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