User talk:Chandler75

Welcome!

Hello, Chandler75, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - UtherSRG (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In reference to your {{helpme}} request, yes, you didn't have a talk page... because no one (including you) had editted it yet. Just like new articles, they don't exist until you create them. Now you have one. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of the {{help me}} tag

Please do not use the {{help me}} tag on other people's talk pages. If you need help, put it on your talk page and someone will soon come to your aid. Otherwise, it may seem that another person and not you requires help. Thank you.

Jfingers88 03:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Very sorry, thank you.Chandler75 04:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

disputed information

Email me - UtherSRG (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

We have a dispute resolution procedure which I recommend you try to work with. There are three different paths to take: requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration. Read the information on each of those three pages and decided which route will best suit your situation. Even though I'm an admin, I generally keep my nose away from the dispute processes, so I don't know much about them. Good luck! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Help requested

What can I help you with? —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-01 01:38Z

Did you mean to remove your question reply from my talk page? If so, it is better to reply that your question has been answered or that help is no longer needed instead of removing or reverting content.

If not, and the removal was accidental, the answer is the same as UtherSRG said above, the dispute resolution process guidelines and information is exactly what you need to work towards a better situation regarding this dispute.

Please feel free to ask me for other information.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-01 02:03Z

Tyrone Power

I'm disturbed by the number of articles that are now providing salacious little tidbits about the alleged sex lives of the rich and famous. I don't think Wikipedia is exactly crying out for this sort of information and yet there are a number of users blithely and recklessly adding it to a multitude of articles, even while bothering not at all to discuss the thing these people are famous for - their acting careers. For example there is a user adding lesbian allegations on everyone from Barbara Stanwyck to Myrna Loy and I don't understand why it's the latest trend. With regards to Power, I think some mention of the allegation of his bisexuality is acceptable. Unfortunately of all the mud that has been slung at various dead celebrities the mud has stuck to him more than many. The fact that people such as Lana Turner have directly discussed this in television interviews demonstrates how pervasive the rumour has become. I object to the detail that is given however and I feel that the whole thing could be dealt with in one short, sharp paragraph. It doesn't need so many references and I don't like the way it has become the dominant point of the article. I'm very pleased that the biographical/career section is growing. (If you want to look at another shocker of an article, have a glance at Barbara Stanwyck. Rather than being an article about an actress who may have been a lesbian, it comes across as an article about a lesbian who also did a bit of acting. One of the worst articles on Wikipedia). I feel that the case for Power's bisexuality has never been proven and it reminds me of the Laurence Olivier/Danny Kaye rumour. Reading Terry Coleman's recent biography of Olivier, I was interested to read his comment that having accessed Olivier's private papers, a very extensive and detailed collection, there was nothing to support any claims other than a single cryptic comment in a mid 1930s letter, Olivier's widow Joan Plowright dismissed the notion, and perhaps most tellingly Coleman notes that even at the height of her mental instability, when she was accusing Olivier of everything under the sun, Vivien Leigh failed to make what would have been a damning accusation. His conclusion is that Olivier was probably not bisexual but had some vaguely bisexual feelings, and that a rumour somewhere along the line grew and grew until it became a Hollywood Urban Legend. Hand in hand with this rumour is the allegation that Olivier's second wife Jill Esmond was a rampant lesbian. I say "rampant" because the story of her lesbianism seems to grow with each retelling. I suspect something similar to the Olivier/Kaye story lies at the heart of the Tyrone Power story. And that's sad. Having said all that, Wikipedia's main aim is to satisfy the criteria of Wikipedia:Verifiability. The concept intrigues me, and it's basically sound, but reading through it I can see that if a statement can be verified by a reliable, (by who's measure?) published source, whether it is true or false is less important. I would like to see the rumour about Power culled down to something brief and to the point but I suspect it would be an uphill battle. Rossrs 13:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello back

Hi, just saw your note on my talk page. You said that I quoted you on Talk:Cary Grant - should I know who you are? Unfortunately, I'm not making the connection. I agree with your contention that several POV-pushers are using unreliable sources to claim that various celebrities were gay/bisexual/promiscuous/whatever, but it appears that Wikipedia considers just about any published source to be reliable. I'm not sure what help I could offer other than moral support. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, of course, I remember that, but didn't recall the reviewer's name. Anyway, to your questions:

Would someone's rumored bisexuality be considered an "exceptional claim?" Yes, clearly it would.

I went to the suggested links and did not find anything about hearsay. Can you elaborate? I have a reference that I would like to rebut because the author wrote hearsay There's a difference here. Wikipedia prohibits editors from using their own hearsay. However, hearsay printed or published is a different matter; most Wikipedians take the line that any printed or published source is reliable, even if its contents are merely hearsay. The section of Wikipedia:Reliable sources that you should lean on is Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Evaluating sources, which includes this text:

Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?

Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable.

Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects?

You may also find value in the subsequent section on evaluating secondary sources:

Have they used multiple independent primary sources?

Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?

As I said, I agree with your argument that we should not assign credibility to every source that's published, but in the case of the Cary Grant article, that's what happened. I'm more satisfied with some of the sourcing in the Tyrone Power article, as there were some primary sources used (like Mr. Blackwell). Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. | Klaw ¡digame! 19:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case: The Humanist papacy

You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures. --Fasten 08:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

More Ty

Hi, I honestly don't know what the rules would say about that horrid Karsh image. My personal opinion is that it does not absolutely have to stay as we have a PD image, but on the other hand the second PD image kind of balances the fair use images. ie the fair use images are more necessary simply because the Karsh is so unrepresentative. I tend to think that it would come down to consensus, but I don't know as I haven't come across this situation before. At the moment I'm thinking that at least it's down the bottom of the page, where it oddly enough seems to be addressing his alleged bisexuality. The lurid red is, I suppose, appropriate ;-) Just kidding, I don't think it's appropriate at all - perhaps if there was a section headed "Ty Power sick and old" or "Ty Power loses his good looks" or "Ty Power wears a tastelessly large ring", it would fit. In fact, it might even sit better in a "Later life" section. I'd love to see the image vanish altogether, but as long as it stays down near the bottom, no bigger than postage stamp size, I'd tolerate its presence. Rossrs 09:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've rearranged the images slightly, and the Karsh in the personal section is not as horrible as I thought it would be. Still horrible, just not as horrible ;-) Rossrs 09:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess we'll have to wait and see. I think Jere has tried to find a common ground, and has been most reasonable and thoughtful. A has disagreed with points 1 and 3, and not commented at all about bygones being bygones, which is quite telling, I think. I had suspected that one or two of us would have to "vote" first so that he could take an opposing stance, but maybe that's just me being unfair and suspicious. We are in different countries, different timezones, maybe it's just bad timing. Perhaps nothing will be achieved after all but it was worth a try. I'm kind of fed up really - I don't come here looking for stress and conflict, if I want that all I have to do is go to work each day :-) (I deal with "the public", and some of them are priceless). I'm disappointed when conflicts like this come along because I think they are really unnecessary. There were times I felt encouraged that the discussion on the talk page seemed to be heading in a constructive direction and that we were all working together, but it all fell apart, sadly. Anyway, time will tell. Rossrs 13:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, things didn't go smoothly did they? I think at the end of the day Jere made the same recommendation he most likely would have made even without the chorus of dissent that suddenly appeared in the mediation process. I really don't think he did anything wrong and acted in good faith in a very difficult situation. Arniep, as much as his actions frustrate and bewilder me, has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart (I think). I think he enjoys pressing buttons but if that's his thing, we're not going to change him. I've never had much to do with him before but I've seen his edits around the place and I think, on occasion, he is an excellent contributor. His manner and his unwillingness to communicate with the same courtesy as I extend to him, well that bugs me. I think I was quick to assume bad faith with him, although I do feel that his behaviour in the mediation process was inappropriate. Many of his opinions are sound, but oddly enough, I think that other people state his case more convincingly than he does himself. Maybe he realizes this and that's why he brought other people in. Who knows. At the end of this sorry adventure, I feel a bit weary of Mr Power, although my enthusiasm will return soon, I hope. I understand that this experience has ruined Wikipedia for you. I hope that you change your mind after the dust settles and decide to continue here, but I would understand if you don't. I wish you well, whatever you do. regards Rossrs 14:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see it through also. It's a shame Golden thinks that by apologizing I somehow caved. That's not the case. It's a shame also that (s)he directed his/her comment to you rather than to me, as I have been open and honest with my comments from the very beginning. I simply considered that as part of a conciliatory process and acting in good faith, I would honestly appraise my behaviour and take responsibility for those aspects that I was not happy with. No more, no less. True, I did hope that some positives could come out of this mess. I stand by everything I've said, but I do regret the leaping to conclusions and the tone of some of my comments, so I see nothing wrong in acknowledging that, and Arniep is a person with feelings, so I don't think an apology is unwarranted. My opinions and criticisms have not changed, but I think Jere came up with something workable out of the quagmire he was presented with. We'll have to see if Arniep makes any comment, and I'm interested to see what he says. I'd like to leave it a few days and see if he responds and then I will try to implement Jere's suggestions. Hopefully with yours and Golden's support and participation, and hopefully with Arniep's also. I'm not overly optimistic, but I hope to be surprised.  :-) We'll see! Rossrs 09:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be right in saying that I've been too kind. Not to worry. I've been thinking that before I subject myself to another round of mediation I would want to establish some ground rules. The mediation policy should be sufficient but it didn't help before. Onto happier things ... I'm glad you like the Vivien Leigh article. Thank you for mentioning it! I wrote it earlier this year when I was home-bound with a bad case of flu, and after making an edit here and there, I ended up changing everything except her name. If I could have found a way of changing it too, I just may have, as I was edit-overdrive mode. I'm extremely pleased with it - and quite delighted that you like it. cheers Rossrs 09:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad everything is sorted out now and everyone is in accord, and the article looks so good now too. It would be good to think that we can continue polishing it. I hope you decide to continue with Wikipedia. Rossrs 23:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance on Human Papacy

Hi, Jeff, I'm the mediator assigned to the "Humanist Papacy" argument. I noticed your note. Neither editor involved has gotten in touch with me. I was wondering if you could give me your take on the issues. Best I can tell, they seem to be in a dispute over whether humanism is with a small h or a capital age, and arguing about the influence of the organization HEU. I am new to mediation and to this subject, i.e., I'm an idiot, so I'm just learning about the process and gathering information. Thanks, Chandler75 03:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you've decided to get involved in mediation suggests that you may have already read more than I have in this debate. But I'll look it over as well and let you know what I think. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my lack of help so far on this subject. When I wade into a contentious debate, I usually read as much of the existing dialog as seems necessary. I'm having a hard time following this multiple-page argument, especially since several editors don't seem to be aware of proper talk-page practices. (I notice that one even moved the entire content of Talk:Humanism to another page, before it was fitfully restored, that the topics themselves aren't quite in order of creation, leaving unexplained forward references, and that there is little if any use of section linking to help readers follow cross-topic discussions.) I also note that, despite apparent agreement at Talk:International Humanist and Ethical Union, Rohirok and Couttsie have posted diverging goals at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-28 The Humanist papacy:

• Rohirok wants help to prevent POV editing (by which I gather s/he means preventing unncessary capitalization of "humanist").
• Couttsie wants a signed apology for Rohirok's use of the term "Humanist Papacy", and appears to be pushing IHEU again.

I expected to be commenting on the capitalization issue, based on Wikipedia style pratices and evidence cited from reliable sources. I've spent half a day just wading through 2 talk pages so far, trying to mentally reassemble the dialog in correct order and figure out how much of the rhetoric actually resulted in proper sourcing for the arguments. I haven't gotten to the point yet where Rohirok decided to call for mediation, so I'm not sure what happened after the apparent agreement. What I do see is that both editors are far too snippy toward each other for civil discourse, and they both seem to be focused on tiny aspects of the question (e.g., what the IHEU website says), ignoring the world of available source information outside. I plan to stop by my local library Sunday to check a few books and magazines (yes, paper-based information!) to get a broader view of the central issue. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

More Humanist papacy

I tried to send you an email concerning the "Humanist papacy" mediation, but I can't tell whether the system sent it or not. Let me know if you didn't get and I'll try again.
--Plover 14:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried sending the email again. It appeared to work this time. I don't know what happened before. If you have any questions though, I won't be around again for several hours.
--Plover 15:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your efforts in mediating this dispute.
--plover 05:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Just closed my first case, am high on success, but don't know why my name isn't in blue like everyone else's. And why I can't get rid of the date and time.
Your name isn't in blue because your user page is empty. The date and time show up, I assume, because you were signing with 4 ~s. You can use 3 ~s if you don't want the timestamp; 5 ~s gets you the timestamp without the signature.

plover	(= ~~~)
plover 05:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)	(= ~~~~)
05:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)	(= ~~~~~)

IMDB

I have to admit that I haven't added credits to the IMDB in about six years. It hasn't been fun in that long (what can I say, I was 13 and had nothing better to do then). I was into these straight-to-video horror movies and I used to add the full credits, right from the movie after watching it, because they were (relatively) obscure and no one had added them yet. I added Quigley as a joke because she's played similar roles before. I didn't even think to check up on it until last year, when I realized it was all over the net. I would think one would be able to add completely non-existing people to the IMDB. You'd have to find some new direct-to-video movie (check http://www.videoeta.com for the latest releases), add the full cast, except add someone in who isn't on IMDB yet as part of that full cast. I would assume they would accept it? JackO'Lantern 06:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't specify whether you were actually in the movie you tried to add yourself to, or if you were trying to do a hoax. If you were in it but were uncredited, IMDb does not let you add your uncredited role until you have a credited one. Even then there might be some sort of standard you have to meet. There are some people on IMDb with only uncredited roles either because there is good evidence for it, or they were added before this policy was widely practiced. That said, it is quite easy to get a credit on IMDb if you really want one: The 1 Second Film. Шизомби 15:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Tyrone

Hi Chandler, Nice to hear from you! I think you were quite right to remove that paragraph. Without a source it was unacceptable, and it was superfluous anyhow, in my opinion. That section is quite long enough. I think it was interpreting a comment that could easily have been taken out of context, as Romero saying Power was "the only man I ever loved" isn't confirmation of anything on Power's behalf. Who knows what else was said in the interview. There has been a similar dispute over content at Talk:Cary Grant and since the Power dispute there have been more editors rejecting people such as Boze Hadleigh as a source, so we seem to have moved past the notion that any published source is acceptable. (Although some editors remain to be convinced). Rossrs (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Chandler. Always good to hear from you. I always understood that the image was free, but we hated it just the same. I think that the main reason people like Arnie (remember Arnie?) kept pushing it, was specifically because it was free. If that was disputed later, I really don't know. A number of Karsh's portraits, including one that is shown in the Joan Crawford article (a good image - why couldn't he have done Power on the same day?) were donated after Karsh's death. As for Power, I much prefer Image:Tyrone Power 1938.jpg to that horrid, horrid, HORRID Karsh image, so if his later life is to be depicted, I think that's a better choice. I notice he's wearing that big gaudy ring in both pictures too. Musta liked it. Anyway, I wouldn't expect any opposition if the images were swapped. I made it smaller. It was a bit too scary in its full glory. Rossrs (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chandler, I support the removal of that little snippet. The website fails as a reliable source for a number of reasons, so regardless of the point being pushed, it doesn't have the necessary substance. I don't know what to make of the editor. A very strange edit was made to Patrick Swayze back in March - and a huffy reaction when it was removed. I don't see any malice though. Maybe a lack of appreciation for what Wikipedia's aims are? Who knows? It's on my watchlist so if it goes back in..... Cheers Rossrs (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chandler, It's been a while! The editor that removed the height info removed a lot of other things too, and didn't leave an edit summary, so I'd be only guessing as to why it was removed. I think the main issue would be that it's not sourced to a reliable, verifiable source. Emphasis on "verifiable", as his passport is not available for the general public to verify. I think the only way you could use the passport itself as a source would be if you uploaded a copy of it onto Commons and then link to it as verification. It would mean relinquishing the passport and handing it over for all and sundry to use as they may see fit, and I'd completely understand you not wanting to do that. Your reasoning in regards to the stand-in make perfect sense. Rossrs (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but it looks fine to me. It's interesting to see his passport - how did you come to acquire it? He's got a great signature, but he doesn't look very movie-starly in the his picture does he? Rossrs (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking question

Hi Chandler, Unfortunately I don't think so. There is an editor who has been banned under about a dozen different user names, who comes back posting from an anonymous IPs. As such, he's hard to stop (maybe impossible). In addition to Tyrone Power, they also go after everyone from Cary Grant to Dick Van Dyke. It's annoying, but every time it happens, someone reverts it, and when a particular article gets too much attention, it's temporarily blocked. It's always the same nonsense repeated over and over, sometimes it's quite offensive in tone, and sometimes not. It's quite odd behaviour. Tyrone Power is currently semi-protected. A couple of weeks ago it was Gary Cooper. Next week it'll be someone else. It's extremely annoying, but there doesn't seem to be much else can be done. Hope you're well. Rossrs (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tyrone Power, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fade to Black (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk page comments

I received your email. Obviously you read the message I left on the IP user's talk page. That means it was you editing your own comment while logged out. You didn't do anything wrong, but it is not obvious to other editors like me that the same editor who wrote the original comment was modifying it later. I've restored the edit. Elizium23 (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Boston Conservatory people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NCIS. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Tyrone Power, piano pantomimist supreme

Many belated thanks for answering my question about Tyrone Powers' piano pantomiming in The Eddy Duchin Story. Yes, indeed, he did get the fingering perfect. BMJ-pdx (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)