User talk:Hu12
| Archives |
|---|
| /Archive /Archive2 /Archive3 /Archive4 /Archive5 /Archive6 /Archive7 /Archive8 /Archive9 /Archive10 WP:GRIEF m:MPOV |
| If I start a conversation on your talk page, I'm watching it. Please leave responses on your talk page. Thanks. |
| “ | Another key to the problem here, {name of contentious editor}. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral.. | ” |
| — WP:TIGERS | ||
| The following is a list of articles currently nominated for speedy deletion. |
| I'm currently in the process of re-assessing the usefulness of this tool. It may be replaced with something using the new <categorytree> syntax (although that doesn't have all of the functionality), or it might be deleted altogether. If you have any comments, please make them known on the talk page. --Cyde Weys 02:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The CSD list is not intended to be used for transclusion purposes. By doing so, you are creating many unnecessary "What links here" entries that administrators on CSD patrol have to peruse on each deletion. Think of the tiny benefit that transclusion affords you versus the large hindrance that it creates to many administrators each time every CSD is dealt with, and you will realize why it is no longer permitted.
See also |
|
|---|
| This is a list of deletable PRODs. |
| Category:Expired proposed deletions |
|
|---|
| This is a readout of various categories. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This is a readout of the current RfAs. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Welcome
Welcome to the talk page --Hu12 (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Heraldry Online
Could you please explain your reasons for deleting all links to heraldry-online.org.uk? (You seem to have inadvertently archived/deleted my original question.) --Heraldic 07:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic (talk • contribs) 07:58, 7 January 2008
- External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, you are the webmaster of heraldry-online.org.uk. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia (prior to the Howe article), in order to promote heraldry-online.org.uk. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Heraldic and IP 212.240.95.228, consist mostly of adding external links to heraldry-online.org.uk and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the most prior to the howe article seem to be heraldry-online.org.uk related only. Please do not continue adding links to your own websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see the welcome page. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines--Hu12 (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure you will see it but [8] cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, added a guidance comment[9] --Hu12 (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Point taken. I will play by the rules. However, I hope that other editors do see that my site does provide information that is of some merit, particularly the Scottish heraldry. Even if it was a valid means, I thought setting up the Arms details within a Wiki article would have been just too big a task.
- It is just a shame you did not contact me on the 24th December to let me know that I had erred. --Heraldic 14:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Understood. Its not a bad site IMHO as long as it remains neutral, and free from the cotrovesy of the "other site" you assisted in collating and reviewing. I'm sure it has its place on Wikipedia as a reference, however lets let other long standing editors make that determination. Cheers ;)--Hu12 (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The only thing that a few may consider controversial is that I do not list "assumed" Arms, only those granted by an established heraldic authority. My train set, my rules ;-). --Heraldic 16:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic (talk • contribs)
- How do I stop the Sinebot?! I click on the signature icon religiously but it is not enough for the SineBot! --Heraldic 16:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic (talk • contribs)
- There is definatly somthing going on, Maby some clues can be found at Wikipedia:Signatures. If I recall we've gone over various methods. Might want to add the question on that talk page, I'm sure you arent the only one who's had the problem.--Hu12 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- How do I stop the Sinebot?! I click on the signature icon religiously but it is not enough for the SineBot! --Heraldic 16:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic (talk • contribs)
- The only thing that a few may consider controversial is that I do not list "assumed" Arms, only those granted by an established heraldic authority. My train set, my rules ;-). --Heraldic 16:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic (talk • contribs)
- Understood. Its not a bad site IMHO as long as it remains neutral, and free from the cotrovesy of the "other site" you assisted in collating and reviewing. I'm sure it has its place on Wikipedia as a reference, however lets let other long standing editors make that determination. Cheers ;)--Hu12 (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, added a guidance comment[9] --Hu12 (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure you will see it but [8] cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks from Nancy
Thank you for removing that unpleasant question from my talk page - my pages have had their fair share of vandalism but that was truly the most offensive thing anyone has ever written. Thanks again, kind regards, nancy (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Your welcome ;)--Hu12 (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
About Monitor Group
Thanks for your clarifications. I made edits to cut out editorial-sounding parts. I was wondering if you could give me feedback on it. If it is OK, I would like to be allowed to post it. Thanks:
| Company type | Partnership |
|---|---|
| Industry | Management consulting |
| Founded | 1983 |
| Headquarters | Cambridge, Massachusetts 30 offices around the world |
Key people | Mark Fuller, Chairman |
Number of employees | 1,500 employees worldwide |
| Website | www.monitor.com |
Monitor Group is a global management consulting firm. Founded in 1983 by a group of Harvard Business School professors including Michael Porter and the current chairman Mark Fuller, Monitor provides services in the areas of strategy consulting, capability building, and capital services. One of the ways Monitor differentiates itself from its competitors for its application of cutting-edge academic theories[1].
Monitor Group is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and has offices in 30 major cities around the world.
Competitors
Monitor’s main competitors in the high-level strategy consulting market are McKinsey & Company, The Boston Consulting Group, Bain & Company [2].
Clients
Monitor Group does not disclose its list of clients. Some engagements that have appeared in the press due to their public nature include a major initiative with the Libyan government[3][4] and an organizational effort with the University of California[5].
Recruiting
Monitor Group recruits both at MBA and undergraduate levels. Heavy recruiting is done at Ivy League and other top-10 institutions around the country. MBA recruiting takes place in the top 8 to 10 business schools, but the online recruiting process makes it possible for graduates from any business school to apply for a management consulting position. Undergraduate recruiting is done primarily among Ivy League schools, top liberal arts colleges, and prestigious public institutions such as UC Berkeley.
Monitor was listed as one of “10 Best Firms to Work For” by the Consulting Magazine[6] and one of “25 Top Consulting Firms” by WetFeet Insider Guide. It has been ranked in the top 5 of the “50 Most Prestigious Consulting Firms” ranking by Vault Guide for several years running[7].
Interviewing
Monitor uses a case method to find out the candidates’ capabilities and potentials. Monitor does not use brainteasers, but instead presents a hypothetical business case with data and information that is designed to test the candidate’s quantitative ability, logic, creativity, and poise.
The first round of interviews consists of a case interview and a fit interview. Candidates who are invited to the second round go through a group case interview, in which they work on a case with other candidates in a group setting; a role play interview, in which a real-world client situation is simulated; and a feedback interview, where the candidates get a chance to receive feedback on their performance and discuss their own views on the interviews. Around 2% of the undergraduate applicant pool receives offers.
Offices
Notes
- ^ "Tuning into Monitor" [1] Boston Business Journal, retrieved January 6, 2008.
- ^ "Tuning into Monitor" [2] Boston Business Journal, retrieved January 6, 2008.
- ^ "Harvard Guru to Help Libya" [3] BusinessWeek, retrieved January 6,2008
- ^ "Libya Gingerly Begins Seeking Economic but Not Political Reform" [4] New York Times, retrieved on January 6, 2008
- ^ "Q&A on University of California Restructuring Efforts" [5]
- ^ "Best Firms to Work For" [6] Consulting Magazine
- ^ "50 Most Prestigious Consulting Firms" [7] Vault Guides