Talk:Rob Mazurek

message: Hello - I was directed to this page via an email from Callan Eccleston.  In your opinion, the information posted is a promotional biography.  I beg to differ.  The biography was written by All About Jazz writer Troy Collins.  He has provided me with the following sources of information (please find below), I'm just not really sure how to add them to the site page and bring the new content back up.  As I have mentioned in emails, I'm not very good with the wikipedia site format, programming, editing, etc and am not even sure if this is the correct place to "talk".  I need the information on this wikipedia site to be updated as soon as possible not because the new bio is promotional, but because the old bio is VERY VERY wrong. Can we please work together to correct this?   Here are sources that can be included with the new information that was posted by Britt Berndtson:
On David Bloom : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bloom_%28musician%29
On history of development: http://jazztimes.com/articles/19743-rob-mazurek
The formation of the Chicago Underground: http://www.scaruffi.com/jazz/mazurek.html
The formation of Sao Paulo Underground: http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=44806
The formation of Exploding Star Orchestra: http://www.thrilljockey.com/thrill/Exploding-Star-Orchestra/
On visual arts: http://alarm-magazine.com/2011/rob-mazurek-jazz-composer-visual-artist-challenges-boundaries-of-sound-light-and-color/
99.108.223.169 (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

message: So, we've received permission from Mazurek to use the text. The question is...do we want to? The previous text is more neutral and has sources, whereas the new one is a promotional biography. Chubbles (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Permission sent to OTRS is just that, permission to use. If the content doesn't comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines it should be edited or deleted accordingly.--ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  OTRS 

message: Four years later, it still appears that much of this article's material has been copied without attribution, possibly from promotional material.
Paragraphs 5 though 8 need citations, as do the first two sentences of paragraph 3.  I still don't see how all of the (as-yet) unattributed material can get citations, even after I looked at a couple of the references mentioned in the (inadvertently anonymous) "18:18, 2 October 2013" list at the top of the page. One of those references (www.scaruffi.com) appears to be a personal blog, not a formal publication.  I am somewhat sympathetic to the avowed inexperience with Wikipedia editing of "18:18, 2 October 2013", but "18:18, 2 October 2013" could at least provide (to this Talk page) rough draft text with in-line citations, so that a more experienced Wikipedia editor could then format it correctly.
(To "18:18, 2 October 2013":  To ease conversing, please "sign" each your posts at the end with the four tildes ("~"), which is the Wikipedia-editors' automated-signature function.)
Also, the second sentence of paragraph 3, 
"The Collective earned Mazurek the attention of Chicago's underground community at the beginning of the 21st century, resulting in high-profile collaborations with other genre-defying artists like Gastr Del Sol, Jim O'Rourke, Sam Prekop, Stereolab and Tortoise"
has style issues in the phrases 
  "underground community", 
  "high-profile", 
  "genre-defying".
IMO, if these are direct quotes from a critic, or similar, they should be quoted and cited as such.  Otherwise, IMO, they probably should be rewritten in a more sober and self-explanatory tone.  (There probably exists a formal Wikipedia guideline about this sort of thing, but I am not (yet) familiar with it.)
Acwilson9 (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic Source(s)