User talk:Juri Koll

Vladimir Horowitz

Thanks for deleting those redlinks. I've been meaning to take them out, but life got in the way. Cheers.THD3 (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juri, could you please consider keeping your talk page posts a bit shorter and getting to the point a bit sooner. 545 words is considered quite long on a talk page. It makes it a bit difficult to understand your point. Perhaps you could find a way to use your ideas to contribute to the completeness of the article. In order to be unbiased the article needs to contain at least some of the criticism surrounding Kastle. Thanks Blurgezig (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kastle page

Hello Juri,

I did NOT mean to be abrupt in dismissing your arguments at the Richard Kastle talk page! Perhaps if you could keep your comments to a reasonable length I'd respond in more detail. I also find it difficult to understand why you have attacked me, personally, when I simply quoted from Richard Kastle's own website. I tried to be objective and unbiased.

Certainly something must be said on the page regarding the considerable controversy surrounding Kastle. (This does NOT require that the reader "take sides"!)

If Kastle's own website is worthy of inclusion in "External References", then the content thereof must also be worthy of inclusion in the article.

I AM PREPARED TO COMPROMISE.

I've requested discussion of the matter at the Talk Page of the Kastle article. I hope you will participate, and eventually the issues will be resolved amicably...probably through mutual compromise.

Inviting your participation in constructive talks, Prof.rick (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange edit

Hi Juri, If you look I think you'll find that edit on the Kastle talk page wasn't actually me. Blurgezig (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC) You'll also find that my own comment is also strangely missing. Blurgezig (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kastle

I think you need to decide what exactly you mean by the words sourced, quote, and distortion. How is an exact quote a distortion? I'm puzzled as to why Kastles theories offend you so much. Blurgezig (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a distortion when you combine snippets of quotes describing two different things. Kastle’s website has one page with descriptions and links to studio recordings and another page with descriptions and links to live performances. This person took a piece of a quote describing a studio recording and joined it with another quote describing a live performance. This procedure makes Kastle appear to be contradicting himself. Juri Koll (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making an effort to discuss the entry. Considering your standpoint, I have made an edit that should not contradict your feelings. The statement now outlines Kastles apparent perfection and makes no mention of mistakes. It is no longer a distortion. Blurgezig (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per my edit and what I have brought up on the talk page, if you feel I am truly guilty of vandalism then you have every right and are welcome go through Wikipedias official channels and have my contributions investigated. Meanwhile, if you hadn't reacted quite so suddenly then you might have noticed on the history page that I did not create the new section and I did not add Kastles website as a source.Blurgezig (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply Juri. I've left my own thoughts on the discussion page and suggested that perhaps since his website now reveals that you and him are close friends, you could ask him to re-word it so "faking" as he sees it is more easily defined. Blurgezig (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're lying again. Kastle's website does not say that we are friends, because we aren't. This is a pattern with you. You were lying when I busted you deleating my comments on the talk page. You tried to cover for yourself (see above under "strange edits") by claiming that you didn't deleat my comments, but the edit has your fingerprints on it. You don't have to sign an edit. Wikipedia registers who is making edits, despite any claims otherwise. Juri Koll (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a photo of you on the Jay Leno page. Look for yourself. Aside from that I'm not getting into this deleted comments argument again. If you want to report me of vandalism or whatever then do it but please do the world a favor and stop complaining like a child. Let me spell it out for you.

First at 05:26, 7 March 2009 there was the random comment left by 76.70.70.65 with the swearing Then at 21:55, 7 March 2009 there was your three comments including one you neglected to sign. Then at 00:15, 8 March 2009 there was my comment in reply to yours THEN at 02:03, 8 March 2009 R A Norton appears to have deleted ALL of these, probably because the random comment with the swearing looked like vandalism. He clearly did it by accident. No one is out to get you. Blurgezig (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no photo of me on the Jay Leno page. You're lying again. Juri Koll (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it's just a coincidence that the third photo down is of someone with the pretty unique name Juri Koll as indicated in the filename? The Juri Koll who is an avid Surfer, musician and filmmaker living in LA? The Juri koll who is also in this photo from his own promotional website - "http://people.tribe.net/yerdawg/photos/088a098a-737e-4578-a99e-0f5dfc5536d0" Blurgezig (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not me. He lives in LA. I live in New York. Who ever said that my real name is Juri. I can't find any name on Kastle's website that's even close to my user name. Juri Koll (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now the photo 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. Blurgezig (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now you guys have tried to move the name to a different photo. You two really need some help with covering your tracks. Blurgezig (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This diversion about the west coast producer is getting us away from the subject of your habit of inserting inappropriate material into Kastle's story. On May 9, at 23:33 both myself and lxfd64 were removing the material that was inappropriately inserted. You 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, you inserted sections of the inaccurate material. Further more, you justified the edit, by redefining words. You can't just change Kastle's definition of faking to justify the repeated inclusion of libelous material that doesn't belong in the story anyway. Juri Koll (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juri, all that proves is that I was trying to please you by altering it to best fit everyones needs. Wikipedia is a Wiki after all. I apologize for revealing what I did but it was your choice to use your own name as a username. Blurgezig (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blurgezig, for the last time, I am not the film producer who lives in California. Juri Koll (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Royce Concerto.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Royce Concerto.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 20:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 than you do editing. Perhaps you need to take a break from Richard Kastle and lend your time to other articles. Blurgezig (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to report. Your first edits were for the AFD. For about three months, you supported Prof.rick and his manafistly 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)[reply]

Truce

Mate, ceasefire for a second. I think you need to do yourself a favor and call on a third party to help resolve this coz it's only going to go on and on. I think you can agree it's starting to get really absurd. I don't have any bias for prof rick, I DO however happen to be a fan of being rational. And it cant be totally surprising to you that people get pissed at Richard Kastle. I've never strictly wanted his page deleted, it just needed to be a bit less grandiose and self serving. I don't have any beef with you, but this is getting ridiculous. By getting so annoyed, you're sabotaging your own ability to be neutral.Blurgezig (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes

Has everyone lost their minds? This is why I got bored and left. I wouldn't have said so originally but I actually think that Richard Kastle is quite a unique example of a classical artist directly focusing on a pop audience. He seems to have appeared well before the trend of pianists in the pop/classical crossover genre which is obviously not totally the same thing but none the less, kind of interesting. I think the Kastle article would have been way more noteworthy at the start if that had been part of the article. Ultimately, anyone who brings classical music to a wider audience is a friend of classical music. Just my two cents. Blurgezig (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Juri Koll, you didn't think I was actually gone... did u? Randyrhoads1fan (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with the edits to Jonah Cristall-Clarke. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing eventually by an administrator.

This has been mentioned to User:Ronhjones

Randyrhoads1fan (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the scam. I've never made an edit that can be defined as vandalism, as you alleged with my edit restoring the multiple issues template to the Jonah Cristall-Clarke article. Those templates were added by Magioladitis, a senior editor, and DoriSmith, an administrator. Your comment above contains multiple misrepresentations. You didn't even mention my edits to the Jonah Cristall-Clarke article on Ronhjones talk page. You know that if he looks at the edits on that article, he will tell you to leave the templates alone. Juri Koll (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please DO NOT VANDALIZE pages, as you did with the edits to Jonah Cristall-Clarke. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing eventually by an administrator. ENOUGH with the DESTRUCTION of this Wikipedia article!!!!! Remember this is NOT what Wikipedia is about. Randyrhoads1fan (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, drop the scam. I've never made an edit that can be defined as vandalism, as you alleged with my edit restoring the multiple issues template to the Jonah Cristall-Clarke article. Those templates were added by Magioladitis, a senior editor, and DoriSmith, an administrator.

You also accused Yobot of vandalism with the same article. Yobot is Magioladitis' bot. The bot simply added the word "multiple" to the template. You removed the whole template and accused the bot of vandalism in a maniacally aggressive manner. Juri Koll (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please DO NOT VANDALIZE pages, as you did with the edits to Jonah Cristall-Clarke. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing eventually by an administrator. ENOUGH with the DESTRUCTION of this Wikipedia article!!!!! Remember this is NOT what Wikipedia is about!!! The goal is to stay neutral but clearly you have NOT shown any sign of being neutral.

Randyrhoads1fan (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that if you keep repeating the same misinformation over and over, someone will believe you. I explained the reasons for my constructive edit on your talk page yesterday, and you blanked the page. This is what your talk page looked like before you blanked the page. Read it again. Juri Koll (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SSM in the US

I just wanted to apologize for this edit. I sometimes edit on my phone, which has not the most precise mouse, and I hit "rollback" by mistake. I hope it didn't put you out too much. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but there's no need to apologize. The wording on my edit about six states offering gay marriage was technically wrong, because of the 30 day waiting period. I clarified it later by adding the phrase "have passed legislation." I appreciate your sincerity regarding team work on this important issue. Juri Koll (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flags and Same-sex marriage legislation around the world

Could you give your opinion here? 70.253.87.253 (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Juri Koll. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Juri Koll. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]