Talk:Valora Noland

__laramie double eagles alma Moore FORCETOC__

Untitled

Valora Noland - Is she still living? What is her name now? Is she still working professionally? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.161.253 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 21 February 2007.

Editing requests by Kamitra1

_{Wow. This is getting too extensive to answer solely in a constant 1-1 dialogue, and likely belongs to this page here. I'll have a closer look later this week. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)}

_{This text has been moved by ToBeFree, 21:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)}

_{The following text had originally been added to my user page. The "SO SORRY" is likely referring to this unusual place for a message. ;) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)}

SO SORRY! I don't know where to leave you a message about my edits on my Valora Noland page, so I'll put it here. When you answer, you can tell me where it should have been placed.

Yes, Kamitra 1 is (now getting pretty old) Valora Noland. I wrote the original bio, or enlarged what was there, correcting stuff. Someone has been screwing around with this bio, put Dick Clayton's name as the name of the talent scout, and more. B.S. I know folks who have been in front of the camera are fun for people to make fun of, but I do wish it would stop. What, just what, do you not approve of? The one who was in show biz is the subject of the article, not the one who went on to other things, Baum family, or whatever. I think this bio should be kept to my experience with show business. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamitra1 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Whoops!

Hey Kamitra1, nice to meet you. Feel free to add messages to my talk page – this is probably the best way for contacting other editors, as they will automatically get notified of the edit and can easily respond there. To make sending a message an easy process, there is a "New section" button at the top of every talk page. When using it, there is no need to worry about the position of the message; it will automatically be moved to the bottom, where the newest messages appear. Why the bottom, you may wonder? Because that way, the text can be conveniently read from the top to the bottom in a chronological order. More information about talk pages can be found here: Help:Talk pages

I was unsure about undoing your edit. Before you had sent me a message, I have already restored it, to be on the safe side. I have also already modified the information message regarding the edit, on your talk page. No need to worry!

You might wonder why I have undone the edit in the first place. This is because it didn't appear to be neutral to me (see "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view") and removed a "citation needed" template without actually adding a proper citation. The problem here is that "I am the subject of the article, so I don't need to provide sources" is sadly not a valid argument. There are multiple things that come to my mind regarding this:

• Writing autobiographies, and editing articles about yourself, is strongly discouraged: Wikipedia:Autobiography
• We have a very strict policy regarding biogaphies of living persons, which exists to protect you! Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
• The subject of an article is often not considered to be a reliable, neutral source: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
• We have a FAQ page for article subjects, explaining how to get help if the article about you appears to be incorrect: Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects

I'm sad to have to say this, and I am surprised that nobody has taken the time to explain this issue yet, but I am afraid I have to ask you to avoid making further edits to this specific article, unless you are removing untrue statements according to our "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" policy.

If you notice errors in the article, or would like to expand it, you can do so by copying the article to your userspace: Help:Userspace_draft – Feel free to make any modifications there, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. The changes will then be merged into the article, and everyone can be happy.

I'll send you a belated Welcome message now. You have been here since June 2009, longer than me! It is long overdue that someone appropriately welcomes you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

_{This text has been moved and indented by ToBeFree 05:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC):}

Here I go again. Looked for the 'button' you mentioned called "New Section Button", but couldn't locate.

I did see that you don't want my dialogue for Valora Noland. I think your current version is okay, except, first, you have left out the business of getting an agent, Dick Clayton (who was one of Hollywood's top agents) before I left the Playhouse. This is important, because Tom Lisanti mentioned me in one of his Hollywood books, and he copied what he wrote from articles he had gathered from the 1960s, an piece in TV guide among them. In that article, (50 to 75% false), the author said I played bit parts to try and get into the business. NOT EXACTLY. This is as much as saying I was offering my body to try and get into the business. Rather, I just happened to connect with a top agent, Dick Clayton, before I had moved to tinsel town. (A funny piece of info here is that the "peculiar little man" told me he was responsible for sending James Dean to Dick Clayton. You won't find this mentioned anywhere else, and IT will say other things happened. I can't remember the talent scouts name, so this interesting tidbit should probably not be repeated.) Now you know why I included Dick Clayton in the bio.

I also noticed a few typos in your revised version.

I'll have to look at what you wrote again, but if you deleted studying with Jeff Cory and Robert Gist, this is important, because it shows serious intent to become a good actress. I wish I had cared more about making good money!

The "Up Your Teddy Bear" thing, first called "Mother", and now "The Seduction of a Nerd" really did happen, probably with John Dereks participation, as he was a good friend of Don Joslyn. I was too, for a short time, friends with Don. They were interested in look-alikes, and I suppose the whole thing was an innocent game-----at that time. But the film today is a little more rancid than at first, and I feel I have the right to say I didn't choose to be in it, nor was I asked, living on the East Coast at the time it was made. Don is determined to claim it really was me to the end. He used a few seconds of a film clip for a closeup in the scene clapping hands with Wally, and the other shots in that scene were someone else, as well as the closeup portrait at the end of the film. The problem with "Mother" aka etc. is that it does not have a leading character one can have much liking for.

Hollywood usually keeps records. Dick Clayton was with the Famous Artists Agency, and the people he represented are listed somewhere in archives. Same for anything else. Me living in Sonoma County doesn't really need a citation!

A word here about "Jewish". Actually, I find one aspect of "Jewish" very interesting, and that is that there is no scientific Jewish race. The root of the Jews is the Middle East, and the genealogy, even if many look similar, is Middle Eastern. They have a religious belief in marrying within the Jewish community, and over 4000 years it has produced certain similarities, but it is still a large family showing signs of genealogical hand-me-down, not a race unto itself. There are people of Palestine who have no record of "Jewish" going back many centuries who look just like the Jews. In a c. 1970 Encyclopedia, under "Jews as a Race", Jewish scholar Raphael Patti says Jews are a religion, social and religious traditions, history of the Jews, and a country, but not a race! This is my only peeve with Jewish. "Jewish Race" began with the Jews as a religious belief or tradition.

I think the internet will only go another ten or twelve years because of misuse of its possibilities. I don't have it at home, don't really like it, was not the one who initially placed the page on Valora Noland, will not become a computer nerd, will not master the Wikipedia, and I thank you for your understanding that I'm better at gardening.

Perhaps some days until I answer you again, if there is more to say. Thanks,

Kamitra1 (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Ping Drmies because this is about edits made by us two after the original message. Ping Kamitra1, I have moved this here; I hope this is okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Really, all I have to say is that content needs to be relevant and well-verified by way of reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Message from Kamitra1 on June 20th

Hello Again,

I realized yesterday after Leaving long message in the wrong place again, that I should check my email before going to Wikipedia. There I did find multiple messages from you, and finally cognate that the button I need to click is on your talk page.

I said there are a few typos in the current V. Noland bio. I think it would be better, first sentence, to use a period not a semi-colon. "Her mother ...." etc.

At the end of bio, I think it would be better to end the paragraph after "Star Trek", as it was not a film but an episode in a TV series.

At the very bottom you have mentioned my three books. "Horse Stories" should have quotation marks in its title, which indicates a special usage of the words Horse Stories. My book is not stories in the usual sense, but all about one horse. It can be bought as a print on demand book from Amazon.

I'm sure you will locate what I wrote yesterday about Dick Clayton, and I think you will find a way to put it back, perhaps in your own words other than mine which you don't approve of. That the talent scout made it possible for me to meet with Dick Clayton, a top agent, and that Mr. Clayton decided to sign me up before I left the Pasadena Playhouse is show biz data, and as I said in my message yesterday, important.

I think it is strange that you have decreed I should not have further access to my Wikipedia page. I am not the one who screwed it up, but if we can get it just fine as we both agree, and lock it from further changes by anyone, that would be good.

I'm one of a small number of earthlings who don't have much fondness for computers and the internet, though I use both as necessary, these days going to the library to get on the net. So sometimes, I only check my email once a week.

Thanks, (and I think there is still another typo than what I've just mentioned)

Valora — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamitra1 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kamitra1: Hey, nice to meet you again. Please don't worry about the "wrong place", the message has reached me after all. There's a reason that the page is not locked for editing.

I'm copying the suggestions to the article's talk page, to allow others to fix all possible problems pointed out by you, and to improve the article based on your suggestions. We'll definitely have a look at that. If there is something absolutely blatantly wrong or libellous, you can go ahead and remove it, but this does not appear to be the case, so I hope it won't hurt if we take some days to address all these points in detail. I'll mention/notify you as soon as I'm continuing to work on this issue; that should be this weekend, I think. I hope this helps and wish you a nice day. See you later this week! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kamitra1: ^ Here's the copy I've mentioned. See you! :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

So, as already announced, here's my longer reply.

Multiple things I need to clarify first:

• It was not me who redacted the "current" version of the article, except for the changes that I have later implemented on your request above. Please have a look at the article's version history to see all the changes and all the users who made them: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valora_Noland&action=history
• Nobody, not the article subject, not the page creator, noone, owns an article: Wikipedia:Ownership of content
• Especially when writing about living persons, we need to be very careful to write only relevant, verifiable, and reliably sourced facts. This is meant to protect you, as a person, from libel, and is definitely not meant to discourage you from editing or to avoid including any facts. However, as everyone could claim to "know the facts", this alone is not a valid argument. What we need, for every sentence you would like to add to the article, is a reliable source. A reliable source is not "I'm the subject, I know it". Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
• Because of exactly that policy, we will happily remove any unsourced statements from the page. Drmies did that, and this is why the article has suddenly noticeably decreased in size. Again, this is meant to protect you, and if I understand correctly, this has even benefited you. You have contested the validity of some statements in the article, and these are gone now. If there are untrue, unsourced statements left, please let us know immediately, and we will remove them. In such a case, you may even remove them yourself -- just please make sure not to replace it by other unsourced content. Removing is okay, replacing is questionable.
• What "we both agree" on, sadly, does not necessarily matter.
• A page can be protected against editing, but the policies for this are strict and it won't help in this specific case. A page can not be protected to save your own preferred version; a page will only be protected to prevent vandalism, disruption, edit warring, repeated addition of libellous material etc.: Wikipedia:Protection_policy

About the changes you're requesting to be made: I have implemented some of them, because I think that they are really good suggestions.

Your editing requests:

• "Someone has been screwing around with this bio, put Dick Clayton's name as the name of the talent scout, and more. B.S. I know folks who have been in front of the camera are fun for people to make fun of, but I do wish it would stop."  Done by Drmies. If it happens again, please leave a message here on this talk page. You may remove any libellous content, without replacing it, without discussing it before. You should, however, explain your removal. Please state clearly in your edit summary that you are "removing untrue content from a biography of a living person". Afterwards, please leave a short note on the bottom of this talk page here, for our information. This could be something like "I have removed an untrue statement from the article again, because it had no reliable source. ~~~~"
• "[…]you have left out the business of getting an agent, Dick Clayton (who was one of Hollywood's top agents) before I left the Playhouse. This is important[…]"  Comment: As Drmies said, and as I am trying to explain above, you would need to provide reliable sources for this, and it would also need to be relevant to the article. If you can provide reliable sources for a specific suggested addition to the article, feel free to suggest it here. I think that I might actually add it, but maybe someone decides to remove it because they do not consider it to be relevant enough. If that happens, a discussion might start, which you would be very welcome to participate in.
• "I also noticed a few typos in your revised version."  Done, I hope. Please point any other specific typos that you see.
• "if you deleted studying with Jeff Cory and Robert Gist, this is important, because it shows serious intent to become a good actress."  Comment: Not without a reliable source.
• "The 'Up Your Teddy Bear' thing, first called 'Mother', and now 'The Seduction of a Nerd' really did happen"  Comment: Sorry, but not without a reliable source. This policy is meant to protect you against libellous statements. Especially if you have experienced libel before, I hope that you appreciate our strict approach to this.
• Me living in Sonoma County doesn't really need a citation!  Comment: Oh yes, it does! It does, it does, it does. Please. If it is so obvious and verifiable, it should not be a problem to take one minute of your precious time to find a reliable source and add it.

Side note: Imagine someone adds "lives in North Korea" to your article and claims they're the article subject. What do you expect us to do?

• "A word here about 'Jewish'."  Done by Drmies: The words "Jew" or "Jewish" are not currently appearing in the article. I assume this is okay?
• "I think the internet will only go another ten or twelve years because of misuse of its possibilities."  Comment:

“I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.”

– Robert Metcalfe, co-inventor of Ethernet, 1995

^{(Szczerba, Robert J. "15 Worst Tech Predictions Of All Time". Forbes. Retrieved 2018-06-21.)}

• "I think it would be better, first sentence, to use a period not a semi-colon. 'Her mother ....' etc."  Done by me, thanks for the good suggestion!
• "At the end of bio, I think it would be better to end the paragraph after 'Star Trek', as it was not a film but an episode in a TV series."  Done by me, sounds good! This is exactly the kind of edit requests that I hope everyone will be happy to implement at any time, whenever you request it.
• "At the very bottom you have mentioned my three books. "Horse Stories" should have quotation marks in its title, which indicates a special usage of the words Horse Stories. My book is not stories in the usual sense, but all about one horse. It can be bought as a print on demand book from Amazon."  Comment: Not done yet, as this does not seem to be based on an actual Wikipedia guideline, but rather on your personal interpretation of the book title. If you can provide a quote from the Manual of Style that supports your suggestion, I will happily implement it. Otherwise, it appears to be typographically inconsistent to me. The other book titles are not written with quotation marks and you don't want quotation marks there?
• I'm sure you will locate what I wrote yesterday about Dick Clayton, and I think you will find a way to put it back, perhaps in your own words other than mine which you don't approve of.  Comment: No, that's not the problem. The problem is lack of a reliable source, not my opinion on the choice of words. In this specific case, there's another policy that is important to be taken care about: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• "[That is,] […] as I said in my message yesterday, important." Sorry, but nobody owns an article, so there is no specific person that can authoritatively decide what is "important" and what is not. However, feel free to suggest a sentence to be added to the article, which is backed by a reliable source.
• I think it is strange that you have decreed I should not have further access to my Wikipedia page. I am not the one who screwed it up […]  Comment: I agree, and I disagree at the same time. Yes, you have not "screwed the article up". Instead of removing wrong statements, you have replaced them by other unsourced, possibly non-neutral statements. While you are always free to remove wrong unsourced statements from the page, you are strongly discouraged from attempting to replace it by a better version. That's not my personal idea, that's a widely accepted guideline: Wikipedia:Autobiography -- I am, however, very surprised that nobody before me has mentioned this guideline to you in nearly 10 years of editing. That's certainly a fault on our own side here at Wikipedia; we can not blame you for this. We need to be self-critical here: We should have told you about this earlier, and someone should have clarified all these points above much, much earlier. This is not your fault, and I can completely understand that it negatively surprises you. I'm sorry for the late explanation, but I think that this is better done late than never. Just to clarify for later readers: WP:AUTO has already been a widely accepted community guideline in 2005. It has received some media attention because Jimbo Wales had allegedly violated the guideline himself "at least 18 times".

^{("Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio - Slashdot". slashdot.org. Retrieved 2018-06-21.)}

@Kamitra1: I hope this helps. Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Message from 26 June 2018

^{(original title: "From Kamitra1 (Valora Noland)"; moved from ToBeFree's talk page 20:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC))}

It has taken me some days to get back here. I am 76-1/2-yrs-old now, but not senile. I mention my age, for it may make some difference as to how interested one might be in spending one's days on the internet as you may be doing.

A few things. "Not without a reliable source." This is as much as saying I must be lying. Who better than I who was in Hollywood during most of the 1960s and lived the life in question?

"Horse Stories" is for sale on Amazon. If you want to see the title as it is, there is picture of the book cover on an Amazon site which shows the title with quotation marks, so please add them to the reference. What better proof than this?

I actually studied with acting coach Sherman Marks as well as the other two I mentioned. Sherman was the last, and a kind man in comparison to Robert Gist. Jeff Cory's acting lab was something I started soon after moving to H. from the Playhouse. Need "reliable source"? I think you are a trouble maker first, and a Wikipedia editor second, or whoever took this out of my bio.

As I already wrote, to say I had an agent (who just happened to be one of the top ones) before I left the Playhouse is important data, and Famous Artists could be contacted to verify I signed with them in 1961. No one may want to bother, but a sure verification is there. I think it is the act of a bully to take this out, or not to re-add it in other words. One could say: "...stage name. A talent scout spotted her in a Pasadena market and connected her to a top Hollywood agent, Dick Clayton, who agreed to represent her, all this before she left the Playhouse." I didn't remain with Dick Clayton, and he didn't stay perpetually with Famous Artists. I think it is also important and interesting show biz data that a fine agent is not always the best answer for an actor, as they may spend most of their time on their already successful clients, James Dean, Jane Fonda, Harrison Ford, and others.

The "Jewish" paragraph I entered last week was in response to someone thinking it was important to link my show biz page to info on birth certificates and the Baum family, as though they were seeking to link me to Jewish, not always beneficial in this world. Bring out the greater truth whenever possible ........ (i.e., don't continue the idea of hand-me-down or genealogic Jewish identity. It is no different, as I see it, than saying someone is genealogically Catholic.

I am not hiding behind a false name, have no need to. I think people who contribute or control on the internet and do not reveal their true name are hiding because they are not really okay to be doing what they are. Maybe okay as civil law sees it, but not in the greater sense. This is how I think it is with putting me in the sandbox, and messing with my page in the first place. It was quite alright as it was. Kamitra1 (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Kamitra1,

Welcome back. I'm sorry if anything we did or wrote made you feel like being treated as "senile". I do not believe that anyone has actually intended that. If the feeling persists, please point out what makes you think so, so that we can avoid this in the future.

Nobody is saying that you're lying. It is unlikely that any of us even thinks that. I don't. However, to protect you, as a person, from libel and defamation, Wikipedia requires so-called "reliable sources", especially for articles about living people. Asking for these "reliable sources" does not imply that anyone thinks you'd be lying.

Article subjects directly editing "their" articles are very likely doing so in good faith. They might, however, be unaware of their conflict of interest. The result are often well-meant non-neutral edits, biased towards a certain personal viewpoint. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia which strives to describe topics in a neutral way. To avoid this problem entirely, the "sandbox" idea exists: You can edit a copy of the article in any way you want, and the changes will be verified by experienced editors. This has nothing to do with "senility"; I think that most of these editors are successful businesspeople writing about their companies and achievements. The term "sandbox" might sound belittling because children play in sandboxes. This is not the message the term is meant to convey here on Wikipedia. We call it a "sandbox" because it allows the user to experiment with the syntax, and because it allows the user to make frequent small edits without having to fear about leaving the article in an unfinished state. It allows users to be bold even more than they're already encouraged to be when editing articles directly. Children use real sandboxes because it lets their imagination run free, in an unconstrained, nearly rule-free environment. This is exactly the same reason why we, as adult Wikipedia editors, use "sandboxes" as well.

If it makes you feel better, most experienced editors have a "sandbox" they use to draft their articles. I used a sandbox to translate Alte Brücke (Frankfurt) step by step, before releasing the finished translation to the public. Using a sandbox before making changes go public is a sign of prudence, not childishness.

Back to "reliable sources"; emphasis mine: "[…] Famous Artists could be contacted to verify I signed with them in 1961."

Sorry, but this is very unlikely to be what we do at Wikipedia. Being forced to privately contact individuals for verification is not what "verifiability" is about. Wikipedia:Verifiability

No one may want to bother, but a sure verification is there. I think it is the act of a bully to take this out, or not to re-add it in other words.

It is also not about "bullying". https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-July/050773.html

Like Jimbo already wrote in 2006, "If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference." You are encouraged to find and provide a reliable source, if you would like your text to be in the biographical article about a living person.

"[…] or whoever took this out of my bio." Please have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valora_Noland&action=history

You can click the "prev" link next to any change to start browsing through the article's history. I think I might not even be the intended target of your accusation. I'm just investing hours of my free time to answer lengthy questions by annoyed actors on Wikipedia, to explain things I have not necessarily even done myself.

One last thing,

I am not hiding behind a false name, have no need to. I think people who contribute or control on the internet and do not reveal their true name are hiding because they are not really okay to be doing what they are. Maybe okay as civil law sees it, but not in the greater sense.

I am not either; my pseudonym matches my real name. There's even a photo of me on my user page. However, before complaining about anyone for protecting their identity, please read the following two articles: Gamergate controversy, Doxing

Some Wikipedia administrators, for example, are regularly the target of harassment and threats of violence. There's also a reason that faces of people accused of crime, and faces of policemen, are sometimes blurred on TV and in newspapers. This is not an issue dedicated to the Internet. Witness protection has already existed in the US back in 1871.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Valora Noland bio

I see "Horse Stories" got its quotation marks. Thank you.

It is just a lot of bother to fish for old records from Famous Artists which would verify that I started with that agency and Dick Clayton in 1961. I wrote you a possible other way of entering the info at the end of first paragraph. My changed version could finish with "agreed to represent her, giving her cause to leave the Playhouse." The Pasadena Playhouse was a 3-yr. course, and I regret leaving when I did to go to Hollywood. So, for those who might be interested in my brief career, it says why I landed in Hollywood when I did. It was because of the talent scout who should have left me alone ----- or, I should have asked Mr. Clayton if he would still represent me if I finished another year and a half. Would you like me to get old records which prove I attended the Playhouse? You are being unfair, but I have to let you do what you like.

At the bottom you (I assume) have added Divine Machine two times. #5 is a duplicate, and would you please remove it? The Divine Machine was published by yours truly in a limited edition of 100 copies, and is available only from one small shop in San Francisco, and they don't mail copies. It has three fold-outs which I taped onto the relevant pages, and for this book to be mass-produced it will need very special print shop robots! Also, it is very expensive to print (a lot of color), and expensive to buy. It might be best to leave it off the page. Also, it seems this reference goes to a second line, so the full sub-title could be shown on the page. But again, maybe delete. Divine Machine. Capital "M" please on Machine.

Thanks,Kamitra1 (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kamitra1:, welcome back. Before I answer further, please read my latest message at Talk:Valora_Noland#Editing_requests_by_Kamitra1. I am afraid that you have not seen it yet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

More from Kamitra1

Hello Again,

Interesting 60 Minutes last night, about the bank robber who became a distinguished law professor. If we follow the Masters, we will come forward, a little or a lot.

I see a message from you which says you want to know that I have read what you have written. I think I did, or have. I find all of this less than agreeable, as you have (or you and others) have delighted in taking important facts out of my bio. But my life has more chapters than the earliest one in Hollywood.

My bio now says I have "authored books "Horse Stories", The Divine Machine, and Water Lily Ponds." I don't see any reason for having a reference for Divine Machine below, linked to Amazon. Amazon, and others I'm sure, has for MANY years had Divine Machine in its data base. It is a result of the isbn # leading them to list the book, but this does not mean there is a publication of the book. Also, the subtitle was/is not fully written there, missing the last part, "structure of life." So the fact that this mini publication is showing up on Amazon (and as unavailable), is because of automation. I think it would be appropriate to take this lower ref. (second mention of the book) off the page.

Since you call yourself "ToBeFree", you might be interested in Divine Machine. In most cases, people copy knowledge from a book, as in to pass a test, but it doesn't go very deep. If we can come to new knowledge on our own without being told, then it enters the blood stream. D. M. offers this possibility.Kamitra1 (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kamitra1

thank you for taking the time to read the long message. I was hoping that it would explain the situation in a way that is agreeable for you. Hm.

I'm not saying that the other chapters of your life don't belong into the article. They would probably be a enrichment, completing the currently incomplete article. I do understand that.

The problem is not so much relevance – the problem is a lack of reliable secondary sources. It would not help to call anyone for a personal verification; what Wikipedia needs is real verifiability by published sources.

Is it "unfair" to treat everyone equally, by requiring everyone alike to adhere to established Wikipedia policies, and then writing detailled explanations if someone has questions about them? We are not treating this article differently than all the other biographies about living people. We are not asking you anything else than we'd ask other people in this situation. I would be surprised if anyone is actually unfairly biased against you or your edits. We're commenting on content, not the contributor, and we're making sure that nobody is unjustly being preferred.

About the policies I've mentioned above, these are:

• Wikipedia:No original research,
• Wikipedia:Verifiability, and
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

If you feel that Drmies or me are misinterpreting these, wrongly explaining these; if you feel that we are actually being unfair, please explicitly explain this. Wikipedia has multiple places that can help with dispute resolution; see: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

If this discussion is going in circles, and you would like a third, neutral opinion on the case, please say so; I will then add a link to this discussion to the Wikipedia:Third opinion page. This would be an appropriate, non-formal next step that I personally would take if I was in your situation and felt being treated unfairly.

I am copying this discussion to the article's talk page (Talk:Valora Noland), especially because one might be requesting input from other editors later. When replying, please reply at Talk:Valora Noland, so that we have a central point of discussion about this issue.

Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

More from Valora

_{This text has been moved from my talk page. ToBeFree, 19:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)}

I just read my bio again, and you have more than taken the color out of it. You don't know show business, or you would know why certain things were in the long-existing prior text.

Please remove the incompletely worded Amazon reference to Divine Machine. I told you on the last comm. that it is only because I got an isbn # that Amazon is listing it, and this does not mean the book is available in book stores or anywhere (which it is not). The publication I did on DM is spiral bound and does not qualify for Library of Congress inclusion. It would have to be perfect bound. Nonetheless, homosapiens may make their own books if they like: there is no law against it. The reference at the bottom of the page does not make sense. Please remove it.

You have disqualified a whole lot of interesting Valora Noland info no one would know except one who was living the life, such as that the improvised scene done for 5 Finger Exercise was cut BECAUSE the author of the play (which was on Broadway), had not put a scene like that in his script and didn't like it that it had been added by the director of the movie. But you think you know it all and have taken this and a whole lot else out, pretending I am not a reliable source. Absurd. I think you have other motivations than Wiki truth.Kamitra1 (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kamitra1: Please have a look at the article's history to verify if I have actually done what you are attributing to me. Specifically, the only edits that I have ever made to the page without undoing them myself, or without having already been undone by you, are:

• Added a "COI" tag above the article: diff link
• Implementing a change requested by you: diff link
• Fixing a typo that you had pointed out: diff link
• Implementing a change suggested by you: diff link
• Removing "currently lives in Northern California", because it was not provided by any source: diff link
• Implementing a change requested by you, after manually having searched for a reference link: diff link
• Implementing a change requested by you that was not even given by the source: diff link
• Undoing another editor's unsourced addition of unreliably sourced information: diff link

You may be complaining about these two edits here, which have been undone, so these edits had no effect on the current version of the article: 1, undone by you, 2, undone by myself to not start an edit war.

You are complaining about an incomplete reference; I might have missed that part when replying, so I have now removed "Divine Machine" with its reference from the list -- which surprises me. You had been complaining about the removal of unsourced material; now I am specifically asked by you to remove something I have actually taken the time to find a reference for.

If nobody except yourself has ever published anything about that part of your life, then there is maybe not a reliable, verifiable, neutral secondary source available for it, and it would maybe not meet Wikipedia's requirements of verifiability. That's not really something I can personally fix, even if I like to.

Please really have a look at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Writing_style. Please really do. And note that I have not written that policy but think it's a good one.

Please also keep this in mind: Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects

I'm moving this to the article's talk page and asking for a third opinion, as I have offered in my last message. Maybe this helps. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

I have looked through the history of this page and read the above. I'd like to thank the contributors for all their work so far. To Kamitra1, welcome, I hope to encourage you to contribute to this encyclopedia in ways that will be positive for you and for the encyclopedia. This has to include careful consideration of WP:AUTO and WP:RS, and your frustrations so far may possibly be remedied by a fuller understanding of these fundamental policies of Wikipedia. In particular, please note that we are limited to comments that can be reliably sourced - and, even though it's your own life, you don't count as a usable source. Nor does anyone else count as a reliable source for their own life, so it's only fair. IMDB is not normally considered a reliable source either - it's crowdsourced and not really checked. Furthermore, adding any facts, even reliably sourced ones, to your own page is not acceptable. If you have a reliable source, put it on the talk page with a draft of your suggested edit. Someone will be along very soon to consider it, and probably use it. If they aren't, feel free to ping myself or ask Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.

Looking at the page as it stands, almost none of it is, in our terms, reliably sourced. The only items that might possibly qualify are the book publications and, if I were in a position to check it, the three pages of Tom Lisanti's book. However, your own comments above about Mr Lisanti do not encourage me to classify him as entirely reliable. Personally I would probably encourage you to write your autobiography - elsewhere - and recommend this page for deletion. But the heart of this third opinion is, please read WP:AUTO and WP:RS carefully before making any more contributions. I do hope that this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Surname

Her real surname was Baum. (ManuelLopez1973 (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC))