Talk:LaVonne Salleé

Bio of living artist

In its original posting, this article conformed with WP's policy dictating that all material posted was sourced and cited. Georgejdorner (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have looked at your DYK nomination. As it stands, the article needs a revision. For starters, references need to be consolidated (footnotes 1-3 and 7-10 all refer to the same source), which will bring the number of footnotes down from 33 to maybe a dozen or less. Second, not all of these are reliable sources, plain and simple--such as alteredbarbie.com, and since that source is used for BLP information the article does not meet BLP requirements. Sorry. Third, the External links section and that section with videos probably needs to go--see WP:EL, for instance. It's simply too much, and too much of it is not notable and does not contribute to the article.

  Like I said at DYK, it's a great subject, but the sourcing as well as editing/writing are not up to the level where we can put it on the front page, in my opinion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(Transcribed from DYK nomination page of 16 December 2010) The DYK fact above is cited based on coverage by the San Jose Mercury News and other newspapers, not on the "altered Barbies" website. My citations are based on the most reliable sources I could find; I expect that as her career progresses, both more and more reliable sources will emerge.

As a former journalist, I followed standard journalistic practice and allowed Ms Salleé to read and comment on the accuracy of the article as a last check on accuracy and fairness; of course, in so doing, I made it clear that I might (or might not) make corrections/changes. A subsequent email from her expressed her satisfaction with the final result.

Does the entire article have to pass DYK standards, just so one fact from it can be cited?

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Be bold?

I wrote this article as a complete departure from my usual subject matter in WP, in the spirit of "Be bold." I am acquainted with LaVonne Sallee because I have visited her gallery several times. I HAVE NO OTHER CONNECTION WITH HER!

I am enthusiastic about her work, and it showed in my original draft of the article. I am also a novelist and journalist; a journalist quoting other journalists is a situation rife with the possibility of "peacocking". Yes, I sinned. No, I do not object to other editors deleting peacockery; it's all part of writing for WP. I seldom disagree with the editing on my articles, and I certainly am grateful for most of the emendments in this case.

However, snide and semi-libelous remarks in the edit history by other editors about my being on the take are an unconscionable violation of good faith. They are also a sneaky evasion, the WP equivalent of muttering insults behind the subject's back. If any editor has any issues with my writing, s/he is quite welcome to confront me directly. My past history shows that I strive to be reasonable in such cases.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that that edit summary was poorly-done of me, Georgejdorner. I apologize. I think I had paid editing on the brain that day due to discussions elsewhere on the wiki that I had been reading, but those had nothing to do with you and I shouldn't have jumped to the hypothesis that you had been paid to write the article. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I understand your desire to not have that edit summary there for all to see, so I've asked an administrator to remove the text of the edit summary from the page history. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LaVonne Salleé. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717011654/http://www.theluxuryspot.com/2010/11/10/one-of-a-kind-barbie-dolls-for-naughty-kids/comment-page-1/ to http://www.theluxuryspot.com/2010/11/10/one-of-a-kind-barbie-dolls-for-naughty-kids/comment-page-1/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)