User talk:Martynmo

December 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Stand[edit]

Thank you for your message. Just to outline where the problems were;

"These open mic nights play an important part in the development of comedy as without these clubs in Scotland many would still be unknown and would have had to have travelled to England to gain publicity." - this is all uncited opinion, promoting the club. Whose opinion is this? Is it impartial?
"Comedy clubs are experiencing a surge in popularity" Really? Are there figures that can be cited, or is it just opinion again? Words like "surge" are also inherently biased and imprecise. If their popularity has increased, say that, and demonstrate it.
"Many people are now becoming more careful with what they do with their money and want to make sure they are getting value for money aswell." The connection to The Stand would be? None really, unless it is your opinion that The Stand is "value for money", which again is opinion and adversing not suited to an encyclopaedia.
"The Stand offers cheap tickets, quality acts and also an enjoyable atmosphere" opinion, and quite obviously advertising. Wikipedia does not review or recommend venues, and only states something is "cheap", "quality" and "enjoyable" if it is the unbiased opinion of a cited authority. And even then, care needs to be taken that the tone remains encyclopaedic.
"the club also offer this experience to hen and stag nights from Sunday to Thursday nights." Not advertising?

You're doing a good job on the article, just be careful that any conflict of interest isn't turning it into a promotional brochure. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add further content, but the surest way to avoid any suggestion of advertising is to limit yourself to material that is sources from reliable second party sources. This means coverage, reviews etc from newspapers etc.

Stuff that just you yourself, personally, know cannot be verified and shouldn't be added. You could be anyone, you could be mistaken, exaggerating or making it up. Stuff sourced from The Stand's own website is primary sourced. It's ok with basic factual information. But as soon as it strays into anything that could be considered a matter of opinion it's obviously going to be biased and not suitable. Everything in Wikipedia should be presented neutrally. It can't appear to be evaluating, approving, promoting or disparaging anything itself. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no, unless you can cite it as I describe above and have it more as a second party's assessment of those "Aims". Wikipedia isn't the place for speculative statements of intent, it is more interested in what's actually happened and has been achieved. The Stand can say it sets out to be a platform for new comedians, but whether it is a platform for new comedians is more a matter of opinion. You need the opinion of a recognised authority on the subject, who is more likely to be unbiased and the reader can be assured they know what they're talking about. A couple of quotes from established acts themselves for instance. You also need to be careful of the overall tone of writing. More formal, less chatty. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Jmorrison230582. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]