User talk:Banjoanne

Welcome!

Hi Banjoanne! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Banjoanne. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:Feathered Pipe Ranch, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Feathered Pipe Ranch has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Feathered Pipe Ranch. Thanks! DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Feathered Pipe Ranch (December 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing 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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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 appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Classic case of WP:REFBOMBING, loads of sources (we really don't need five sources to tell us why the place is named as it is), yet they don't demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, being either primary and/or passing mentions only.

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:Feathered Pipe Ranch 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the Wikipedia draft. I am a little stumped now, as to how to better source this piece - and not sure what extra steps I can take to ensure that it does not read like any kind of advertisement. I had the piece reviewed by an independent professional editor. As for conflict of interest, my relationship with the organization is that I have been a volunteer there for several years, but it is not my employer, etc.

I'd much appreciate assistance with understanding which sources I used are not considered independent or reliable; I stayed away from travel advocacy websites, reviews, etc. and largely worked with information from local Montana newspapers, articles in Yoga Journal, and published books on related subjects. I did cite the Feathered Pipe Ranch website as one source and can certainly delete that.

Thanks for bearing with me as I learn how to do this right! Banjoanne (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Regarding your COI, it is clear that you have one (whether or not you are employed or paid by this organisation), and this needs to be disclosed. Please see the message I posted above, titled 'Managing a conflict of interest', and especially the 3rd bullet point starting 'disclose'.

It seems you may have have written this draft WP:BACKWARD, ie. first writing what you know about the subject, and then finding sources that support what you've written. Very common mistake, but a mistake all the same. Wikipedia articles should be written by first finding a few sources which meet the WP:GNG notability standard (meaning, secondary sources that are reliable and fully independent of the subject, and which have written about it in significant extent and detail), summarising what they say (without putting any positive 'spin' or other embellishments on it – that should help avoid any promotional tone or content), and citing those sources as you go so that the reader can always verify the information from its source.

You need only three solid sources to establish notability, and they should also by definition support most of the summarised content. If you need to cite additional sources to support individual facts here and there, you can and should of course add them, but it is almost never the case that a draft needs thirty sources when it is first written.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I will work on revising appropriately and disclosing everything that is needed. Banjoanne (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there -

I've dramatically revised and pruned back the submission - is it possible to have it reviewed again? Thanks! Banjoanne (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it will be reviewed again, once you click on the blue 'resubmit' button, and a reviewer will come along at some point and take a look. First, though, you need to make the COI disclosure. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Banjoanne! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

As previously advised, your edits, such as the edit you made to Draft:Feathered Pipe Ranch, give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Banjoanne, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Banjoanne|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm sorry for the confusion, but I don't understand what's needed with disclosure here. I am not paid for anything associated with the subject. Do I need to add an explicit statement that says that in the COI statement beyond what I already said, which is that I receive no financial benefits from my relationship with the retreat venue? I filled out that COI template this morning. Banjoanne (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't see your attempted COI disclosure, because it isn't visible anywhere. You appear to have added a comment to the COI maintenance tag which I placed in the draft last month, but such comments are not supported by the template and don't therefore appear anywhere other than in the source code. In theory you may make your disclosure pretty much any which way you wish, but it is recommended that add a template to either your own user page, or the draft/article talk page, or better yet both, because those are the standard places where others look for such disclosures. Otherwise you may be hassled about this again by others who, like me, didn't spot your disclosure.

As for whether you need to make the generic COI disclosure or the specific paid-editing one, this isn't entirely clear. You say you volunteer at the venue, and a little bit of research on the web suggests you also have a senior role in the associated foundation, and in my (non-expert) opinion either or both of those puts you within the scope of the paid-editing rules. (By way of a parallel, interns, even unpaid ones, are covered by these rules.) From a practical point of view it makes little or no difference which type of COI you disclose. I tend to err on the side of caution, therefore if I were you I would disclose paid editing, even if you strictly speaking may not need to, rather than only disclose the generic COI and then it turns out you actually needed to disclose PAID. But at the end of the day, only you know the exact nature of your relationship with the subject, so I will leave it for you to decide which disclosure to make.

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - I really do appreciate the help. As a first-timer to doing this, I'm having a bit of a hard time deciphering some of the instructions. I'll try to do much better! I'll revisit this again soon. Again - thanks for helping hold my hand through this. Banjoanne (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

I have used (I hope) the correct template for my full COI disclosure.

I did not use the 'paid editing' one because I couldn't in good conscience, since I am not and haven't ever been paid by the Feathered Pipe Foundation for anything, including creating an entry for the Feathered Pipe Ranch. I understand about erring on the side of caution, but I get tripped up over using the word "paid" as it isn't true.

If you can let me know the next step in moving this forward, I'd be most appreciative - thanks!

Anne Banjoanne (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Feathered Pipe Ranch (March 15)

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

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.

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.

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:Feathered Pipe Ranch 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.

Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 12:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying.

I confess, I'm at a loss, since my original draft had lots of sources and the feedback was that I had too many sources. I'll try again, but as someone who has worked in fields demanding careful sourcing, I really did scrub my sources for reliability and independence. It would be helpful for me to understand what exactly rings as "unreliable," for example, in my sourcing.

I dramatically pared down my initial draft which was quite comprehensive to stick to just the bare bones about a 5--year old retreat facility in Montana, where it's located, what happens there, and how it came into being.

I will look again, but I'm genuinely disheartened here as this is a "just the facts" article written in the formal tone that I see elsewhere on Wikipedia.

In any case, I thank you for your review. Banjoanne (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Feathered Pipe Ranch

Hello, Banjoanne. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Feathered Pipe Ranch, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]