User talk:Jumpn

Charlie Banacos

The message basically means that Wikipedia requires references from independent, reliable sources to prove that what is written in the article is actually true and verifiable. Information from primary sources — sources that are directly connected to the subject, such as one's own personal or business web site — are not considered reliable because their content can be changed by the subject to suit the subject's purposes. In other words, an article about myself (not likely) which included sources only from my own web site would not be considered reliable, because I would presumably not put information on my web site that puts me in a bad light. That same principle applies to this article, because the only references cited is Banacos' own web site, which he presumably controls. All the stuff that is there now is all well and good, but we have no way of checking to see if any of it is true, or if it is simply made up. So we need references to articles others have written about Banacos in reliable sources. See this page and this page for more information. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This article still has serious issues with what we call peacock phrasing — that is, verbiage that tends to overly praise the subject. It still reads somewhat like a news release about Banacos. The list of quotes reads like a book-jacket blurb list, and is not encyclopedic in tone. The independent sourcing is much better, however.

As for Banacos wanting some sort of control over this article, let me put this as politely, but as vociferously as I possibly can:

Mr. Banacos has absolutely, positively no control whatsoever, in any possible shape, form or fashion, over the contents of this article, who contributes to it, or what form those contributions take. I cannot possibly overemphasize this, because any attempt by Banacos to control any portion of this article, either directly or through proxies (such as yourself, to a certain extent) is a total anathema to the basic premise and principles of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit, period. If someone vandalizes an article or posts erroneous information, we have multiple ways of bring that under control. But for Banacos to even suggest exerting any control at all is so against the core principles of Wikipedia that it results in an extremely adverse reaction from our administrators and veteran editors.

You must remember that Wikipedia is not a venue for promoting anything, particularly self-promotion. There are many other avenues for promotion on the Internet, such as one's own web site, social networking sites and the like. Wikipedia is not one of those avenues. If Banacos is not comfortable with having an article about him that is allowed to be edited by anyone, that's just too bad. The only recourse is to permanently delete the article altogether, but even then, if an editor writes an article about Banacos that meets Wikipedia standards and he is deemed notable enough, there's not a bloody thing he can do about it, period.

If Banacos, as the subject himself, has an issue with the contents of an article, he can express those concerns on the discussion page for the article, and Wikipedia editors and administrators will evaluate those concerns and take appropriate action. But if he, or anyone under his control or employ, is found to be changing the article in order to cast him in a more favorable light, those revisions will be reverted quickly and sanctions taken against those who did the disallowed revisions, up to and including being blocked from further editing.

Again, there is no way that I can possibly emphasize this enough, because what Banacos seeks to do is totally contrary to what Wikipedia is about, and any attempt to carry through on his request will meet with a swift and very adverse reaction. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The revisions make the article much, much better! Good job. Sorry if I came across a bit heavy-handed above, but you'd be amazed at how many people try to use Wikipedia to promote themselves, their friends or their businesses. It's a never-ending struggle to keep Wikipedia free of such promotional material and make it a reliable, dispassionate source of information. It's pretty clear that Banacos is notable enough for an article here, and thanks for getting it started. There are a few minor style issues that need attention, and I'll handle those myself over the holidays. Nothing to fret about.

By the way, don't stop here - I'm sure there are a number of other notables in jazz who aren't covered here and are in need of articles. And if you need any help, just let me know. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not get a chance to work on it over the holidays. I had much more work than I anticipated. Moreover, it doesn't look like I'll be able to do much for about another week. I'll try to do little bits here and there as I get time. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest tag

There's nothing you can do on your own, unfprtunately. We have to hope that someone with no connection to Banacos will come along and make significant contributions to the article. But I wouldn't worry. The article is not in any danger that I can see. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)