User talk:F Landsborough

Welcome!

Hi F Landsborough! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 17:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello F Landsborough! Your additions to Cheyenne Regional Medical Center have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ⸺(Random)staplers 05:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Soul Injury (October 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Qcne were:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Soul Injury and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Qcne (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your open and honest review. I agree with everything that you wrote. I will try to revise it to meet your standards. Having edited about a dozen Wikipedia articles so far, I am amazed at how really bad some of them are. I really had hopes that my article was better than a lot of the articles that I've edited. F Landsborough (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, F Landsborough! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Qcne (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a revised article for Soul Injury. Has that revision also been rejected, or is it waiting for review? It looks like the resubmission hasn't been reviewed yet, but I can't tell. F Landsborough (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :@F Landsborough, you need to press the blue Resubmit button to re-submit it for review.

I still think it reads like an essay, however, and also vaguely feels like an advert for Opus Peace Press.

Either create an article for Soul injury or Opus Peace Press - not both togther.

You need to find reliable, secondary sources first, then paraphrase them in your own words. That should make up the content of your draft. Qcne (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your mentorship, Qcne. I will take out the Opus Peace Press stuff. I have cited books and published peer reviewed journal articles in this article - I believe these qualify as reliable, secondary sources. Thanks again! F Landsborough (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Soul Injury (October 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Theroadislong were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Soul Injury and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I am having trouble trying to understand your criteria for published sources. I am a retired professor who has over 90 peer-reviewed publications. In my academic profession (Psychology), nothing is considered more reliable than peer-reviewed published articles. When I look at the criteria that you've sent me:

This draft's references do not show that the subject

qualifies for a Wikipedia article

. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

it seems to me that the article I have submitted contains all of these: I have cited several books on hospice care of veterans as well as two peer-reviewed published papers in a hospice nursing journal that focus on Soul Injury. As well, I've listed in a table a number of independently produced documentaries and webpages that give in-depth coverage of Soul Injury. I am really not sure what else you are looking for. F Landsborough (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Soul Injury (November 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pygos was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment the reviewer left was:

You have not changed the prose of the article after the previous decline. Please adhere to the WP:TONE.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Soul Injury and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Pygos (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will read the section on tone. I thought I was keeping it pretty low key. Let me see if I can get the tone where you want it. F Landsborough (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Pygos and @Theroadislong - who wouldn't get notified of your replies otherwise. qcne (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Your edit to Draft:Soul Injury has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Diannaa (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was aimed at a draft that I hadn't submitted for review. I didn't expect anyone to read an unsubmitted document. I knew that it needed further editing to remove copyrighted material. I have revised and resubmitted the article without copyrighted material. F Landsborough (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For info; even unsubmitted drafts are publicly accessible (but not indexed via search engines), so any copyrighted material would be flagged. Wikipedia doesn't have any "private" editing spaces which aren't publicly accessible. qcne (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I didn't know! I will edit offline in the future F Landsborough (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Soul Injury (November 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Soul Injury and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

bonadea contributions talk 20:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how my sources can be any more reliable than they are. The sources are peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and webpages posted by Veterans' groups and health associations. Even the National Library of Medicine and Pubmed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38478870/) cite soul injury. I can't get any more reliable than that. F Landsborough (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Bonadea qcne (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue with the draft, @F Landsborough, is that it is written like an essay with quite a lot of emotive language throughout and has a vaguely authoritative tone. It will need a re-write. Stick to only paraphrasing what those sources state in a factual and neutral manner.

For example, if I were to rewrite this paragraph:

Soul Injuries can occur in the aftermath of trauma if the trauma separates a person from their sense of self. However, Soul Injuries can also occur insidiously, making them difficult to identify. Insidiously-acquired Soul Injuries can do more harm than Soul Injuries acquired after trauma. A traumatic experience often receives the attention, understanding, and resources that it deserves. Insidious Soul Injuries, on the other hand, seem benign so they are often dismissed, minimized, or trivialized.

I would write something like...

Soul injuries are described as psychological wounds that can result in a disconnection from a person's sense of self. According to <<source>>, these injuries may occur as a result of traumatic events or through gradual, less obvious experiences that are harder to identify. It has been suggested by <<source>> that while trauma-related soul injuries often receive attention and resources, those acquired insidiously may be overlooked, potentially leading to greater harm over time. Both types of soul injuries are associated with a perceived loss of personhood, which may manifest as feelings of loss, guilt, shame, or helplessness. <<Source>> propose that suppressing emotional pain can diminish a person's vitality and passion by metaphorically "boxing up" aspects of their identity and emotional well-being.

Hopefully you can see the difference. qcne (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Peace is a primary source, and it can't be used other than maybe to talk about what that organisation is. Wikipedia can absolutely not present Opus Peace's descriptions as if they were factual or generally accepted. The same thing applies to most of the other sources, because they refer back to Opus Peace, or because they were written by people affiliated with that organisation. That includes at least the Wisconsin Department of Veteran Affairs source, the wehonorveterans.org source, all sources with Deborah Grassman (CEO of Opus Peace) as author, and the Terri Bentler source. Dictionary definitions of "soul" don't belong in the article (regardless of whether the concept of "soul injury" is notable or not). If you remove all those sources, and all draft text that is based on those sources, as well as unencyclopedic lists of publications etc, how much will be left of the draft? --bonadea contributions talk 18:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Soul Injury (November 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This neologism has been proposed and is used by a company or organisation called "Opus Peace". Deborah Grassman, the author of several of the main sources, is the CEO of OP. As written, this draft is basically a mouthpiece for OP, taking it for granted that "soul" is a meaningful concept, and only taking American readers into account. While a few of the sources are reliable, none is reliable and secondary and independent of OP, with the exception of those sources that don't mention soul injuries at all.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Soul Injury and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

bonadea contributions talk 08:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]