User talk:Enzigel/Archive

Blackest of the Black Tour

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Blackest of The Black, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.blackestoftheblack.com/history.html. As a copyright violation, Blackest of The Black appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Blackest of The Black has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Blackest of The Black. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Blackest of The Black, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia.

-- Punkmorten 21:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Glenn Danzig talk page

Enzigel, I have reverted your changes to the Glenn Danzig disscussion page, in the future please do not blank talk pages. If you are concerned about the size of a page, please use the archive feature to place old disscussions in a seperate article, so other users can access them for research. Thanks, Avador 01:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement Belgrade

You may wish to vote for Belgrade at the Article Improvement Drive page, here. --estavisti 21:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello! I invite you to join the WikiProject Serbia. All the best, --serbiana - talk 02:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't blank sections of talk pages

Hi, please don't blank sections of talk pages (specifically on the Glenn Danzig article), this makes it hard for everyone to discuss the article properly if things are removed. I'm going to jump out on a limb here and assume that you're a major fan of Glenn Danzig, and you're objecting to the inclusion of anything in the article that might show him in a less than flattering light. We operate on wikipedia on a 'Neutral Point of View' policy. This means that both positive and negative facts about a subject are included, we don't discriminate either way. If you object to something being included, then the way to go is to enter into discussion with the other editor(s), and try and reach a compromise everyone is happy with. In that vein, I'm going to restore the sections in the Danzig article regarding the fights and his voice. A change in vocal style is relevant, though I can see an argument that outright speculation as to the cause isn't, and cites and sources are important there. As to the fights, with the Campbell one especially, this created a lot of coverage at the time in the music press, mostly because of the image differences. (Dark Metal God vs Fluffy Soft Rocker, FSR wins type thing). I look forward to discussing the best way to incorporate everything relevant into the article with you, and hopefully we can reach a working consensus there. exolon 22:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• My sincere apologies - I totally misread the edit summary, and didn't realise you'd only moved the edit! Please completely ignore this post, it was based on a completely inaccurate perception on my part, I apologise again. exolon 22:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Also, looks like the section about the Campbell fight got accidentally removed by your vandal revert (the edit history of the article is getting a bit convoluted) so I'll put that back in now. If I've offended you in any way, I apologise. exolon 23:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • Well that section was and will be deleted :) I agree on the NPOV policy we should enforce and I suggest you are the one that doesn't confirm to it. Your contributions are obviously biased toward inclusion of negative material from untrusted sources. There are three more content policies besides NPOV and those sections don't abide to them: Verifiability, No original research and Biographies of living persons. I will presume you're not one of the Jerry Only/NSK/Def Leppard guys and that you really want to contribute the valuable info. Fact is, there is no reliable material about those events and using the wikipedia standards, those sections won't be included. And think about it, of course there is Glenn Danzig side of story, even more published and verifiable, and lots of fans eyewitness stories and researches. But , it would be serious breach of wikipedia policies to include such data, so I hope you understand the similar reason for deletetion of your section. Enzigel 19:29, 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)

• • Well insulting me won't get you anywhere. Please read wikipedia content policies, esspecially Verifiability, No original research and Biographies of living persons. Once more, this is not a journal, we don't need "spirit of truthful journalism", this is encyclopedia. Continue your vandal edits and you'll get reported.Enzigel 21:38, 15 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)

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 mindless fan rewrites :)Enzigel 22:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest Reversions by Enzigel

• 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
  • I WARN YOU FOR THE LAST TIME VANDAL! Don't delete discussions!! Especially not from my talk page.Enzigel 17:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection and other matters at Glenn Danzig

After the latest exchange at the page and related talk, I've had the article protected. I've also summarily archived the talk page, so we're starting totally new and fresh. I expect both of you to visit the Mediation Cabal case page at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-16 Glenn Danzig and sign the gentleman's agreement titled 'Standards for Informal Mediation' as soon as possible, and I will be waiting to do anything else on the article until that is accomplished.

I expect any and all editors taking part in a mediation with me to conduct themselves as gentlemen and as adults, and that means following Wikipedia policy. I have taken this action to head off another edit war and future administrator action against either of you, and I hope you understand that I am looking out for both of your best interests in this case. However, should this behavior continue, I can guarantee administrator enforcement against either one or both of you, and I do not recommend continuing in the manner that you both have conducted yourselves within the last 24 hours. I am sorry to be so harsh and to the point, but there are plenty other Wikipedians that need Mediation Cabal assistance at this time, and my time is limited to those who A) need and B) will benefit most from my assistance.

Thank you. Please sign the gentleman's agreement as soon as you can. CQJ 16:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)