Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:20, 10 November 2009

Your recent edits

Conviction, as per Misplaced Pages

"In law, a conviction is the verdict that results when a court of law finds a defendant guilty of a crime." A court of law is not the same as a trial. In its simplest form, a court of law is the judge with a system of precedents behind him/her. WookMuff (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

== Polanski ==

Hi, are you suggesting that if polanski is extraditeded that the previous trial is null and void and that the county of cali will start a retrial? Presenting all the facts after such a time would be impossible and there would be no possibitity of a guilty verdict in such a situation. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The remaining charges as a matter of law have not been dismissed against Polanski. They would have been dismissed if he would have attended his sentencing. Polanski can withdraw his plea and proceed to trial if he wanted. The case against Polanski is very strong, there is the grand jury testimony and people still alive who were witness to the crime. Angelica Houston for example. So your assertion that he could not be found guilty is false. As it stands now he needs to be sentenced for the crime, and he will likely be charged with fleeing the court. That crime is worth years if charged. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment has been removed from the article and I support that, there is no way that the county of cali would attempt to retry him after all this time for anything, polanski's lawyers would eat him alive. In fact I will stick my neck out and say he will never be extradited to america, the time he spent in assesment in america at the time and the time he is now spending in jail in switzerland will be taken as time served and that will be that. That is of course only my opinion fwiw. Do you think he will be extradited to america and spend many years in jail? Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR. Please be careful Tom not to edit war on the polanski article, the way to affect change on wikipedia is by discussion.Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This is again a matter of fact. It is not a comment. Because he fled, he was never sentenced, under the plea bargain the other charges would be dropped only after sentencing. Thus the other charges are pending, just as the LA district attorney said. As to whether he will be extradited it is in the hands of many lawyers. It should happen simply because he is a fugitive, as a matter of fact. What would happen when he comes back is another question again. But he will like be charged with the crime of jumping bail and fleeing the country. He admitted to a crime, and was never sentenced, his fled, his lawyers failed him. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is not a fact it is a throwaway comment from that guy in the cite, it appears more of a empty threat than a fact, there would be zero chance a retrying polanski. Off2riorob (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it is a fact. The charges are still pending. The guy you refer to is not a guy he is the district attorney of Los Angeles. The pending charges will be dismissed if he is sentenced under the plea deal. Until that sentencing is done, they remain pending. It has nothing to do with retrying Polanski, the only person to cause that to happen would be Polanski himself.

Yes I know that guy is the county lawyer or attourney.. If as you say the charges are still pending then no verdict has actually been reached and therefore a trial would be needed if you remove or do not accept polanskis plea bargain, it is the same as saying there has been no accepted plea this is nonsense. Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not complicated. Under the plea deal, the charges would be dropped when he is sentenced. He was never sentenced. The charges are not yet dropped. Polanski can still request he plea be removed and then face trial. It is not likely the Prosecutors or court could force that. But the court still has the jurisdiction to sentence Polanski any way it feels appropriate.

I take it you support the rapist of a 13 year old? Why because you like his films?--Tombaker321 (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not support what he did, I support a civilised society. I do not support the hang em high attitude, I support forgiveness and not hate. Off2riorob (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If you support a civilized society then you support laws. You should also support the protection of children from sexual predators or sexual opportunists like Polanski. If everyone simply runs from the court and laws, you can not have a civilized society. Hate is an over used word. Those who do not tolerate or condone child rapists are not guilty of being haters. Surely you would think that Polanski should be answerable to the laws of society. Rape and murder do not have a statute of limitations on them for a reason. They are that heinous to society. Polanski never was sentenced for his crime. He then broke the law again. His current age and popularity should not make him as you think to be beyond the punishment of jail for his admitted crimes.--Tombaker321 (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I care less about his popularity, I also care less about statute of limitations, have you had a look out of your window? Outside mine I have more 13 year old mothers than 13 year old virgins, your obsession with this is more of a worry as regards the condition of our society to me than imprisoning polanski for a long period of time as is your favoured position. Off2riorob (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob, judging by your comments on the article's talk page, you seem to be the one obsessed with this. You don't appear to believe having sex with a 13 year old should be illegal. But at that time, in that state, it was illegal. That is what this case is about. Dream Focus 11:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well hi Dreamfocus, at least you do have some edits on other subjects.Your comment here is a bit narrow minded, I know what the law says.It is the bigotry and hatred that is exposed in people that for me is a lot more revealing than what polanski did. Off2riorob (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, and perhaps you missed in your skittish rush to judgment...."Those who do not tolerate or condone child rapists are not guilty of being haters" See what you want, but I dare say the big "reveal" is simply the shock of seeing your own face in the mirror. --Tombaker321 (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding bold to a comment does not make it more correct. It is the inner hatred and bigotry that is revealed in peoples opinions that interest me more than the crime that was commited more than 30 years ago for which the victim has been well compensated for, she herself holds less agressive views towards polanski than you do. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Those who do not tolerate or condone child rapists are not guilty of being haters" Somehow I comfortable with believing that child predators and rapists should not be condoned just because they are rich enough to afford the sin. I dare say the big "revealing" hatred and bigotry your are marveling in, is simply the shock of seeing your own face in the mirror. What you claim to see in others is just your reflection little one. And while you are at it, stop condoning child rapists. If you keep this up your proclivity will be revealed.--Tombaker321 (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you hate polanski more than the victim? Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

While waiting for Netflix to deliver that documentary ...

(already two days late, for the first time in months) ... While we're waiting ...

This message has been sealed ... to keep the heat in :)

Proofreader77 (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit! Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Just a finger-licking comment from someone who's about two edits away from 10,000 ... Few things are more maddening than some fool Wikipedian with a gazillion edits saying to "step back" or "calm down" or "take a wikibreak" etc ... to which the only satisfying answer is KMA :) ... ... so I'll just say that it takes awhile to get the hang of things (and don't follow my example lol). We'll start playing more formally by the rules in a day or two (or a more lol—when I start getting sore wrists, I know it's time to slow down) ... Meanwhile, remember the information under contention is not in the article. Yet. :) Enjoy (the hot KFC lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Kind of insulting. You mention how many edits you have, as though that makes you superior to the newer editor. You tell them to step back and calm down, while you constantly try to find a way to add in information to downplay the severity of the horrible crime. And the information is not in the article, yet? It will never be in the article, because there will always be reasonable minded people to revert it, and you know very well it does not belong there. Dream Focus 10:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW dream focus, I take the remark about his 10,000 edits that his experience gives him the advantage, but he is not ignorant enough to tout that or rely upon that. He has called it out in the discussion after I apparently did a phopah by quoting his text with his signature file which confused some readers to as to if it had be written again by him, and thinking I should have just used italic. I will still quote but use do it with more clarity. Like indenting etc.

As to the substance of what I have said about his alternative motivations Proofreader77 is using to introduce a wedge so as to later drive reader perception...Proofreader77 has never addressed. The interjection of her appearance is to do the wiki definition of blame the victim. This is indeed a rape case, that was only plead down to statutory because of victim request. The look of the victim does not mitigate in anyway, and Polanski never sought to mitigate or defend on this basis. Polanski never said she looked older. At least he did not go about unbolding things, and he only crossed out things where he thought them in bad form.

I think his position is screwed up, but I do think he thinks he can win on the objective merits...and I disagree. DreamFocus I sure hope you continue to contribute your voice of reason within this Polanski affair (well its not an affair, which was ironically Polanski's continued defense) --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wanted and Desired was available as a view instantly from Netflix last week, just fyi. Oberonfitch (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I just viewed online, there are some really interesting items of bias I have already found. IE the girl in the picture, in Germany, is 15, maybe 16 by then, Natasha Kinski. This is the reason I got the movie to see that pic, which is notably absent from online resources. BTW I have the online version, if the DVD has clean copies of the source material....IE the originals of the articles in old newspapers please tell me. They way they have them for the movie is a zoom across for effect, making them only partially readable. thanks --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Am I reading you correctly? You are trying to find the original articles? I couldn't find any of that online except for that one person who has transcribed the articles (and thus, who knows about accuracy). Perhaps you would like to assemble all this stuff into a book; someone is going to do it. I don't have the stomach for it, can't even look at the criminal assault page without shuddering. Oberonfitch (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes a documentary that relies on documents, on the DVD, they include stills of all the documents. There are some documents in Wanted and Desired that they pan across. It would be in a section called special materials or like that in extra features. I would have hoped the DVD included all the base material, the DVD has plenty of room. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Tom, we are trying to clean up the cites to the sentence in Polanski that discusses what he did. We have four links for one sentence. The current suggestion is to drop everything but the Post, but apparently you wanted to keep in the original research. I think that original research is linked to in other places in the article. I'd value your input. Oberonfitch (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that any consolidations of links, be then transferred into the discussion pages a block, so that if anyone did want to do research that there would at least be a nice roadmap. Just toss them in, as a set, not to be commented on. So long as the remaining cite fully covers the sentence. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That may work. I think that it would take a concerted effort by several people to go through the citations because they are a mess. So, reviewing them as a block of material in talk may work, but it might make things worse. I am not at this time familiar enough with the software to be able to feel comfortable with anything other than rudimentary changes. Please feel free to float your suggestion. The Wiki Ancients may have some ideas. Oberonfitch (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Software? There is software? I basically think there is nothing wrong with a large bibliography. Especially when its electronic. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Check out the special pages to the left. There is, what I believe to be, enhanced HTML which enables moving text without dropping cites, and stuff like that. I'm not touching it until I have some time to sit down and learn it. There are also pages for tracking vandals, (in case you feel a calling to remove foul language and racial slurs, which happens rather regularly), and I'm sure you've familiarized yourself with the admin pages by now, which make for interesting reading.

I don't have a problem with a large bibliography, provided that the cites do not link to op-ed pieces, or Aunt Jane's blog, etc. Also, I am fussy that the stuff which links to the cite actually be found in the cite, (silly, I know), which has not always been the case. One of the interesting things I have found (frankly sick of reading about Polanski) is that the Misplaced Pages article, and text which is not validated, has shown up verbatim in a couple of articles. So, we can quote those, and then it will all be okay. :O Oberonfitch (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yah wiki is based on articles based in wiki, its one of the reasons I have objected to the interjection of her appearance. It was never disputed by Polanski as to her look and her actual age. Angelic Huston only remarked on her age when she thought it would make a difference for her friend. If you still have the documentary freeze the frame on the article which is written by the Gossip columnist. Its quite interesting in the 75% if the article that is visible. --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski

Hi. I'm afarid that I've had to revert much of the recent change you made to the Polanski article - the wording was too close to that of the original source. While you did reference it, which was great and makes it clear that it was done in good faith, it needs to be extensivly rewritten in order to meet with the COPYVIO|copyright requirements. The version I've replaced it with says pretty much the same thing, although it a bit less detail, so the basic gist of the text should still be mostly the same. - Bilby (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

For one that I perceive as even handed, could I get your impression of what is going on with the Polanski page. We had near a perfect section, with complete details explaining much in few words.

Now a NPOV dispute with stated objectives. And the wholesale deletion of content based on a 500 word goal. No group process on what is deleted or not. Whats your take? TIA --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi i want to interject here that that 500-word goal was never my intent for the article but a comment instead on the lengthy talkpage posts - my apologies that it was misinterpreted. I am still very open to including NPOV and RS content that Polankki felt he was innocent or similar content as we cannot censor his views away. I hope in hindsight you may see I was only trying to remove unneeded content from his article that likely should be in the case article. -- Banjeboi 02:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you said above. I think it is important to have a certain level of information on the Polanski page itself, it is after all very current news, so on this we disagree. I believe we had a very compact section on the entire matter, verifiability documented as a nice stand alone, we are only talking about 6 sentences, I can remove 2 about the settlement. To balance NPOV I have no issue of addressing specific or adding specifics, so we agree here. I spent over an hour researching and documenting an posting that the judge ended up being removed. I don't think you thought you edits would be the new baseline for use in the NPOV dispute. --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Cease disruptive removing of POV tag for Sexual assault case section. NPOV is disputed and you are a disputant. Repetitions of false assertion there is no basis specified is noted. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a process, please follow it, do not Tag without stating specifically what you objection is. The NPOV Dispute is not intended to be a standing dispute. If you continue to remain uninformed of the guidelines, please take the time to read them. --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

2nd warning/advisory - disruptive editing Talk:Roman Polanski re NPOV dispute

Please refrain from continuing to create topics to assert your understanding of how the process works. As with the "bolding" matter, Talk:Roman Polanski is not the place to clarify ones understanding of Misplaced Pages policy (or get any kind of satisfying consensus ruling on the matter).

ADVISORY/INFO: Since I am probably not the right person to advise you in this context, suggest you talk with an editor of your choice to determine where/how to clarify policy differences. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)