User talk:Helenabella/2015

Miami Fire-Rescue Department

I should probably learn how to spell huh? ;-) Thanks! --Zackmann08 (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nomination

Dear Helena, I created a historical biographical entry today and within a hour or so received a no-reply email message from wikipedia stating that you (someone completely unknown to me) had earmarked it for deletion without any explanation. Given that the piece is simply an unbiased factual and historically accurate one, similar in style and content to other potted WW1 biographies I do not understand why you have done this and why you do not bother to explain your reasons for destroying someone else's work. I would appreciate it if you would first discuss such matters. An ordinary collaborative edit to improve an entry is one thing but an unknown person taking it upon themselves to delete the entire piece without reason is another. Please would you contact me and explain. Marcus Sherwood-Jenkins (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding [reply]

Thanks so much for your message, Marcus. I have replied on your own talk page, but will just wanted to leave a comment here, in case you haven't found it yet, as I had already contacted you there earlier about the deletion nomination. You can find it by going to your user page (by clicking on your username, and then on the 'Talk' tab at the top of the page. You'll find Wikipedians have left you a few messages there, just as you have for me on this page. Helenabella (Talk) 07:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

Thanks a lot for your message.I fixed my article Al-Meshkhab district ,I wish it is match Wikipedia standards right now.Bassammahdi (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome work! Helenabella (Talk) 02:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) !

- Nepal is great, and Malpi outstanding. They are, alas, not so good at PR :-) as they do their hands-on help for their neighbors. let me share this with you: https://www.facebook.com/richard.moktan . Best! YamaPlos talk 18:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Helenabella (Talk) 01:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi there Leewells2000; thanks for your message. Unfortunately, I really don't understand what you're talking about. If you have an argument for keeping the article, the best place to put it is in the discussion of the deletion proposal. If you want to talk about something other than a nomination to keep, it would be great if you could explain what you mean further, as I'm not clear on your point. Helenabella (Talk) 01:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Helenabella. You nominated a page for deletion based upon that there was 1 secondary source and 1 primary source. Seeing that there was an under-construction wikipage linked which is to the company's flagship product, bad faith was assumed and you made your decision based solely on the references linked on the company page. That facts are nothing close. This company and their product are the subject of Books, Academic Research, and Scientific Research and was even named as the most secure text-based 3D Captchas by a major accredited university in On the Security of Text-based 3D CAPTCHAs. Not to sound condescending, but the only reason you would have nominated this page for deletion is that you assumed bad faith and were entirely ignorant of those facts. This is qualification for a speedy keep. Please do the right thing. Leewells2000 (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, Leewells2000. I am of the opinion that the subject does not meet the notability criteria, based on the references and information provided. However, you are welcome - and strongly encouraged - to discuss at length on the article's nomination page, where your arguments can be considered by the community at large. Helenabella (Talk) 06:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your personal opinion of Wikipedia policy then? This page is the perfect place to discuss it. Let me ask you 2 questions. Is the inclusion of two secondary WP:RS not the Wikipedia standard for notoriety (edit: that demonstrate the "best at" a field or subject)? Is publicly published and vetted scientific and scholastic research not a Reliable Source? I ask because the Wikipedia policy is quite clear and leaves little room for opinion, "... more than one secondary source..." Leewells2000 (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be very happy to discuss further on the nomination for deletion page, Leewells2000. Helenabella (Talk) 06:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted, twice -- so feel free to grow your happiness and discuss now. Leewells2000 (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve GlideSlope LLC

Helenabella,

Thank you for the recommendations. I've made some edits and was wondering if you'd check it out and see how else I can make the page better. I'm very new to editing on Wiki so there is a learning curve here. This is my first attempt at an actual page and I'm finding this whole process very fun and engaging.

Milewski90 (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great, Milewski90! I'm so glad to hear you're having fun, and enjoying learning to write new articles. Wikipedia also has a couple of pages I've personally found useful (although it's been a long time since I've written a substantial article!) - the Manual of Style and a page that, while called 'What Wikipedia is Not' also provides some solid writing advice. Helenabella (Talk) 01:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Create album

I gave this album the previous user of resources and a description of him this album, I did not remove my albums Description of this album, and year of publication and how are grateful if she explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.180.49.73 (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2.180.49.73, thanks for your message. Unfortunately, I don't understand what you're saying. If you have a question, it would be great if you could clarify. Helenabella (Talk) 02:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Create album

This album by credible sources as well Asst Island Rykvrdz and written by one of your users.--5.232.49.178 (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 5.232.49.178, thanks for your message. To be clear, I have no opinion on the article. My concern is only that it is not acceptable to remove speedy delete templates for articles that are under discussion. Please do engage in the process, rather than simply blanking the template. Helenabella (Talk) 08:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conor McGregor page vandalized

Hey, someone vandalized Conor McGregor's MMA record. His fights aren't showing, please fix. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conor_McGregor

I dont know how to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.206.69 (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has been fixed now. If you'd like to learn how to edit Wikipedia when you see an error, this is a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial. Good luck! Helenabella (Talk) 05:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's missing 18 fights, still not fixed. Right now it's showing 2 and a bugged Dublin, Ireland. Need to revert one of the recently-previous edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.206.69 (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. If you follow the 'Manual reverting' instructions here and locate the most recent correct version, you'll be able to revert it as needed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting Helenabella (Talk) 06:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I fixed it. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.206.69 (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! :) Helenabella (Talk) 07:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perth wetlands

Please remember to sign, and look closely at Swan Coastal Plain, and related Important Bird areas created by Maias, you will find that there is a potential for duplication, some closely related articles do not link to each other!! JarrahTree 06:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - it would be really nice to get these linked up well. Thanks! Helenabella (Talk) 06:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not simple - various eds with totally diff ways of looking at the world, and quite different source ranges - swan river, swan coastal plain, and lake specific articles havent been coherently linked to something that could be considered the base article. Perth article attracts ip idiots like the damned fly bothering me as i type (relax in a state of excitement - a billion flys cannot be wrong?), so not a good one. We used to have active editors who had a good grasp of the geology/geomorphology and the linked ornithology/etc but like George Seddon and Ernest Hodgkin, long gone... JarrahTree 06:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate; some good scientists would really help. My knowledge is sadly limited to local history, with a smattering of environmental science picked up during birdwatching, herp and invertabrate watching, and the like. Helenabella (Talk) 07:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the way of the pedia - thing is there are bits of seddons swan river landscapes and sense of place books, along with irene cunningham's land of flowers and also a few other books about the geology of the sandplain that would be essential components of a good swan coastal plain wetland article - but i dont own any of the books at the moment, and I have currently dont have the time/lost the capacity to sit down with a good book long enough to extract the relevant info... btw I use swan coastal plain - I dont use Perth as I object strongly to primacy on wikipedia - it is perth western australia, as there are other perths, and I do not believe google hits should determine a place's name on wp en ( I like 'qualifiers'), anyways lest I start, cheers... JarrahTree 07:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]