Talk:Lisa Marie Thalhammer

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lisa Marie Thalhammer. 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/20150505003644/http://www.the-detroiter.com/ to http://www.the-detroiter.com/

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) 19:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Section on mural dispute

I've just reverted LisaMarieStudio, who says the version of the "Mural Controversy" section contains inaccuracies and defamation. The editor has previously reverted that section. Pinging Primefac, who originally rewrote the section and provided better sources, and Drmies, who previously reverted a version with less good sourcing. I tweaked Primefac's version for wording, primarily:

• inserting "fellow" before "artist Aja Adams", because Thalhammer is also an artist
• changing "discrepancies" to "dispute" for clarity/precision
• changing "agreement" to "disagreement" again for clarity/precision.

(After looking at the diff I'll be making a couple more tweaks to the article.) I don't see any defamation, and the paragraph seems to me to accurately reflect the sources. LisaMarieStudio's change mainly seems to me to be replacing summary with chronological retelling, with details that I don't find in the sources, and therefore seems less desirable, hence my revert, but the statements that the version to which I reverted is inaccurate and defamatory require discussion. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

LisaMarieStudio has reverted again, with an edit summary that started to specify what was inaccurate but was cut off. In response I have further modified the text to speak of Adams as having collaborated with Thalhammer on the design, but not to imply Adams had a part in the execution of the mural. Does that help? This is the place to discuss this, it gives more than 224 characters. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

And another revert, to the same text again. @LisaMarieStudio:, please come here and discuss it. Apart from anything else, your version does not actually say that there was a dispute, or over what. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Yngvadottir, as well as the further clarification and amendment of my version (which I think reads much more clearly). I have (again) reverted the removal of the "dispute" from the section. I would like to hear LisaMarieStudio's perspective on this, because clearly there is a dispute. If they are looking to simply remove any "criticism" from the page, then we cannot oblige, since our neutrality policy requires all facts are reported if properly sourced. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

There's been another revert. This time it's noted that we have the address wrong: I checked, and 57 O Street is indeed the address in the source, so if it gets changed again, that should be corrected. I'm not going to change it again today. For the rest, LisaMarieStudio, please come and talk about it properly, here, rather than in short statements that you can fit into the edit summary field. No one has accused you of not telling the truth. Rather, it's a matter of how to explain this to the reader - briefly, so it doesn't overwhelm the material about your career and works - and clearly. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Serious problems with COI to have the artist contributing to her own page, particularly the portion of the page about this controversy.173.79.74.116 (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Reopening this discussion

The section on the mural dispute does not appear to accurately represent the nature of the dispute. According to the cited sources, Adams claims that Thalhammer used Adams' work without permission or compensation. The section as written makes it sound as though Adams simply thought they were not sufficiently compensated. The true nature of the dispute is much deeper than that. Whether or not the dispute merits inclusion in the article, if we are going to keep it, it should be accurate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I would be fine with expanding the section somewhat, though my primary concern would be one of weight and sourcing - it's a classic "she said/she said" situation, wherein one party says one thing and the other says another, and the only clear resolution we have (at least from the sources) was that the DCC said it was a "contractual dispute". Primefac (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lisa Marie Thalhammer. 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/20171018220756/http://dcist.com/2017/10/embattled_artists_pushes_back_again.php to http://dcist.com/2017/10/embattled_artists_pushes_back_again.php

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) 02:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)