Talk:Danny Hellman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Danny Hellman, has edited Wikipedia as Dannyhellman (talk · contribs)

I've copied the following from User talk:Dannyhellman. —Cleared as filed. 22:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The following portions of the "Danny Hellman" Wikipedia listing are inaccurate

In the interest of helping you folks maintain accurate information, I would like to point out several untruths in the "Danny Hellman" Wikipedia listing:

1. "Danny Hellman, is a freelance illustrator and cartoonist whose illustrations have been printed in publications including New York Press, The Brutarian, Seventeen, WIZARD, A John L. Roberson fanzine, and Wet Snatch Illustrated."

(I've never contributed artwork to Seventeen, Wizard, A John L. Roberson fanzine, Wet Snatch Illustrated; as far as I know, there is no such publication as "Wet Snatch Illustrated").

2."There's much question as to whether many of the better artists included were fully aware of the cause they were supporting (ie. Hellman's rights to impersonate others without ever clearly defining it as a "prank"). Ultimately many cartoonists saw the Rall/Hellman dispute in the purely black & white terms of a more famous and well-funded cartoonist (Rall) overreacting to a harmless prank and taking legal action against a less well-healed and well-known cartoonist(Hellman). Still none of the contributing artists seem anxious to have similar "pranks" played on them."

(anyone with half a brain can see that this paragraph is entirely subjective and biased; I would say it is more "disinformative" than "informative." I should point out to the Wiki editors that I've been invovled in a contentious libel suit with another cartoonist since 1999; my opponent has frequently sought to publish false and defamatory information about me, and I suspect that the ongoing vandalism to this Wiki page is merely the latest chapter in an ongoing saga of idiocy)

3."While he initially claimed the comic would not specifically address Rall's lawsuit, many of the contributors did anyway, and Hellman himself drew an illustration of a small dog with Rall's likeness urinating on a statue of Spiegelman."

(there is no "illustration of a small dog with Rall's likeness" in either of my LEGAL ACTION COMICS books. The drawing to which this anonymous pinhead refers appeared in an issue of NEW YORK PRESS sometime in the Summer of 1999).

Now then, for the umpteenth time, I would like to provide you with ACCURATE information about my work. The following two paragraphs are factually true, (as opposed to the defamatory horsehit you folks insist on restoring over and over again).

Danny Hellman has worked as a commercial artist since the late 1980s. His illustrations have appeared in a wide variety of publications, including Time, Fortune, Sports Illustrated, NYPress, The Wall Street Journal, FHM, Mad Magazine & Screw. Hellman’s comics work can be seen in DC Comics’ BIZARRO WORLD, Paradox Press’ BIG BOOKS series, LAST GASP COMICS & STORIES, and elsewhere.

Hellman is also the editor/publisher of the comics anthologies LEGAL ACTION COMICS Volumes 1 & 2, which featured work by R. Crumb, art spiegelman, Kim Deitch, Tony Millionaire, and many other cartoon talents.

Dannyhellman 22:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I have incoporated many of these suggestions into the article. We welcome your help to continue improving this article and others. Wikipedia is committed to providing accurate information from a neutral point of view. ike9898 20:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

copied the following from User talk:Dannyhellman

You should lose the bit about "including employers of Rall." Forgive me for getting nitpicky about the details of this ridiculous lawsuit, but the truth is that, out of the thirty or so folks who received the joke email, only one person would qualify as "Rall's employer," and even that description is not entirely accurate. As we discovered in a deposition, Nicholas Blechman, an art director at the New York Times, (as well as the publisher of a comic book titled "Nozone") had hired Rall a few times after taking over at the Times Op Ed page, but had long since stopped using Rall's work by the time of the joke email. If accuracy is what you're after here, you should say the email went to "one former employer of Rall's." It's misleading to suggest to readers that the email went to multiple employers of Rall's.Dannyhellman 03:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dannyhellman is really Danny Hellman

I have contacted Danny Hellman independent of Wikipedia and I can confirm that User:Dannyhellman is who he claims to be. ike9898 15:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The endless reversion on this page

If the issues that keep getting reverted back and forth can't be resolved by refering to verifiable sources, then we will have to cut out that whole part of the article. Can someone provide some references? ike9898 19:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have provided a source for the dismissals. Four of five of Rall's claims were dismissed. See The Comics Journal [1] (unsigned comments from 24.175.27.94)

There's an apparent factula dispute here between the above user & someone else. I have revereted to the version with the citation and marked as a disputed item. To resolve the dispute, the editor should provide some other citation that contradicts the previous one. C00kiemons 18:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any disputed facts here; I have reverted the text a couple of times in the last few days to correct vandalism. Perhaps the same idiot who's responsible for the vandalism is making the claim of factual dispute in order to mess with this page...? Dannyhellman 22:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the disputye tag as the party on one side of the endless reversions has failed to explain his or her edits. The current version should be considered the consensus version, and future edits ought to be explained here. C00kiemons 15:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)