User talk:RebBurton

Welcome!

Hello, RebBurton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Tanya Mars. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\^talk 01:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the welcome, and the resource tips, Longhair. Very helpful! I am slowly making my way through it all. There's so much to learn. For instance, is it appropriate for me to reply to your message here on this page, or should I be going to your talk page to say thanks? RebBurton (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can reply wherever you like. It's good practice to alert others when you reply on your own talk page by pinging them to notify them of your reply. -- Longhair\^talk 02:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will check that out as well (I thought there would be something like that). More reading. :-) RebBurton (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bra d'Or Award (December 31)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bra d'Or Award and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bra d'Or Award, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Rusalkii (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RebBurton! Having an article 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! Rusalkii (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Bra d'Or Award has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Bra d'Or Award. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Beverley Cooper (January 9)

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

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Thanks for creating this draft. The list of plays needs to have references for each item in the list (a reference to an independent, reliable source). Please add and re-submit.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Beverley Cooper and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Beverley Cooper, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

MurielMary (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kirk Dunn (January 9)

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

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:

Be sure to declare any conflict of interest.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kirk Dunn and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Kirk Dunn, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Deb (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Kirk Dunn has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kirk Dunn. Thanks! Rusalkii (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ARTS Kirk-Dunn-and-Stitched-Glass-May-2019-Photo-Credits-Georgia-Kirkos-Jorjas-Photography-1024x640.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ARTS Kirk-Dunn-and-Stitched-Glass-May-2019-Photo-Credits-Georgia-Kirkos-Jorjas-Photography-1024x640.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bra d'Or Award (January 25)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Too many of the sources here aren't reliable or notability-supporting. Wikipedia sources need to be to some form of media -- newspapers, magazines, books, etc. -- that represents independent coverage of the award and/or its winners. And while there are a few footnotes here that are fine (Toronto Star, The Georgia Straight, Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia, alt.theatre), fully 75 per cent of the footnotes aren't okay at all.
Sources you cannot use to establish the notability of a topic include: the PGC's own self-published press releases about itself (2, 11, 15), the winners' "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers (3, 5, 7, 8), sources where the winner was the author of the piece rather than the subject of a piece written by somebody else (4), Facebook posts (9), user-generated wikis (10), or organizational or personal blogs (13, 16).
Just to be clear, sourcing a topic into Wikipedia is not just a matter of footnoting it to any website you can find that nominally verifies that the information is accurate: the sources have to pass a journalistic standard of reliability, in order to demonstrate that the topic is one that media care enough about to report on as newsworthy. So the content has to be sourced to real media outlets and books, not just any random web page you can find that has the words "Bra d'Or Award" in it.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bra d'Or Award and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bra d'Or Award, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Beverley Cooper (January 25)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The notability of a writer is not established by sourcing her works to their own publication details to prove that they exist, it's established by sourcing her works to media coverage about them to prove that they've been externally validated as significant. Her notability cannot be demonstrated by primary sources, such as her member profile on the Playwrights Guild of Canada website, her plays' profiles on the self-published website of their own publisher or an online bookstore, her profiles on the self-published websites of theatres she's worked with (Soulpepper, 4th Line), or databases like Canadian Women Playwrights Online -- and even her GG award nomination has to be sourced not to the Canada Council's own website, but to a media source that covers the GG shortlist as a news story. (Trust me, because I work on GG-nominated writers all the time, such articles are not at all hard to locate.)
Note as well that we cannot do "ibid" footnoting on Wikipedia at all: because Wikipedia articles can be rearranged at will, ibids can very easily be broken if the article is rearranged in such a way that other footnotes are inserted between the ibid and the thing that it's ibiding. So we don't "ibid", we use the named reference format so that one footnote can be called by multiple pieces of information.
The GG/Dora statements are strong notability claims that will get this approved if and when it's sourced properly, so don't lose heart -- but it can't be approved in the current state, because the referencing isn't what it needs to be. Source her plays to critical analysis in newspapers or magazines instead of profiles in online bookstores, source her GG nomination to a real media news story instead of the Canada Council's own website, and we'll be good to go. (I won't fix all of that for you, but I will fix the ibid issue since you may not know how to deal with that.)

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Beverley Cooper and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Beverley Cooper, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearcat,

Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me in detail (over a year ago now!). It clarified a lot of things for me. Very kind of you to help me out. I only get two weeks a year to work on Wiki stuff, and I forget everything in between. I'm going to try again, and hopefully do better out of the gate this time around (thanks to your explanations).TheaGala TheaGala 22:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Bearcat! Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me in detail (over a year ago now!). It clarified a lot of things for me. Very kind of you to help me out. I only get two weeks a year to work on Wiki stuff, and I forget everything in between. I'm going to try again, and hopefully do better out of the gate this time around (thanks to your explanations). TheaGala 23:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kirk Dunn has been accepted

Kirk Dunn, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Bra d'Or Award

Hello, RebBurton. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bra d'Or Award, 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) 15:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with I have done something weird to my personal sandbox page. I wrote and tried to redirect an article for submission over a year ago, but it looks like maybe I redirected my entire sandbox page, and maybe even my talk page? Hwo do I get it back to normal so I can strart anew draft? Help! And thanks. ```` TheaGala 23:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have blanked your sandbox page, so you can start work on your next draft there. Here is a link: User:RebBurton/sandbox. PhilKnight (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast! Thank you so much,PhilKnight! :-) TheaGala 23:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]