User talk:98.122.108.47

Roman Polanski
Child raping is not his occupation. All this is covered later in the article. If one is a priest and gets drunk often would that make him a "priest and an alcoholic" ? No, he is stil a priest. How many time this has to be explained to you? --Jacurek (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages are not designed to chart every single event or occupation a person has ever had, and in this you are correct. They are however supposed to chronicle those things for wish a person is most known. Roman Polanski is well known for being a rapist. There is even a movie about this. There are many other famous people who are also very well know not just for there careers but also for events in their personal lives. One is O. J. Simpson. He is very well known for his crimes and this is listed in the very first sentence of his page as well. Would you change that? Will this be changed 30 years from now when people have decided to forget about how much they talk about it now? Polanski is no deferent in that his crime is something he is well known for having done. He is an important and pivitol aspect of his character that still has an influence on his life and the lives of others. I am sure that at some point in his life he held a job other than those listed in the first sentence of his page, or even anywhere on his page, but those things are not as important or relevant to him and how he is known. Being a rapist however, is very relevant to how he is known, and as such should be included in those things for which he is most recognized. I suggest that if you feel this moment is not relevant to the fact that he does not return to the states, was also relevant to the fact that he did not even accept his academy award, and that if he does return to the states he will be arrested then perhaps you do not understand the impact that such an event has on a life. Rape is an event that never leaves a person. They will live with that event for the rest of their lives. It becomes an integral part of who they are and everything they do, regardless of being the rapist or the person being raped.

You can also look at pages for other famous criminals such as Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer, who's professions are not even listed in the first sentence of their articles.

Because crime made them famous (except O.J.) Polanki is a film director and not serial rapist or criminal.--Jacurek (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.  Will Beback   talk    18:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tan  &#124;   39  19:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Roman Polanski - Allow me to add another Final Warning here. Do not repeatedly add content that multiple editors are telling you isn't acceptable.  Especially when editing a wp:blp, you must be very careful of incendiary language such as pedophile.sinneed (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding Roman Polanski - I see the talk page. I see the multiple warnings you have.  I see you repeatedly reinserting language into the lead-in of a wp:blp.  Stop. Now.  Also, the 4 tildes are easy to type. Please use them.  sinneed (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to learn a bit more about wp:BLP. Biographical information about living persons is extremely important.  You are going against good practice by adding pedophile to an article when multiple editors have reverted your addition, and you have been warned repeatedly. Do not add this content again.  You risk being blocked from editing.  This is very serious.sinneed (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Only Will Beback has attempted to put forth any reason why the initial sentence should not contain a reference to Polanski's rape of a child, for which he is very famously know for having done. He does not reference any specific part of the WP:BLP and neither have you.

"Wikipedia pages are not designed to chart every single event or occupation a person has ever had. They are however supposed to chronicle those things for wish a person is most known . Roman Polanski is well known for being a rapist. There is even a movie about this. There are many other famous people who are also very well know not just for there careers but also for events in their personal lives. One is O. J. Simpson. He is very well known for his crimes and this is listed in the very first sentence of his page as well. Would you change that? Will this be changed 30 years from now when people have decided to forget about how much they talk about it now? Polanski is no deferent in that his crime is something he is well known for having done. This is an important and pivitol aspect of his character that still has an influence on his life and the lives of others. I am sure that at some point in his life he held a job other than those listed in the first sentence of his page, or even anywhere on his page, but those things are not as important or relevant to him and how he is known. Being a rapist however, is very relevant to how he is known, and as such should be included in those things for which he is most recognized. I suggest that if you feel this moment is not relevant to the fact that he does not return to the states, was also relevant to the fact that he did not even accept his academy award, and that if he does return to the states he will be arrested then perhaps you do not understand the impact that such an event has on a life. Rape is an event that never leaves a person. They will live with that event for the rest of their lives. It becomes an integral part of who they are and everything they do, regardless of being the rapist or the person being raped." (98.122.108.47 (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Yes, thank you for cutting and pasting that paragraph for the third time. Tan   &#124;   39  19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is clear consensus not to add the content. You have multiple editors giving you multiple warnings to stop adding the content.  I understand, and think most others do as well, that you feel strongly about this.  This makes you a good person and a bad editor.  Ideally, we keep wp:npov even when we feel strongly.  Realistically, that is stunningly difficult. I encourage you to edit articles in which you have interest but no strong feelings, based on your behaviour here.sinneed (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet another final warning... stop it! I am not reverting that again.  Someone else will catch it.  You really must stop fighting the consensus, or you are going to be blocked.sinneed (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read anything. "Polanski's actions fit within a definition of pedophile, sex offender, rapist, sodomite, and a wide range of other terms, if you feel that some other term would be better please make a suggestion in the talk page." (98.122.108.47 (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Again, you have a PROFOUND conflict of interest, and should take a step back. The "other term" is paragraphs of content. This important event is thoroughly covered.  Stop it.sinneed (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Roman Polanski
If a school teacher stole a car this does not make a teacher "teacher and a car thief". Polanski is a film director and not child rapist, Formula  1 car driver,  peashooter or coffee drinker etc, etc… even he did that as well. All about child raping is already in the article. Please stop disruptive editing or you IP may be blocked. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved this comment from the top of the article (above the ToC). I apologize if this offends the IP... I will move it back if desired... but it was not a good thing adding it at the top.sinneed (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the Roman Polanski article.
What exactly is the problem here? No one has been able to clearly define how him being very famous as a sex offender should not be in the very first sentence. The only arguement for this that has been made is that it is covered later in the article, but so has every other title in the first sentence. Should all of these terms then not apply as they are also covered later. At what point should something be regarded as being capable of being place into the first sentence. In writing articles of any sort, the main topics are usually referenced in the first sentence. As him being a sex offender is a large part of the article it should also be placed into the first sentence. No one has changed the O. J. Simpson article, have they? Editing out the title of sex offender seems rather incongruous with other very similar articles that are not in dispute. If the subject were someone who has only been accused of a crime and not convicted of it (such as the famous case of Michael Jackson), then there would be a possible issue. Since Polanski was found guilty, it is a pivitol action in his life, it has had as much influence on his popularity as any of his film making and it is a main part of this article then it very aptly applies. The fact that he is a sex offender is something that cannot be disputed in any court in the USA and should not make it any sort of legal matter. Not one person has cited a single line from any rule or guideline in the WP:BLP that would rule out his first sentence containing the title sex offender. If you can cite something from the WP:BLP that would rule out sex offender as a title then please cite it here, change the article, and change the other similar articles that contain references to both people's famous professions and famous criminal acts. (98.122.108.47 (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.
 * 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.


 * "What exactly is the problem here?" 1st, I am sorry that you were not able to step back and gauge the consensus that the content you want to add doesn't belong. The problem here is that a number of people read your change, disagreed with it, and killed it, and you repeatedly put it back. It may not be practical to sit down and explain even 1 individual's thinking.  I could have killed perhaps 100 vandal-edits (which is what I do most) in the time I have taken trying to help you slow down, step back, but I want to help:  we need good editors. I know it is *TERRIBLY* frustrating to be very right and not be able to get one's words into an article.  I do sympathize...been there, honest. Now, a very short stab at why I will kill that edit of some description of Polanski as a sex criminal on the lead-in sentence:  I don't think it belongs there. Beyond that:  I *think* it is not appropriate for a wp:BLP. No, I am not a master of knowledge of BLPs, and learn about parts of Wikipedia every day.  NO ONE knows it all.  Thus, we go with consensus, even when we don't like it, and I often don't like it AT ALL.  This means if multiple people keep killing an edit and won't agree when we try to convince them, we can either work to find something else they WILL accept, or we go away and wait for a stroke of brilliance to cause them to change their minds... or something.  Repeatedly reapplying a change against consensus will get one's talk page littered with warnings and very likely an enforced editing vacation. I hope that helps, because it is the best I can do, I fear.  Whether it helps or not, I wish you all the best, and hope you will come back and continue editing... perhaps on things that are less personally important?sinneed (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You still have not been able to give evidence beyond your own opinion, you make ZERO citations of the BLP or even any logical claims against it. So other than your authority to do so you have nothing to back up your words or actions. (98.122.108.47 (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Evidence of what? "logical claims" - please see the talk page, you will find "reasoning against" its inclusion. Back up what actions? wp:consensus is important.  If you want a change made that is closer to what you want, you will need to gain consensus, or it won't stay in.  Your current path will not lead there.sinneed (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no claims for removing sex offender from the title sentence other than just not liking it. There are many things that people do not like about the truth, that does not make them more or less valid. The greatest lies are the ones that we refuse to acknowledge as a group. Just because people do not like it does not mean it should not be there. I knew nothing about Roman Polanski until I read this article, it just seemed that since him raping a little girl was a big part of the article it should be a part of the main title. This is the sort of thing that people are supposed to learn in English 101 in college, I guess the people attempting to stop this edit never went to college.(98.122.108.47 (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC))
 * I executed the block, and provided the notice below before I read all of the above - and I have to say that I am astounded by the arrogance of someone who (under the same ill considered considerations) assumed that those with differing viewpoints had no higher education experience and then admits to knowing nothing about one of the 20th centuries most innovative and influential film-makers before reading the article and deciding that his statutory rape of an adolescent (not child) was as important to the public's perception of this individual as the films he made... There is another reason for you not to edit this article in the manner you have been doing - you are ignorant of the position of this person in the culture of European and world film making, and you have no concept of how important his work is to the medium of film but seek to invest your own value system. What ever it was that you studied at college, it has not yet provided the grounds for you to be in judgement of people whose history you are ignorant of. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is interesting, isn't it.sinneed (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ''"I guess the people attempting to stop this edit never went to college" This is a personal attack. Don't do it again.'' sinneed (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC) in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)