Jump to content

Talk:Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for Planning and Evaluation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Potential Conflict of Interest Declaration

[edit]

Please review a potential conflict of interest:

  • Having just read this: http://www.hhs.gov/web/socialmedia/getting_started/wikipedia_guidance.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest, I would like to make sure that I am not violating one of Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest editing. Specifically, Wikipedia provides an example: "1) government employees should not edit articles[---]about their agencies, government, or political party, or articles about their political opponents, opposition groups, or about controversial political topics[---] with the intent to slant or spin an article in a manner that is politically advantageous to their employer".
    • I am a full time employee (civil servant) of the federal government in a time limited position (e.g., fellowship) at the Dept of Health and Human Services in the office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
    • As a civil servant, I am obligated to be neutral. (We have political appointees, who are not obligated to be neutral; they support the elected Administration.) Civil servants state the facts.
    • As a subject matter expert in health, healthcare, and the Dept of Health and Human Services, I am able to contribute and edit content with significant expertise. I do not stand to benefit (which is one reason my user name itself does not attempt to be identifiable - I am not editing to establish myself as an expert) any more than any other citizen who consumes information on these subjects.
    • As a consumer of information, I rely on Wikipedia for getting a basic understanding of new 'things'. There are many article stubs that I wish were further developed.
    • As a user of Wikipedia, and a citizen of the United States, it seems that authoritative/publicly developed content should more often find its way onto Wikipedia. That is my one potential conflict of interest or bias.
      • I extensively researched how to expand access to publicly available information. The role that dbpedia (based on wikipedia) plays in the semantic web (and near to mid term future of search engine algorithms) is inescapable. Not participating in the information created as part of the Wikipedia project would put publicly generated information and data at a disadvantage.
      • Equally, the US Government does not pick "winners" (e.g., dbpedia or wikipedia). Because Wikipedia provides content in the public domain, this does not seem to be an issue. The content itself is ineligible for copyright.
      • The only word on the Article page that may carry clear bias is "instrumental". That is why it carries a citation on the word itself. It is pulled from the text of the budget justification sent to Congress.
      • The text provided primarily by the Federal Register and Congressional Budget justification were specifically screened for neutrality (removing any potential for aggrandizement). The history was added (and edited down also to avoid self-promotion) because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Suggestions on how to proceed are much appreciated. Please know that my intentions were well placed, and it is my intent to comply with the governance of the community.

--Kukt (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Kukt[reply]

Regarding "This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. The specific problem is: Article title is about a person (position), yet article seems to be about an office/division": The Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation is in fact both a person (position) and an office/division. The person is often referred to as "*The* ASPE", while the office is referred to as "ASPE" . There are several other examples within HHS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Human_Services#Internal_Structure Kukt (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Kukt[reply]

Isn't the position ASPE, and the division Office of the ASPE?Flat Out let's discuss it 05:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the US Government does not have a copyright. It is Public Domain. And in fact it is not a direct copy. The cited manual is out of date. Please see references to the GPO documents published in 2010 and 2011. Kukt (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Kukt[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cogress member archive.com

[edit]

Fairtake for a random solution on healthcare agencies, to a zoom by members' shaft on a share of a transparency unit to a holdback view of sovereignity, shielded on a spare trust... if may maintain dos carpium to an eurohold of a regional timer. Wisely done on the inside of local sides to a browser smith, any buck to withhold but a gold value to a script in: exchange for cover back of a solution to cost of cures. Walkback to a lost property, due in links of law and permissions to a side due lack of household accommodation. Vulnerability. Care system quite oblique, insufficiencies of plenty - just to the suite of the elementary rights in court and society. Prescribed for a tune in, gaining value on a quote of a judgement to sue and be sued. Subdevision of policy makers to a line about domestication and roots in, on a Congress hold of a union to same land. But for ownership? As a forked in stew, to the private keepers. A stern in notion for a disclaimer full of hints to a value of land, as called by white spots. Due in emission of buck. No run by regional corps to an entity of it. Close by, sovereign make - no due terms of a red on banking. Slam up destination, easy for landscape diversity. A claimant rescue fund. 212.5.158.133 (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assistant_Secretary_of_Health_and_Human_Services_for_Planning_and_Evaluation&oldid=1205426453"