SueHay

American Academy of Financial Management

Need help from an editor who understands finance or governmental sector. 2 Editors continue to remove the primary governmental references from this article American Academy of Financial Management

Can you help somehow to make sure that the government links and regulatory references and citations remain in the article to improve the AAFM Article. Nobody wants to whitewash the article, but rather include government links, the top US Business accreditation agencies such as AACSB and ACBSP, and FINRA and US Government referneces to AAFM. Most of the information that is included in todays article was approved by the two editors last year. Not sure why these editors now think the references and facts should be deleted at this time? Please help get this article right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.102.39 (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

TheBackpack - spam question

Hello Sue,

I appreciate your comment on my talk page regarding spam and using Wikipedia as a marketing campaign. I will be publishing an article on MyBizOffice, the company that has a trademark on PER. I pulled much of the information from their website and got in contact with the CEO for biographical information and other information on MyBizOffice. In respect of Wikipedia's policies and its nature as an encyclopedia, I would like to request your guidance in the creation of this article (two sets of eyes are better than one). I am using Wiki to educate people on this new concept and the idea behind the services MyBizOffice provides. Since this is a new concept and unique business model, I thought Wikipedia would serve as a great education tool. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. Here's the article MyBizOffice.

--TheBackpack 16:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Portable employer of record Speedy Deletion

Hi, Sue.

Please see my note on the article's talk page, contesting speedy deletion.

TheBackpack's article on MyBizOffice, however, is another subject.. Regards. BWatkins 13:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again,

I see that PER has been deleted, but I recall in one of the many discussion that it had been suggested to incorporate PER, PEO and other related topics together, however I have seen no action taken. It had also been proposed that an article on Contingent Workforce Management be created, with some information from related articles incorporated. I have not seen this either. I find it kind of disappointing that an article with educational value is just deleted and there is no effort to re-format this information so that it is still available while not violating policies. I have requested this article on the Wikipedia Request page and I am willing to supply some sources in building this article. Please let me know the progress on this article.

--TheBackpack 17:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like PER has been deleted. That's an admin decision, so you'll have to ask an admin if you want to know anything about that.

Regarding creating an article about "Contingent Workforce Management", I checked the single reference for Contingent Workforce and found that the initial definition given in the article doesn't seem to agree with the information provided by the single reference in the article. Before creating an article on "Contingent Workforce Management", it would be a good idea to make sure that the underlying terms are clearly defined. Workforce is unreferenced and poorly defined. Contingent Workforce has a single reference -- which contradicts the opening statement. Contingent work is not referenced, and neither is Contingent Workforce Outsourcing. The article Outsourcing is referenced but ridiculously cluttered with External links and See also lists. These articles may or may not be accurate to some degree -- but they cannot be verified. If you truly want to help Wikipedia, I suggest you improve the article on Workforce -- THEN move on to more detailed subjects. If you can't do that, at least please help improve the Contingent Workforce and Contingent work articles before thinking about creating a new article in Wikipedia. Hope this is helpful. --SueHay 01:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Diagram Link on SWOT Analysis Page

I seriously object to your imperious deletion of a link to a diagram displayed in flickr. The diagram illustrates the Strategic SWOT concept very clearly and with its location on flickr provides a count of views, a measure of perceived value. So far, it has been viewed over 109 thousand times.

The issue of placing the diagram elsewhere has been discussed previously -- see the SWOT Talk page. The issues were discussed and it was jointly agreed to leave the link to flicker in place. At that time, the count of views was about 40 thousand. The link works. It illustrates. It keeps track. Please leave it be. Thank you very much, Sue Hay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lwiner (talk • contribs) 02:46, 7 June 2007.

PER

Sue, I finally had time to respond on my talk page, but I've had so much traffic that you might not notice it if you were watchlisting. Also trimmed the article and left a detailed message there as well. Will probably start a fire storm, will don my asbestos suit. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

AKRadecki, many thanks for your help! That was a great trim job on PER :)), and I liked your comments on the talk page very much. I hope you don't need the asbestos suit. --SueHay 16:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

PER and MyBizOffice

Hello,

I feel that it was a bit drastic to immediately delete these articles as they were only published a few days ago. I am a college student interested in pursuing a career as a consultant, so I have done a lot of research about the industry. I came across MyBizOffice and really liked their business model and services. I really feel bad that so many Wikipedians are suspicious of my articles. I have already written a note to you and Man With Two Legs requesting help in publishing these articles to make them encyclopedia material. I have stated before, and I will state again, my intention is not advertising - it is strictly to educate others about PER services and the consulting industry. As for the MyBizOffice article, I saw that there are articles on several other companies and that understanding what MyBizOffice does would further someone's understanding of PER services. I had also included several other companies that offer PER services, however I have not yet had time to research enough about them to publish an article. I hope the everyone involved in the creation and deletion of these articles understands. I would like to keep those articles up on Wikipedia and I have no problem with anyone making edits to these articles to make them Wikipedia worthy. I believe these topics are of educational value and should not be banished from Wikipedia. Please do not delete Portable Employer of Record and MyBizOffice.

--TheBackpack 20:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sue, I've jumped in here, as well, hope you don't mind, and left a note on the packer's talk page re: above. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

New development at PER

Sue, take a look at the PER talk page...new development there which has resulted in me prodding the article. Would appreciate your comments. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

- Hello Sue, speaking as one familiar with the contingent workforce management space, I'd like to encourage your and your colleagues to give this discussion more time. The CWM space is often referred to as a "shadow industry" with very little exposure to the light of day. Since the early 1980's, the staffing and talent management world has exploded, and the contingent workforce is the fastest growing segment of the workforce (according to the BLS website www.bls.gov - can get you a reference if you like but it's not at my fingertips at the moment).

An ordinary FORTUNE 1000 company may have up to 200 staffing companies (suppliers) meeting its needs for contingent labor, and these vendors or suppliers are generally managed by a combination of VMS and MSP (Vendor Management Softwares and Managed Service Providers). Indeed, there are only a handful of MSPs running this show -- I can count them on my fingers.

And while the MSPs run the independent contractors who will submit to work for a staffing employer or the subcontractors who can qualify as legally compliant under the IRS' regulations, there is a vacuum in enabling truly independent contractors to engage with these large systems. Portable Employers of Record stand in this gap and provide a direct engagement vehicle to the MSPs, getting the individuals access to vend their services (as a boutique consulting firm) to the larger organizations. It's small business versus big business.

xxx [this paragraph expurgated by its author]

Wikipedia stands as an incredible opportunity to balance out this strangle hold, and elevate what is almost an occult industry sector into a clearer and more neutral public understanding.

It is true that there are very few independent sources who know anything about this space. I recently followed the development of the *VERY FIRST* MSP Standards Committee. Although MSPs have been operating for over a decade, there have been no standards or ethics, and some shady vendors have taken advantage of the murkiness and ignorance of organizations in the business community. The Human Capital Institute, an independent third party organization, will be the certifying body for these collaboratively developed standards when they are released, and in that process the PER model may also receive definition.

I tell you all this just to try to give you a better picture of what is happening in the CWM space. We do need more independent coverage of VMS', MSP's, and PERs.

Please do continue to encourage encyclopedic rigor, however I would ask that everyone give the contributions more time to develop before hitting delete.

Yes, a few notable companies will be highlighted, if the inventors and the pioneers in these processes are to be given appropriate credit. The 8 or so firms who collaborated in the first MSP Standards effort will be named. MyBizOffice will go down in history as having invented an industry that many others are now adopting. Larger MSPs are trying to offer PER as an aspect of their services as well. Whether that history is available on Wikipedia, or not . . . currently there is no other venue for it in this 'shadow industry'.

As for notability, the average American would be shocked to learn how much spend is controlled by a small handful of contingent workforce management companies -- just because this information is not yet in the public consciousness, or a household name, does not make it any less significant. Most people have no idea what VMS and MSP are. In fact, the Human Capital Institute will be doing a webcast series soon introducing these concepts that are so strongly influential in the business world.

And again on notability -- MyBizOffice is currently getting a good deal of media coverage around bringing the PER model to commission-earning professionals like realtors or insurance professionals. The article authors may not mention that phrase 'PER' but the articles are undisputably discussing that business process/model. While other firms like YurCor and EWork and PacePros have adopted the PER model and entered the space alongside MyBizOffice (hey, competition can be healthy all around), there is only one PER currently available for contractors working on a commission basis.

While this may not sound notable to the average educated person, this development -- another first in the United States -- in a single stroke makes group health benefits available to the millions of independent realtors and others who currently cannot get it except through a spousal plan. Talk to any realtor as to whether or not this is notable.

The Congress is currently wringing its hands over the healthcare crisis, and there's a business model that circumvents cleanly a health care system which has been getting away with victimizing independent workers for years. Whether this is about MyBizOffice, or more about getting that message out for other firms to also work on, it's an enormously significant breakthrough. Just ask Century 21, Keller Williams, RE/MAX, Weichert, Genworth, Foresters, or any number of financial service firms who are now advising their contractors to seek out the PER solution.

And I don't know what your expertise might be in the world of health care benefits, but just so you know, Association plans like those offered through Realty associations (NAR) or the new plan offered by Home Depot for contractors are *not* true group health care plans. They are individually-rated plans based on a pooled-risk system. It is a shame the Investment News article fails to make this distinction (chalk it up to the ignorance of the author and editors as to not knowing what questions to ask), as the consumer has to go through quite a few layers with BenefitProtect LLC's call center and ask very pointed questions to find out that the benefits are not, after all, group benefits.

There's a Wikipedia article needed for the world -- helping people understand the difference between individually-rated pooled-risk plans and true group health plans. Maybe I'll start working on it!

Finally, do you know that the normal staffing firm adds up to a 40-60% markup on the labor it contracts? This price pressure -- an artificial one -- is an enormous pressure to outsource and offshore and is disrupting the business environment. That means individuals are getting underpaid on one hand, and on the other hand business are overpaying for their work.

PERs such as those mentioned are doing the same thing for between 3 and 8%. This is a necessary and helpful balance.

Thanks for listening to my rants. The more accurate information that can be brought into light about these industries and these business processes, the better.

And PS, I have no idea who any of these other contributors are, so you don't need to add my name to a list of conspirators! Thank you. ContingentWorkforceSpace 22:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sue, hope you don't mind if I chime in here...the above has some interesting points, and some points that concern me. First, "Wikipedia stands as an incredible opportunity to balance out this strangle hold" might be true, but that really borders on activism, and we need to be careful to avoid that, for obvious reasons. It's not our place to "fill the gap", because we are clearly intended to be a tertiary source of information, relying on mainstream media (secondary sources) for our information. I'm really concerned that so much of what's being written here on this subject is Original Research. I'm not really direct this at you, Sue, because I know you know the policies, but rather at the others in this conversation. Articles should be written based on one or more non-trivial media reports. They should not be written from personal expertise as their primary source of information.

All that being said, ContingentWorkforceSpace makes an interesting point, kind of by accident. By using the term "contingent workforce". We have the article Contingent Workforce. Remember my comment about may what we need is to fold all these different terms and articles into one general article about the industry, treating each approach as sections. With references, of course! AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

AKRedicki, thank you very much for joining this discussion. I agree that Contingent Workforce deserves clarification, expansion, and citations. I'll begin the process tomorrow as best I can. --SueHay 02:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the space. I have slightly expurgated some of my more uncensored comments and deleted some of the names of stakeholders in the industry lest there be inintended repercussions for those I mentioned. And to clarify, I am not advocating that Wikipedia needs to take an activist stance or get into reporting. The point I was trying to get across is that while I understand more independent secondary sources are needed, in this industry there is little independent anything, and what information exists is tightly controlled by subscription and not open source. If Wikipedia editors could generously allow more time -- flagging the articles as needed -- for those 'in the know' to come out of the woodwork and offer resources, that would be extremely helpful. With regard to putting all these articles together under 'contingent workforce management' -- this may be an acceptable solution, provided that this is done with care. There exists a painful amount of confusion already, as the business community tends to lump all of these different models into an indistinguishable mass. In truth they are very distinct in what they legally do and do not accomplish. PEO and PER sound alike to the innocent bystander but are very different, especially in the eyes of the IRS. ContingentWorkforceSpace 12:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes by Hubbardaie

I appreciate your point. My primary objective here is to cite changes I make about a particular area I've done a lot of research in. Many of my comments have also culminated in the book I wrote. If merely mentioning that book is reason enough to treat an entire article as an advertisment, then I have no problem with deleting reference to the book. But that does not mean every article I write or modify about my area of research must, therefore, be an advertisment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hubbardaie (talk • contribs) 20:19, 7 June 2007.

Internal spam

When I first posted the Applied Information Econmics article, a header appeared saying it was an "orphan" and needed links from other articles. I went out and started to make links wherever it looked appropriate only to find out that this is called "internal spam". Which of these guidelines do I follow? I'm new but it appears to me that you're objecting to the very thing wikipedia was prompting me to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hubbardaie (talk • contribs) 00:29, 8 June 2007.

San Diego Natural History Museum

I have not forgotten about this - I just need to carefully read the references and such to make sure I can trim it down without cutting out anything vital. It's not a topic I'm terribly familiar with so I'll need to study first before I step on the land mine... :) Kuru ^talk 23:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the San Diego Natural History Museum at all. It could be a snail museum for all I know. Maybe I'm supposed to know all this stuff, but I don't think that Wikipedia readers come to Wikipedia already knowing all this stuff -- I think they want to find out stuff from Wikipedia --BALANCED stuff. What I think of as "a fair shake" for the topic at hand. San Diego Natural History Museum is very warped, Workforce is also very warped, Invoice is weak, Strategic management is a fiasco and Applied Information Economics is a study in author-centered use of Wiki for self-advertising. You've helped me understand Wilipedia, and I thank you very much for that. You're a good egg, Kuru! If I could give you a big hug and kiss right now, I'd do it! With love and respect, --SueHay 02:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

SueHay no longer active

Please do not leave messages on this page. This Wikipedia username is no longer active. --SueHay 03:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go, Sue. Hope all is well. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Things are going much better now, thank you, AKRadecki -- and many thanks for all your help! I'm doing anon and newbie username edits for now. I'm not cut out for chasing down vandals and spammers and sock puppets and such things. I just want to try to help improve the articles. So I'm HERE -- but not using this username anymore. xxoo SueHay --64.181.91.29 04:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I couldn't resist.  :-) Just wanted to mention that I did as you suggested, and incorporated some information about the employer of record model into a revised Professional employer organization article. BWatkins 01:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fascin

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Fascin, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

The references are not specific enough to determine whether they are Reliable Sources, and there is no context in the introduction.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Faulter for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Faulter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faulter until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lesliechin1 (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)