User talk:Dannyhellman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Dannyhellman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

I noticed you made some changes to the Danny Hellman article. I assume, from your username, that you are the subject of the article. Articles on Wikipedia must conform to a neutral point of view, and that includes allowing criticism of the subjects we cover. I've added back the material that was on the Danny Hellman article. Wikipedia generally discourages editors from creating or contributing to articles about themselves. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Autobiography to see the details of our policy.

Again, if you have any questions, feel free to drop me a message! —Cleared as filed. 04:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm not exactly sure how this Wikipedia works, but what I DO know is that your system is wide open to all kinds of pranks and vandalism. I didn't ask to be listed on this thing, and I'm tired of having to revisit my listing every other week to delete erroneous information left by some clown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyhellman (talk • contribs)
If there is erroneous information, you should dispute it on the talk page for the article rather than just deleting information. Wikipedia editors will just keep adding it back if it looks like you're trying to hide criticism of an article that you're the subject of. But if you point out which facts are incorrect and cite verifiable sources, you'll be able to have some say over the article's direction. Let me know if you have any questions or need any help. —Cleared as filed. 14:31, 19 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 20:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


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] play by the rules, please

You were upset when users mucked with articles relating to subjects you care about. Now, please respect the rules yourself, add cease adding advetisements for your own product to articles. Whether or not what you added is factually accurate, it is considered a conflict of interest to add text promoting a subject you have a financial stake in. In this case, the stake is quite direct, you are the editor of LAC, aren't you? ike9898 16:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(comments by DH copied here to make discussion easier to follow)
I didn't create the listing for Legal Action Comics on Wikipedia; I just happened along earlier today, saw that the listing existed, and tried to flesh out the information, (which had been minimal to the point of uselessness.
I see now that someone's deleted the info I posted about my book because "I have a financial stake." Does that mean that the info I posted would be just fine, provided it was posted by someone other than me?
It strikes me as either stupid, lazy, or hostile, (perhaps all three) that someone opted to delete the entirety of the info I posted, rather than editing it to adjust the tone.
I'm going to restore the info I posted in its entirety, and if someone thinks the tone of it is too self-aggrandizing, I invite that person to make whatever minor changes are needed to achieve the desired neutrality. Dannyhellman 05:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now that I've read you comments on another page, I somewhat agree with you but there may be another issue. The sections you added look suspiciously like a text-dump to me. Has this text appeared on another website or in print? If so, it is very likely copyrighted. Even if you wrote this yourself, but it was used previously in another context, I think you might need to explicitly release it under a free licsence or into the public domain. If you would like help with this issue, feel free to contact me or another admin. ike9898 16:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC) And I apologize. It would have been preferable for me to extract info from your contribution in order to improve the article. However, I think you might find my action a commonplace response what looks like a text dump by a user with only a few contributions. There are ton of occasions where someone contributes a long article about their own website. A guideline we often follow is that if the subject is important enough for an encyclopedia article, someone not directly involved will write an article about it. ike9898 16:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(copied here by ike9898, for continutity)

Yes, it's text from my website.
Yes, I wrote it myself.
No, it's not copyrighted.
Now then, will you folks please stop deleteing the text in its entirety? If there are elements in the text that you feel are self-aggrandizing or otherwise undesirable, I invite you to make those edits.
Dannyhellman 16:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
This website says explictly that "entire contents of this website copyright 2004 Danny Hellman". Now it is clear that this content is NOT ALLOWED on Wikipedia until the above mentioned conditions are met. Wikipedia respects intellectual property rights, and as an artist you should appreciate this. ike9898 17:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(copied here)

I'm trying my best to remain polite, Ike9898, but this is starting to feel like a pissing contest. Shouldn't you be busy somewhere processing the protein portion of agricultural commodities? Dannyhellman 19:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't make the rules. Repeatedly submitting copyrighted text can get you blocked. ike9898 19:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I've asked another administrator ( User:Flcelloguy ) to have a look at this issue. I won't take any further action until we can get a second opinion. ike9898 19:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Action Comics

Hello! I was asked to take a look at the situation by Ike9898. While I understand your frustration, let's try and keep calm; getting angry at each other isn't going to do anything but aggravate the situation. Regarding the copying of content: we, unfortunately, cannot accept any material copied from most web pages unless the content is explicitly licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). If you are the author of the material and would like to do so, please review the terms of the license and send an email to [1] or [2] from the email listed in the website and state that the content is released under the GFDL. Please note that doing so allows anyone to copy and reuse the text. While this may seem like a hassle, this is done in order to ensure that no one gratuitously releases the text for you; this is done for security and legal reasons as well. Until then, we cannot accept the text - once you send an email, a member of the permissions/email team will then place the text on the page and verify that the text has been released. For now, though, we can't use the material. Thanks for your understanding! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)