User talk:Comedy.bookings

July 2018

Hello, I'm Beetstra. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Comedy.bookings. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Abi Roberts, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI 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, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

In general, your material is overly promotional. Most editors will consider statements such as "Roberts is now a regular in the stand-up comedy circuit's major clubs", "Unusually for an independent production not backed by a major agent or tour company, the show run of 45 dates was almost completely sold out and gathered 5-star reviews . . .", "Roberts has also variously been described as [various laudatory quotes]" to be inappropriate, among many other examples. An encyclopedia article is not an appropriate venue to list Roberts's various triumphs. It is, rather, a place to aggregate content written about Roberts--really about her, not just mentions or brief reviews--by reliable, independent, third-party sources. Facebook and Twitter, by the way, are not among them.

There may be some usable content here, but please get consensus on the article's talk page before re-adding it. If you do have a conflict of interest, it's strongly recommended that you request that other editors change the page, rather than doing it yourself. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but in my opinion your contributions at Abi Roberts are still not acceptable. Wikipedia is not a page to highlight or promote a performer, and giving a blow-by-blow account of Roberts's career does nothing but that. Her social-media presence is unlikely to be relevant. Several of your citations are to Wikipedia itself, which is completely verboten. Others are to sites that merely mention Roberts's existence, as opposed to actual coverage of her, and most of these are formatted incorrectly.

Please work with other editors at the article's talk page and the Teahouse to improve your contributions. Otherwise I or someone else will have to remove them. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 25, 2018 --comedy.bookings (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NewEnglandYankee

As a new-ish Wiki editor, I am not yet getting to grips with the Editing system here and not sure how to reply to you so I am having to do it here. I am not sure how to get "consensus" on the pages I am editing. How do I go about doing that?

I have no relationship with any of the entries made on wikipedia. I am a retired finance manager and my only connection with comedy is I volunteer in helping to run my local community comedy club, held in our village hall in Sussex. I have seen the act concerned and know her work. I don't know them personally not do I know anyone which I intend to edit. I would like to work on other areas of Wiki - in particular the history of comedy.

I have edited this profile/entry as I have seen the act concerned and I have written in the style and manner similarly to be found am on other similar authors/entries listed under "British Comedians" or "British Women Comedians" - many whom are highly promotional in nature. perhaps many of them need to be examined as they are clearly very PR-orientated.I simply copied the style of some of these.

Having read the guidelines, I have taken down some references which could be considered promotional and some links which are forbidden. I hope this is acceptable.

Any guidance in gaining consensus Consensus/editing this and other entries so they comply with Wiki policy would be gratefully received.

Thanks

Peter

ADDITIONAL: Please could someone have a look at this page ABI ROBERTS which I have edited to see if there is consensus {{request edit}} on the content being non promotional and within Wiki style?

Thanks for your response. You're entirely correct in that many existing articles are substandard!

As I pointed out above, there are two good places for you to start:

The article's Talk page. All articles have an associated talk page, which is used for discussing article improvements. You can edit it just like you edit an article. Look at any article and click the "Talk" tab at the top left to see examples.
In this case, the article's talk page isn't heavily used. Therefore, I suggest you begin at the Wikipedia Teahouse, which is specifically oriented towards getting new users up and running. There's a large friendly button right up top that says "Click here to ask a question."

Once a discussion has begun, experienced editors will weigh in. I think you have some useful material in there. Other editors, who are more familiar than I am with this sort of thing, will give you better guidance. Eventually a consensus usually materializes. I don't think it will be too hard in this case; we're not talking about a contentious issue, just about what makes a good encyclopedia article.

Finally--someone is going to tell you this, so it might as well be me--it's much easier for everyone to follow a conversation if you:

Insert one or more colons at the beginning of each line, as I've done in this reply. Every colon indents your reply one level.
Sign your posts (never your article contributions) by typing four tildes, like this ~~~~, at the end.

You can use the sandbox to practice your editing chops. I hope this is helpful, and I hope that you'll stay on Wikipedia and give us the benefits of your skills in building a high-quality encyclopedia. Nobody knows all the ropes from day one--I certainly didn't--so please don't get discouraged! 22:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi NewEnglandYankee - thanks so much for this incredibly helpful response! Its cleared up a lot of things for me. I am onto the Teahouse page as we speak! Its quite misleading for a newbie like myself because the first instinct is just to look at other comedy and comedians pages and just copy the style and approach...which is in essence what I did! I thoroughly take your points about being an encyclopedia article and the need to be non-contentious in style, so I have altered this BLP of Abi Roberts to remove all those things that made it like other profiles in "British Women Comedians" and elsewhere and taken out circular references to Wikipedia, bad links etc.

All I need know is to get consensus and perhaps another editor to have a look to see if its OK and make suggestions or edits, then I'd like to start adding to a couple of other entries.

Once again, thanks so much for your helpful, kind and encouraging suggestions. Much appreciated.

comedy.bookings (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC) comedy.bookings (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beetstra

and copied to NewEnglandYankee

You have reverted my very recent re-edits to the original edits (which themselves were edited and contain some poor grammar and wrong links) but I have now complied with all Editor request to remove any wrong links, circular links, promotional style material and so on and produced what I thought was a well-balanced encyclopedia article.

I would be grateful if youcould revert back to the edits/version of 25/26th so that I can ask the community for consensus and a {{request edit}} - I thought my edits were reasonable and fair and as a newbie I want to do as bets a job as I can!

Could you please revert your revisions back to my draft?

Thanks!

Peter