User talk:Baron D. Z.

I am disgusted by your behavior. You reverted back to a version that opens with a sentence that doesn't even make sense. You are obviously none of you qualified to be editing this page, and if you continue to block me, the original author, then I exert my natural copyright over my writing and demand that you remove the entire entry. If you don't I will another way. Shame on you. You prefer to favor someone who thoroughly sabotaged the page. You are thoroughly unprofessional. Baron D. Z. (talk) Hi, and welcome to wikipedia. I stumbled on Edna Phillips, and hope you havent been discouraged by the less than expert input! Those tags often get put up in a hurry without useful talkpage explanations. Did you prepare the AHJ article yourself and is it free of copyright? It's usual to just link obituaries under external links, though I cant find it online. All the best, and please dont go away! Sparafucil (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I am the original author, and versions of this were published in the American Harp Journal and Philadelphia Music Makers. Thank you.[reply]

Dussek[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be advised that if you are going to make strong or controversial statements, as you did at Jan Ladislav Dussek and List of compositions by Jan Ladislav Dussek, you are going to have to provide more complete information about your sources. Feel free to continue the discussion you started at Talk:Jan Ladislav Dussek; if you do not, it is probable that your contributions will be significantly edited away.

For information on how to provide better information on your sources in an article, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Magic♪piano 20:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The strongest evidence lies in the music itself, not in "sources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron D. Z. (talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 April 2013

January 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Trevj. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Sibelius (software), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! 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. -- Trevj (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Baron D. Z.. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! -- Trevj (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Hello! Baron D. Z., you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! -- Trevj (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a way to respond to you people, so here is my comment. I do not respect Wikipedia because anyone can change or write anything, and attempts to make it reliable are forever undermined by that. The fact that it has virtually destroyed real encyclopedias is unforgivable. The reliance on false truths such as other sources does not help. Where I have direct knowledge, original experience, I say so. I wrote obits for Edna Phillips for two publications, it is my material. Neither one paid for its use. There are no particular sources for Dussek, the best source is comparing scores, which I have done. I don't have time to study or remember your guidelines. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron D. Z. (talk • contribs) 17:02, 11 April 2013

Hi. I know that getting to grips with both the means of interacting with other editors and the article contribution guidelines can be daunting, but if you can afford to invest some time you will hopefully find that it pays off. If you have any questions, please let me know (see my talk page). Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carlos Salzedo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metropolitan Opera House (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC) I don't know what you are referring to. I would not put in any links. Someone else did that. That page has been suffering from meddling by ignorant souls. I don't have time to study your styles and requirements, and when I provide information that I know from personal experience or firsthand testimony, no, I will not provide citations. If you rely entirely on citations, your encyclopedia would merely be a mass of plagiarisms.[reply]

Also, the text on the Salzedo page is so wide, it is difficult to read. Can you reset the margins? Who the f@ck separated Salzedo's list of compositions as a separate article??? Stop it. It has to be with the main text, so it is immediately viewable and connected. It is not at all clear that the list exists. That is infuriating.

Speedy deletion nomination of Trio de Lutece[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Trio de Lutece requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 09:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC) The utter ignorance of this action is astounding. The members of Trio de Lutece were three of the most famous musicians of their time. But you don't like people to write statements like that, so I posted the site listing many of their recordings. that should have been sufficient. You have completely incompetent people empowered to do awful things.[reply]

Carlos Salzedo[edit]

Hi, you asked me to contact you personally if I made changes to the Carlos Salzedo page. I reverted your edits, which removed cited information and added information not found in the cited sources. Please see Talk:Carlos Salzedo for more discussion. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019[edit]

Hi Baron, you appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Carlos Salzedo. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

Editors who continue to revert to their preferred version are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

Please discuss your objections to the edit on the talk page rather than continuing to revert wholesale. If you continue to revert without discussing, you risk being blocked for edit warring. czar 18:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC) I do not see any way to message within this site. I am an expert on Carlos Salzedo, which is why I wrote this entry, and if you continue to allow its interference and desecration by people who are ignorant of the subject matter, yet obsessed with formatting, I will insist on its complete deletion. I do not own it, but I demand respect for my expertise, knowledge and vastly superior writing ability. I can hardly address every error or use of bad writing, which should be obvious on its face. I will happily delete the entry, which I alone created, as people should buy his biographies to have knowledge. Wikipedia has no right to any of this content. I provided it out of generosity and to interest people in learning more. I guess it was all a mistake. I would appreciate a lot more support from Wikipedia judges, having contributed several articles of importance, than being attacked for trying to maintain their quality. I will delete all of them if I have to.```[reply]

Hello again[edit]

Hi Baron D.Z.,

If you message me on Facebook again I will report you for off-wiki harassment. There is no private messaging system on Wikipedia--most communications are completely open. I am following your talk page and if you reply here, I will see what you have written. You may also reply on my talk page (click the link on my user name, and then "talk" in the upper left-hand corner). Wikipedia has a culture that is open, but also focused on obeying certain editing rules. If you wish to successfully contribute to Wikipedia, citing your authority "an expert" will not help. Users are judged by their editing, and specifically, their ability to add content that is verifiable with in-line citations. Citations are not mere "formatting." They are vital to the building the reliability and accuracy of Wikipedia. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC) As I have pointed out so many times, you are NOT HELPING. The fact that you added citations means so little in terms of the ways you have rewritten and improperly distorted the oh-so carefully crafted content of this article before you messed with it. I understand it is your job to write entries so as to benefit your employer; well, that is a conflict of interest, and your complete lack of expertise in the subject matter does indeed disqualify you from criticizing me or making changes. Yes, I reached out to you in hopes you would be reasonable, but you are not, you are remarkably selfish and destructive. You are so fortunate to have the time to pay attention to all the niceties of Wikipedia style and all, but if you are adding inaccurate content or divergent or inappropriate content, it really doesn't matter one bit if you can add a citation to it or not. Please REMOVE YOUR CHANGES! I worked for many hours on this article to make it accurate and valuable and, yes, as an editor on Salzedo's biography, am a reigning expert on his life and work and you are not! Your relying on "open culture" as a defense for your interference is indefensible. Does Wikipedia know that you are being paid by BYU to write and work on entries that in some way benefit and publicize BYU? That is certainly not the purpose of Wikipedia, to serve as indirect advertorials for a Mormon university. You have no credentials with me.Baron D. Z. (talk)REMOVE YOUR CHANGES. I offered to help you to make them positive contributions, but you have refused. You are in error here, not me.Baron D. Z. (talk)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.

Please contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en

wikimedia.org when possible. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My entries were clearly targeted for attack by people with no standing to do so. No justification was given for deleting the Betsy Haug entry, other than a minimizing of her legitimate accomplishments. Said person gave no credentials for such a judgment call, one that was totally inappropriate, and ignorant of the field in which she worked. Likewise, my expert entry on Carlos Salzedo was heinously vandalized repeatedly, by someone with unethical interests, ie. being paid by Brigham Young University to create and edit entries that could somehow benefit said institution. The Carlos Salzedo entry has zero to do with BYU except that they did inherit some scores and documents, for safekeeping. I apologize for not having time to become an expert on Wikipedia style and negotations and such, because my time is spent being an expert in the fields on which I contributed entries. My request to remove all entries I contributed in return for being banned for apparently life, was ignored. You have demonstrated a total lack of professionalism and credibility. Your editorial standards, such as they are, are completely inappropriate for people in the performing arts, and for entries profiling actual people in general. Adding nasty remarks and criticisms of said people does not make their entries more meaningful. As for measures of success, actually doing things is more important than having external validations like awards or media coverage. If someone has completed, say, choreographic jobs, had shows running in a number of venues, no further proof they existed is necessary. In the performing arts, there often is nothing remaining once they are done except a program or publicity. It doesn't mean they did not happen. I hope you have learned from this. You are certainly not getting any more expert contributions from me. The joke is on you, in the end, because my original entry for Salzedo was copied by other sites where it remains in view, unlike your bastardized, butchered pathetic version.