more background there I believe.--Gregalton 12:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this is the right way to reply, or if I need to go to your user page, but I'll try here. Please let me know if this works.


 * I looked into the simple vs compound stuff a bit more. US Savings Bonds pay simple interest -- see www.treasurydirect.gov.  Actually all US government bills, notes, bonds etc. pay simple interest.  Since there's a wide market for T-Bills, T-Bonds, etc., the market price is apparently based on projected yield, but it's not clear that this is a compound yield.  "Yield to Maturity" (YTM) doesn't seem to be a compound yield calculation.  Interest accrues on these securities, but I don't see any interest paid on the accrued interest.


 * I come at this from an accounting/legal perspective, not a high-finance perspective. Cash is an asset.  Land is an asset.  Renting out land is no different from lending cash; and, taking out a rent on land is no different from borrowing cash.  It's a contract.  Unless the contract explicitly stipulates a penalty for late payment or non-payment of rent/interest, the interpretation of contract non-compliance is up to the courts.  Courts in the USA generally assume that the delay of rental/interest income to the lender should be compounded -- on the basis that the lender could've invested the rental/interest income elsewhere to earn further rental/interest income during the time delay.  Courts in other countries do not assume compounding of debt if it wasn't in the contract.  They work from the premise that a contract is a contract: if penalties for non-compliance are not in the contract, the contract is explicitly for the amounts stated.


 * The history of this fascinates me, but more to the point for current Wikipedia readers, I think that the interest-related articles should talk about simple interest before getting into compound interest. Just my opinion.


 * Thank you for being a gentleman, Gregalton! :-) I don't pretend to know everything about this subject of "interest" (compound or simple), but I want to understand and share as best I can.  Thanks for your encouragement!
 * SueHay 04:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I didn't see your reply until just now, when I came on a different subject. You're right, in a sense at least, that bonds do effectively pay simple interest - I hadn't looked at it that way. (The usual economics assumption is that the funds will be reinvested, but that brings in other issues). So there is scope to include references to simple interest.


 * I actually came to your page to compliment your flagging a page on return as inappropriate and unsourced. I've been following a number of pages here which I think are equally opinionated, but, without naming names, I seem to have offended someone and cannot get any reasonable answers or responses (let alone sourcing materials or backing up arguments). I've mostly been backing off (well, at least a bit) and hoping that it would calm down, but so far, my hopes have been unfounded. If you could look at other pages it would help remove it from a silly two-way slinging match. (I'll admit I am also aware I have perhaps also reacted quickly sometimes rather than waiting...). The one right now that is particularly annoying is nominal interest rate, where the approach has now deteriorated to one of destructive (IMHO) redirects without any attempt to explain or discuss.


 * Anyway, your continued reasoned work is appreciated. Good faith approach work is the key;) .--Gregalton 20:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * SueHay, thanks for the note and the incentive to put something on my user page. I also edited your note on my page to avoid referring to any individuals and getting the proverbial hackles up. Content is all there though.--Gregalton 03:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing topics in business
Thanks for help with the missing topics page - Skysmith 10:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar, I appreciate it. And you deserve one, too:

Biz & ecco $
Hey welcome new participant. I have replied which category on the talk page, so you can resolve it with alphachimp. Don't sue me please. :). --Parker007 23:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

80 Micro Page
Thank you for contacting me! I try very hard to maintain accuracy and meaning in all of my wikipedia-ing, but inevitably I am human and thus imperfect. I had simply forgotten to post my reasoning for the forward. I have fixed the error. Thank you, and I mean that sincerely because I never would have caught it. :) -Chahax

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)

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)

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 &bull; 16:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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 - Krakatoa  Katie  18:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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 Parlate Contribs@ 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 Parlate Contribs@ 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 Parlate Contribs@ 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 Parlate Contribs@ 02:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, TeckWiz! --SueHay 04:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. 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 13:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. I haven't forgotten. I've been pretty occupied in real life, and I also focused my attention on other auditing articles that needed a lot of work. But I'm still trying to find sourced info on the page. I'll try to find some time to add some this week. - Mtmelendez (Talk 13:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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. Er rab ee 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)
 * Gary Null or Frank Bunker Gilbreth come to mind. Just one of the things they are missing is an infobox. Er rab ee 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I'll watch for the infoboxes. The Null article seemed pretty comprehensive and well-referenced, but I can see why you gave it a B. The Gilbreth article is definitely not an A, but as you said, a Start. Again, sorry about that. I'll spend more time with the stubs. With 12,000 of them tagged "Business", that'll keep me busy! --SueHay 23:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're involved with this, why aren't you listed on the assessment task force for this project? --SueHay 02:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I'm a member of WikiProject Biography and also listed there. I had also signed up for the assessment drive. Er rab ee 13:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I made the mistake of signing up for the assessment drive at WikiProject Business and Economics when there seemed to be an urgent need for participation. The instructions there are abbreviated, and I haven't spent enough time learning the finer points of the rating system. I'll go back through my ratings and remove them. I apologise for the damage. Please have patience while I try to fix it. --SueHay 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not really a mistake, but a show of good will on your part. Unfortunately, that particular WikiProject does not seem to be coordinated in a structured manner, which shows in the (ad hoc) way the rating system works for that Project. The Biography project is run much tighter, and even there we are not satisfied with the way things are progressing. Er rab ee 23:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to revert all those edits I made or not? --SueHay 05:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No not particularly. I'd appreciate it however if you could check these assessments when you happen to come across them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Errabee (talk • contribs) 09:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I'll do that. Thank you for your feedback. --SueHay 01:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

1997 Aisin fire
Hello, you rated the 1997 Aisin fire article as A. I'm pretty sure that it does not deserve this rating. Can you explain your rationale? Thanks YaanchSpeak! 22:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i didn't even see the discussion above this one. I understand then. Just familirize yourself with the grading scheme and you'll be set. YaanchSpeak! 22:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

FanFiction
You mentioned in in the afd for fictionet, & its a good article-- but it will be very hard to defend without references. Just a suggestion.DGG 03:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I mentioned FanFiction.Net, not Fan Fiction, in Articles for deletion/Fiction Press. User:Dhartung summarized this dilemma quite well in that afd discussion: "popularity is not notability." Notability here in Wikipedia is based on references in "authoritative" journals, newspapers or websites, not on obvious popularity with hundreds of thousands of people - or whether or not a Wikipedia article is well-written.  FanFiction.Net and Fan Fiction are not proposed for deletion, so don't worry. It would require a separate afd discussion, and by then they'll probably have adequate references available. --SueHay 06:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

IP address 24.38.61.226
I've tagged this IP address as a school address, but I'm not certain that the tag is technically correct. The IP is registered to st.albyny.adelphia.net. There is a school called Long Trail School in Dorset, VT, and I think the message from the school was from a teacher. Could you please check and see if its correct to tag it as a school? See User talk:24.38.61.226. --SueHay 21:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you tagged it right.  Real96  22:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Regression analysis‎
Hi, SueHay. Concerning Regression analysis‎, I was interested to see that you restored the clarify template, esp. since I was the one who inserted the template in February. I removed it yesterday, b/c of the vast improvement I had seen over the following 2.5 months, thanks the efforts of many people. I think you are right to reinsert it if in your reading it still does not come up to standard. Would you consider indicating those parts you consider esp. needful of clarification? My thx. --Thomasmeeks 12:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I responded at Talk:Regression analysis. Hope that's helpful. --SueHay 21:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thx. I put a couple of questions on the Talk page there for you.  If you think that's bad, you can take a look at the history of the Talk page, section 15, for how long it to improve on the earlier lead (or so I believe that it is). You might consider editing the article lead if you think it's not hopeless.  --Thomasmeeks 22:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Operations Research
Hi! I'm a little stuck on what to do about the external links on the Operations Research page. You took them all off, and I don't feel free to move them back or revert due to COI (unfortunately I have been involved with a lot of OR on the web, making it tough for me to take part in Wikipedia). Do we now wait to see if someone without COI moves them back or do we now run Operations Research without external links? Mtrick 00:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Add what information you can into the article, with links to appropriate references (online or offline). You've stated your bias for the record, and your bias is clear to other editors. You've also been a gentleman about this matter of Wikipedia policy.  Use External links if it's necessary to provide aditional information to a Wikipedia article, but don't forget that the Wikipedia article is what you're working on. :)  --SueHay 01:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote
thanks for your vote keep in article Female body shape. if we keep deleting such article instead of improving wikipedia will reduce to half of its size. cheers. Greg dn 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Vinay, I can't leave you a message on your talk page, because you've managed to get your talk page blocked to edits. Your sock puppet Greg dn was a very bad idea. I think you want to make Wikipedia better, but you cannot do this by evading the rules. Do you understand the rules? Wikipedia is not a democracy or meritocracy or any other sort of political system. It's an encyclopedia. I agree with you that the English Wikipedia should include clear explanations of English terms that English-speaking people seem unable to define clearly .  But you cannot help this situation by ignoring Wikipedia's rules.  Do you understand the expression "do not shoot the messenger"?  Do you understand the expression "kill the ref"? The English language is difficult. It contains all sorts of emotional historical baggage. Before you can help the English Wikipedia, you need to understand not just the English language but the English culture.  And those of us who are from the English culture need to understand your culture.  This  will not happen if you do not explain yourself clearly in a way that we can understand.  This is a translation problem. Please help us as best you can.  And please be patient. --SueHay 01:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lwiner
Is there some way that you can confirm that Lwiner is actually Leon Winer from Pace University? The Pace University website gives his email address as LWiner@Pace.Edu. His discussion with pandaplodder at Talk:SWOT_analysis seems odd. I don't know what the Wiki policy is about a user pretending to be a living person. User Lwiner actually wrote in that discussion, "Please sign in and provide a User page, so that your credentials may be evaluated." Lwiner's own user page is a resume with links to his current website. This strikes me as a marketing ploy or maybe a sock puppet. --SueHay 04:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC) helpme
 * If Lwiner wishes to, he can send an email from his email at pace.edu to the OTRS system. Then one of the admins with OTRS access will post a note on his talk page vouching for his authenticity.  Hold on a minute and I'll get the email address. --Selket Talk 05:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it looks like that fell through. All he should need to do is find some person of trust within the community and ask them to vouch for his credentials by stating both with the account, and via email that he is who he says he is.  Then that user can post a note somewhere. --Selket Talk 05:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for help
Sue, You are obviously involved in the business sections. Could you have a quick look at http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/index/subject.Business_Studies.htm and let me know of any important reasonable quality articles which are missing? You could post any comments here Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_CD_Selection Thanks --BozMo talk 06:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * BozMo, I left some suggestions on that talk page. Hope that's helpful. --SueHay 14:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * yep thanks --BozMo talk 15:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Another request, std. wiki consulting fees apply
If you get a moment free, could you review the business/ERM related Articles for deletion/Corporate Defence? I'm a little skeptical of the contents of the article, but I'd like a competent set of eyes on it in case I'm overreacting to the rather selective set of references. Thanks in advance for any time you can divert to this. Kuru talk  03:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was rude to newbie user, but reading his writing gave me a headache. --SueHay 16:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the footwork. It would appear he's going to be one of the insistent ones.  Kuru  talk  02:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for the style update
I am rather focused on trying to add content, but I will incorporate the stylistic changes you recommended on the C. Michael Harper page in future articles -- Wogsland 00:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I was helpful. Content is more important than style, but style helps the Wikipedia reader understand the content. Thanks for all you're doing, Wogsland! --SueHay 01:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)