Talk:Richard Kastle

Untitled

• Archive 1

New Info Added

I've added direct-source information from Richard Kastle's own website (direct quotes). If anyone finds these quotes objectionable, bear in mind, these are Mr. Kastle's own words, so I'm sure he won't mind them appearing in Wikipedia.

Let us honour this living musical conundrum, by quoting his every word! (We'd love to include his recordings, but there are no complete pieces available...just snippets!) He plays some sections of some pieces "perfectly", according to his very own words! For those interested, his "vignettes" are available from Amazon for once cent each (BOTH albums of his past 18 years!). Prof.rick (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Get the facts right

Prof.rick is insulting the subject of this story by making false statements, and then using the misinformation as a basis for including material that is not encyclopedic. He said, "We'd love to include his recordings, but there are no complete pieces available...just snippets!" That is not true. There are plenty of full lenth cuts on those recordings. The Royce Concerto is almost a half hour long. Juri Koll (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Prof.rick added a large amount of material that may be the basis for a future story in the NY Times or LA Times, but this material has no place in here at this time. Most of the material here is from his blogs which are not relevant here. The way Prof.rick handled this edit and the ones before shows that he appears to have a personal grudge against Kastle.

These are incomplete direct quotes presented in a manner that distorts the context of the presentation on the website. The website states its mission, which is to focus on new advances in science that may help unlock the secret to why Franz Liszt was able to play notes that were impossible to all other pianists. That’s the context.

Kastle presents an evidentiary page that documents how all of the recording artists who came before him were diluting Liszt’s technique at the climax of his most famous piece. He also explains the faking methods and provides time codes of how the other pianists are incapable of playing the simplified versions in the studio. He provides links to the recordings on YouTube so you can verify that what he says is true.

Prof.rick left out the most important ones at the beginning of the evidentiary page. Example:

Sergi Rachnaninoff . “The great composer was known for recording dozens of takes as he was a perfectionist in the studio. Remember, you’re listening to the best take. He simplifies the octaves by not hammering them and plays the climax quietly. The technique is diluted as the distance the hands move is shortened. In addition, he simplifies the passage before by leaving out the inner notes of dozens of chords. He still misses the B octave in the descending ones at time code 10:17. He was clearly not qualified to play Liszt’s original ending, because he’s on record proving that he can’t even play this easier version in a studio.”

When you click on Rachnaninoff’s name, the link takes you to the recording on YouTube. Kastle’s account of tjhe performance is accurate. Prof.rick also left out Hofmann and Horowitz.

The stuff on Ivan Davis includes conflict that arose from interviews with the LA Times and Miami Herald. These news organizations can do fact checking from multiple sources and report this in a responsible way. Prof.rick is not a reporter. He is presenting un-vetted material. This is blog material. It doesn’t belong here.

The Beethoven section is called “Waldstein Sonata Test.” It’s a test for college students. Prof.rick presents it as a critique on Beethoven.

Prof.rick also included a link at the bottom of the page to what Kastle refers to on his website and myspace blog as his “identity thief.” This a troll post on YouTube. There is a page on trolls on Kastle’s web site and a blog on his myspace page that explains how this person put up a YouTube post that represents itself as Kastle playing Liszt, but it’s not him. It’s an incompetent pianist. After a full year of deception with over 30,000 views, the person now admits that it was never Kastle playing the piano. (Lang has a troll post with 100,000 views called “I hate Lang Lang.” It is not relevant here either.) Juri Koll (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of outlining these missing sections here, Juri Koll could include them in the article himself. I think to remain an unbiased article it needs to contain at least some of the criticism surrounding Kastle. To claim that everyone who recorded a particular piece before him were faking and that it's a conspiracy is quite controversial to say the least. It seems strange to disclude them when they seem to make up the bulk of his objective as a musician. Blurgezig (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Answer to Jui Koll

Not one of your arguments is worthy of a response. Sorry! Prof.rick (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) However, I've been kind enough to provide appropriate indents for your paragraphs, when providing a response, which is done with the simple : sign. (I hope you understand, this is the usual Wikipedia practice!)

Here is how it works! Prof.rick (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And for a reply to a reply, just use :: as done here! Prof.rick (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Revert?

Before reverting, I am asking for the views of other Wikipedia editors. I had added direct quotes made by Richard Kastle, on his own website. I believe these are relevant, and should be included in the article. I see that User:Richard Arthur Norton has removed the material in question. I am proposing a reversion to the 4:06 March 4 version, and would like to see the matter discussed.

Thank you Prof.rick (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• If you want to quote his blog, do it in your blog. Nothing you added was encyclopedic in scope or tone. It also violated Kastle's inherent copyright on the material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why create a blog? You have dismissed quotes from Richard Kastle's own website, calling it a blog, in order to prevent me from quoting from it! If I create a blog, no doubt you would act in a similar manner, deleting the reference to Richard Kastle's "blog".

Quoting from a website (or a book) does NOT infringe copyright, as long as the source is acknowledged.

The leading question is this: If Richard Kastle's own site is a blog, should it be included in "External References"?

Meanwhile, I will feel free to quote from Kastle's website, giving full credit to the source. IF you decide to delete my contributions, I hope you will at least be sufficiently courteous to provide valid reasons, on this talk page, for deletion...if you consider it warranted.

Richard, we KNOW that Kastle is a controversial figure! His attitudes regarding himself, his teacher, and the best pianists of the past century are atypical of a successful concert pianist, and therefor warrant inclusion in the article (one way or another).

If you simply agree with my last statement, we are "coming to terms", and I will maintain hope for the very existence of this Article! If you disagree, I'm not sure what will folow.

Yours sincerely, in the hopes of cordially resolving this matter, Prof.rick (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion?

If not a revert, I believe a discussion is necessary to determine whether Richard Kastle's controversial views should be included in this article, at least to some extent. Cordial invitations have been sent to Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and to Juri Koll, who have presented views in contrast with my own.

Of course, all views all welcome! It is hoped that through mutual compromise we can arrive at an Article which is satisfactory to all.

For now, I will avoid any editing of the Article.

Sincerely, Prof.rick (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I probably didn't make it very clear but I agree with Prof rick. Richard Kastles controversial claims make up a considerable amount of what notoriety he has. It's doubtfull he would have ended up on Wikipedia if his views were different considering how many hundreds of people are doing the same things. To publicly claim your own perfection in the music world is an extraordinarily unusual thing to do. I think this discussion would benefit from more people like Prof rick with practical musical experience to construct a criticism section. Blurgezig (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no controversial claims made in his Wikipedia biography. If he made them in his blog, respond in your blog. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Blurgezig and I are in complete agreement. If the article is to be complete, it must necessarily cite Richard Kastle's most unusual views: that he, himself, is "pefect", that virtually all pianists of the past century are unworthy, and that his own teacher was the "cause of his failure".

I feel certain that others will make their views known. Prof.rick (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Save it for your blog and Facebook page. That is what your blog, and your Facebook page are for. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton: You referred to my direct quotes for Kastle's own website as "blog material". His site must therefore be a blog, and I will therefore remove it from "external links". (I have asked for discussion, not insults.) Prof.rick (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Noted, and I have dutifully restored it. I am not quite sure you are using Boolean logic when you are thinking these things through. His blog may appear as an external link, but you cutting and pasting his blog to this article violates his copyright and is not encyclopedic in the content or the tone. What I said was that if you want to dissect his blog, you should do that at your blog. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to settle personal scores. That is why we have blogs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The concert at Symphony Space gives us a factual basis in saying that he is a composer of eight piano concertos. The number of concertos Kastle has composed is encyclopedic information. Juri Koll (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Juri, my removal of the referenced composition(s) must not be interpreted as a denial that Richard Kastle has composed. I removed the reference because it was a "red link". (A red link is a dead link, and therefore inappropriate to Wikipedia.) Prof.rick (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Instead of pulling Wikipedia rules out of your colon, it would be better if you would cite actual Wikipedia rules. There is no rule about having a redlink in a Wikipedia article. If you don't like the red for aesthetic reasons, just unlink it, do not delete the fact. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not

- 2.2 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

- 2.5 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research or original thought, this includes unpublished facts, arguments, thoughts, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis that serves to advance a position Juri Koll (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC) This discussion was removed by Blurgezig. Check the edits. I have restored it back. Juri Koll (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

External reference

- As far as I'm concerned, the Lang Lang story is the standard for how a complete wikipedia story should be presented. There is an external link to his official website, which connects you to his personal blogs. This is standard practice. Juri Koll (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Blurgezig also edited this point I made yesterday. Juri Koll (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

One of Kastle's fans left this message and it was removed.

Richard Kastle is the best fucking pianist on earth. He can't play anything wrog, and if he does, its just cuz some peple thing he's wrong. Who the hell are the snots think that anygody could play better! Who the hell are they to tell write from wrong? Piss on them.

Second call for discussion

So far, the recent call for discussion of this article has been met by just four users. Two of them are musicians and teachers (Prof.rick and Blurgezis). Another, Richard Arthur Norton is a scientist, making no claim to be musically knowledgable. Of the fourth, Juri Koll, little is known.

It is hoped that more musicians will participate in this discussion! Prof.rick (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Another musician is certainly needed. Also, less confrontational remarks would be helpful. I can assure R A Norton that we have all read and re-read his blog opinion and reposting it doesn't change that fact. Kastles claims are a part of his notoriety, perhaps if R A Norton had more experience with music this argument would be less circular. Kastles claims don't necessarily have to placed in a critical light in order to be included at the very least, they are a compelling and unique part of his interest. Also, what exactly is it I am supposed to have edited? Blurgezig (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

REGARDING JURI KOLL:

To quote a previous edit to this Talk page by Juri Koll:

"As far as I'm concerned, the Lang Lang story is the standard for how a complete wikipedia story should be presented. There is an external link to his official website, which connects you to his personal blogs. This is standard practice."

(Please note the Lang Lang article is unbiased, and discusses controversial issues surrounding Lang Lang. We feel the same unbiased approached should be taken through the inclusion of controversial issues regarding Richard Kastle, without taking sides.)

To quote another edit to this Talk page by Juri Koll:

"The subject of this article is not its creator. I created it and I am neither Caffey nor Kastle. This appears to be another person using rumors from YouTube as facts, and then saying that they are the basis for deletion of this story."

A history search will reveal that the article was created by Mikecaffey. But I wonder why you so often refer to a Wikipedia Articles as a "stories". Wikipedia is NOT a magazine, but an encyclopedia.

I am not here to defend myself from your unfounded personal accusations, but to defend Wikipedia. I'd rather be objective, discussing the Article, not you, as a particular editor. The more honest and objective your comments, the more easily this goal will be achieved. I have no personal grudges against Kastle, but seek a more complete, objective, and inclusive article.

Finally, why justify Richard Kastle in using YouTube to defend his statements, yet regard YouTube as an unreliable source for editors? (I agree; YouTube is not a reliable source. Therefore Kastle's reference to YouTube cannot be regarded as reliable.) However, if you wish you pursue an objective, unbiased Article, I am ready!

REGARDING R H NORTON:

I had invited you for a cordial and constructive, and objective discussion. So far, all I have seen is insults, accusations, and comments unbecoming of Wikipedia. Quote: "pulling Wikipedia rules out of your colon".

If you wish to pursue an objective, unbiased Article, I am ready! Prof.rick (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So I have edited!

I added a description to Kastle's External Link, according to Juri Koll's definition thereof. Surely this is acceptable, eh, Norton?

After all, it might attract more viewers to his actual website! (Perhaps this is exactly what a megalomaniac wants!) Do you support views of his own site, or NOT? Whether or not you call it a blog, Juri Koll seems to cite it as an ultimate authority! Do you? Prof.rick (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And having edited, I will now leave this Article. (I doubt it is one of significance, and will probably be viewed by very few.) It is impossible to conduct an "amicable and constructive" discussion with two editors with predisposed positions, whether presenting conspicuous untruths (Juri Koll), or hurling the most distasteful of insults at editors who have proposed peaceful resolutions (Norton). Neither are musicians, nor scientists!

There are other, more important articles which demand my time!

Adiex, Koll and Norton! I shall check back from time to time, to ensure that this Article is presented fairly...if it continues to exist. I am so happy to say "good-bye"! Prof.rick (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Third party?

To R A Norton:

I will be requesting a third party opinion regarding the external link on this Article. Please, be courteous! I've asked only for a courteous and constructive discussion. I do NOT pull Wikipedia rules from my colon, as you have claimed! Any comments before I proceed? Prof.rick (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Talk: Richard Kastle #External link. Disagreement about inclusion and description of the External Link. 09:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

To R A Norton:

Please, stop using uncivil and personal attacks towards editors who have cordially requested your mutual co-operation and teamwork! This is a very simple request. The best editing results from teamwork, not from insults. Thank you. Prof.rick (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: The editorial comment about Kastle’s web site. His web site does not make any scientific claims. The thesis on myelin sheath is just that, a thesis. He has another scientific page that is called “What if it’s not myelin?” He doesn’t form any conclusions, but he does quote new findings by researchers at Harvard and Colombia that support theories he has had since he was a kid. The musical tour of recording artists changing the notes at the ending of the Liszt piece is up to the viewer to explore. Kastle indicates the time codes of where the pianists play wrong notes. This is a famous piece that almost anyone can sing, because it is a tune from cartoons. You don’t have to be a musical authority to hear the notes that have been obviously missed at the time codes he indicates. Juri Koll (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The 1992 Miami Herald story, “Concert pianist’s a rhapsody in purple” has information on his early years. Simply naming his elementary school, doesn’t tell you anything about him. The story sites two examples of him playing the piano before he had formal lessons. The second quote about him playing the Hungarian Rhapsody explains who he is. Shouldn’t part of this quote be in the story? I added it to the quote section in the references. “He’s a musical genius.” said Mary Anne Quick, Kastle’s former piano teacher. “I remember he walked in and played the Hungarian Rhapsody by Franz Liszt after hearing it on the Tom and Jerry cartoon,” she said. “Back then, he couldn’t even read music.” Juri Koll (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If Kastles claims regarding recordings of the Hungarian Rhapsody are fair then what's wrong with including them in the article? No one is suggesting some kind of in depth analysis, just a mention of his theories and claims. If Juri and Norton have no problem with his claims then surely they have no problem with an unbiased mention of them that meets general consensus. It's as if Juri and Norton are afraid of what people may think of Kastle when they see them. Kastle certainly isn't. Blurgezig (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am in full and total agreement with Blurgezig. If Kastle's claims are valid, why not include them in the article? If our proposed mission is to present an unbiased article about Richard Kastle, then his personal views (which predominate his performances) must be included in the Article.

For now, at least, I am restoring the cautionary note regarding Richard Kastle's own website. [IS IT A VALID REFERENCENCE OR NOT????} Prof.rick (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

To Norton and Koll:

The two of you are NOT musicians. You are fighting the edits and claims of two highly informed musicians. I hope you understand that this is a risky position! Upon calling other musicians into the apparent controversy, you know you will soon be recognized as disreputable and biased editors. Juri, you have simply aand knowingly stated an untruth (claiming to have originated the article). Norton, you have defied all guidelines of Widiepedia etiquette. (When another editor cordially asks for your imput, you do NOT reply with such as comments as :"pulling Wiki rules from your colon".

At least there are just two of you! Upon consultation with a number of Wikipedia music editors, I'm sure these matters will be resolved appropriately, and soon! Prof.rick (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: External Links

Hello Juri,

The claims I have stated regarding the 'verifiability" of this external link are not to be questioned. I have persistently encouraged a co-opererative effort, and a "team effort" on this this article. Obviously, you have rejected my proposal. I shall therefore turn the matter to both numerous other musicians, and to Wikipeidia authorities.

Despite my efforts to participate in an objective Article, you have repeatedly presented non-factual and biased viewpoints (such as claiming to be original author of the Article, and claiming that Kastle's claims are "scientific".) Prof.rick (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal message to R A Norton

"Try to be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions." Prof.rick (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

To Juri Koll and R A Norton

Sorry, I have checked with several associates who hold Doctorates in Biology. They have reviewed Richard Kastle's website, and have found NOTHING of scientific validity. Perhaps the two of you would like to involve other "scientists" in this discussion! Oh yes, Juri, if this is simply a thesis, then it must be regarded as an inadvertent POV error! Prof.rick (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia uses Wikipedia rules and style guides to determine contents. Third parties can edit under Wikipedia rules, ultimately the outside media determine what is notable in what they cover. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness we're finally getting somewhere. While we're talking about neutral point of view, can I suggest that the blurb attached to the external link at the bottom of the page be changed to make it clear that Kastles thesis is actually a claim based on someone elses research and not a fact. Given that he does not work directly with any of the scientists he quotes. Otherwise it sort of reads like an advert.

Also, I'm wary of seeing quotes such as “He’s a musical genius.”. The status of a genius or a virtuoso is not really neutral. It's like saying a piece of music is beautiful, it's a personal opinion, not a fact.

Where's the relevance in stating that Kastle has composed 8 concertos? Are we saying that to have composed a set number of concertos is somehow a qualification? Even the reference to his 3rd symphony being based on the sinking of the Titanic is strangely out of place. Also, I think the extended notes attached to the references should be removed, they make the reference section look like some kind of second article. Blurgezig (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A the risk of being tetchy, I also find that the statement concerning Kastles expulsion from the university of North Texas should be clarified if possible by stating that it violated their required dress codes for public performances, otherwise the description of what he wore tends to glorify his actions, which make the university seem villainous when in reality he chose to risk expulsion. Blurgezig (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses third party media material. If it is not mentioned in the original article it is original research. When third party media cover an event it becomes notable, so when someone is quoted as saying someone is a genius or an idiot, it becomes notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why isn't it in the main article? Any opinions on the length of the notes in the reference section? Why are they almost completely quoting the article? Doesn't it defeat the purpose of having a link? Or is it because half of them require subscription. Which, if we're quoting guidelines, "should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers".

Also, the first link is for Kastle's own hosting on myspace of a scan of the mentioned article. Is that not a copyright issue? Blurgezig (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

About Composers...

Juri, it doesn't really matter how many pieces Kastle has composed. We are interested in quality, not quantity! How many of his compositions have become a part of the "standard repertoire?" I fear that even mentioning his compositions constitutes a strike against Kastle, and damages his reputation even further. Prof.rick 09:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference quotes

I've shortened the reference quotes, there was really no need for them when their content would surely serve a better purpose as part of the article. Any thoughts are welcome. Blurgezig (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The reference quotes belong there. The first reference is regarding his elementary school. You edited out the material about his musicianship in elementary school and kept material about his him being "wild and wierd touring with Leno." If anything, the stuff about touring with with Leno is redundant. The rest of it is not. The quotes in the other references are also important. Juri Koll (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Biographies on living persons

These Wikipedia guidelines are important.

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

3. Scandal mongering or gossip. Articles about living people are required to meet especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libelous or infringe on the subjects right to privacy. Articles should not be written to purely attack the reputation of another person. Juri Koll (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Juri, it's really much easier and will take up less room if you can just refer us to an abbreviation for a particular rule or guideline rather than quoting the whole thing.

If you had read my previous comments you would see that my intention is that we should move the information from the references to the main article. The references are there so people can visit these pages and read the full page for themselves, the quotes in the reference section are to direct people to a particular area in an article, not reproduce the article in full.

How am I attacking his reputation by wanting to include these facts in the main article? No one wants to get rid of them all together. Blurgezig (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• The added material in the text is fine, but removing the quotes in the references isn't, especially in a contentious article on a living person, where every word is fought over. Knowing the exact wording in the original text is very important. Changing a single word can change the meaning of the article. In a print reference work you only have to check once, in a reference work "anyone can edit", at any time in an article's history someone can change the wording, and it must be compared to the exact wording in the original again. Copyright is a false issue, it is an extract, the same amount or less used under fair use by the aggregator, in this case Newsbank. Newsbank isn't the copyright holder. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Except for the scanned image which is a complete copy of an article and from Kastles own Myspace blog. Blurgezig (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• And that is why Wikipedia isn't hosting the image. Kastle's blog is. For instance my EULA with the New York Times allows me to display their articles for "education and other non profit uses". You may notice the NYT restaurant reviews displayed in the restaurants that were reviewed. All fall within fairuse as defined by the newspaper, which is different from how Wikipedia defines fairuse here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes Norton, but whether or not you have the right is not the issue. The image itself is still an infringement.

I feel I should also remind you that YOU'RE not not displaying articles, Wikipedia is after you link to it on account of how you don't own anything that you post here. When a person follows the link to the image they are still viewing Kastles copyright infringement, that's nothing to do with whatever licence you claim to have.

Copyright licences have to be compatible with Wikipedia. Copying an entire article is not the way fairuse works. That would otherwise be a full licence to a work.

I hate to have to print it here but for non-free content

Unacceptable use,

3 An image of a newspaper article or other publication that contains long legible sections of copyrighted text. If the text is important as a source or quotation, it should be worked into the article in text form with the article cited as a source.

Wikipedia doesn't bend to suit you, you find ways to suit it. I hardly think putting a review on the wall of a restaurant is the same thing. The link should be reverted. Blurgezig (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You aren't paying attention, or are, and just ignoring the legal standing. Fairuse is determined by US law, go to law school or read up on it. Your quote comes from Wikipedia hosting the image of the article, not using a courtesy link to it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issue

I'd like to bring up again the danger of violating copyright regarding the lengthy and exact quoting of newsbank's non-free archived articles and the misleading link to a scanned copy of an article. Blurgezig (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add my support to Blurgezig's points. First, complete quotes of references are not suitable. Second, quoting non-free archived articles is a copyright infringement. (If the content of the references were essential to the Article, I'd support them. However, their content seems non-critical to the Article. Prof.rick 02:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What was wrong with the original link to the "Rhapsody in Purple" reference? To replace it with a very legible image of a complete newspaper article is odd. Yes, newsbank isn't the copyright holder but they are still copyrighted. In their copyright info they are very clear that they do allow links but don't allow reproduction. Fair use is a very serious legal area. It is not a blanket term that anyone can use to fit their liking. Blurgezig (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly is the danger? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian rhapsody section

The new Hungarian Rhapsody section is a quoted truth. Granted, it is not very well written but I think it should stay. It contains no vandalism or libelous remarks.Blurgezig (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That was a complete distortion of Kastle's website. Even if the website is quoted word for word, in its entirety, the material doesn't belong here. Blurgezig knows better. Juri Koll (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it belongs here, it's an encyclopedia. How is a word for word quote a distortion? Blurgezig (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Libelous material doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It is libelous to make someone appear to be contradiction themselves by using snippets of quotes describing two different things. Kastle’s website has one page with descriptions and links to studio recordings of the Rhapsody and another page with descriptions and links to live performances of the Rhapsody. This person took a piece of a quote describing a studio recording and joined it with another quote describing a live performance and the payoff is that they concocted a way for Kastle to appear to destroy his own credibility by contradicting himself. By adding this section back in, Blurgezig is not following the standards for protecting this story from vandalism. Juri Koll (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The rest of the website material needs to be reported on by a major news organization. After it's vetted by a major news organization, it will meet the standard for sourced material. Then, perhaps, it will become encyclopedic. Juri Koll (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Juri I think you really need to stop and calm down and think a bit about what you're saying.

Firstly you need to read the history page a bit more thoroughly and notice that I did not create the offending section, I merely edited it.

Secondly, The contradiction is nowhere near being libelous. They are his words after all.

It's actually more of an offence to your role as an editor to have completely deleted it as you did instead of bringing it up here and then editing it.

The two facts were both truthfull. The fact that they contradict each other is a matter of organising them to better fit into the article. I have since deleted the section that cannot sourced adequately

If you had read what I had posted earlier, you would have seen that in the absence of news articles, Kastles website can be used as a source even if it is self-published according to guidelines.

And again, if you read the history page you would also see that I did not add his website as a reference. If you have a problem with that you can talk to R A Norton. Meanwhile please chill out, no one is here to make your life difficult.Blurgezig (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Misquoting Kastle's website

Blurgezig. Kastle does not claim that everyone that played the piece is faking. That is a false statement. Do your research. The first two pianists at the top of the "Live performance page" are not faking. Examples:

Dennis Matsuev:(Time code 9:00) "I have a lot of respect for Dennis, because he doesn't try to trick you into thinking that he's better that he is. He plays Liszt in an authentic manner, at times making the piano sound like it is posessed by the devil. He misses notes on octaves #9 - #16 (melody notes #5 #8). He resumes playing accurately for the most part, until octave #33 (melody note #16). From #33 to #53 there is a chain reaction of wrong notes. It's like a string of dominoes, where each oner knocks the next one down."

Adam Gyorgy : (time code 4:09) "His first 28 descending octaves are hammered effectively. Unfortunately, atoctaves #29 (melody note #15) the chain reaction of wrong notesbegins. He misses about 27 more octaves, or about 50 more notes."

The claim that he says that they are all faking is not true. There is a link to the performances that verify the statements made on the website. Anyone should be able to hear the chain reaction of wrong notes. You can't lump all the pianists into one group and say he claims that they are faking, because he doesn't do that. Juri Koll (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done my research. On Kastles website he uses a multitude of definitions for what he terms "faking". From simplification, to wrong notes. He may have been kinder to these two pianists but he does not in any way venture to clarify that they are not faking. In fact, the act of placing them in a list of "fakers" and placing this list of a page entitled "evidentiary page" more than supports the HR2 section. For all intents and purposes, the statement is true. If you don't like it, take issue with Kastle. "faking" for Kastle is a word that has apparently many meanings, including by his own implication, wrong notes. Note he often says a pianist fakes "with" his hands together, implying that hands together is merely a small degree of a wide array of faking. Perhaps, since his website now reveals that you and him are close friends, you could ask him to re-word it so it's more easily defined. Blurgezig (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Blurgzig is now claiming that Kastle's website says that we are friends. It does not, because we are not friends. This is a lie. What page on the website are you claiming that it says this nonsence? Your edits to this page and attempts to fill the story with unsourced or poorly sourced material show that you have a personal grudge against Kastle. Now you're trying to change the meaning of faking, so that you can make put words in his mouth. He says about the first two pianists, "doesn't try to trick you" and "plays Liszt in an authentic manner" and "octaves are hammered effectively." These are not the faking tricks he describes wiith regard to other performances. They are the opposite. None of the website material belongs in here anyway, because is is like a blog. Follow the rules. Articles about living people are required to meet especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libelous or infringe on the subjects right to privacy. Articles should not be written to purely attack the reputation of another person. Juri Koll (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither should they be written purely to glorify a person.

There is a photo of you on the Jay Leno page. Look for yourself.

It's not like a blog. His blog itself on myspace is like a blog.

His website is like a website.Blurgezig (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There are photos of several people on the Jay Leno page. Some are indentfied, some are not. Who am I supposed to be? How could you know? Yesterday, I thought you were saying that Kastle said that he and I were friends on his website. I knew it was impossible, but I checked anyway. Now you're saying that I'm just one of the people in the photographs on the Jay Leno page. Nice try. Juri Koll (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

After making a direct comparison between the photo on Kastles leno page and a photo of a person called Juri Koll on his own promotional website "http://people.tribe.net/yerdawg/photos/088a098a-737e-4578-a99e-0f5dfc5536d0" the photo on Kastles site has convienietly disappeared, what a coincidence. I wonder how that can have happened within hours of me mentioning it? Although, it's still available in googles cache. Incredible really. Blurgezig (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious, and now he's moved the name to a different photo Blurgezig (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of inappropriate material

This diversion about the west coast producer is getting us away from the subject of Blurgezig inserting inappropriate material into this story. Wikipedia uses third party material. Kastle’s website has been used as one of a multiple of sources on biographical information. The biographical information that is a sole source is not being used, because it was not vetted by a major news organization. That’s the only reason to use the website. On May 9, at 23:33 both myself and lxfd64 were removing the material that was inappropriately inserted. Blurgezig reversed the edit on May 10. I removed it again pointing out that it not only failed to meet the rules for inclusion as encyclopedic material, but that it was inaccurate and libelous. On May 12, Blurgezig removed part of it, but reinserted the rest of the inaccurate material. He changed Kastle’s definition of faking to justify the repeated inclusion of inappropriate and libelous material. Juri Koll (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Blurgezig and Prof.rick worked as a team until Prof.rick was given a 12hr block by senior editor, William M. Connolley on March 15. He was told that some of his edits to this story were massively absurd. Back then, Prof.rick made the inappropriate edits and Blurgezig defended them on the talk pages. (See March 4 for one of the most outrageous versions) Blurgezig is now the main editor that pushes for the inclusion of inappropriate and libelous material. He first appeared at the articles for deletion discussion in February where he and Prof.rick, who proposed the deletion, left 10 comments filled with inaccurate or misleading material, all of which were to accomplish the goal of deleting this article. A senior editor pointed out that Blurgezig created his account to delete this article, advising the other editors to check his edits. The act of creating an account for destructive purposes with regard to a living persons bio is, quite frankly, disturbing. While Prof. Rick has moved on to legitimate positive work on other stories, Blurgezig continues to be a destructive force with this one. Juri Koll (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Juri, all that proves is that I was trying to please you by altering it to best fit everyones needs. Prof.rick's edits are nothing to do with me. Wikipedia is a Wiki after all. I apologize for revealing what I did. Blurgezig (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Blurgezig, you didn't reveal anything. I am not the west coast film producer. Juri Koll (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

False accusation

Juri, you stated: "Blurgezig and Prof.rick worked as a team." Please, either verify your statement, or withdraw it. It is entirely false. I find it hard to believe that this nonsense is continuing. The subject of this article is not worthy of the time spent on it. Prof.rick 00:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Prof.rick The third sentence in the second paragraph above explains what I mean. The discussion is six weeks old. Get over it. Juri Koll (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits by user 203.161.68 96

Regarding the edits on June 26 and June 29, 2009 by user 203.161.68.96. It’s galling for this anonymous user to vandalize this story based on what seems to be the position that all facts must be approved by him before they become facts, notwithstanding the articles written by major news organizations about the classical recordings and performances. Inserting the phrase, “not a classical pianist” at the beginning of the story doesn’t make any sense. Kastle’s CD’s include music by Chopin, Liszt, Beethoven, Mozart and Bach. Virgin Records put a sticker on the packaging saying, “this album contains classical music.” Kastle’s website has a link to a Lincoln Center monthly calendar that lists his repertoire for one of his concerts there as including five of Chopin’s Polonaises, Beethoven’s Waldstein Sonata and Liszt’s Hungarian Rhapsody. Even though he wears a leather jacket., he plays serious classical repertoire.

This pattern of behavior began in earlier this year when numerous inaccurate statements were made by this user about the subject of this story in a five paragraph comment on the talk page January 17, 2009. He used his misinformation as the basis for deletion of the story. See the edits. The user said, “Richard Kastle however as far as I (or many other people have tried) know has never had a single CD published or recorded.” This is disingenuous, because when you type in Kastle’s name on any search engine, his CD’s are prominent the first page. How could he miss the sponsored link by amazon. He also claims to have seen an interview on YouTube where Kastle said something negative about a pianist named Cziffra. There is no such interview. He defended internet trolls who attack Kastle’s reputation and then referred to people who praise him as “psychologically disturbed.” This user has a pattern of distorting facts and making inappropriate edits to achieve a nefarious agenda. Juri Koll (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Juri, are you gonna write a novel every time someone makes an edit? Because if you are, then maybe someone should archive some of this incredibly long page. Or perhaps you could start a fan blog or something.

If it's vandalism, then just revert it. No one cares. Blurgezig (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies?

I am not gone, Juri. In a recent section, "false accusation", you stated, "The discussion is six weeks old. Get over it". Time does not rectify lies. Only an APOLOGY can help now.

You also stated that an Administrator told me that my edits to this story were "massively absurd". I have no recollection of this, and can find no record of it. Please, fill me in!

Why do you call an encyclopedic article a "story"?

I would invite other opinions on this matter...and the very existence of this article, but who on earth cares? Prof.rick 04:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

“Manifestly absurd” edits by Prof.rick

I’m sorry, Prof.rick, I got the quote wrong. The phrase is not “massively absurd”, it’s “manifestly absurd.” You edited your talk page to remove the comment about the 12 hour block from William M. Connolley. To find it, look under history for your talk pages.

Revision 10:08, 15 March 2009 William M. Connolley (3rr block: new section) “I’ve blocked you for 12h for WP:3RR on Richard Kastle. Please slow down. Furthermore, you have made some edits that are manifestly absurd...”

Revision 2:39 16 March 2009 Prof.rick ("3rr block: removed notice, which I had pasted here myself. Expired.") Your claim that you pasted the notice from William M. Connoley on your talk page before you removed it is also absurd. The edits conflict with this representation. How did he contact you in the first place?

I have been busy working on another story where you made edits that can also be described as manifestly absurd. This seems to be a pattern with you. Juri Koll (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Discontinued by manufacturer

I've added the term, "discontinued by manufacturer" beside each of Kastle's two recordings. However, anyone interested in obtaining copies can find them for sale at Amazon.com (used) from $0.01 US).Prof.rick 21:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not encyclopedic information. The price of the Royce Concerto is $16.99 at Boarders. It appears to have been re-released. Streetwise (new) at Amazon start at $30.00. It doesn't matter anyway. None of this, including manufacture status, belongs in the article. Juri Koll 16:05, 01 January 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juri Koll (talk • contribs)

Juri, why don't you sign in? Although the price may not be encyclopaedic, the fact that the recordings are "discontinued by manufacturer" certainly is! LEAVE IT ALONE! Prof.rick 12:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Prof.rick, I did sign in. You know better. I forgot to sign the comment with four tildes. You're attempting to divert attention away from your nefarious edits. Let's look at some of them. Juri Koll (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In the age of iTunes no recording is unavailable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"I'm finding it impossible to link my own website to this page" - Prof.rick

Prof.rick knows better. His assertions on this talk page for Jonah Cristall-Clark are galling. [1] He flagrantly violates the rules and then creates diversions to distract from what he is really doing, which is diverting internet traffic to his website that has a sales pitch for internet piano lessons. Check this edit.[2] The spam is at the end of the education section. I have spent a lot of time fixing his nefarious edits. It's time to start addressing his motives for edits done on this and other articles. Juri Koll (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Prof.rick spamming articles on classical pianists to divert internet traffic to pianostudioone.ca

Prof.rick promotes his business by making nefarious edits in articles on classical pianists Anton Kuerti and Richard Kastle. He rigged the article on Anton Kuerti with a link to the sales pitch on his website. The pianist left this comment on Prof.rick's talk page, "Why did you put those completely outdated and irrelevant facts in my biography?????" He needed to add irrelevant facts to the article, so that he could add a link to the sales pitch for webcam piano lessons at his website.[3] The spam is at the end of the second paragraph.

• He inserted three exteral links to this article on Richard Kastle. The links were indirect forms of spam that led to posts on YouTube where Pritchard's associates dominate the comment pages in an effort to recruit potential students. He knows we don't link articles to YouTube. In the edit description, he brazenly called them "critiques on YouTube." While they were not direct links to his website, they were links to comment pages frequented by potential students that could be coaxed over to Pritchard's YouTube page that had the direct link. These were nefarious edits that did not feature Richard Kastle performing. His associates worked as a group to refute Kastle's blogs about the extreme difficulty of the piece by Liszt that is featured on the Tom and Jerry cartoon. They criticized Kastle, while praising Pritchard's abilities as a teacher. Smearing Richard Kastle's reputation is one of many creative sales techniques uesd by the associates of pianostudioone.ca. Juri Koll (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Prof.rick soliciting meat puppets on YouTube, three examples of meat puppet accounts

It's galling for a Wikipedia editor to actively recruit meat puppets to push his point of view, expecially when the editor is a spammer. By following the first of three nefarious external links Prof.rick added to this article, I arrived at a post on YouTube that that is dominated by comments from the owner of pianostudioone.ca and his affiliates. Prof.rick, who admits to being the owner of pianostudioone.ca on a Wikipedia talk page, encourages YouTube users to trash Richard Kastle's reputation by inserting false information to this article as well as voting to delete the article in an AFD which he proposed. The call for meat puppets for the AFD is under the comments from 10 and 11 months ago. He even gives them instructions on how to create Wikipedia accounts and how to find the AFD.

• Randyrhodes1fan - Check the contribution history for this new meat puppet.[4] This one day old account seems to have been created for the puropse of backing up Prof.rick's most recent edits on this article. There is a user on YouTube with the same name. He leaves comments indicating that he is employed by the owner of pianostudioone.ca, or Prof.rick. This seems to be a meat puppet with a salary and a boss who pulls the strings.
• Pvu2 - Check the contribution history.[5] This meat puppet account was created for only two edits. Both of them were used for the Richard Kastle AFD.
• Blurgzig - Check the contribution history.[6] This is another one created for the same AFD. This user continued to defend Prof.rick's edits on this article, even though they were referred to as "manifestly absurd" by a Wikipedia administrator. He copies the same intimidation tactics used by Prof.rick on YouTube and Wikipedia. They try to intimidate anonymous users by claiming that they know their identities and will expose them. For an example of this, look at comments on my talk page. Half of the comments are from this user who insists that he has proof that I am a film producer who lives on the west coast and has the name Juri Koll. It's laughable, because there is no way for him to know what he claims to know. Juri Koll (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think I'm a meat puppet, report me. What are you waiting for? You know everything is in the page history, or is that why you haven't done it? You spend more time complaining on this page than you do editing. Blurgezig (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing to report. Your first edits were for the AFD. For about three months, you supported Prof.rick and his manifestly absurd edits. Aftr that, you made some edits on other articles and left productive comments on other talk pages. Juri Koll (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Juri!

This page is the appropriate place for you to leave your unfounded and absurd criticisms of myself and other editors, rather than on their talk pages. Your comments rely on unfounded assumptions, and a sense of ill-will towards other editors. They may, indeed be libellous.

However, I don't mind them appearing on Kastle's talk page, since it's difficult to imagine anyone taking Richard Kastle seriously. Prof.rick 20:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Prof.rick, it's all true. You are spamming[7]and making unsourced edits that promote your business of selling internet piano lessons. Please provide sources for all your edits and stop editing the examples of your spamming history off your talk page. Don't forget, an administrator described your edits on this article as "manifestly absurd." Cheers. Juri Koll (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Randyrhoads1fan is a four day old account

Check his edits. He added links to Amazon and then nominated the article for deletion. I've tried to explain some of the rules on his talk page, but he keeps deleting what I write. [8] Juri Koll (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard Kastle

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Richard Kastle, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Richard Kastle and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Prof.rick 08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard Kastle

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Richard Kastle, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Richard Kastle and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Randyrhoads1fan (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Let sleeping dogs lie!

Juri,

Since less than 30 viewers have tuned in to Richard Kastle's pages, your talk page or mine, why don't we just let it sleep? Cheers, Prof.rick 09:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Early Years...revisions

That an "official cannot recall the details" is hardly informative nor encyclopediac. We are interested in INFORMATION, not the forgetfulness of information! Prof.rick 10:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Message to Juri Koll

Your Mistakes on the Richard Kastle article

Juri, you've apparently "doctored" the Richard Kastle article to mislead viewers. Examples:

YOUR COMMENT: "Removed 'discontinued'. Amazon is wrong. Borders sells Royce Concerto at full price. They don't stock Streetwise, because it was discontinued. This doesn't belong here anyway."

   REPLY: Yes, it's available at Borders for $16.99, distributed by Yum recordings. You acknowledge that Streetwise was discontinued. WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE THAT THIS INFORMATION DOES NOT BELONG IN THE ARTICLE? Let us include as many facts as possible!

• These are Wikipedia conventions, not mine. In addition, the fact you added appears to be wrong with regard to the Royce Concerto. The burden of proof is on you, because you added the material. Juri Koll (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

YOUR COMMENT: "(Yum Recordings was not mentioned in the article as the label that recorded the concerto in 1992. They released it in 1997.)"

   REPLY: Virgin may have recorded the concerto in 1992, but it was NOT released. (Check the history of Virgin Records.) It was never released under the Virgin label [WHY NOT?], but released by Yum in 1997. Who in heck is Yum? I searched it on Google, and found no results relevant to musical recordings!!!

• The line you removed didn't mention Virgin at all. "In 1992, he recorded his Piano Concerto #5, also known as the Royce Concerto with the Philharmonia Orchestra." This is what was reported in the Miami Herald. The newspaper didn't say what label recorded it and neither did the line you removed. Juri Koll (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Additional research - "Spike Haired Pianist" article. LA Times interviewed the Virgin Records executive. His name was Roger Holdredge. He was Executive Producer of Royce Concerto as well as Streetwise. We can compromise by not mentioning either label. Sloved. Juri Koll (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

YOUR COMMENT: "Early years: The teacher's quote cannot be changed to include "excerpts." I replaced the original thought with the exact words frm the Miami Herald. Removed link to YouTube.)

   REPLY: The teacher's quote was NOT changed, but further information of the incident has been provided. The reference provided states that Kastle played the Rhapsody BY EAR, after hearing it in a Tom and Jerry cartoon. Even if one could play a classic note-perfectly by ear, the Tom & Jerry version consists only of excerpts. Therefore, if 'Tom and Jerry" was Kastle's source, he could play only excerpts (and continues to so today!).

• You are changing the teachers quote without a source, See section below. Juri Koll (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

YOUR COMMENT: "Early years: Removed contentious material. "Kastle continues to claim" in not based on fact. The article was from 1991.)

   REPLY: Is this contentious? Does Kastle continue to make this claim, or has he admitted that his expulsion were for the reasons originally reported by the press (failure to appear at his final performance examination)? If it's contentious, then LET US NOT even mention what "Kastle claimed" (whenever).

I am therefore reverting your recent edits, which appear to biased and non-factual. Prof.rick 05:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Changing the teacher's quote without a source

Prof.rick, "Further information of the incident" is not a source. What is your source? Here's the quote from the Miami Herald -

"He’s a musical genius.” said Mary Anne Quick, Kastle’s former piano teacher. “I remember he walked in and played the Hungarian Rhapsody by Franz Liszt after hearing it on the Tom and Jerry cartoon,” she said. “Back then, he couldn’t even read music.”

The conclusion of the teacher was about him being a "musical genius." It wasn't about the arrangement of Liszt's piece on a cartoon. This is a biograpghy, not an article on arrangements. Juri Koll (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Juri, I have NOT changed the teacher's quote, but refer to the words of Steve Appleford regarding Kastle playing "by ear". Please, Juri, don't be so fast with your false accusations! Prof.rick 23:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to Tom and Jerry cartoon on YouTube is likely to be considered contributory copyright infringement

Prof.rick, the external link you added to the first line is a problem. Linking a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking a page to YouTube, where due care should be take to avoid linking to material that violates copyright. Juri Koll (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The link has been removed. Anyone who watches it will know it consists only of excerpts. Prof.rick 23:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Few of his works..."

Juri, this is a cold, hard fact. If not so, please provide the recorders or publishers of the concertos he composed throughout high school, as well as anything else he has "composed". I will not pass judgment, nor remove such material from the article, until you have responded to me, and our other (less than 30) readers. Cheers Always, Prof.rick 05:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• This fact about him composing concertos as a teenager was reported by David Wharton and published by the LA Times in 1988. I added the exact words from the article to the references. Juri Koll (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I removed the line. "few of his works have ever been published or recorded." That is contentious material. You could say that about all of the classical pianists. Would you put that line in the article on Horowitz? Juri Koll (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Misleading information

Dear Richard Kastle (aka Juri Koll):

You named March 30 as "Richard Kastle Day", as though it were an annual event! NO, it was ONLY for one day, in 1976...in a small town! (Encyclopedic???)

Since you continue to contort this article into fantasies, I have no choice but to delete the article.

Richard, check out YouTube! By ALL of your user-names, you have attempted to defend yourself from my legal advisor, removing almost all of your comments (under ANY of your names), "removed by author"...unless, of course, they were already removed as Spam! But one remains...the food for my legal advisor: a case of libel and defamation...exactly what my legal advisor required. Unfortunately, you cannot delete the comment, which is essentially a case of libel and defamation, since the account is closed!

I am about to remove this entire nonsensical article from wikipedia. If you wish to protest, my legal advisor stands by! He has successfully removed all derogatory pages about me from your MySpace account, and, in fear, you have removed almost all of your comments about me from YouTube.

But one remains. Waste more of your time trying to find it, while I practise piano with joy!

Cheers, Prof.rick 12:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• You don't have the authority to deleate articles. You nominated this article for an AFD and tried speedy deletion twice. The edit you did today is vandalism. [9] Wikipedia is not the place for maniacal agressiveness. Juri Koll (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Juri Koll/Richard Kastle/Mike Caffey

If you try to restore this article, I have many friends who will again delete it. If any Administrator objects, let him check out Kastle on YouTube and MySpace. He is NOT a noteworthy musician!

However, if Administrators argue the case that Richard Kastle is noteworthy according to existing Wikipedia rules, then perhaps a redefinition of "noteworthy" or "notable" is required in Wikipedia. Prof.rick 12:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• On my talk page, you just left a comment accusing me of being a girl. I think you're crazy. Juri Koll (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you sound like a girl! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof.rick (talk • contribs) 06:21:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Blanking

The text below is taken from revision 341049716 and was the only text left after Prof.rick (talk · contribs) blanked this page. Brian Jason Drake 10:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Article removed, due to numerous unsubstantiated statements. The survival of this article has relied entirely upon upon editor Juri Koll, aka, Richard Kastle. {{help}} Prof.rick 07:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean "article blanked". If you are not the only editor to make nontrivial edits to the article, do not just blank it. We have procedures to delete articles that really should be deleted. Never having been involved in a conflict-of-interest case before, I hope someone else will come to deal with this. Brian Jason Drake 07:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE DELETED!!!

I cannot believe that people are so deluded to think that this guy Richard Kastle deserves a damn wikipedia page.

Why not give every single person who plays piano a page of their own... HELL, why not let anyone just put up a page about themselves. Not only was he previously featured in a video DAMNING deceased pianists about their playing (accusing them of simplifying the ending octave section of Liszts 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody), but hasn't done anything to deserve any special credit. Apart from his compositions which truly aren't anything brilliant - in fact, they're almost bland and boring (from a compositional point of view), he seems to ride on the credit of having played two compositions brilliant (which seems to be the deluded, sick, biased opinion of a guy called MikeCaffey on YouTube) when in fact his playing is sloppy and usually completely drowned in pedal, completely disturbing the balance of sound in the music.

Now this deluded, sick individual on YouTube (MikeCaffey) seems to go about praising Dick (short for Richard, and far more funny to refer him to that, than Richard) for his compositions, deleting valid posts by real pianists and piano players alike, possibly in an effort to sweeten the image of Dick to others. As a pianist myself, I can safely say that playing the end of Liszts Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 in c sharp minor brilliantly does not alleviate ones status to piano-god, and even if it did Dick STILL wouldn't be a piano God since he seems intent on drowning the ending with pedal, completely destroying the cleanliness of the parading octaves.

Letting this slanderous leech of the musical world have a wikipedia page seems insulting to other pianists who truly have talent. Although they may not care whether they have a page or not, I find it insulting to the profession of pianism that Dick has a page of his own.

Hey - I can play Hungarian Rhapsody... can I have a page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.68.96 (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To Juri Koll Regarding Richard Kastle Albums

If you can prove that the Richard Kastle albums are still on the market as new copies with proper citation and reference, then I will leave the discontinued mark on them out of the albums section in the Richard Kastle article. Randyrhoads1fan (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed for Deletion

Yes I know that sure enough Juri Koll will reverse the deletion but the fact is that this whole article is very misleading, inaccurate, and biased. I don't know why he is set so strongly to his own article about himself in secret terms as he will not admit that he is Richard Kastle. Randyrhoads1fan (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, deletion is the only proper course here. Kastle was a phenomenon of some supposedly savvy marketing guy at Virgin Records 20 years ago who thought it would be cool to have a classical pianist with green spiked hair, sleeveless leather and multiple zippers - the Maksim of his day. Unfortunately he didn't have the chops (despite his claims of octave perfection) and faded quickly in a blue cloud of ridicule. He occupies approximately the same position in the music world as the woman in Newark who claims to have seen the face of Jesus Christ on her grilled cheese sandwich occupies in the world of religion. I assume no one is proposing an article about her. Make it go away, please.Gillartsny (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out several times, the article is inelegibe for speedy deletion; see WP:PROD#Nominating, #3, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Kastle. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Should we give this a go? — Pladask (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

His teacher

Who is Mary Anne Quick? Quoting her is pointless, unless her credentials are mentioned. Otherwise her assessment of Richard Kastle carries no weight, and does not belong in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.97.223 (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A Google search returns this as the second result: http://www.obitsforlife.com/obituary/606963/Quick-Mary-Anne.php . Maybe there's an article waiting to be written, may be not. For now, I agree to remove that pointless mention. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This article should win an award!

This article should win an award, as the worst ever in Wikipedia! The only thing that makes the subject noteable is having this page in Wikipedia, not any musical achievement. It makes one wonder who really wrote the article! Nonsense like this lowers my trust in Wikipedia as a dependable source of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.97.223 (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)