User talk:86.148.18.98

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page The Beatles (album) has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bexample\.com'.

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

February 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Roman Polanski sexual abuse case

 * You keep making the same edits, and refusing to discuss them on the talk page. First off, he admitted to having sex with her.  Whether they found semen during the investigation inside her isn't relevant, they found it on her panties, and he admitted to having sex with her already.  Adding in the word "allegedly" is also inappropriate for the same reason.  He admitted to the sex in his own damn biography even.  And removing the referenced quote he made is also unacceptable, it having everything to do with this case.   D r e a m Focus  10:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

3rr warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Roman Polanski sexual abuse case. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been reported for violating the three revert rule

 * You have been reported here: for violating the 3 revert rule.   D r e a m Focus  10:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war&#32;at Roman Polanski sexual abuse case. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. JodyBtalk 12:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Response 1 - I'm not sure if this works, but I have no idea how to reply to the block imposed on my IP address - I'm 86.148.18.98 - for now.

First up, it is a shared IP address and my modem keeps rebooting it to a random address every few days, so the first entry re the Beatles from October has nothing to do with me and tomorrow I might have another one again. Any 'warnings' didn't reach me until I actually wanted to talk to someone myself as to why my entries were deleted after I in fact emailed info@wikimedia. So no, I had no idea to have been 'warned', till I noticed the block and looked through all these talk pages. Wiki is extremely complex and confusing when digging deeper I never needed to, after all I wanted was to add something and remove false data. I have edited Wiki pages since years and only now suddenly hit on a problem over something controversial enough.

In reference to the Polanski sex case edits, first of all, I had no idea that I have to 'discuss' my entries, nor heard of as three-revert rule. I added 'alleged' in reference to her claims of the sodomy, not that he had sex with her, we know that he had. But because of the medical evidence discrediting sodomy or forcible rape, I find more than important to be left for the public to know, thus automatically explains why I added 'alleged', and I therefore of course kept re-adding the entry not aware I can't do that more than once. That was by no means 'vandalism', but simply frustration to see a very important detail the public has a right to know deleted again and again. The main focus of my entry lies with the fact that sodomy and forcible rape was never proven, and the part about the negatives slides was added because they are included in the linked transcripts. That they found semen in the panties she handed over two days later is corrupted evidence, and therefore to add that there was no semen found on or inside her is perfectly relevant. If you keep omitting these findings, the public is robbed of vital information to see that in effect her claims don't match the evidence.

As for removing the 'controversial interview' - again why would I first need to 'explain' any reason for removing it, I didn't know had to be 'agreed' on by others. It is completely irrelevant to the actual case and only throws a needlessly 'sordid' undertone on the whole thing as it is. Why not add something where he says something to his defence, no, it must be something working against him. The entire case is presented very one-sides to begin with, i.e. 'her [unproven] side mainly' and anything that might put a more objective or positive light on him is simple being ignored, which I in fact thought Wiki is all about - balance. In its current state it's highly biased in my opinion and to continually remove my additions only points to deliberate attempts to keep it as 'negative' as possible and the public ignorant.

As for removing the 'six counts still being on the table', that's simply not a fact - that comes from DA Cooley who had no idea about the case in the first place. Only when Polanski's plea would be withdrawn all six counts will be back on the table, once he pleaded and the other five were dropped they automatically were subject to the statute of the ten-tear limitation, and therefore are 'not on the table' anymore, no matter he fled and was never sentenced. Only a judge can withdraws the plea or Polanski asking for it and only then all the counts are back. Now there's only one on the table, the plea count they want to sentence him for, or rather not as it seems, and the possibly added count for flight. Geimer's lawyer himself stated that the statute has long run out, ergo, an incorrect entry from an incorrect source [Cooley's words] and should be removed.

If I forgot something, remind me and if there was anything left 'blank', sorry, not on my screen - But I believe the medical findings should be included, and therefore 'alleged' - since by all facts, her words were never impugned in any trial to be proven and are therefore to this day not 'fact', but allegations, her 'claims' alone. That's all for now. Thanks.


 * When you are once reverted you should take it to the talk page and discuss it there. Take a look at WP:BRD. It will explain this process. We have a policy here called the three revert rule. You might also be helped by reading it. After you have read these and agree to so abide, I will be willing to left the block early. JodyBtalk 15:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Response 2 - (without prejudice) Why don't we discuss it right here, I didn't realise I need to go to a talk page, all I want is the medical evidence allowed some are more than adamant to omit it seems to keep it as biased as possible, and the 'alleged' in conjunction to that - Why not give me any good reason why they shouldn't be added. I think I explained my side well enough, and will be happy to engage any counter argument. Prove me wrong by all means, but these three points I made are all relevant enough to be included/deleted -

Besides, why didn’t whoever removed my entries first explain why on a talk page as it seems needing doing, and not simply do so without hearing my own counter argument first, making me end up blocked, while I apparently have to ask for ‘permission’ first to add or change entries as it seems. If I had known people can just keep deleting my stuff, but I cannot theirs, it’s not very democratic that I have to ask/inform/talk, but ‘you’/they don’t or 'talk'. 'You' can 'revert' [my entries] more than three times but not me? As far as I can see this, it’s just an attempt to keep this case as black as possible by undoing my positive additions, and ‘you’ re-adding the negative stuff. But that’s not a surprise when it comes to 'Polanski'.

I'm a specialist on this case having been there since day one and long before, have written about it extensively to cover ALL sides and ALL evidence, and thought it vital for the public to see at least the medical evidence. The entry of Cooley's 'faux pas' isn't really relevant to begin with and false. The entire article lacks a lot of vital details as it is no news will ever tell you, but keeps it nicely biased, and I didn't even bother to start on other things, after a most important piece of info is simply being kept from the public. Point me to a page to discuss this further there, or do it here - but I really wanna know why they should be left out. Please do.


 * If you would read the material I referenced above you would understand what a talk page is all about. The talk page of the article is the proper place to discuss these things. Regardless of your expertise, you are not allowed to violate the policies of this encyclopedia which I pointed you to above. My offer stands but you must become familiar with how things are done so that you can be more helpful and bring your expertise to bear on these articles. JodyBtalk 17:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Response 3 - I know the page you mention, I read it ages ago - but as long as I'm blocked I cannot actually defend/explain myself there either - the last entry is from Feb 15 I didn't see yet. So now I have to wait another day until I can repeat there what I wrote here already? The ones who deleted my entries already then without 'talking', seem not at all interested in any counter arguments, so why should their 'opinion' of, 'The results of the rape kit are not relevant' override my own saying that they could be of greatest interest to the wider public? Who's 'he' to decide, when they debated already then to leave it in and the rest, and then suddenly deleted my entry again only? Sorry, that looks like public manipulation to their POV, while mine added could well make people rethink to gain a more balanced view. I thought this was a 'democratic' platform where both sides count.


 * The main article Roman Polanski had these discussions already. The statue of limitations only affects charging someone with a crime during a set time period of it happening.  So that doesn't affect this case at all.  He could be charged with all 6 original accounts, the plea bargain not valid since he escaped before sentencing.  References provided do back up this statement.  Mentioning they didn't find semen in her, is pointless, since he admitted to having sex with her.  There wouldn't be any physical evidence of rape, if the victim was too intimidated, drugged and drunk, and worn down to fight back, as evidence says she was.  Take the discussion to the proper page please, once your block runs off.  And why not register a proper user name?  Also, the first time the information was reverted by me, over a week ago, I did start a topic on the talk page concerning this.    D r e a m Focus  20:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Response 4 - You deleted my actual response 4 I had left as 86.148.18.98 (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC) - after you utterly ignored that reply for weeks. I don't think that was in any form worthy of a Wiki editor & I still have what I in fact wrote. However, since the actual issue of the dropped counts was deleted since then, there's no need to expand on it anymore. Which only proves that I was right, & that the counts are only 'back on the table' when the plea is withdrawn, no judge will ever do, let alone Espinoza. Ta. 109.153.105.18 (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)