Talk:Glenn Danzig/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CQJ's comments

Knock it off. Right now. I asked for a short explanation of the facts at hand, not this trundled out crap where you both basically fought back and forth for, oh, let's see...about four hours. So, it would appear that we're going to have to work the structured approach on this case since the loose, seat-of the pants style isn't going to work. You both need to visit the Mediation Cabal case page before I'll even lift another finger on this one and familiarize yourselves with Wikipedia policy. No more spamming my talk page, no more spamming this page, no more spamming the case page. This argument is going to effectively end right now before either of you two draw an administrator's attention here, and then there will be nothing that I can do to help either side of the issue except say "See, you should have followed my advice and kept it short, instead of starting another reversion war laden with personal attacks and incivility."

CQJ 15:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell who is doing what after the last edit series. So I've had the article protected to stop you and him from going back and forth. Now, as to the "his way or the highway thing", aren't you as guilty as he is? I don't find many people in violation of WP:3RR who aren't as guilty of edit warring as the next editor. By the way, telling other editors that they need help is a personal attack, directly against the spirit of WP:NPA, and this is your first and only warning in those regards. Don't let it happen again, please, because as the attacks continue to get worse, that increases your chances of ending up in Arbitration, which is a no-win situation to begin with. The article you pointed me to, G.g., on answers, is hardly NPOV or in line with our style. Nor are we a journalistic source - this is an encyclopedia. In addition, some of the edits you've contributed are as "fanzine" as some of the stuff that Enzigel's added. So let's knock that one off right now.

Other than that, I'm going to take the following action.

  1. I'm summarily archiving this entire page. It's obvious to me that you've both turned it into a rant for your own POV or edit wars, and the rest of the community, myself included, can't follow it.
  2. The page is protected, and I'm not contacting the protecting administrator to have it unlocked until you both show me that you're willing to play like big boys, and not like schoolyard children.
  3. I don't recommend continuing in edit wars, incivility, or personal attacks. Those actions will land you where you don't want to go.
  4. And I'm holding off doing anything else with this article until you both go to the MedCab case page and sign a gentleman's agreement to stop doing exactly what you've been doing. Call me strange, call me crazy, but there's no other mediator who will even consider touching this case with a ten foot pole if it's locked into an edit war and a textbook case of incivility, and if this action continues, you will be looking at the receiving end of administrator's enforcement action.


My justification for these actions is WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. CQJ 16:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

His supposed Satanic ways

I only know more of his early stuff and some of later music sound very anti christian. It is interesting to think he part italian and was raised protestant and not catholic. What are other thoughs on this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.146.14 (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected

After reviewing the last set of contributions, I've had the article reviewed by an administrator and full-protected. That means that no one but an administrator may make changes to the article, and whatever version of the article that is protected is not endorsed. I'll have the protection maintained until we make some headway here or at the case page. CQJ 16:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The page has been edited to have the incorrect songs.

Could someone remove the various links in this article, where the word "Danzig" links to the article for Gdańsk, Poland? Biozombie (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What I See

Here's what I see in the current form of the Danzig article. I don't expect oral arguments, so Wikilawyering at this time isn't appropriate:

  1. The citation tags seems to be a disruption along the lines of WP:POINT Is there a need for so much citation?
  2. Some of the language in the article seems to be anecdotic rather than factual, yet this alone doesn't call for the citation tags. We need to work on this.
  3. Fansites are out. They're WP:OR and fail WP:V.

Perhaps what I need to do is move this standing copy of the article over to my sandbox, crank on it for a few days, and then have you both look at it? CQJ 17:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think cites are needed at all. But I'm not sure if any of my edits will stay if i don't search source in a magazine. Hell, they don't stay even if I do find source. As for sandbox, I agree, hope you will consider objections I had in my last edit.Enzigel 18:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


Comments by G.g.

  • This article should remain locked and in the protection of Admin. Let them rewrite the article to meet Feature Article status so that it can never be tampered with again or collapse into revert wars. This isn't the first time this has happened and will happen again. G.g. 14:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
That's the nature of having an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". If we full or semi-protected any article that had been in a repetitive edit war, at least 50% of the encyclopedia would be locked down, defeating the purpose it was intended for.
My goal is to work through the differences that are here, unlock the article, and move on to the next case as expediently as possible without any more administrator action taking place so it could be maintained to FA. More comments on the case page. CQJ 18:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a sandbox copy of this article that I've cleaned up a bit. It's located here. There are some other ground rules that I'd like to establish on this sandbox version, and I'll copy/paste this to the case page so everyone involved sees it.

  1. Make one edit at a time. Make your edit, include your rationale in the summary, and go to the case page if you can't explain it well enough so I and the other party can see what your thinking is. If you'd like to change more than one thing, please do so over a series of edits, not just in one edit. Each edit should have a corresponding summary.
  2. Number all of your edits. Otherwise, we'll have to use diff numbers to refer to particular edits. What I recommend is like (G.g edit #1 - blah blah blah) or (CQJ edit #4 - blah blah blah).
  3. Once the other guy has made an edit, don't revert it automatically. Go to the case page and propose your change to the edit or say "Hey, that looks good. Let's move on".

We'll move through the article like this, and once you guys agree on it, then we'll cut and paste it back into the Danzig article and have this taken care of in no time. Thanks for your time. CQJ 19:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


Resolved

Big thanks to Engizel and G.g. for their hard work on resolving their differences and taking the next step on cleaning up the article. The protecting administrator will be around shortly to unlock the page, and the compromise version of the content will be moved back here after that is accomplished. CQJ 14:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The compromise content is in place. Thanks to both parties for their hard work. CQJ 01:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

The official policy of Wikipedia is that "Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Relevant notable sourced claims should be woven into the article. Trivia can go on the talk page as a staging ground. Eventualism is deprecated on BLP articles. please read WP:Biographies_of_living_persons The source code is still there, try to work some of the points into the article if they are notable, but how someone punched soemone else is hardly encylopedic

I am fully aware that there was an editor dispute regarding the information about Danzig's alleged incidents with Def Leppard and North Side Kings. I see what text came as a result of numerous editors, and I have to say, I did not like what I read. I have restored my preferred version of the information, but making it as non-POV as I possibly can. I have no POV on the matter, so I tried to reflect that in the text. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The current version: "sucker puch to the blindside of his face" is POV. Not only does it make no sense (the two individuals were facing each other...what blindside?) it does not show what the video shows. Danzig shoved the singer of North Side Kings and got hit in return. Write it as it happened.


I take some issue with the X-Men movie section. The ONLY info on this is out of GLENN'S MOUTH. Aside from his tendency to be a pompous egotist who will make stuff up, I have also seen NOTHING quoted from anyone related to the films to support his claims. All I have been able to find is that Bryan Singer wanted Hugh Jackman from the start(and I can't even find anything indicating they pulled a Jack Nicholson/Robin Williams with him to get Jackman to sign). THIS is why I take issue with it. And unless someone can dig up some info otherwise- a Singer, DeSanto or other interview I think it should be removed. If his claims can not be backed up by those involved with the film then he is an outright liar. Seriously, if Glenn just said he can shoot heat rays from his eyes without displaying the ability, would you take that as solid proof he could? No sane person would and I think the same applies here.206.162.192.39 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

featuring the north side kings on here and def leppard is dumb because the def lepperd thing danzig says is a lie and since this is his page why is def lepperd getting mentioned when it's not even true it's just a story what's the point of it being on here

the north side kings danzig confrontation has nothing to do with his accomplishments? why is it on here, this just seems like it's meant to give north side kings publicity, it's a video that's been edited, it begins in the middle of an argument, we can't see what happens first like the part where danzig is signing autographs for the fans, or how danzig put on a two hour set and being that danzig is over fifty years old this north side king guy isn't that confrontational attacking an old legend after he puts on a show. this video never made the news, online message boards and forums and columns though that's not really making the news that's just being talked about online, these controversies aren't relivent to danzig i'm going to erase them both


Bryan Singer, director of the first two X-Men movies, spoke to a number of actors about the role. He says Russell Crowe was too exhausted after playing a similar role in Gladiator; that the role didn't appeal to Edward Norton; and that Fox themselves ruled out Mel Gibson as being too expensive. In 1999, SFX magazine spoke to Keanu Reeves, who told the publication he didn't feel he was right for the role.

At one point in the 1990s, Glenn Danzig was approached to play Wolverine in Ad Hoc Committee archives.org X-Men film, because he bore an uncanny resemblance to the character, as well as being the same height as Wolverine, and very muscular. However, he had to decline, due to the fact that the shooting for the film would force him to put a halt to touring with his band for nine months.[67]


the northside kings incident and def leopard incident do not belong here because this is not the def leopard page or the north side kings page. this is an article about glenn danzig and his accomplishments. the def leopard incident does not belong here because it is not controversal or means anything or is it significant. the north side kings video is a publicity stunt done by the north side kings and their publicity stunts do not belong on a danzig article, save it for north side kings and def leopard articles. i'm removing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.225.246 (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How is Glenn Danzig's last name pronounced? Is it like the German pronunciation? Peter O. (Talk) 00:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • "dan" rhymes with "fan", "zig" pronounced like in "zig-zag" or "Ziggy." At least, as far as I've always heard it. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I've always heard it pronounced Dan (as in sounds like Darn) Zig (zigzag) Differs if you are american or not though. Wikiphreak 09:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I Think "Danzig" is supposed to sound like that city in Poland...

That would be "Dahn-tsick", or so I figure... Michael 16:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Tell that to Glenn then. There shouldn't be any confusion here, the guy is pretty famous in punk and metal. It is pronounced Dan (like the name), and zig (like zig zag)
He did his own voice on an episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force and referred to himself as "Dan-Zig".--Dmz5 04:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please lock this article

It seems that no matter how many times i correct vandalism, it becomes re-vandalized a short time after 68.77.42.10 06:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Removed vandalism 68.77.42.10 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Corrected more vandalism - this page needs a good once-over to remove all of it. Locking might not be a bad idea until then. Minvaren 21:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You can look it up on Frightmare's myspace page that they covered Danzig. It is a better band to note than "My Chemical Romance" Bold text--Jt Milos

On Danzig's main 1997 bio

On his website, it states that he has written a song for "Kenneth Hister". --Richard James Liberto 02:29, 1 July 2007

Name at birth?

According to last.fm, he was born Glenn Anzalone, can anyone confirm? If so, i believe that this would be an important addition to the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainoats84 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

http://freenet-homepage.de/misfits374/anzalone.gif look into that to find what you need... good for a laugh, also Boredom Swells (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In a 1983 video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egB4S5DlJw8 ) he calls himself Glenn Whitman, was this the only time he used this name or did he use it other times? I was thinking this was his real name, but it looks like it wasn't. If he used it a few times was it in reference to Walt Whitman? --Billy Nair (talk) 07:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


He said "Slim Whitman"...a refrence to the singer of the same name.

Voice type

Baritone? Clearly he sings in a lower range on 'Mother', and says he has a bassy voice, but listen to Static Age. The last verse on Some Kinda Hate? Attitude. Listen to the chorus on Angelfuck! How is a baritone gonna sing that high? Dude has got to be an operatic tenor. 170.215.136.62 (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Years Active/Career (1977)

Introtext says "(...)career beginning in the mid-1960s(...)". When he was 10 years old??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.87.70.130 (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good question. Looks like he started playing in a band when he was about 10 years old. Doesn't sound too reasonable to me. Can anybody confirm that? Otherwise we should delete that passage. By the way, Britney Spears startet her career on the television series "The Mickey Mouse Club". Maybe Glenn...ah...forget about it...--80.133.218.235 (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
He was a drum tech for a band when he was 11. rzrscm (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger from Glenn Danzig & the Power and Fury Orchestra

Do it. The stub is non-notable and can easily be merged here. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If you mean that the band is non-notable, I disagree. They meet WP:MUSICBIO by 1) being "an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians", and 2) having "performed music for a work of media that is notable" (ie. the film Less Than Zero). I'm going to remove the merge tags in a few days if nobody opposes. Jafeluv (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I am saying that the article (stub) has multiple issues, including lack notability as evidenced by the extremely low level of activity in its edit history, but also including lack of references and insufficient coverage of its topic. Regardless of the band's notability (such as it may be), the article does nothing to establish notability. Another user thought the article was non-notable enough to tag it as such a year ago and no one has improved it since. That suggests to me that the reader would be better served being redirected to a section here at Glenn Danzig than being directed to a page with nothing but a paragraph. If you can improve the article enough to establish notability in independent reliable sources, then by all means please do, but I respectfully request that you leave all tags in place until these improvements are completed. Thank you for the heads up, by the way. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I won't touch the tags until the issues have been fixed. I'll see if I can find some references for the article. Jafeluv (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm back. Ok, now I see what you meant by the non-notability of the band. They aren't even covered in some of the more detailed biographies of Glenn Danzig. The best I could come up with is this, which contains exactly one sentence about the band. So I guess a merger is in order then. Jafeluv (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 Merged here. Jafeluv (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Knockout video

Considering the massive popularity of the internet meme, it seems disingenuous to strike any mention of it from the article. It's mentioned in numerous third-party publications and is arguably now considered one of the most notable incidents of Danzig's career. If anything, it deserves its own section. No doubt at least 100 times more people have viewed that video than bought any of the last few albums the article drones on about...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.69.226 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 30 April 2010

Glenn is my dream guy. I adore everyting about him eventhough he is quite a bit older than me. Why are you all focusing on the negative that happens? How would you like it if he found something that you did in your life and harped on it. I dont know about you but I wouldnt like it! It should be about his music and accomplishments and thats it. Sorry if I hurt anyones feelings or upset anyone but could you take him? Jellous much!!!!! Tammie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.207.60.104 (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not notable in the least...It has nothing to do with his career. There isn't anything to encyclopedic to say about it, and the "third-party publications" that mention it simply state what appears to have happened from the video, therefore aren't reliable. He wasn't "knocked out", anyway...That's pure, incorrect, speculation...He was hit, crowded by people, and the guy who hit him was taken by security before Danzig could react. rzrscm (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The FAQ above covers this. It explains why this is not covered in the article. It is not covered, it is not notable, it is not verifiable and Wikipedia is not a scandal rag tabloid. If people want to read about stupid backstage scuffles they can read the "numerous third-party publications". It will not be added here. I also deleted the stupid insults posted above, likely by associates of the bans who are desperately trying to push this video all over the place in hopes of publicizing their awful band that nobody cares about. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Satanist Ideologies

Danzig may or may not be a Satanist but to base the claim that he is on the fact that he supports "quests for knowledge and individual freedom" seems specious at best and actually quite ridiculous. I don't think these are "Satanist ideologies" and if they are, they're certainly not strictly Satanist ideologies and wouldn't warrant him being called a Satanist any more than Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein could be called Satanists because they also support the quest for knowledge and individual freedom.

Let's remove the ridiculous sentence about "quests for knowledge and individual freedom" and try to replace it with reasonable evidence if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.132.34 (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the statement. It doesn't state that he is a Satanist. It states that he isn't a Satanist, but he supports Satanic ideologies. It doesn't need to be removed because he said it himself in an interview and it's sourced.
Sure, they're not strictly Satanic ideologies, but they are Satanic ideologies. He supports the philosophical ideas, not the "religion" itself.
rzrscm (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
There's really no reason to use quotation marks, unless there is a doubt that Satanism is indeed a religion. the_undertow talk 12:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
There's no doubt that it's a religion...I don't know what you're talking about, though. rzrscm (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The quest for knowledge actually is an occult concept, The Holy Mountain concept. You start as the Fool in the Tarot deck, and go on your journey gathering knowledge. When you get to the top, you're an awesome being. A Magickal transformation, Alchemy, turning lead into gold, so to speak.
But yes, I could understand why this would be confusing as to how that could be a religious concept, because EVERYONE does that. You're born, you learn, you get smarter, you figure out how to put a roof over your head & food in your mouth and then you get better at it; everyone does that so what's the big deal? In my personal opinion it's like Lucifer showing up at xmas and putting a label from himself on a present someone else brought. "Yeah, that one's from me". After all he IS the trickster, and the Holy Mountain concept to me, is himself trying to take credit for something that comes naturally. The occult symbolism and knowledge is lot more interesting than community college though, and I can fully understand why someone would choose that path (even if it was chosen superficially, like based on curing boredom or something). Hanz ofbyotch (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't doubting that it was a religious concept...I've been studying different Satanic ideologies since I was 13; my use of quotes was due in part to the fact that there are a large number of different Satanic beliefs, so Satanism doesn't describe just one set of religious beliefs. I've been following the left-hand path for years now, and I wouldn't call myself a Satanist because Satanism only fits into the grand scheme of things for me as a metaphorical concept with no legitimate occult backbone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzrscm (talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Danzig and Verotik comics

Why doesn't the page mention Danzigs comic books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.80.61 (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Danzig

Any ideas where his pseudonym "Danzig" came from? If so, it might be worth mentioning in the text. --79.196.230.30 (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Management and Signing

One idea for contributions would be Glen Danzig's early management. The early managers and distributors who worked with him like Rocky Caiafa, etc. This is also worth mentioning in the text. 208.65.192.1 (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Glenn Danzig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Glenn Danzig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glenn Danzig. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Glenn Danzig. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Heavy what music?

"Danzig began listening to heavy music at an early age..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.161.108 (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glenn Danzig. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Ge Rouge

"He is currently working on a film version of the Verotik comic Ge Rouge." What happened to that film anyway? "Currently"? The source is eight years old. --2003:6F:8C75:CD87:7D54:C7C3:54E4:295E (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Danzig/Archive_3&oldid=1136767096"