Talk:Todd Goldman

message: Put 'em ALL up here. Let the public see that this isn't some anomaly in Todd's 'work'. Veled 02:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree.  Not all the thefts claimed are necessarily 'legit.'  The only one that is clear is that of Kelly, and the others are reasonably similar, but not necessarily so, as they lack definitive sources of the exact images in many cases and also lack claims that the original Goldman illustrations are 'original'.  I am not a lawyer, but it is not implausible that the recently unearthed criticism from barkeranimation.com and Roy Liechtenstein arguments offer a possibly legitimate 'out' for Goldman for anything but outright plagiarism (such as in the Purple Pussy case), regardless of his artistic talent (or lack thereof). If we list 'thefts' let's be sure they're pretty much unambiguously stolen (character design AND text), and not just potentially lifted concepts, lest the Roy Liechtenstein issue crop up. --Pipian 02:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree. Did you guys even read the court documents? It was a false claim. Do your research... f  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Applebettyfromoklahoma (talk • contribs) 05:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you see the two new ones I just added? The gnomies one is questionable, I'll admit, but the multiple paintings (especially the one that uses the exact same text down to the apostrophe) seem to indicate he at least saw the source. The "This Sucks" design, however, is just as clear a lift as the Purple Pussy case. If you insist on arguing with me further I'll put up a trace of that one to hammer in my point. He didn't even change the colors on that one. Veled 02:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: can we create a better-looking display of the pictures?  That would help a lot.  Also, add the stuff sucks picture comparison too.  That would also be good. -Rebent 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It was listed in a previous revision of the article.  Then the article got taken in for WP:OFFICE because of potentially libellous information.  When the article got unlocked, Bastique told us that, to preserve NPOV (I think), we should limit the accusations of plagiarism to 5 lines, 150 words.  Then Slashdot and BoingBoing ran stories on Goldman, and we had some more vandalism, so it's locked again until the arguments die down a bit.--Superluser 16:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Thefts are surfacing!  

message: The section on the recent plagiarism accusation should probably contain a link to the article for the comic he allegedly ripped off.  Oh, wait. 67.158.75.233 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  Does this make Purple Pussy notable?  After all, it was mentioned in the Las Vegas Sun.  I've seen lower bars set for notability in the Oxford English Dictionary.  (Also, changing the heading to something a little more descriptive) --Superluser 04:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what if the Purple Pussy comic was deemed non notable? Does that make Goldman's plagiarism any less of an act of plagiarism (and illegal)? Of course not. Seriously! He plagiarized a comic from Purple Pussy. That's a fact, now established by him admitting wrong-doing.  --Lendorien 04:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the point that I (and 67.158.75.233) was trying to make is that perhaps Purple Pussy should no longer be considered non-notable.  There's actually a whole bunch of drama over various and sundry webcomics being considered non-notable, and that should probably be kept out of this discussion, but I think it's sensible to ask if this one specific webcomic might no longer be non-notable.--Superluser 04:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Lendorien and Superluser. Just because the lack of a need for a wikipedia article on Purple Pussy, in no way changes anything about this article. And in fact, these events may change the status/importance of purple pussy. On the other hand it being mentioned in the Las Vegas Sun, does not seem important. (Hey, the Las Vegas Sun mentions this wikipage, maybe the page needs it's own page??) Wikipedia recently underwent a deletion purge of webcomics, in an attempt to reduce excessive stubs and non-relevant articles, such judgment does not make the comics unimportant or free of copyrights. DocGratis 04:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Superluser pointed out, I wasn't talking about the status of Todd Goldman, but about the status of Purple Pussy.  I believe Purple Pussy was notable all along, but it's even more notable now. 67.158.75.233 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this whole incident may well make the comic notable; at this point, its at least close. Assuming it wasn't already. Titanium Dragon 13:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There was a Dave Kelly article!  It was deleted for not being notable!  --KSnortum 23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have had written one personally over at WikiFur, if only he hadn't specifically asked me not to. GreenReaper 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well said. --HanzoHattori 05:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purple Pussy has been called non-notable 

message: Boing Boing continues to cover the subject today (includes information on "cease and desists" sent to several sites, including Juxtapoz): http://www.boingboing.net/2007/04/23/tshirt_makes_fun_of_.html Spirou 20:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boingboing.net 

message: It's more like "characters, designs and ideas from other artists and companies". Btw, take alook at this most famous image of his. --HanzoHattori 08:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  accusations that "he has taken characters from other cartoons" 

message: Why is there only one act of many noted in his entry?  See the latest here Cowicide 14:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but is there a reputable secondary source we can use?  I'm not sure if Boingboing is going to be good enough of a source to make potentially libelous claims.  On a more philosophical level, on what grounds are accusations notable if the only sources we have about the accusations are the sites making the accusations? --Maxamegalon2000 14:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the claims are so obviously true that no reputable source could possibly claim they're false, then all reputable sources will support the claims, and it's going to be very difficult to create an appearance of balance by finding a reputable source that isn't one of "the sites making the accusations".  I'm not sure that applies here, but if we're only allowed to cite sources that seem not to be taking a side, then we may be shooting ourselves in the foot. 129.97.79.144 15:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our general editorial standards don't usually consider blogs or other self-published websites reputable except for talking about themselves, so we have to stick to things reported in non-blog sources. It's fine for us to cite an editorial from a notable/reliable publication that makes accusations, as we did with Juxtapoz (until it got taken down), but the number of sources that have some sort of editorial controls/standards and have made the accusations are limited for now.  Give it a couple weeks and see if any other news outlets pick it up, or even reliable comics commentators.  Then we can cite them if there's more to say.  BoingBoing is just really weak as far as reliability goes in general, all they do is copy from sources that may or may not be reliable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todd's repeated plagiarism has become quite notable 

message: According to the Las Vegas Sun, Wikipedia.com (by which I assume they mean Wikipedia.org) has posted an article with "an image of Goldman's painting altered to look more like Kelly's".  The actual picture apparently looked more like this.  I don't know, but if this is the case, the pic ought to be corrected.  That's not a good thing to have happening here.
:New sections go at the bottom. Not at the top. And we were just discussing this (see section directly above this one). See above the wikipedia picture is not altered. Todd has more than one version of the painting, but clearly they are nearly identical. DocGratis 16:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate Picture? 

message: A comparison of the two images seems to show a preponderance of identical lines, and thus a high likelihood that part of the image was traced.  The three concerns here seem to be originial research, NPOV, and litigation.  For the first, it should be fairly simple to find and cite someone else who's done the comparison.  For the second, as long as all the evidence out there to Goldman's credit is presented, I don't see why this shouldn't be; in fact, it seems like POV not to.  For the third, frankly, to hell with it.  Wikipedia is not censored.  Twin Bird 16:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightbox Comparison 

message: FYI, Kelly's SA post indicates that there will be a "BIG UPDATE TONIGHT!  Stay tuned!  Thanks to everyone who helped!"  I would recommend we wait until after the update and any potential coverage of it before making any more important decisions about this article. --Maxamegalon2000 01:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something's Going Down Tonight 

message: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/08/Tampabay/Artist_s_work_looked_.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.234.60.154 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for finding that.  Now I'm curious; do we get to add another 150 words? --Maxamegalon2000 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it definitely supports the other accusations (like goodbye kitty and the fat kid) and the fact that they got his posters and t-shirts pulled from major distributors shows this is an important event for his business.  That definitely needs mention in the article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely time to expand. Many of the previously mentioned accusations that were deleted can now be added back using this as a source. GarryKosmos 06:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SF Times 

message: I'll admit I looked up this article to see how it had handled the recent flap, since I followed the SA thread.
Is it notable that Kelly DID NOT make the original accusation of plagiarism? Dave Kelly didn't go on SA posting accusations of any kind -- one of his fans drew it to his attention through SA. The way it's phrased, it sounds (to me; YMMV) like Kelly got on SA throwing accusations around, and even a quick read of the early part of that thread shows that isn't how it happened.
If this wasn't a hot article at the moment I'd change the phrasing to reflect what actually happened: that fans noted the similarities between Kelly's work from 01 and Goldman's current "art" and posted their findings to SA, thus bringing it to Kelly's attention -- not that Kelly got on SA and began slinging accusations around in a vacuum. Again, YMMV. 
--Parcequilfaut 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "was accused by Kelly" 

message: For your information, I blocked , , ,   as being a single user. -- lucasbfr talk 18:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sock Puppettry 

message: The most recent socks claimed that the plagiarism accusations had been disproved in a court case. I'm unable to find anything. Does anyone else know what they are talking about? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court case? 

message: This article feels more like an attack page than an encyclopedia article, in no small part due to the Men's Rights activists. More flattering material should be added. --108.211.72.67 (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far too negatively biased 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Todd Goldman. 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/20090327150552/http://www.davidandgoliathco.com:80/nav/images/press/2007/June/satNiteMag-607.html to http://www.davidandgoliathco.com/nav/images/press/2007/June/satNiteMag-607.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090727093706/http://hisside.com:80/campaign_boys_are.htm to http://www.hisside.com/campaign_boys_are.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327113755/http://www.davidandgoliathco.com:80/nav/images/press/2007/Nov/senseMag-11_07.html to http://www.davidandgoliathco.com/nav/images/press/2007/Nov/senseMag-11_07.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Todd Goldman. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.davidandgoliathco.com/nav/images/press/2007/June/satNiteMag-607.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120713111510/http://goarticles.com/article/Todd-Goldman/3087042/ to http://goarticles.com/article/Todd-Goldman/3087042/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hisside.com/campaign_boys_are.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.davidandgoliathco.com/nav/images/press/2007/Nov/senseMag-11_07.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Todd Goldman. 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/20090224205701/http://www.dkniga.ru/bookid/b0090.htm to http://www.dkniga.ru/bookid/b0090.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20070528000550/http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/images/people.html to http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/images/people.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081114180429/http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile to http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=5866786
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229184041/http://www.davidandgoliathco.com/pdf_files/todd%20sense%20magazine.pdf to http://www.davidandgoliathco.com/pdf_files/todd%20sense%20magazine.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Todd Goldman. 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/20090728225928/http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/opinion_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2490_3964393,00.html to http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/opinion_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2490_3964393,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)