This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Why isn't the alleged ripoff of Roman Dirge's Lenore covered? 72.224.60.38 11:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
I would also like to see a Purple Pussy page, if only to see a summary of what it's about (seems to be a misanthropic cat, but beyond that I can't tell from that one panel, and also to see the link. I knew nothing about it before then, and am certainly curious now. I did find the webcomic, but I'm not going to link (Wikipedia makes me to a manual confirm when I link, and sometimes the letters are so distorted as to be ambiguous. I recall one letter which looked very much like a "G", but wasn't.)
A Dave Kelly page would also be nice. The only comic of his I've read is Lizard, but I seem to recall that there were a bunch hed did on that page. And if he were once syndicated, all the better.
On the other hand, the compsulsive deletionist tendencies some people have here are a big reason I left Wikipedia, so I'd be unsurprised to see that neither of these are permitted sometime soon. Wikipedia has a rather high standard of notability. Wikipedia still pretends to be a real encyclopedia, which is a shame, because it does stuff related to the internet well (yet aside from European history, is either incomplete or incoherent on most other stuff). ~Luke -- 71.192.116.13 02:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Since Purple Pussy now has its own article, and has passed its most recent deletion discussion with a result of "keep" (and only one UnVote for "delete"), I think it would be appropriate for the Todd Goldman article to include a link to the Purple Pussy article instead of just referring to "a 2001 comic". 129.97.79.144 16:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, let me state that my assumption is that the active contributors on this article have been acting acting in good faith. There is also potentially an element of contribution that may be coming from external sources. In that respect I'm going to advise this article be placed on semi-protection to prevent malicious contribution as the article regains formation.
Except for the Biography of Living Persons issue, there are two other principals that need to be considered:
Also, with regard to leading a reader to a conclusion, I offer my own personal WP:NOT:
While the plagiarism matter may be generating a substantial amount of internet traffic, due to its affecting the webcomic community (please forgive me if this is not the correct term), it has still remained ignored by all but a single serious media outlets, the Las Vegas Sun.
In that respect, I don't believe the plagiarism merits much in the article.
My challenge to the editors is to describe the issue in a single paragraph summarizing the issue, no more than five lines (on a typical browser window) not to exceed 150 words, using the guidelines outlined in our policies at WP:RS and WP:BLP.
The legal notice may still be something of concern, however, it did bring issues regarding this biography to light. While this individual seems to be notable to merit an article on Wikipedia, he's probably not notable enough to merit the length of article contained. In reading the latest talk page thread, I'm seeing a large number of good, positive remarks regarding this article. I have faith now, and am encouraged that my involvement going forward will be minimal.
Cary Bass demandez 13:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If it wasn't split between this article and Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them, I think we'd have a better/more substantial article. I think we need to include information on David & Goliath the company in here too, and as a company making tens of millions a year in sales, there's a lot out there. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 16:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Current articles:
Suggest merging and restructuring, to cut down on duplicate content, since practically every piece of information has been in at least two of the articles. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 16:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
From the plagiarism section of the article one would gather that there has been only that one incident of suspected plagiarism. There have actually been many (more so as the scandal grows), and it should be reflected in the text.-- 24.74.1.139 20:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe how the fact that Goldman is issuing lawsuits merits inclusion in this article. Also, I don't believe that miketyndall's site can be used as a reliable source. Cary Bass demandez 21:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been pointing out on a few outraged web comics forums that Wikipedia has to be really conservative about living bios, 'cos we've gotten so much crap about them of late. So mainstream press coverage is the sort of thing we need for the article - David Gerard 22:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
Why is there only one act of many noted in his entry? See the latest here Cowicide 14:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The article from the las vegas sun says that "Aside from a lightbulb, a bow and the word "please" in Goldman's painting, the images are almost identical. There's even an entry on Wikipedia.com that includes an image of Goldman's painting altered to look more like Kelly's." Huh? I can't see how this was altered. Or was this one of the older versions of the page? -- ISeeDeadPixels 22:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)
Would anyone object to adding Mike Tyndall's site as a relevant external link? It seems to be the central repository of plagiarism examples, and I don't think you can say it's "unreliable" given that a lot of the evidence is pictorial. Esn 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It's been taken off before because it's self-published, and therefore considered unreliable. Since it's the only source of many of the allegations it makes, we don't want to seem to endorse it. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 13:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The Tyndall site violates WP:RS. We can waste all our time and energy debating why it violates it (which has already been demonstrated in no uncertain terms), but ultimately it violates the policies of this project. Cary Bass demandez 12:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Maxa megalon 2000 01:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
That note is dated 25th of April. 213.10.112.111 18:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
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).
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand how Template:Update was being misused in the article. Personally, I'm waiting to update the article until someone lets us know if additional sources add to our allotment of words. -- Maxa megalon 2000 20:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
Re the blind ban on referencing blog-type sites like Mike Tyndall's in a bio, I wouldn't have a big problem with that if the rule were enforced equally in all articles. Wikipedia opens itself to (in my opinion well-founded) criticism for double standards if well-off American businessmen like Goldman are treated significantly differently than foreigners like Adnan Hajj.
MeteorMaker 06:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
For your information, I blocked
Peanutbutterthepanda (
talk ·
contribs),
Applebettyfromoklahoma (
talk ·
contribs),
Filezilla (
talk ·
contribs),
Jennazooje (
talk ·
contribs) Confirmed as being a single user. --
lucasbfr
talk
18:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Why isn't the alleged ripoff of Roman Dirge's Lenore covered? 72.224.60.38 11:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
I would also like to see a Purple Pussy page, if only to see a summary of what it's about (seems to be a misanthropic cat, but beyond that I can't tell from that one panel, and also to see the link. I knew nothing about it before then, and am certainly curious now. I did find the webcomic, but I'm not going to link (Wikipedia makes me to a manual confirm when I link, and sometimes the letters are so distorted as to be ambiguous. I recall one letter which looked very much like a "G", but wasn't.)
A Dave Kelly page would also be nice. The only comic of his I've read is Lizard, but I seem to recall that there were a bunch hed did on that page. And if he were once syndicated, all the better.
On the other hand, the compsulsive deletionist tendencies some people have here are a big reason I left Wikipedia, so I'd be unsurprised to see that neither of these are permitted sometime soon. Wikipedia has a rather high standard of notability. Wikipedia still pretends to be a real encyclopedia, which is a shame, because it does stuff related to the internet well (yet aside from European history, is either incomplete or incoherent on most other stuff). ~Luke -- 71.192.116.13 02:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Since Purple Pussy now has its own article, and has passed its most recent deletion discussion with a result of "keep" (and only one UnVote for "delete"), I think it would be appropriate for the Todd Goldman article to include a link to the Purple Pussy article instead of just referring to "a 2001 comic". 129.97.79.144 16:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, let me state that my assumption is that the active contributors on this article have been acting acting in good faith. There is also potentially an element of contribution that may be coming from external sources. In that respect I'm going to advise this article be placed on semi-protection to prevent malicious contribution as the article regains formation.
Except for the Biography of Living Persons issue, there are two other principals that need to be considered:
Also, with regard to leading a reader to a conclusion, I offer my own personal WP:NOT:
While the plagiarism matter may be generating a substantial amount of internet traffic, due to its affecting the webcomic community (please forgive me if this is not the correct term), it has still remained ignored by all but a single serious media outlets, the Las Vegas Sun.
In that respect, I don't believe the plagiarism merits much in the article.
My challenge to the editors is to describe the issue in a single paragraph summarizing the issue, no more than five lines (on a typical browser window) not to exceed 150 words, using the guidelines outlined in our policies at WP:RS and WP:BLP.
The legal notice may still be something of concern, however, it did bring issues regarding this biography to light. While this individual seems to be notable to merit an article on Wikipedia, he's probably not notable enough to merit the length of article contained. In reading the latest talk page thread, I'm seeing a large number of good, positive remarks regarding this article. I have faith now, and am encouraged that my involvement going forward will be minimal.
Cary Bass demandez 13:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If it wasn't split between this article and Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them, I think we'd have a better/more substantial article. I think we need to include information on David & Goliath the company in here too, and as a company making tens of millions a year in sales, there's a lot out there. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 16:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Current articles:
Suggest merging and restructuring, to cut down on duplicate content, since practically every piece of information has been in at least two of the articles. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 16:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
From the plagiarism section of the article one would gather that there has been only that one incident of suspected plagiarism. There have actually been many (more so as the scandal grows), and it should be reflected in the text.-- 24.74.1.139 20:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe how the fact that Goldman is issuing lawsuits merits inclusion in this article. Also, I don't believe that miketyndall's site can be used as a reliable source. Cary Bass demandez 21:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been pointing out on a few outraged web comics forums that Wikipedia has to be really conservative about living bios, 'cos we've gotten so much crap about them of late. So mainstream press coverage is the sort of thing we need for the article - David Gerard 22:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
Why is there only one act of many noted in his entry? See the latest here Cowicide 14:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The article from the las vegas sun says that "Aside from a lightbulb, a bow and the word "please" in Goldman's painting, the images are almost identical. There's even an entry on Wikipedia.com that includes an image of Goldman's painting altered to look more like Kelly's." Huh? I can't see how this was altered. Or was this one of the older versions of the page? -- ISeeDeadPixels 22:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)
Would anyone object to adding Mike Tyndall's site as a relevant external link? It seems to be the central repository of plagiarism examples, and I don't think you can say it's "unreliable" given that a lot of the evidence is pictorial. Esn 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It's been taken off before because it's self-published, and therefore considered unreliable. Since it's the only source of many of the allegations it makes, we don't want to seem to endorse it. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 13:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The Tyndall site violates WP:RS. We can waste all our time and energy debating why it violates it (which has already been demonstrated in no uncertain terms), but ultimately it violates the policies of this project. Cary Bass demandez 12:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Maxa megalon 2000 01:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
That note is dated 25th of April. 213.10.112.111 18:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
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).
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand how Template:Update was being misused in the article. Personally, I'm waiting to update the article until someone lets us know if additional sources add to our allotment of words. -- Maxa megalon 2000 20:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
Re the blind ban on referencing blog-type sites like Mike Tyndall's in a bio, I wouldn't have a big problem with that if the rule were enforced equally in all articles. Wikipedia opens itself to (in my opinion well-founded) criticism for double standards if well-off American businessmen like Goldman are treated significantly differently than foreigners like Adnan Hajj.
MeteorMaker 06:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
For your information, I blocked
Peanutbutterthepanda (
talk ·
contribs),
Applebettyfromoklahoma (
talk ·
contribs),
Filezilla (
talk ·
contribs),
Jennazooje (
talk ·
contribs) Confirmed as being a single user. --
lucasbfr
talk
18:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)