Talk:Paul Mounet

Section Header

Can anyone verify that this person actually existed, and that this is in fact a picture of them? It seems like a mighty strange co-incidence that this picture was uploaded on November 3rd, the same day that this video: [1] mirror: [2] was featured on the popular site i-am-bored.com, claiming that this was a previous incarnation of actor Keanu Reeves. Gonna remove the picture at least until we can get a source. 98.251.117.125 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Upon looking more into this it seems that this is indeed a portrait of Paul Mounet. Notice the similarity with other photos I've found of him: [3] [4] as well as apparent photographs of the portrait [5]. I'm not sure it's a good idea to restore the photo just yet, as I think it'll just add to the vandalism of the page with more "Keanu Reeves is a vampire" edits so I'll just leave it be for now; if at a later date someone wants to revert, please feel free though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.117.125 (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fine Art Museums of San Francisco is convinced it's Mounet, but you have a point as to the vandalism: maybe if we wait a month it'll die down. However, we do have another free image, a double photograph of Mounet from when he was much older - I've added it, but be WP:BOLD and remove it if it attracts vandalism. Unfortunately the photo seems to be of him in costume, and it's also in bad shape. --NellieBly (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a New York Times obituary on him from 1922: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9904E1DC1E30EE3ABC4952DFB4668389639EDE Axeman (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

we should add that it is a common joke that keanu reeves and mr monnet look alike and that keanu reeves is "immortal" by internet standards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.247.72 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not joke my friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.64.147 (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

LMFAO. Seriously? None of you towering intellects have figured out what's wrong with that photograph? That's funnier than the whole Reeves thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.165.67 (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Keanu Reeves

Nothing about the sentence concerning Keanu Reeves is untrue, and it is therefore appropriate for inclusion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hstevens86 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. It's easy enough for the French editors to include mention of the theory in a NPOV manner, why can't we? 76.232.79.1 (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it isn't a "theory". It is an infantile joke. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• What is life like without a soul? 99.48.61.207 (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Long-term vandalism

This article is subject to what must be the longest-running vandalism campaign I have ever seen on any Wikipedia page. It has been going on since October 2009, with huge numbers of IP addresses and a few accounts being involved. Here is a small sample of the edits: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. The article has been temporarily semi-protected five times because of this nonsense, and it now has "pending changes" set. 100% of IP edits since 2 October 2013 have been this vandalism, and so have the vast majority of IP edits over several years. I took a random sample of 25 edits from the last two years, and I found that 24 of them were either this vandalism or editors taking action against the vandalism, and the other one was a bot migrating interwiki links. This suggests that virtually all of the editor time spent on this article is dealing with this vandalism. While pending changes prevents the vandalism from becoming visible to the general encyclopaedia-reading public, it does nothing to reduce the amount of time that is wasted on reverting the vandalism. I therefore wonder whether semi-protection might be a better option. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Since nobody has opposed my suggestion,I will go ahead. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a fair option. I've been protecting this article for two years now! I wanted to give PC a try to see how it worked with this sort of vandalism, but yuo're right that it isn't really making any difference, and it's unlikely there'll be much need to legitimately update info on him. Have to keep an eye on this talk page I guess. GedUK  11:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're seeing edits from several months in the future, perhaps the real issue is time travel rather than immortality? ;-) Protecting the article is a valid move. - Frankie1969 (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I guess "2013" must have been a typo. What year I meant it to be, I don't know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have just returned to this article today, for the first time since the above messages in April 2013. I see that as soon as the protection ran out, the same vandalism started up again, and has continued ever since. After six years, during which there have been repeated protections followed each time by the same vandalism, it is unfortunately clear that indefinite semi-protection is the only reasonable option. I always dislike long-term protection, but once again I have checked the history, and 100% of edits by non-autoconfirmed editors over a very long time have been vandalism (almost all of it the same "Keanu Reeves" vandalism which has been going on since at least as far back as 2009) so the risk of collateral damage is tiny. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

As recent as yesterday, the "Keanu is Paul Monet" conspiracy theory was covered by a mainstream magazine (see {{Press}} template above) so indefinite was probably a good idea... CapnZapp (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

KEANU IS IMORTAL

He is rumored to be Keanu Reeves but no claims have happened yet.

108.48.170.106 (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If it is just a rumor with no source it isn't right for Wikipedia. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)