User talk:Helenabella

Welcome to my talk page! I have a few requests that I hope you'll respect while posting here: Be civil. If you don't agree with an action I made, please be calm and polite. We'll straighten things out a lot quicker that way. Sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ Start new discussions at the bottom. Start new discussions with a level three heading. I generally like to keep discussions together. If you post here, I'll reply here and leave you a message informing you of my reply. If I leave you a message on your talk page, I'll keep watching it, but if you want to make sure I notice it quickly, please feel free to tag me by typing {{re|helenabella}} before your main message.

Credit to Amaury for the box template.

Barnstars

Barnstar!

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your glorious 2.5-hour spree on 17 February 2015. Your work has not gone unnoticed :) A2soup (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	for changes to coach k IamQuack23 (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for the appreciation! DivineAlpha 07:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your work on the "Locally integrable function" entry. :D Daniele.tampieri (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Messages: Archives

Archives
2008
2012
2013
2015

Messages: May 2015

Deleting the Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives (DPCPSI) entry

Hi there!

I am writing to inquire about your deletion of my newly created page on DPCPSI. You note copyright infringement as the reason for the deletion, but this article is about a Division within the National Institutes of Health, a US Federal Government agency. I reference Copyright status of work by the U. S. government as a supporting factor in why this article has not infringed upon any copyright laws. We are a government agency and our website is in the public domain and is usable by all, copyright is not a factor. I work in DPCPSI and drafted this article with the approval of all of our office directors and deputy directors. Our primary goal was to publish an article that was detailed, but above all, accurate and correct.

RHaworth is the user who actually deleted the page and the reason is copyright infringement of https://www.nei.nih.gov/about/naec/061710. This link is to one of NIH’s advisory councils’ meeting minutes. I scrolled through the information from the link and someone was reporting on the Council of Councils (CoC) and our NIH Common Fund (CF). The description of the CoC and CF is verbatim from our own website! There is no copyright infringement because the text is from the website of a federal government agency and it is in the meeting minutes of another Institute within the NIH. The material you both are citing as the reason for deletion is part of the NIH and was taken directly from DPCPSI's website; therefore, there is no copyright infringement.

I have already contested the deletion, but I also wanted to reach out to you. I would appreciate it if you would reinstate this entry. Our division has worked hard to compile the information and accurately cite all material.

Thanks! --Bofro1 (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hi there, Bofro1. Thanks for your message - your deletions and reinstatement of articles can only be done by an administrator so far as I am aware, so you will need to take it up with one of them - I just flagged it as it had cut & paste content throughout. (Interesting to learn that the US Government puts most work in the public domain when not written by contractors - would be great to see websites putting a copyright statement up to inform readers.) I believe RHaworth has also provided some context reasons for why they opted to move the content back to a draft stage for rework; these appear to be in line with Wikipedia's recommendations on style and data dumping, and also a comment on the Conflict of Interest editing guidelines.

I found some useful resources that may help you with the draft: US Government attribution templates; and attribution templates.  Helenabella (Talk)  02:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Malpi school

Hi Helenabella!

I am a total enthusiast of Malpi. Yet, as a very burned-out Wikipedian, I must agree that the "tone" is not quite right. I want to thank you for your offer of help to the original editor. I wish I could devote time for that, right now focusing on getting prepared to go to Nepal and help there, sort of priorities... There are also quite a few other great things about Malpi that need to be told, and eventually they should. Just one, and I go back to main priorities: never in my life, anywhere, (and I've been around) have I found a private school that would actually have a line item in their budget to help public schools (i.e., poorest of the poor in Nepal) around them. Malpi does. Etc. (just need to find a published account of that someday and I will add it to the article :-) Thank you for now, and since probably the editor might not be able to reach WP for a while, ahem, circumstances, I beg your kindness and keep the article alive, editing it if you can, please, to be adequate. YamaPlos talk 16:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hi @Yamaplos:, Nepal sounds amazing. Good luck with your volunteering - you are an amazing person. If no-one else takes it on before I get around to it, I will have a look at the article and see if I can make any improvements if I can find some spare time in coming months!  Helenabella (Talk) !

Criticisms of Socratic thought

I just thought to revert your inclusion of the merging proposal, since :

• (reason 1) ---> I already have included some of the material of the article into the Socrates article, and the information was subsequently removed via reversion ( made 15:54, 11 April 2015‎ ) which was agreed to on consensus (more or less), for reasons which might be apparent in Talk:Socrates (if you would like to look to see this), so I don't fore-see it being vital to re-include the info for now.
• (reason 2) ---> I'm thinking the subject of the Criticisms article as not being part of main points of view of Socrates - WP:5P, in the form that article currently is in in any case, so integrating it into the article would currently create a problem which is unnecessary.
• (reason 3) ---> in order to give time to locate the scale of the subject identified by the title, since the article is young and the entire amount of data to include into Socrates would perhaps be therefore subsequently prohibitive should a larger article be possible.

This isn't to wholly discount the value of your including the proposal of course, just that the subject of Socrates doesn't need to include this information in directly for now I'm thinking, and a link might be made to the article from Socrates, which would suffice I'm sure in any case.

I was curious about this by the way, having looked into your edit history (obviously):

Total edits: 2,098

but

This user has been on Wikipedia for 7 years, 8 months and 22 days?

You have made so few edits in 7 years? this seems strange.

Whalestate (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hey there, thanks so much for the reply, Whalestate. I like the work your have done on the article! (I believe someone has restored the merge proposal tag overnight, which appears to be generally consistent with the principle of not removing proposals without consensus.)

I'm finding the link between that and the section in the main article a little bit opaque as there's no indicating in the Socrates article that the additional article on criticisms exists. As you suggest, an alternative solution would be to trim back the content in the Criticism section of the Socrates article, roll it into the separate article on criticisms, and include the tag at the top of that section in the Socrates article directing the user to the Criticism article to read more - effectively merging in the other direction. This could be particularly worthwhile if you're keen to expand the article.

I'm interested that you find my edit history interesting! I made an account many years ago to correct typos and grammatical errors I came across while using the site, and to write local history articles about my area to replace the stubs, so my total number of edits over the period hasn't been particularly consistent. (And to be honest, I found it incredibly intimidating, but have since discovered that most Wikipedians are lovely people.) More recently, I've put some time into vandalism patrol and helping copyedit articles written by ESL users - I figured that, given the vast amount of utility I have had from Wikipedia, it was time to pay something back.

Deletion of Goldsboro Web Development

Bad faith = fail. Wikipedia policy says so. We have developed the world's most secure CAPTCHA's (verifiable, independent, university research) and you nominate it for deletion because we have yet (or too lazy I admit) to create the Super-Captcha page on Wikipedia. I suggest a speedy keep under the condition of blissful ignorance of notoriety.

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2665896 http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4088&context=eispapers

Leewells2000 (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)