Jump to content

Talk:Glenn Danzig/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Cleanup

The article needs some medium corrections. Lots of grammar and spelling errors.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.195.5 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 12 December 2005

Misfits reunion section rewrite

The entire section about the reunion of the Misfits, rumors that Glenn will leave music, etc. is horribly written. "The competition is exterminated."? What is that? I'd rewrite it myself, but I don't have the facts on that era of Glenn's career to do it properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.195.60 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 3 January 2006

Controversy Section

Gone. It doesn't improve, and just acts as a flame bait. Contoversy is what we want to avoid on the main page.Enzigel 14:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I see nothing wrong with the "debate" section as it currently stands. Like it or not, the controversy surrounding Glenn Danzig is an important factor that can not simply be ignored. As a die hard fan of Glenn and his music, I would prefer for the man to be remembered for the incredible music he's created, and not for stupid disagreements he's had with other bands. However, as this is meant to be an unbiased encyclopedia, I feel it it necessary to include such information. Skullord 23:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no "Debate" section in encyclopedias. If you want flame wars bring it up here in discussion, things agreed upon and backed by facts should be included. This is not fan page, nor space for promoting anonymous bands. Enzigel 20:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The controversy section should remain as it is widely known and discussed. However, I feel that it should be rewritten, as it seems biased in favor of Mr. Danzig. First off, it is well known that the arguement was over Glenn refusing to change his band's timeslot to accomidate the North Since Kings, hence ruining their chance to play. Also, it is strange, unplausable, and incorrect when it says that getting punched in the face didn't knock Glenn down, but getting hit by the guys backside did. It is also wrong when it says that Glenn recovered right away and was held back by people so that he wouldn't hurt the guy. In reality, Glenn gets hit and stays down on one knee for the duration of the video while his fans egg him on to fight the North Side Kings guy by saying things like "Kick his fat fuckin' ass!" Watch the video, it's all there. (Nathan Wakefield 20:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC))
    • I think it should be in there as well. Many Danzig fans see what they wanna see when watching that video and they don't like it when anything negative is written or said about Glenn. I am a huge Danzig fan, but a fan of truth as well... So I think it should stay in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.226.205 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 30 July 2006
  • As I said - there are forums if you want to debate who chalenged who, soup, vivian campbell, throat and nose surgeries, canibalism etc... Encyclopedia is no place for this kind of stuff. Enzigel 23:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've reverted the last two edits, which removed the sections about Danzigs voice change, and the physical altercations he's been involved in. There seems to be no good reason to remove this stuff as it's informative and verifiable. exolon 22:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Punk

I think this article is notably lacking the information regarding him being a founder of ConservativePunk.com.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.195.60 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 3 January 2006

  • I don't think he was a founder of ConservativePunk.com. The web site says "this site boasts conservatives from well-known artist Michale Graves of Gotham Road and former lead singer of the Misfits..." They are referring to Michale Graves, who sang for The Misfits in the late 1990s, not Glenn Danzig. I am removing the reference in the article. Please don't reinsert it without citing a credible source for the claim. dbtfztalk 07:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguate?

New to Wiki, not sure how to do it. When searching for "Danzig", I got Gdansk (Poland) with no opportunity to correct.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.187.53 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 2 May 2006

Why doesn't "Danzig" direct here? I find it hard to believe more people are looking up a Polish city than the man.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.48.96 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 June 2006

  • i believe the city of danzig is more widely known of than Glenn danzig Mikethezee 08:23, 22 July 2006
  • There is trouble with maintainers of Gdansk (the city) page, apparentlly they consider their town extremely important and Danzig the band extremely obscure.. :) We'll work on it, until then there is disambiguation link on top of the Gdansk page. Enzigel 23:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[UPDATE] Well, administrators consider the link on the Gdansk page visible enough :) Yeah, it doesn't seem fair, since most of other pages use direct link to the disambiguation pages giving visitors option to choose where they want to go. Danzig disambiguation page exists, but you'll have to find it using the Gdansk page, since they have link locked by administrators. If more visitors and contributors have problems with this, please leave comments here and we'll press admins for an unlock again...Enzigel 20:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Voice change?

Perhaps his voice change should be mentioned as well as the musical shift he did in the mid 90's. I am of course talking about the hoarsness he experienced due do to his use of the "cookie monster" growling screams he belted out live that damaged his vocal chords somewhat. His voice can no longer be described as "crooning" in any way and i think it should be mentioned.

  • I think that the whole voice change section makes it sound more significant than it is. The one thing that I feel definitly needs to be changed is calling Danzig's vocals "cookie monster". The term "cookie monster vocals" are usually only used to describe death metal vocals (angery, gutteral, and incomphrehendable). Glenn's are much more smooth and bluesy. (Nathan Wakefield 20:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC))
    • Listen to the way he sings on the live tracks of Demonsweatlive (excluding Sistinas). Fans of Danzig have, in jest, been calling that vocal style Glenn's "Cookie Monster" (or sometimes, "Muppet") voice for many years. The fact that death metal vocals are sometimes called that is not relevant. Glenn rarely uses that singing style on albums, its mostly something he does live, especially during the "How The Gods Kill" tour.
  • I had at one time included that in the article, but it was edited out by others and labeled as "vandalism". His vocal change seems to have occurred sometime in 1996. His voice was still "normal" when he recorded Blackacidevil (although on much of the album it was ran through several effect filters, songs such as "Sacrifice", "Come To Silver", and "Ashes", clearly shows that his voice was fully in tact). However, if you listen to any live recordings from the subsequent tour, Danzig's voice was extremely hoarse. Each year since that time it seems to have gotten better, although his voice will probably never sound like it did before. I've heard a from a pretty reliable source that his vocal change was due to a throat surgery, but that's never been verified. I know many people think he lost his voice due to his "Cookie Monster Style", but he used that prominently during the Danzig III tour. When he toured for 4p, he toned down that vocal style considerably, and his voice was in amazing form.71.205.86.9 08:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it should be mentioned, it is not vandalism at all, his voice change must have had an influence on his music. If it is worth mentioning his famous crooning style in the beginning of the article, it is worth mentioning the change at the end of it as well. I have never heard about any throat surgery, that is very interesting. Can you eloborate on this? Where did you hear this? Someone has now added the "voice change"-thing to the article. It is poorly written though and needs an edit.
      • OK, I've edited that portion of the article, feel free to refine it. As for the throat surgery, I'm sorry, but I heard about it six years ago, and I don't remember any more details, so I didn't bother to include it in the article.71.205.86.9 01:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
        • O.k, thanks anyway. If it is relevant to mention his vocal style at the beginning of the article and then also explain how his music has changed over the years, it is relevant to mention his voice change as well. If anyone wants to delete this portion of the article, please give us a good explanation as to why, or I will personally put it back in again.
          • Can you quote sources mentioning his voice change or are you putting your opinion into the article? Enzigel 00:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Then I am deleting all mentions of vocal style and musical style if you can not use the music itself as proof. {{Subst:unsigned|83.248.228.252|20:30, 17 August 2006}
              • Man, no original research, no music as a proof, just indipendent reliable sources, I won't repeat this again.Enzigel 08:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
                • There are about as much sources for his hoarsness as for his crooning vocal style. Are you denying his voice change? God... No wonder everyone in every danzig related forum you are a member of hates your guts.

Artwork

The trivia comment about Danzig's "lifelong interest in art" says that he illustrated many of his bands' album covers. While this may technically be true, it's also exaggerating a little bit to call him an illustrator. The "Misfits skull" from that band's "Horror Business" LP is widely known to be a high-contrast copy of a still from the film serial "The Crimson Ghost." The Samhain/Danzig skull is traced from a cover of a Crystar the Crystal Warrior comic book. The "Evilive" EP cover is taken from the poster of a horror movie called The Undead. These are all more collages than true illustrations; they're no different than what just about every band in existence does for its flyers. Although you often hear references to Glenn's talent as an artist, I've never actually seen anything he's been credited with drawing.

It may also be worth noting that Glenn has a stake in a side business that buys and sells original art by comic book artists. I do not know the name of this business or what Glenn's exact involvement is, whether he is the sole owner and operates it himself or if he has partners. PCM2 20:32, 24 July 2006

  • The cover for November-Coming-Fire and Danzig 4p are both original works of his. He's also drawn a few covers for various limited edition verotik comics. At signings, Glenn is known to frequently sketch drawings for fans and numerous pictures of these drawings are floating around the internet. As for the Samhain/Danzig skull's origins, Glenn has said that in the very early 80's he sent marvel a portfolio of his drawings, as he was seeking to get involved in the comic business as an artist. Glenn says that the Samhain/Danzig skull was included in the portfolio, and although he was ultimately rejected by Marvel, he claims that several of his submitted drawings have found their way to into various Marvel comics, such as the skull on the cover of Crystar the Crystal Warrior. This information comes from one of the many interviews with Glenn that can be found at MisfitsCentral.com Skullord 07:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Criminal Charge

Where did this information about a criminal charge "for alleged defecation in public" come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.70.238 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 August 2006

  • From vandals :) Thanks for spotting that. The article itself has lots of inaccurate info, so keep that in mind while reading, in time it should clear up.Enzigel 22:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Enzigel re: Danzig

Your contributions are belying the nature of true journalism. You are acting like THE moderator of this article. You do not have sole ownership of this article. All steps must be taken to tone down any partiality whatsoever - be it from shameless fanboys like yourself, or the Glenn Danzig haters. This is a biographical article that in the true spirit of proper journalistic values requires a fair and balanced overview of the man. This means that as long as information is factual and relevant then it is appropriate. There is no slander to be involved. There is no false information to be bandied about. Sure, some claims need links, etc, to support the contribution, but you are not behaving in a rational mindset when you go around deleting and editing the article to suit your own subjective views of the subject matter. As a contributor, you should be actually DISCUSSING the flaws you find in the article and seeking other people's help in providing linkable references etc, and not just going around with a huge carrot up your ass like a Nazi bullying contributors around with your overtly one-sided edits and talking down to them.

I am furious with your behavior and the "talk" messages you leave others. You have flagrantly ignored the spirit of truthful journalism. Take a look, for instance, at the GG Allin article. Take note of how impartial and even-handed the whole article is, with everyone finally contributing in the right spirit to avoid false statements but everyone comfortable with truthfully portraying GG Allin in both his negative and positive lights.

You obviously have a deep love, perhaps obsessional, with Glenn Danzig. Never mind, that is your prerogative. He touched your artisitc soul and you feel like painting the man in a good light. Or, just removing any possible negative (whether factual or not). While this is admirable in your day to day life, it is not admirable in an encylopedic forum. There is a time and place for your Glenn Danzig worshipping and butt-kissing, and Wikipedia is not the right place for it.

Desist from your biasm, consult and sincerely discuss with all contributors. Otherwise, the only VANDAL here is you. If you continue to snub your nose at all this, I will take this matter further.

G.g. 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

      • Do you not understand the gist of this quoted rule in the "Biography of Living Persons" clause....."Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page". It means that negative material can be used as long as it is sourced and sourced well. For instance, the "caught on video" is sourced and sourced well. The Def Leopard incident has also been sourced, perhaps not so well on its own, but it is sourced. Therefore, there are grounds that stuff should stay. On that same page it also states that strict adherence to the following things must be observed...."Verifiability, Neutral point of view, No original research". Neutral Point of view - which also means toning down bias and allowing scope for the other voice to be heard too. So, I will reinstate what you deleted and before you go and delete it again, I suggest you discuss things with me and others on the discussion page, for however long it takes, until such time as an agreement is reached. In the meantime, when you notice poorly sourced "negative" references, you should be placing a tag beside the comments in question requesting references etc be placed, instead of deleting them. I hope this time that you consider these points more carefully than you did the last time. G.g. 15 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks for taking the time to at least read the policies and not insulting me :) As for the topic, I don't think you really perceive wikipedia as an encyclopedia, your comments seems to indicate that. As for NPOV policy, you'll notice I'm not the one that's forcing in the article Glenn's (or his fans) version of events. YOU are the one that is trying to force in YOUR version of events, and that version is of course, like all your other contributions and edits, aimed at making this article as slanderous as it can get. Besides it's obvious irrelevance to the article, it breaks every single content policy. You can't just say "hey, it's sourced well" and make it verifiable. You can't offer YOUR interpretation of video without breaching "no original research" policy. And as for biography policy you got it wrong. Negative data should be deleted from article, it won't be left lying around with a tag waiting for the references. Jimmy Wales explicitly said about that: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."Enzigel 08:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Explain to me how something factual like, "Although standing about 5'5", Glenn is a determined weight-lifter, etc etc"....explain how the 5'5" is SLANDEROUS. You have a watch-dog mentality looking out for the "typical" anti-Danzig comments, instead of taking everything on its own merits. Since when is a person's height a negative? What if he was 6'6"? That would somehow make it better for you would it? You wouldn't delete that. The way I wrote it factual and unbiased. Emphasizing that although relatively short-statured he is actually quite virile and strong and adept at martial arts etc etc. Yet you only take it as a red-flag to charge at and delete. Everything on its merits. How can you delete the statement about the controversy his music/lyrics/image has generated? It's not slanderous. It's factual, neither negatively nor positively connotated. It is not outside the spirit of the article (whether encylopedic or not) to mention that his lyrics/imagery which flirts with the satanic has caused its share of controversy. Why is that a negative? Does not Glenn himself and thru his music/lyrics and photos try to play on that dark satanic evil side? He does it positively, is comfortable with the image he projects. So how is mentioning the controversy that it generates something that should be deleted? How is the video a negative? Or slanderous? It is a note-worthy incident in his recent musical life, no different to discussing, for instance, the recent performance with an ex-Misfit member on stage. The way I wrote about the incident portrayed the whole thing honestly, unbiasedly, showing that it caused both Glenn and NSK bad press. The way you wrote it originally however, you lied, tried to tell the story differently from what happened while removing the link from it. That shows a deliberate attempt to be biased. Do you not see how absurd some of your reversions are? For instance, in your edit, you mention Glenn being a trained martial artist under Jeet Kune Do, founded by Bruce Lee. Not once, but twice, unneccessarily. So, in my edit, I deleted the second mention of Bruce Lee as it had already been established in the first mention, a few paragraphs above it. Yet you continue to revert this back to your edit mentioning Bruce Lee's name twice. There is no reasoning behind this. No negativity. No slander. Just a small clean-up. If you fail to understand that, fail to accept that other people can IMPROVE your own edits with minor clean-ups of how you've written something, then it only highlights this problem I'm discussing even more. Explain to me why mentioning that his dad was an ex-military man who was a strict disciplinarian is something ok for you. Where is the evidence for that? Where is the link? Prove it. That is as much unbacked up with supporting evidence as whoever mentioned he once got charged for defecating in public. Where's the watch-dog in you looking out for the false statements made about his family life? Where is the hurry to delete it or find a link for it? It could be looked at as a negative comment, as a slanderous comment. Where is the reference/link to back it up? Why is that ok for you allow? Meanwhile, mentioning his height or removing the second Bruce Lee or removing the Def Leopard reference is justifiable? Let us assume for the sake of argument, that it has been well-attested and often mentioned by Glenn that he drinks animal blood before every live show. Let us assume that because of this, and his confirmation of that fact, that it has caused him much controversy or mockery in his life. In your world, you would delete any such edit that included all this information and had quotable links from Glenn. Why would you do that? Why is it a negative that must be omitted? Can living people only be written about thru Rose-Colored glasses? Peruse the thousands of living persons biographies in Wikipedia - only you, only Glenn Danzig. If that hypothetical were a truth, well-documented, that is a valid piece of information. How about if there was a biography about a living person who's whole persona and life/career revolves around his statements that he is racist, wants to kill people, has been jailed many times, etc. In your bias'd mind you would delete the whole article because it was negative. Yet that is actually what that hypothetical man is - a negative, but openly comfortable with the notoriety that his life is. In fact, there is so much "positive" stuff or mere trivia in the current Danzig article that you have written and do not delete that has NOT been supported with links, references, etc. Unless you find them, then there are grounds for them being deleted by me or whomever else sees fit to keep the article 100% water-tight from rumor, innuendo, hear-say, etc. You seem quite content allowing so much positive hear-say that you yourself write. How convenient of you. If you continue to not take everything on its merits, if you continue to not back up your positively spun hear-says and rumors, if you continue to delete supported factual IMPARTIAL statements, if you continue to subjectively construe certain info as "negative" when its actually positively embraced by the man himself....then I will come down even stricter on this article, stripping it down to its barest of information that cannot be disputed. Scant mentions of just the most important things about him - no negative, no positive. No allowance for ANY hear-say or rumor whether its positive or negative. OR....perhaps you could learn to work with others in this article who are only trying to flesh out the life and times of Glenn Danzig. G.g. 17 August 2006
    • Well, one thing at the time :) Your height info. It's not about THE BAD WAY you wrote it: "although he's 5'5"" - imputing YOU have some presumption that people with 5'5" are challenged for lifting weights. It's not even about my knowledge that you put this in article on purpose, as it's known joke among "antiGlenn" circles. It's about the fact that he's not 5'5" and I happen to know that, because I saw him in person a zillion times. So I challenge you - give me your valid source that he's 5'5" and we'll keep that as info. As for the Bruce Lee edit you were right to remove second occurrence, sorry, I didn't notice that in my revert. About all other data. I hope you READ THE POLICIES. You don't insert unproven negative facts about living persons. Period. Because tomorrow wikipedia will be on the cd, and person will buy cd, and see your slander, and sue wikipedia to prove the slander, and off wikipedia goes to the history. Why should I explain this all over and over just because you're too lazy to read policies? As for your threat about removing all data, try that and you'll be labeled as vandal and banned.Enzigel 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, there's your reference/source detailing his known height at 5'3". So, why the continued editing out? You asked for it, you got it. You saying "well I've seen him in person a zillion times" doesn't make it a valid dispute of his known/estimated height. G.g. 18 August 2006
  • Edit after edit, reversion after revision...do you notice what YOU and others listed as linkable references? The OneThirtyEight page and the IMDB page. Both sources that you THEN hypocritically claim are not reliable. If you're so adamant about that, why are you allowing references to IMDB and 138 then?!!! Much of what you have written yourself or allowed in edits is NOT reliable, or is overly-glorfying. Yet you maintain their existance in your Reversions. You think/believe you are 100% in the right, but you are not. I don't claim to be 100% right, but you mistakenly think what YOU allow/edit/revert is gospel according to Enzigel. Truth be known, there is still far far more about this article in either your reversion or mine, that needs serious work on to make it more reputable article. Including all the stuff you yourself write and source. So just be aware of your hypocrisies and errors. I am always open to hearing mine. G.g. 18 August 2006
    • Those are external links, not references, hope you know the difference. And you didn't try to improve my stuff, you simply reverted it over and over again. For that you got reported. Enzigel 09:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, up until your recent reverting vandalism, every edit i made the last couple of days, was intended to improve upon previous entries. Rewording things, reorganizing stuff, providing links/references. But once you started reverting constantly DESPITE your false agreement to compromize, your intentions proved to be vandalistic. That is why you forced me to revert constantly. Because you did it about 3 times in a row yourself. Look in the mirror. I bet you're itching to revert again asap. G.g. 18 August 2006
        • Luckily, there's no room for lying. You words here doesn't mean a thing. There is undeletable history proving that you're the one that has been violating EVERY single wikipedia content policy. As for your accusations, I dare you to back up any of your lies by reporting me and presenting history pages of my vandalistic behaviour. Prove any of my violations of policy now, and let the administrators judge.Enzigel 10:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Enzigel - Latest edit by G.g.

  • I have taken much into consideration of what your pov is and what you stress. Can you do the same in return? I am very objective and always try my best to contribute well, not poorly, to all articles. My latest edit of the article, therefore, was intended to overall improve the grammar and sentence structure of everything. It also intended to tone down any seemingly biased pro or anti Glenn comments, or the WAY they were worded previously. It also intended to find a more agreeable way for you and for me (and others) to flesh out the man without crossing the lines you and the NPOV's have drawn. I strongly urge you to actually sincerely read my latest edit, taking it on its merits, and finding it to your approval and NPOV approval. If you delete anything in future, please explain clearly and genuinely why in this Discussion topic, because I am going to persist to continue to re-write whatever got deleted in order to qualify it within the NPOV clauses and your attitude. Please do not consider me or my contributions as vandalistic in the process. That would just be untrue. I am TRYING to contribute and flesh out a subject matter within the rules, but also that avoids bias or falseness. Falseness can often come from the Danzig haters, making up or exaggerating stuff. But it also can come from the Danzig-lovers, making up or exaggerating stuff. Therefore, there are certain sentences or paragraphs that I have newly written, which I am sure you MAY or WILL find disagreeable. However, again I strongly urge you to consider that I am not trying to fabricate a false picture of the man, but actually paint a portrait of the actual man, the factual man, the factual life. With the whole Def Leopard/NSK thing, note that I have totally re-written it and removed the links etc. My reasoning was that as part of the "legacy" of Danzig, something has to be said, something can be said, within NPOV, that mentions/discusses the controversial nature or provocative nature of Glenn. Part of any biography on Glenn would have to mention in passing the controversial side, as long as it isn't libel. The way I have handled the whole issue I think achieves this. If you can at least sincerely read those edits in question, taking them on their merit, understanding the gist of what I'm saying, finding no NPOV break-down in them, then hopefully you could accept their right to stay undeleted in the article. As in, a sense of compromize. G.g. 17 August 2006
  • I am very grateful you considered resolving this by compromise. You'll notice several changes I made, and some will probably annoy you, but we can resolve it in time. As for NSK incident, you did not only rewrite it nicely, but you went to the other side and made it very "glenn-friendly". The reason I deleted it now is that I don't see any value of it but promoting the NSK. And I certainly don't agree it fits in the Legacy section, more into trivia, like all other fights he's known to be in. In other words, I don't mind this edit at all, but think we should rewrite it a little still. As for my other new edits, they are more of a factual nature, I can substantiate all my edits in time, don't think this is "Glenn Danzig worshipping and butt-kissing" fan rewrite :)Enzigel 22:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest Reversions by Enzigel

  • Seriously, no offense, but the edits after my last effort weren't that good. Instead of compromizing you went the other way. Quick run down of my complaints....1) The whole melodic lion-like paragraph and wrongful satanic statement was disgustingly fanboyistic. Putting links in doesn't justify it. You could find a thousand internet articles that claim Glenn is God etc, but that doesn't make it valid. NPOV says unsourced or poorly sourced negative. Where's your NPOV banner for sourced or poorly sourced overly-positive glorification? Disgraceful paragraph.....2) I left out the "stubborn attitude maintaining a steady job" part because I guess it's just useless trivia really. Perhaps if there was a good source for it it would actually contribute better to the article BECAUSE it would give some background on the whole Danzig persona, the clashes etc.....3) The "in 1983" bit about the disbanding of Misfits and the "in 1987" bit about Samhain/Danzig. Why would you consistently keep reverting my "two albums" to your "two FULL albums"? How is an album unfull as opposed to a full album? Reverting stuff like this is just childish. Also, it is true that Glenn sought to disband Misfits, but were legally allowed to continue performing, and that this was the reason why Samhain changed to 'Danzig', in order to prevent a recurrence, now that a major label could make them bigger. It's also true that the band members were contractually aware they had no legal rights to the songs etc. If you insist on ME giving YOU time to source all your Danzig-glorification edits, that is just laughable that you would delete true factual info that also has sources that can be referenced. Disgraceful deletion it was.....4) Same with the "devoted his FULL attention to another band project" paragraph. Again, childish edit reversions by you. Literally childish. My edit is a grammatical improvement of your edit, yours is just a revert for the sake of it as you don't actually try to improve it when reverting it. As though no one but you can write it better or dare touch it. Disgraceful.......5) Same again with your reversions about "Mother". Danzig the band reached the height of its popularity. Instead you insist on MORE glorification of the man. No difference to say Danzig the band reached the height of their fame with Mother. But you reverting it shows the same thing as point 3 and point 4.......6) I leftout the whole NSK etc thing, both to compromize and I guess it's sensationalistic. However, something should be mentioned about his abrasive macho image that clashes with others, that he does flirt with the satanic in his imagery lyrics etc and the controversies of that have followed his career. It is not an attempt at slander, it's not even negative. It's just matter of fact fleshing out.........7) COMPROMIZE? HA! You allowed some stuff, appreciative of the effort I did, but then you went ballistic with your one-sided edits etc. Do you cheat everyone you 'compromize' with? G.g. 17 August 2006
  • Check out this link [1] for the kind of article that Wikipedia's biography should more resemble. The depth, scope and balance of it. Fleshing the man out, providing both sides of the subject matter within good journalism. This Wikipedia article is a shambles compared to it. It's skeletal and deprived of even-handedness due to rail-roading edits and pro-Glenn biases that only undermine the article's integrity. G.g. 17 August 2006
    • Yeah, voice section sounds glorifying, but it is NOT POURLY SOURCED. It is a thing written about Glenn, like it or not. And no, I didn't give links to internet articles the way you do, but to prominent music paper magazines. And I will continue to insist, not just because it's true (and almost all relevant reviews of Danzig WILL glorify his singing), but because of your silly edit of "borrows from blah blah" phrase that is not just false but unsourced too. About misfits/samhain section, your imdb cite and the link from answers com, it just proves that you don't know much about things that you're trying to contribute and are in fact more of a "google editor". Glenn DID DISBAND MISFITS. Period. They were HIS band, and HIS trademark, and ALL the songs were HIS. It was after the success of Danzig, Jerry came to beg for a trademark in a hope of leaving his knife-sharpening business and become a rock star. Court was another thing where Jerry was trying to get cut in loyalties after Danzig rising and Metallica covers boosted (until then inexistent) Misfits record sales. And Glenn said, ok you'll get trademark, but won't get any loyalties. That's why ALL the money from ALL the original misfits records go to Glenn, and why Misfits are not allowed to rerecord old stuff, just to play them live, like every regular cover band. And it was settled of the court, so there is no legal force involved at all. As for Samhain, it DID grow from Glenns side project so don't ask me WHY I revert stuff that you don't know nothing about.As for NSK thing I couldn't find it, did you post your edit?Enzigel 07:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment/question

The article as it stands as of right now looks good. I went back and looked a quite a few diffs and it looked like some stuff was added, reverted, put back, repeat, repeat, repeat. But as it stands right now, this looks good.

Now, what exactly was the issue that needed to be mediated? Short, sweet and to the point, please? CQJ 18:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC) From here out, in this section, italicized comments are from CQJ at 16:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

  • Your mediation is still needed, CQJ. Perhaps a dose of your input can help settle this article and keep its contributors working together, not against each other. The short and to the point complaint is....Enzigel in the main contributes too much pro-Danzig glorification, and deletes well-sourced truthful facts or sourced "negative" (balanced) contributions/facts. His way or the highway. At heart, he stands behind the reasoning that nothing at all with a negative connotation can be written about Glenn Danzig under Biography of Living Persons. However, the NPOV does state only "unsourced or poorly sourced negatives" should be deleted. Now, I agree with NPOVs, but he or others take it way too far and spoil the integrity of the article. I'm just trying to tone down the glorification, their sly use of sourcing overly-positive links in order to get away with 'butt-kissing' the subject matter. If there's an NPOV for UNSOURCED negative comments, there should be an NPOV for SOURCED overly-positive glorification of subject matter as well. G.g. 17 August, 2006
    • You were not trying to tone down glorification, but to insert plain slander in the article, which is the reason I called for the mediator in the first place. The fact that I finally managed to get you to read the policies and abide to them, and the fact that I've said we can compromise, doesn't mean I will just let you rewrite it as you wish, to compensate for your wounded ego.Enzigel 06:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • You need the mediation, Enzigel. You need help. How is my edit slanderous? You just stating so doesn't make it so. It's clear to any neutral observer that my edit is more biographical. In fact, you are slandering me and my intentions with such an absurd attitude. You need to understand something - While I agree with NPOVs etc, and keeping within the boundaries of them, a biography seeks to tell flesh a story out with factual information. So, in regards to a topic like "satanistic" imagery, for instance, a true biography would mention the controversies factually and then mention the other side factually, with references from both sides of quoted interviews and respectable articles. There isn't a reversionist attitude to re-writing history/facts to suit someone's bias. That's not 'journalism', that's fanzine stuff. Also, if you revert the little childish stuff again, it really does show how insincere your intentions are with me, other contributors, and to the betterment of the article itself. I am not happy with you at the moment. G.g. 18 August 2006
        • Are you insulting me again? Here's you'r edit from 2 days ago "In 1993, backstage at an unspecified venue, Danzig yelled at the wife of Def Leppard's Vivian Campbell to "Get the fuck out of the way!" while carrying a bowl of soup, Danzig was kicked in the rear end and knocked down, dropping his soup. Joe Elliot and Vivian Campbell confirmed this story in an interview with MuchMusic, though did not disclose who did the actual kicking.". This is a slander and has no place in biography of the living person.
          • I didn't write that! Slowly but surely, where the article currently is now with my last known edit is heavy with my contribution. Previous edits where I included something doesn't mean I wrote the whole article or added those words in, other people do. You should know this, surely. People come and go and add bits and pieces, doesn't mean the last editor wrote it all. However, my very last edit I went over everything with a fine-tooth comb - that's why the whole NSK etc thing is no longer there!!!! G.g. 18 August 2006
            • Man, you reverted that part back in half a dosen times, insulting me on the way, despite my urges for you to read policy. NSK is no longer there because I didn't let you put it in, not because you went somewhere with fine comb or whatever.Enzigel 07:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Wrong! We had a clash, you emphasized certain NPOV things which I took on board, and after initially being a bit too blase with those first reversions, I COMPROMIZED, agreeing with you that it was too sensationalistic, though I did say that in future something should still be written which better alludes to his controversies etc. You didn't FORCE me, or get YOUR way. I COMPROMIZED. People can change and learn, like myself. Unfortunately, it seems you are unwilling to compromize, evidenced by many of your own reverts. G.g. 18 August 2006
                • Ok, so you learn, don't start revert wars over broken ego. I didn't revert you'r contribution, just edited and left you indication that those are all sourced edits, I don't have time to search each article just to satisfy you. Enzigel 08:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So Enzigel goes and reverts all the work in bettering the article, providing sources, links, references, and effort to work with him by compromizing. Again, including all the small grammatical stuff. It has to be HIS edit version and no one elses. If you're truly neutral, you would see his insincerity. G.g 18 August 2006
    • What grammatical stuff? I never, ever objected grammatic improvement, now you're plain lying. :( Enzigel 07:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't play ignorant. I mean totally reverting harmless paragraphs like the "two albums" to your "two full albums". And many other ones too long to mention. You not knowing which grammatical stuff SHOWS you're not even READING the edits I make, but just reverting them back to your last known one. Pathetic G.g. 18 August 2006
        • Just because you butcher whole paragraph and in my revert "two albums" change back to "two full albums" you think I have something against THAT particular phrase? Man, you must have a lot of time on your hands. And for a record, EP is album too, just in case you want to get smart with me again.Enzigel 07:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't butcher anything. I always seek to better the phrasing and wording of things. Also, there's no need to say FULL album, because EP is already mentioned in the same sentence of other work "one single, two albums, and an EP"...so derr, it's obvious. G.g. 18 August 2006
  • Enzigel, also, you need to actually provide linkable ability to those references you made. This is an internet forum, meaning people click stuff that's referenced to SEE the source. Who's got a copy of the 1992 LA Times lying around? This is the internet. You must provide a clickable link in order for it be viewed/referenced. Perhaps you can scan the articles in yourself and upload them....as I did with other articles in Wikipedia. Or maybe you can find those actual newspaper clippings in the online archives of those newspapers. But as it stands, they are still insufficiently referenced for an internet encyclopedia. G.g. 18 August 2006
    • WHAT?? Are you one to set wikipedia rules? I should break copiryghts to satisfy your ego and stop you from reverting article and talk pages? No way Hose, you'll get reported if you break 3 revert rule.Enzigel 08:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • You've reverted this article both in the past and recently, more times than can be counted. While you're reporting me, be sure to report yourself. By the way, it's spelled "Jose". G.g. 18 August 2006
        • Thanks for spelling correction. I did revert this article many times, mostly because of your agressive breaching of Biographies policy. But I never violated three revert rule, as can be seen and proven by the history.Enzigel 09:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Actually, up until your recent reverting vandalism, every edit i made the last couple of days, was intended to improve upon previous entries. Rewording things, reorganizing stuff, providing links/references. But once you started reverting constantly DESPITE your false agreement to compromize, your intentions proved to be vandalistic. That is why you forced me to revert constantly. Because you did it about 3 times in a row yourself. Look in the mirror. I bet you're itching to revert again asap. G.g. 18 August 2006
              • Yes, the reason was, like my attempts at organizing this page before, purely to try to streamling the debate so it follows on from the bottom in chronological order. Unfortunately, due to being not allowed by you to try to organize (BUT NOT EDIT OUT) the particular debate we've been having, I guess it has to stay a rambled mess. G.g. 18 August 2006
  • As for reversions....look, you started it by not sincerely compromizing, like you said you would. I guess you just humored me, huh. You only kept the stuff you liked that I wrote, even without references, so you kept it in. For instance, in one of your latest reversions, you deleted out the sourced height I wrote, but kept in the unsourced mention of his hair and eye color, his tattoo. Showing how you pick and choose fanzine type material to your liking. But, you would utterly revert all the good work I did in re-organizing and better wording other stuff that you had written which was over the top yet didn't diminish the gist of what you wrote. You just crossed the line, really. You didn't prove to be capable of compromizing on stuff that doesn't even betray the NPOV rules etc. Meanwhile, I actually honestly tried to compromize with you, thinking you MIGHT actually appreciate my efforts. I re-thought stuff you said, tried to find a better more balanced way of incorporating more flesh to the Glenn Danzig article. Yet off you go immediately automatically reverting my edits and/or deleting out the improvements to YOUR wording of things and/or keeping in the stuff I wrote speaking well of Glenn that you liked even though it lacked sources. It finally showed to me that you really aren't sincere with me or this article, but are turning into fanzine fluff. While I agree with NPOV, I really do, you just take it too far outside of its own allowances. You made yourself the NPOV authority somehow, falsely. G.g. 18 August 2006
  • My latest edit is an effort to show YOU where this article still needs a lot of improvement with all the stuff that you wrote and/or allow to exist. There's a wealth of citations needed, the article falls down due to the amount of glorfication too. It's not merely that glorifications need citations to make it acceptable, it's just that an even-handedness, an unbiased way of writing needs to done when mentioning anything - whether positive negative or matter-of-fact info. You just don't have enough journalistic skill, I'm sorry to tell you, to actually perform such a task. You have good intentions in your mind, not that I agree with all of them, but you just don't understand or don't have the writing/journalistic skills. This article couldn't hypothetically improve if you were the only contributor. You need others with more skill at writing and having a journalistic mentality. So, take the time before you inevitably start your reversions again when the 24-hrs is up, to actually absorb what I'm saying, and noting all the citations-needed that I left in the article. G.g. 18 August 2006
  • Oh, and by the way, you yourself have already broken the no 3 revert rule. 18th August 2006 at 6:26, at 7:13, at 7:35, and at 7:58. If you notice, previously to that, my last edit was the 'fine-tooth-comb' edit I did. Wasnt a revert. I reorganized, reworded, contributed citations and references, cleaned up some grammar and semantics. You immediately started the revert war. Totally reverting especially all the little finer touches I had done - hence the insincerity of your "compromize". You therefore showed yourself to be a vandal - a vandal of the glorifying-Glenn type. I am not an anti-Glenn person at all. I don't know why you believe anyone who doesn't conform to your attitude suddenly makes them a Glenn-hater. I have been even-handed. It's true i WANT to include more reference or discussion to the "other side" of the topic, but not in a slanderous way at all. I may have let other people's slanderous contributions slip by, but that's because I'm not armed and seated at my desk 24/7. But the last couple of days, I have find the time to try to improve this article by fleshing it out more in an even-handed manner. Unfortunately, you just don't seem to accept that even though it's obvious I am being very open with you in this discussion page. G.g. 18 August 2006
    • Are you trying to spam this page to oblivion with your comments? One section is enough, get your thoughts coherent and don't waste so much of discussion space. I don't approve of your reverts to my edits, so I'll wait for a admin to solve it. When it's finished, all false data you entered into article, and all the damage you caused in this short period of time should be undone.Enzigel 12:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't be so sure that you'll get your way 100%. The vandal here has been you. Admin are not your friends. They are impartial, unlike you. They'll see where you've done plenty wrong too. Also, how hypocritical that you accuse me of editing the discussion page, when behind my back you actually "ASSUME" I said something and try to actually edit IN an attributed quote on me. Hypocrite. G.g. 18 August 2006
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Danzig/Archive_2&oldid=1136767083"