User talk:Meyerbeer13

Meyerbeer
Hi there! Thanks for your edits in the Meyerbeer and Robert articles - but you need to be careful, when making these,that you can verify them by citations (see WP:CITE). Where they are just your own opinions then they fall to be deleted (see WP:OR). Please add appropriate citations if you are able. You should also be careful not to delete material which is properly sourced. As both these articles qualify at present as Good Articles (see WP:GA) it's particularly importnat to ensure that they meet Wikipedia standards. Best regards, and thanks for your interest, --Smerus (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I have been careful to write corrections in the Meyerbeer, Lully and other articles only to see that they are immediately deleted. Just because something isn't sourced, doesn't mean that it isn't valid -- this is a bogus argument. I have thought deeply and read a lot about these composers. On the other hand, people have said things in print about Meyerbeer in particular that are either simply not true or else mere statements of opinion. I could say these things (for instance that Meyerbeer isn't as good as Wagner) and put a source to them -- that doesn't make it true. I don't think when you write a bio of someone you should put negative things in it, unless they are provable things. No opinion about the worth of someone's music is ipso facto provable. No matter how many famous musicologists say something like that, doesn't make it meaningful. For instance, Joseph Kerman, said French opera was spectacular because the word they use in French is le spectacle. This is a false statement. Spectacle, or lo spettacolo in Italian, refers to any theatrical production, Shakespeare, anybody. It has nothing to do with spectacular, it is derived analogously to theatre, from the word for "seeing something". Thus the mere fact that a famous musicologist said it doesn't make it true.

You shouldn't put anything in wikipedia -- if you want to have standards -- that is drivel and tendentious. And if that's the way you want to run wikipedia I don't want any part of it. It's a form of stupid bullying.

Meyerbeer13 (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR
Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't say tendentious meaningless things then! Confine yourself to interesting observations. No one in the Wagner article said his music was kitsch, even though it is. Out of respect, I wouldn't put that there. So leave Meyerbeer alone!! Meyerbeer13 (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:V
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

When something is sourced, it just means somebody got it into print, it doesn't mean (if it is basically an opinion) it is true. A lot of what used to be in wikipedia was stuff you couldn't find in the "sourced" literature, but it was true. Musicology is one of the worst academic disciplines, and I haven't changed "facts" but inherently unverifiable opinions.

Meyerbeer13 (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not an avenue for publishing original research (see WP:OR); rather, it is built on peer-reviewed, secondary sources (see WP:V and WP:PSTS), no matter how much one dislikes them (see WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:CENSOR). Toccata quarta (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--Smerus (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * See my talk page for a response to your coments there.--Smerus (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * Meyerbeer13, please consider this a final warning. If you continue to add original research to articles while disregarding the concerns raised here, as well as the discussion an this adminstrative noticeboard, you will be blocked from editing. If you have concerns with regard to Wikipedia's policy on the use of original research then you can begin a discussion on the appropriate talk page to see whether there is consensus to change or modify the policy. What you cannot do is simply ignore it because your don't agree with it. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 14:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Tide  rolls  06:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Meyerbeer13, "I'm just posting things I know about" without supplying reliable, secondary sources is original research. You've convinced me that you will not stop adding unsourced content; you appear willing to edit war to violate this policy.  Please take the time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to avoid further blocks.  Tide  rolls  06:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Meyerbeer13, you are doing yourself no favors here. Firstly, do not make personal attacks on other editors. Secondly, the only material that has been repeatedly removed from Jean-Baptiste Lully has been your material (added under this user name and as an anonymous IP), and it has been removed by two different and very experienced editors. Similarly, the material you have extensively edit-warred to add to Giacomo Meyerbeer has been removed by three different and very experienced editors. I am going to repeat Ponyo's excellent advice to you above. If you have concerns with regard to Wikipedia's policy on the use of original research then you can begin a discussion on Talk:Original research to see whether there is consensus to change or modify the policy. What you cannot do is simply ignore it because your don't agree with it. If you continue to add original research when you come off your block, continue to edit war, and continue to make personal attacks on other editors, you will almost certainly end up indefinitely blocked. Voceditenore (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not true -- there's someone else who puts something about Lully's homosexual flings on there, and that keeps disappearing too.

But I'm going to ask you to do one thing -- forget the Wikipedia brand and look at some of the other articles on Lully on the internet. You'll find they are quite different from what your experienced editors are peddling. I'm simply trying to add the salient facts about Lully's importance, which are totally missing from the Wikipedia article. I don't care about editing for Wikipedia, my view point is I'm doing you a favor by contributing my time and knowledge. Thus you are the one doing yourself no favors.

Meyerbeer13 (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read the policies WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research?  Tide  rolls  18:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have read these policies. "Paris is the capital of France" doesn't have to be attributed. By the same logic, I can say, Lully created the French overture (Slow then fast) style and nobody would challenge that; it's a well known fact. Or Lully influenced Purcell and J. S. Bach. Also a well known fact. So why when I mention these facts, are they promptly removed? The heading of this section, includes Lully's influence. Where, in all this verbiage, does the current article describe Lully's influence?

Meyerbeer13 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "nobody would challenge that; it's a well known fact." Ask people on the street about Lully. "Who?" will be the usual reply. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Meyerbeer13, you are exhibiting a concerning lack of sensitivity to the requirements set forth in Wikipedia's policies. Barring some turnaround on this point, I do not see how you can be unblocked.  It is also likely that you will have trouble avoiding future blocks if you cannot find a way to edit within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Tide  rolls  19:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC

There isn't a requirement that everyone know something for it to be a well known fact, it depends on the audience. If you ask someone in the street about Paris, there are people who think it means Paris Hilton. And I'm sure Wikipedia has an article about Paris that mentions that it is the capital of France. I heard about the French overture when I was about 10 years old from my father. And Lully's influence on Bach was demonstrated by Bukofzer but it's also a fairly self evident fact. Bach is constantly referring the his music as, in the French style, in the Italian style, etc. So I would say a well known fact is something that many people, reasonably well informed about music, would know and -- this is important -- which is not in dispute -- this last is part of the Wikipedia guidelines. And when I have removed stuff, it's precisely because it is in dispute, like that Meyerbeer's arias are short winded or that Lully's recitatives are tedious and over long.

My basic point is that your Lully article wouldn't lead anyone to think he was an important composer and it definitely doesn't discuss his influence. If you listed the 5 most important composers of the 17th century, Lully would be on there, he founded a whole school, the French school, and as Bukofzer wrote, French and Italian schools were the two main schools of the Baroque era, every other school (except possibly Spanish) came from them in some way, and to some extent their conflict stayed with us -- the virtuosic plebeian Italians versus the regal stately and restrained French. By the way, the French don't call Lully baroque -- their classical period starts with him and continues until the Revolution.

Meyerbeer13 (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * When your block expires, these types of discussions belong on Talk:Jean-Baptiste Lully, Talk: Giacomo Meyerbeer, etc. which is what you should have done the first time you were reverted. Your block is about your behaviour, not editorial decisions on the description of a composer's influence. If editors disagree with the tone and the content which you are adding, particularly if you fail to cite a reliable source for the claims you make, then the appropriate action is to discuss this on the article's talk page and reach a consensus there. Instead, you edit-warred and made personal attacks on other editors, and quite explicitly rejected (and continue to reject) the basic requirements for collaborative editing in an encyclopedia that does not publish the personal opinions of its editors or original research. Many people have found these constraints uncongenial, but they are central to Wikipedia's approach and policies. If you do not wish to abide by them, then I suggest you seek an outlet for your views and writing elsewhere. If you continue to flout them, the choice will be made for you. It's up to you. Voceditenore (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=558323905 your edit] to Niccolò Piccinni may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].