Hello Bbb23,

I apologize for the late reply, although it was out of chance that I saw your message even today.

Upon reading your comment on my talk page, the first thing I did was to review my edit of July 2008 and see if I had added any references at all in that edit, because in a number of occasions I added information and a source for that information without directly linking the two. I saw that I did add a book under the references section. The second thing I did was to look over my edit. I was very much surprised to see the evaluation section and I immediately thought "I couldn't have written this stuff! Something's very wrong.". Well it took me a while, but finally I figured out that almost all of it was already there.

In my edit, I only wrote most of what was then under the heading "Biography" and the first two paragraphs of the evaluation heading. All that material came from the book by Annette Morreau I added as a reference in that same edit.

However the comparison/difference/diff system of Wikipedia is not very helpful and it seems like I wrote all the material under the evaluation paragraph. If you look at the left side of the screen, you'll see what was already in the page before. That would be the whole evaluation section aside from the first two paragraphs and the cause of Feuermann's death. The cause I moved under the section "Biography", which I created and wrote up. I also created the section "Evaluation", where I kept all of the existing material and added my own at the top. You can also see this in the revision just before my edit. The article as it looked right after my edit, you can see here.

Perhaps I should have removed the existing material, as it is indeed fairly bold and there was no reference for it (still isn't). I just wasn't in the habit of removing other people's material, unless I could be certain it was untruthful, wrong, etc, it violated intellectual rights (plagiarism) or was slander to a living person. I know the WP rules actually say material should be removed in other cases also, including what seems to be the case here. If you want, you can remove that material and I think you probably should. As I've already said, the first two paragraphs I wrote myself (I recognize my writing style) and I am fairly certain that I took it from the book by Annette Morreau, as it overlaps with the biography information I wrote.

Finally, I'd like to remind you of what you probably saw at the top of my talk page. I am not really active in WP any more and rarely log in.

Best Regards,

Atavi (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Bbb23,

I have responed to the issues you've raised in the talk page of the article.

Cheers, Atavi (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, I am responding to a note you left on my talk page. The article intrigued me because of the aspersion that the actor was a lesbian, yet that was never public knowledge during her lifetime. The apparent claim of lesbianism is made by a serial Hollywood scandalmonger and attributed to an interview with Marjorie Main, her alleged lover. The interview was conducted prior to Marjorie's death and only has one contentious comment in that she had mentioned that her longtime friend did not have much time for men which in itself, can be interpreted in many ways and is not a conclusive statement as to sexuality. Based on this one dubious mention, two other rumour merchants picked up on the supposition and labelled the two women's relationship as incestuous. With both parties now dead, it is the easiest way to build a reputation by staining other's reputations. The submission by the anon, arguably unsourced, unverified and filled with personal observations, still rings true, at least a lot more than that of the Boze Hadleigh, the original source of the claim of lesbianism. This author is a "churner" of books, cranking them out with the fervour of a pulp publisher and with about the same attention to honest journalism. I currently work/write as an editor/author and know the type. We have a great deal of journeymen authors and publishers who are no better than schoolyard gossips.

After all that blather, I made a few suppositions based on the obvious editwar that was transpiring over the inclusion of a contentious new section. One was that the material could be treated as WP:AGF, albeit poorly referenced and relying on a personal background that can be characterized as WP:OR. When this type of situation occurs, I tend to give the newbie the benefit of the doubt and not arbitrarily delete the "objectionable" submission (which I feel is "objectionable" to use the term "objectionable" when there is no evidence of vandalism at play) but instead try to focus the edit and subsequent discussion so that the contribution can be placed into context, find a verifiable and authoritative source to attribute and failing all that, to at least have the material relocated to the talk page for a future revision that will meet all the criteria for a legitimate addition to a Wiki article.

One of the difficulties in obtaining source material on Spring Byington is the lack of a definitive biography or even any detailed account of her life and career, outside of the very questionable sources that have already been mentioned. FWiW 02:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for the response, Bill. Maybe I missed it, but I thought the claim that she was a lesbian had been removed, making the whole discussion of her NOT being gay bizarre. In any event, it now looks like someone removed that whole part, which I believe is the right thing to do. At the same time, in reverting, undoing, etc., they also undid some minor changes I made to the non-objectionable first paragraph of Personal Life. I've added those back in. I still get a little lost in all this because I'm still feeling my way in Wikipedia. It's a little like Lord of the Rings. It's got its own world.

I see that alerts have been added about lack of referenced sources. I complained about that in another biography article and was told it was supposedly unnecessary unless it was a living person. Personally, I believe in sourcing everything, but I was told there was no policy requiring sources for dead people.

Finally, did Wikipedia notify me of your message on my Talk page automatically, or did you do something to cause that to happen (I'm not sure if you'll know that I posted this response)?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bb, the posting of a response automatically is highlighted on your "work" page so you are aware of an editor making contact. I agree completely about the very disruptive "tagging" which is entirely a factor of the following exchange. I know that your involvement in the melodrama was peripheral but may have been a bit of overreaction to what was a newbie's (like yourself) lack of knowledge about how to properly frame a submission. It may take some time to unravel the very convoluted chain of events via a secondary discourse, but it may be illustrative of one of the "quicksand" paths to not go down. See: twists and turns galore. The fallout was the censure of the action, not the individual because I do believe everyone makes mistakes, but lo and behold, the self-same individual appears on the article edit history, slapping tags on everything after not being evident anywhere in the past as one of the editors engaged in the development of the article. I fret that this behaviour could be characterized as sophomoric and non-constructive as well as being a tactless reaction to a reproach by another admin. Follow the chain of events to their eventual conclusion, and remember the adage stated on many of Wiki pages, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." What is also fairly clearly evident is to keep a balanced and objective approach to working on a collaborative project such as creating and building an encyclopaedia thorough an international initiative. Finally, let me send you my best regards for keeping out of the fray and use the following guide any way you would like:

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page. Bzuk (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC).

Bill, I'm leaving our discussion here because the context I need is (mostly) here. Thank you for the guide, but I deleted it because I already received the same thing, albeit in a slightly different format, from another helpful editor. I read the exchange between you and Cirt. Although I found it entertaining, I'm still lost on the substance. At the risk of repeating myself, I didn't see any reference to Byington being a lesbian in the article that had the response I wanted removed. Therefore, the response made no sense, as well as being written from the point of view of the author. Whether Cirt handled the issue well is a different issue, and I have no comment on that. Nonetheless, I am happy that, as of now, the material was removed. Now that the user is unblocked, I'm curious to see if he/she tries to put the material back. I certainly hope not.

I also think the article looks much better with the repetitive tags removed, and just the one tag at the top, although I still don't understand Wikipedia's policy on sourcing for biographies of dead people. Thanks for providing some insight into the different points of view. I especially enjoyed your phrase "WIkiWacky world of Wikipedia," which of course resonates with me as a relatively new user.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated in the accompanying dialogue, there is really no issue about the content edit since it was poorly framed and unverifiable as WP:OR and would likely be removed by most experienced editors as not meeting minimum standards for submission. I tend to give a newbie who is typically not familiar with the landscape, some deferential treatment. Regardless, my sole contention in questioning the subsequent actions by editors and an admin was that there was a a serious consequence for what appeared to be a minor infraction. Something like the adage, "if you only have a hammer for a tool, everything in front of looks like a nail..." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC).

My intent when I asked for protection was (1) to have the content removed and (2) to prevent it from being reinserted. I could have removed it myself, but given the history, I didn't think my edit would last. Therefore, I wanted a more permanent solution. Assuming the unregistered user was truly acting in good faith, then he should simply have been told what was wrong and not to do it again. However, I'm not sure how you contact an unregistered user.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

In responding to your recent query, dates of birth can be troublesome with Hollywood personalities. I have seen at least two different dates for Spring Byington. On a similar vein, when I recently revised the article on June Allyson, I realized that she herself was one of perpetrators of the misinformation as after awhile she simply used the date made up by her press agent. Over the years, the retelling of her life story also led to some creative embellishments and I believe that eventually she forgot the true story and told the more fanciful one. As to having children in the infobox, there are a number of different versions and most often, the more commonly used templates allow for the use of parents, spouse and childrens' names. The claim that Spring Byington and even Marjorie Main were lesbians traces back to one interview of Main by Boze Hadleigh, for his "tell-all" book and nowhere in the interview is there a definitive confirmation of either woman's sexuality. Hadleigh is extremely disreputable and based his entire claim on one sentence where Main stated that Byington did not have much use for men. Two other slimeball authors piled on quoting Hadleigh and somehow Maude Adams was similarly connected to Byington. The power of the Internet and Wikipedia being overly persuasive has now left the impression that Byington was a lesbian. When you delve past the initial statements, researchers will find that there is no verifiable and authoritative source for the insinuation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'd have to see what Hadleigh said in what book and in what context. From reading the Wiki article about Hadleigh, a lot of Hadleigh's claims were based on one-on-one interviews with celebrities, the results of which were often not published by Hadleigh until after the celebrity was dead. Therefore, unless Hadleigh recorded the interview -- which apparently he did with some -- you have only his word for it. The article I saw on the Internet about Main said that Byington was Main's companion, not just that Byington "did not have much use for men." Whether Byington was indeed Main's "companion," I have no idea. Nor do I know if the use of the word companion was a proxy for lover or whether it was being used in the platonic sense. In any event, I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of Hadleigh ("extremely disreputable"). Many in the LGBT community feel that outers perform a service; others feel they do harm. My personal feeling is they do a little of both. The Wiki article about Hadleigh says that some of his claims have been questioned, but given how much he puts out there and the kind of writer he is, it would be surprising if some of his claims weren't questioned. Regardless, at this point, I have no plan to go to the library and try to find what Hadleigh says about Byington, and there seems to be little reputable information on the Internet about it. So, the Byington article will remain sexual orientationless. Gee, a new word.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot consider the source to be reputable, therefore the information is also in question. Finding at least three independent sources is the standard for all investigative journalism. Using a sole interview and not providing any further amplification, and worse, revealing the material after the interview subject is dead, is extremely suspect. In researching his Hollywood Lesbians, he followed up on every piece of gossip, intent on "outing" some of the grand dames of the screen. Barbara Stanwyck actually threw him out of her house when he insinuated that her marriage to Robert Taylor was a sham. From the Booklist review, "the subjects of Hadleigh's interviews – Marjorie Main, Nancy Kulp, Barbara Stanwyck and Capucine, among them, were almost uniformly reluctant to discuss their sexuality. Only comedienne Patsy Kelly speaks openly of her life as a lesbian. It's not surprising, in fact, that Hadleigh waited until all his subjects were dead to publish this collection; almost certainly, many of them would have objected to being included. On the other hand, the book is more than it seems because these women are great talkers – about subjects other than sex. Marjorie ("Ma Kettle") Main, for example, though never admitting to being Spring Byington's lover, does tell some great stories about her life as a contract player in Hollywood's heyday." From another reviewer, comes this nugget: "Main was quoted by Hadleigh as saying: '...it's true that Spring never had any use for men.' However, the veracity of Hadleigh's claims about the sex lives of dead celebrities have often come into question, as he offered little, if any proof of his claims." That's it, one short, 10-word statement and he was off and running. The two women were both married for a period of time, sought each other out as "companions" and that was it. FWiW, the idea that two women could live together did set lips abuzzing in Hollywood. It was no different for men, as was evidenced by the innuendos that accompanied the roommate arrangement that marked James Stewart and Henry Fonda's first years in tinseltown. Neither man was gay but it took nearly a decade to quell the rumour mills. Bzuk (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC).

I don't agree with all of your assertions, but I appreciate your willingness to explain yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

First, it's a delight to encounter an American happy to try to work within the ugly world of US/British linguistic differences. One of my big annoyances in Wikipedia and elsewhere is finding people who aren't even aware of the gulf of differences. We Australians have our own quaint version of English, mostly influenced by the British style, but we are also heavily bombarded by American media, so an awareness that a difference exists is inevitable. (It's even tougher for Aussies travelling to the USA. We sometimes have to deliberately fake American accents just to be understood.)

Secondly, as for that comma inside the quote marks, I'm familiar with Americans putting the period (or full stop!) inside, but can't previously recall seeing it done with a comma. Do I feel all that strongly about it? Nope. Just surprised, and further educated. Thank you.

You want to change it back again? Go for your life!

HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Whenever someone implements changes on good or featured articles, or ones that approach that quality, I take a look. That's because the article has undergone intense scrutiny to receive that rating. In this case, its delisting wasn't due to writing quality or use of citations. I didn't think your edits were improvements over what was there. The use of the word "titular" is entirely appropriate, changing it to "title" was a "dumb-down" change and switching from a disambiguation of sequel to using just the film name was more of the same. Further down, you changed "and has stated that she prefers performing on stage to film roles", a factual statement based on a source, to "preferring the stage to film." More dumbing-down. In the Follieri section, there is no good reason to add the parenthetical "(apparently unnamed but called Follieri's girlfriend)" nor was there a valid reason to remove the very critical statement of "however, Hathaway was never implicated in wrongdoing." Why would you remove that? Without it, it tends to implicate Hathaway. I viewed it as an unnecessary edit and it lessened the writing quality of the article as well as jeopardizing the rating based on lowering the standard of writing. As for the reference change, we tend to deal with dead links by first tagging it as {{dead link}}, allowing others to find a valid archive of the same article, always preferable to sticking in another citation, which may not cover the same points, which apparently was the case here. And I'd note that of the 181 persons following this article, none of them had issue with my revert. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Dead links?: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.^[1] (Me: this dead links comment was added by User:Kudpung on 7/1/10 - he didn't sign it)--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, there was a reason why this ---> "His greatest commercial successes have been 2004's Troy, and Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005). Pitt received his second Academy Award nomination for his title role performance in the 2008 film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" was there; there needs to be a consistency with having the year after the film and the year before the film, hence why I restored 2008 in front of Benjamin Button, and edit summary of having a consistency with it. You should be glad that it was the 2008 year that I restored. I'm surprise someone has a problem with this, during the article's two Featured article nominations no one seemed to bring this up. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)