text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User:Girlvinyl

Changing other peoplpe's comments
I wasn't going to get involved but after seeing User:DreamGuy and User:SchmuckyTheCat claim to have an "outside" view (which I've moved to the response section where they belong) when they are both directly involved with not only the edit war on Encyclopedia damatica but the discussion on Talk:Encyclopedia damatica, I felt I had too.--ElvisThePrince 10:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. Loved the way User:SchmuckyTheCat removed my endorsement at the same time as claiming to be have an outside and therefore unbiased view now that shows class.--ElvisThePrince 15:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jesus christ now User:DreamGuy has removed my endosement!!!--ElvisThePrince 17:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I simply reverted some malcontent who changed the outside views to responses... I didn't purposefully remove your endorsement. If peoplpe would stop screwing around changing other people's edits then this stuff wouldn't happen. DreamGuy 17:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * EtheP, it was not my intent to remove your endorsement. I didn't notice that along with the other changes when you moved my summary.  Sorry 'bout that. SchmuckyTheCat 17:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey NP --ElvisThePrince 17:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

My view is an outside view. This RfC was neither created by nor involved me, hance outside. You are not allowed to change other people's comments on an RfC just because hyou mistakenly think they should not be outside views. Please take a few minutes to actually read the RfC policy as described on the page before jumping in and screwing things up with your highly biased modifications. You are only showing your bad faith even more by playing with other people's comments. DreamGuy 16:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Outside views are Response
Seeing as User:DreamGuy and User:SchmuckyTheCat won't be happy until they start a revert war here as well I will state that in my opinion that both of their summaries are "Response"'s not "Outside View"'s and leave others to draw their own conculsion about their reaons for insisting otherwise:

Response Definition:This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

Outside View:This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

How users involved in a revert war of the article in question and information being selectively deleted by the user in question can claim to be "not directly involved with the dispute" is obviously beyond my feeble intelligence, perhaps they have invented some new form of Quantum Logic or something--ElvisThePrince 17:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not directly involved in the dispute as listed in this RfC. I did not remove any mention of the individual or remove the photograph in question. I am not saying the person was right to use sockpuppets. That's an outside view. Please read the rules for RfCs, maybe get a little experience, before jumping in and making such accusations. Oh, and, while you are at it, it's pretty clear you desperately need to read and follow the Civility policy. DreamGuy 17:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Puzzled View by McClenon

 * I have read this RfC, and I have no idea what violation of Wikipedia policy is being alleged. Unless I have read the dispute wrong, girlvinyl is the originator of Encyclopedia damatica, and should have the right to remove images from it. The statement of the dispute does not say that she is misusing Wikipedia.

Um, look again... the misuse of a Wikipedia article named Encyclopædia damatica and a related Wikipedia image talk page are what's alleged. This person is using multiple userID's to repeatedly remove very specific pieces of information from the Wikipedia article, namely the info as to who owns the encyclopædiadamatica.com site. --66.102.74.90 15:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
Eithier I'm being thick or the RFC page needs re-writting but where on the RFC page does it say "2 Days without endorsement" I can see:
 * 1) Once the request for comment is open, these two people must document their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page. Requests for comment which do not meet these minimum requirements after 48 hours from creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed. The subject RFC page will also be deleted, unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained.
 * And it seems to be that these efforts have been meet:
 * these two people must document their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:girlvinyl

Am I missing something and being unable to see the wood for the trees?--ElvisThePrince 19:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No, you are right, that's why I keep removing the tag. DreamGuy 21:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll contact the users who have been disenfanchised then, seems a bit arbitary not matter your views on the matter....--ElvisThePrince 23:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

''==== Users certifying the basis for this dispute ==== --carlb 20:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

--2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)''

Clearly this Rfc fails the 2Users certifying the basis for this dispute test as there were not 2 users certifying it within 48 hours. You have no case. Please restore the delete tag as it is now clearly a candidate and should be left for an admin to decide. It clearly has no future so it all abit of a waste of time. You cannot subvert the process merely by removing the tag. It is no longer at Requests for comment so it is just so much waste paper (sic), SqueakBox 23:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * So your arugment boils down to.
 * I removed User:2004-12-29T22:45Z signature, leading too:
 * User:2004-12-29T22:45Z have to resign to make you happy, BUT now it's more than 48 hours between the RFC and the signature.
 * I removed the link from Requests for comment, ergo you have no case.
 * ???--ElvisThePrince 23:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If it's removed from Requests for comment then I'll just go put it back... It clearly had four people certifying it well before the cut off date... The fact that Squeakbox personally removed some from the list shows clear bad faith and deceptive practices. DreamGuy 00:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me. You claimed it only began on the 19th August, so I removed 2 sigs from the 15th. It has not had 2 people certifying it within 48 hours is a fact. however much that annoys you don't blame me, and please don't subvert the legit Rfc process by reinserting an article that failed to get certification within 48 hours. bullying won't work, SqueakBox 00:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

If you look you will see only 2 people have certified the dispute but not within 48 hours. Why can you not accept this is not anymore a legit Rfc. You are making a mockery of Rfc, SqueakBox 00:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to sound rude, but are you in the right frame of mind to be editing here at this time? I am actualy quite worried for you, if your a diabetic I think you may need to check you blood sugar levels. Can you just assure me your OK--ElvisThePrince 00:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Your actions here are completely inappropriate. They worked on this RfC before it was moved to the RfC space, they had two signatures already on it. If you count from the time it was started then, then they had two then. If you count from the time when it was officially started they also had at least two, counting the people that were already there (and they would have resigned to get the date stamp correct if someone had pointed it out to them earlier). The fact that you waited until after 48 hours and erased the names yourself is not at all proper procedure. You should either count those names ar have had them resign it when they could have. Of course if you do delete it they can just refile it immediately and get all the signatures they need right away and we'll be right back to where we started. There's no possible justification for you to be trying to delete this RfC. You are the one making a mockery of the process, because you are deleting names that were there for no good reason. DreamGuy 00:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You are wasting your time as the Rfc still will go nowhere, stop calling me a woman or I will take it as a personal attack, SqueakBox 00:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry if Squeak is a male and I've been referring to him as a she, but the name seemed feminine to me. Frankly, from the speedy delete tag being applied for no genuine reason I assumed it must have been this girlvinyl person trying to get rid of the RfC improperly. DreamGuy 00:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * In DreamGuys defense without going to SqueakBox his actions would appear to be the work of a GirlVinyl sockpuppet (which of course it isn't)--ElvisThePrince 01:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm considering deleting this for two reasons: (1) there are no diffs showing prior attempts by each of the certifiers to resolve the dispute: talk pages have been offered but no diffs; and (2) one of the certifiers' names is there without a signature and date stamp so it's not clear when it was signed, if at all. Can anyone shed light on this? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll leave to User:Carlb, User:2004-12-29T22:45Z and User talk:Depakote (original certifiers)
 * Which certifier are you refering too?--ElvisThePrince 00:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Elvis, I was referring to User:2004-12-29T22:45Z. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I would support a speedy on the grounds that it wasn't endorsed by 2 people within 48 hours. This vinylgirl has made less than 20 edits in 4 accounts, SqueakBox 00:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * This is completely false, it was signed, I saw it. Squeakbox removed two of the signatures. They worked on this on another page before it came here and you completely disregarded their signatures. If you didn't want to count them as valid you should have alerted them to that fact beforehand. You are completely disenfranchising them by not counting them and pretending that they didn't exist. I simply cannot believe the audacity of some people here to flagrantly violate the rules of this site. DreamGuy 00:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * I've deleted it as uncertified, because there was definitely something fishy. It was dated August 15, posted on August 19, and one of the certifiers dated his signature August 22, but without actually signing it. And as you say, it was a new account with a number of deleted edits, which I restored and which indicated the account had been deleted before for some reason. It all adds up to a spurious RfC. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I saw them working on this RfC originally on the page in question. They originally put it together on the talk page or a user page beforehand and then moved it over. The early signatures means they signed it before it was transferred. Yes, it may look fishy but those people were valid endorsers and fully intended to have this thing go forward. DreamGuy 00:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You should try Kate's edit counter. Alsao my user page which opens with a pic. squeak is my female dog, Box is the male, maybe I should have been called boxsqueak but SqueakBox has more of a ring to it. I would also point out that nobody had informed vinylgirl of the Rfc, and with less than 20 nedits to her 4 alleged accounts we can assume she did not know about it. If those people had wanted to go forward they would have needed to do it properly, like everyone else. i actually had removed 2 for not meeting the 2 person threshold within 49 hours, promoted one that had and left one that still has time. i was being impartial and evenhanded, SqueakBox 01:04, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Right Timeline (some errors on exact times may exist)
 * August 15 USer:Carlb Drafted RFC here: Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_damatica
 * (later) August 15 User:2004-12-29T22:45Z sign's draft
 * (later) August 15 User:Depakote signs draft
 * August 19 having (in his view) tried and failed to resolve problem User:Carlb files RFC
 * August 20 User:SchmuckyTheCat adds Outside View
 * August 20 User:DreamGuy adds Outside View
 * August 20 User:Robert McClenon adds Outsied (cofused?) View
 * August 20 User:ElvisThePrince (me!) Endorses + stuff thats not important right now (see above)
 * August 22 User:SqueakBox deletes from RFC and adds speedy delete tag
 * August 22 Both myself and User:DreamGuy point out the are at least 4 endorses/certifiers.
 * August 22 User:SpueakBox deletes certifiers + adds delete tag again
 * August 22 revert war, revert war
 * August 22 User:2004-12-29T22:45Z (resigns) (I don't know why his sig dosn't link to his user space with the article deleted I can't create a diff but it's there if you had looked.
 * August 22 Revert War
 * August 22 You ask some questions and before they are answered delete
 * This timeline brought to you by the number 3 and the letter W --ElvisThePrince 00:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the 2 illegitimate sigs from 15th Aug that cl;early should not have been there as the Rfc began on the 19th. They were imported, clearly illegitimate, and therefore needed removing. There were never 2 endorsements within 48 hours, otherwise I would have had no reason to remove it in the first place. At that time I did not even know that in all 4 accounts Vinylgirl had done less than 20 edits, and only later realised it was an entirely spurious Rfc of the sort Wikipedia doesn't need. As I said above I examined the 4 Rfc's in the needing endorsement section and acted impartially with all 4 (if I had had any involvement in any of them i would not have touched it). I was doing some janitorial work and feel I am unjustly being given a hard time for it. Dreanmguy could easily have checked I was not Vinylgirl before engaging in edit warsd with me, SqueakBox 01:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Even, even ignoring the legit sigs, both Carlb and myself signed so Your Case = Case - Leg to stand on, you made a mistake and rather than being man enought to admit it you threw a hissy fit deleted the other sigs and went on a crusade, when users from both sides of an RFC tell you your wrong that might be a hint that you are (shock horror) wrong.--ElvisThePrince 01:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * We can't use imported signatures from other pages written four days before the RfC goes up. It's a simple matter for the certifiers to come and sign the page within 48 hours of the RfC being posted, and if they're not able or willing to do that, you have to wonder why not. We have to stick closely to the certification rule to avoid frivolous RfCs being posted, so I'm standing by the deletion. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Whats that do I see common sense flying past my ear, my god it's fallen out the window!!--ElvisThePrince 01:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Slim, I doubt that it's they were "not able or unwilling" to sign as much as thinking that they already had. The proper thing to do in these situations is to alert them to the problem and educate them instead of totally disregard their input. Perhaps you are not able or unwilling to try to help editors here, but the intent was absolutely clear that they had already certified this RfC. By deleting it all you are going to do is piss a bunch of people off and have them refile and resign and end up exactly where we already were other than the wasted time and the newbie biting. I see a lot of people complaining about how the admins here do not want to try to work with people and make arbitrary decisions to have things their own way, and I have to tell you that this is yet another example. I signed this as an outside viewer thinking it should go nowhere, but the callous disregard for signatures and the lack of any attempt to explain these things to the editors involved before simply tossing their words aside is extremely disturbing. This whole episode of unfriendliness and using the rules as a club instead of working with people is the exact same thing you try to accuse me of, and here you are doing it yourself without any sort of attempt to deal with people in a responsible manner. DreamGuy 01:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * This is as dodgy an RfC as I've seen. Apart from the date and signature problems, User talk:2004-12-29T22:45Z appears to be a sockpuppet. I'd say let it go, DreamGuy. Some of the editors here were acting in good faith, but some appear not to have been. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

If DreamGuy and Elf are so impassioned perhaps they can explain why we must bite the newbies (20 edits), why did neither of you move the Rfc from vinylgirl to Vinylgirl, and why did neither of you consider it important to inform the person that they were under an Rfc. Your calls for justice ring hollow. If you block the Arbcom up with spurious Rfc's you subvert the legitimate ones and waste everyone's time, SqueakBox 03:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Improper Deletion?
Looks like the Rfc was indeed certified, ,

Although it was aggravating the non-history-preserving strategy that was taken to create the Rfc (building it as a section on a talk page, then moving it), it does not seem obvious that it failed the certification requirement. Someone care to clarify? (After further examination the usefulness and merits of the Rfc seems very questionable though) --Mysidia (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Those are diffs at Talk:Encyclopædia damatica. You can't certify an Rfc from there, you can't expect someone to find even that page, and they validate nothing. Or perhaps you would like to point out where in policy and guidelines it says Rfc's can be validated in talk pages, SqueakBox 03:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * I had originally raised the issue on Talk:Encyclopædia damatica as this user's edit pattern (creating multiple accounts and making just a few edits from each, directed almost entirely to articles Encyclopædia damatica and Image talk:Sherrod_degrippo.jpg) meant that a post-to-user-talk would likely not be seen (username keeps changing) but post-to-article talk (the approach used, I posted to both affected article/image talk pages long before coming here with this) would be the most likely to bring this matter to the attention of user Sherrod Degrippo and the various 'girlvinyl' or 'encydra'* alias used by this person to edit these two pages.
 * If the matter comes up again on RfC, yes I would sign again. Enough people had attempted to resolve this (without success) on the article talk page to qualify it for inclusion here. Nonetheless, it wasn't my intention in posting to the article talk page first that this gather signatures there - I just posted there in the hopes that the one narrow issue (sockpuppet use in deleting info from the article) could be addressed before making any decision as to whether it needed to be brought here at all. Given the relative unimportance of the affected pages to the task of constructing an encyclopædia (an article about one individual website that's neither in the top 100000 by alexa rank nor in the list of largest wikis here, already VfD'ed once, speedied once, narrowly survived a second VfD under a slightly modified name), I'd have been quite content if the issue were to have been resolved and gone away without wasting additional time and resources. --carlb 16:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

My view of the whole story
Look, first of all, I don't understand what's going on with my user page all of a sudden. Its history list shows three edits, two on June 2, supposedly by Mikkalai, and then another edit in July. That's bananas. Nobody ever edited my user page, and all of a sudden it's no longer blank. Some four hours ago it was still blank. That's totally strange.

Secondly, I've never before participated in a requests-for-comment page, so I didn't know how this whole process works. The thing is I just added myself on that list started by Depakote on the Encyclopedia damatica article talk page, just to show my opinion. Of course, when I signed, I didn't know what "requests for comment" was all about. I just thought Depakote had started a list of voters to see who agreed with him. Obviously, I agreed with him in that those three or four accounts mentioned on that talk page belong to Sherrod DeGrippo, no doubt about it.

But again, back then I didn't know that Carlb was gonna copy the whole section to "requests for comment", and I guess neither did Depakote, nor did Carlb know how to start a "request for comment" properly. Of course, that means that the whole process of copying all that info that was on that talk page section about Encyclopedia damatica was wrong. I mean, Carlb made a mistake. He shouldn't have copied the whole thing to "requests for comment". Instead, he should have written on "requests for comment" his own version of the story, and then he should have asked us who initially agreed with Depakote to cast again our votes here on "requests for comment". I mean, Carlb should have written the whole introduction on "requests for comment" on his own, and then he should have told Depakote, possibly Elvis, and me, that there is a "request for comment" going on here.

I hadn't visited the Encyclopedia damatica article talk page for like two days, so I didn't have a clue that Carlb had copied that section to "requests for comment", until Elvis sent me a message to my talk page, but by the time Elvis had sent me that message, and by the time I added those two votes, one on the "approvers" list, or whatever it's called, and another one on that "additional approvers" list, just in case, it was already too late. So in the end, my vote or votes don't count here. That's for sure. What I don't know, though, is if Elvis had cast a vote, as he tells, and then somebody deleted it. I mean, that's what I don't know. Strange things happen here, so I don't know.

And another thing: SlimVirgin, or whatever its name is, it said I hadn't signed one of my invalid votes. That's not true. I signed all my votes. Apparently, like many other users, it confuses my nickname with the date, but the two are not the same. Most of the time, I don't forget to sign my messages.

Again, I would have voted like Depakote, Elvis and Carlb if I had been given the opportunity, but I have to say that Elvis only has a point here when discussing the deletion of the page if somebody really deleted a vote of him that was on the list. Again, I don't know, but since strange things happen here, and since those administrators from the Encyclopedia damatica seem to be conspiring against us, what Elvis says about the deletion of his vote may quite be true. I don't count that one out, since SlimVirgin didn't give us more time to check the history of that deleted page. I mean, why delete the page if you know it's still gonna be grounds for discussion? Why not just freeze the page instead of deleting it? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 05:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * You've confirmed that the RfC wasn't filed correctly, which is why it was deleted. I'm not an "it," by the way. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, anyway, does that mean we can start the whole request-for-comment process again if we do it correctly? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 13:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wait for it, I'm getting a vision, yes it's becomming clearer now, if you do then, er not sure what that is are yes I see now, if you do and even if it's:
 * 100% completly accurately filled out
 * every i dotted
 * every t crossed
 * with form 22.3b v.22.3 subsection C filled out in triplicate.
 * stamped with the Great Seal of Wikipedia itself
 * signed by Jimbo himself
 * a blood hair and saliva sample collected and logged with the WHO for all involved
 * Everyone has sworn on the holy bible, in heaven, witnessed by Jesus and the host of Angels (with their signatures of course).
 * And the papers were not lost in the floods of 1965, the move from whitehall in 1975, the merger Trades Council and the Department of Industry in 1984, the close of the India Office in 1945 or due to bomb damage in WWII.
 * EVEN THEN User_talk:SlimVirgin and User:SqueakBox will go "A-ha"! this is just a copy of an old RFC that was deleted!!!, WP:POINT, WP:POINT" and delete it anyway completly ignoring the point that it was original deleted on dubiouse grounds and for, at best, purely buracratic reasons. I hate to be so negative but thats what you get with jobsworth's like this who miss working in the civil service. --ElvisThePrince 14:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies. An Rfc against Vinylgirl, who has less than 20 edits, would clearly be spurious. But from my perspective do take it to the arbcom, as they clearly have the power to punish anyone involved in an Rfc: ie get involved with the arbcom and take the consequences. I would push for a ban myself, SqueakBox 16:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, first of all, by the time Girlvinyl started editing on Wikipedia, he/she wasn't new to editing with MediaWiki. Girlvinyl had already created a wiki based on MediaWiki back in December and edited on it multiple times, so he/she's not inexperienced. And he/she has experience with newsgroups and computer security, so he/she does at least have a notion of how to edit on a wiki based on MediaWiki. So, from my perspective, I wouldn't call him/her a "newbie". He/she's not a "newbie" at all.

 * Next thing, I'm not gonna bite him/her. And now that I know what a request-for-comment page is all about, I see it makes no sense to push it any further. It's not worth the effort right now to ban Sherrod DeGrippo, because he/she doesn't edit that much, and it's not worth it just because of a stupid photograph of him/her. I mean, we're allowed to mention the name "Sherrod DeGrippo" on the article about Encyclopedia damatica, so that's more important than the photo itself.

 * Another thing I wanna point out is, the real motive for Sherrod DeGrippo to send a DMCA violation notice to the Wikimedia directors is not that putting the photo on the article really violated a copyright. We all know that's nonsense, whether you wanna admit it or not. No copyright was violated. The site clearly stated that one can "take" the photos from the Sherrod DeGrippo site as long as there's a hyperlink back to the site. Just because he/she changed the text on his/her photo gallery after the photo was put on Wikipedia doesn't mean he/she's allowed to take it back. That's nonsense.

 * The real reason for Sherrod DeGrippo to try to delete the text about him on the article and to remove the photo is because of his/her site and wiki and photos, which are based on sexuality. He/she's ashamed to have his/her name mentioned on the article because of that. But, anyway, his/her identity was public beforehand, so his/her attitude is naive, at least, and I won't count out that it was done in bad faith, because I don't think that person is naive enough not to realize that many people can identify him/her with a simple Whois database search or seach engine search. Even the phone numbers are listed on Google PhoneBook and other white-pages sites. So I have lots of reasons to believe he/she didn't try to remove the content because he/she's naive, but because of having bad intentions. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 16:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Deleting the Rfc had nothing to do with Girlvinyl or her innocence or guilt and everything to do with the fact that it wasn't endorsed by 2 people within 48 hours, as would have been necessary to take it forward. That is indisputable. Punto final, SqueakBox 19:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

don't byte the n00bs???
In response to user:Squeakbox above:
 * Don't bite the newbies. An Rfc against Vinylgirl, who has less than 20 edits, would clearly be spurious. But from my perspective do take it to the arbcom, as they clearly have the power to punish anyone involved in an Rfc: ie get involved with the arbcom and take the consequences. I would push for a ban myself, SqueakBox 16:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that Sherrod Degrippo (by whatever name or handle) qualifies as 'n00b', having already been on Wikipedia (and already having an axe to grind against Wikipedia) long before starting ED in Dec 2004. From ED's article on itself, "Encyclopediadamatica was created December 9th 2004 while girlvinyl was impatiently awaiting the delivery of her ibook. ghettofinger and girlvinyl were outraged and amused by the ill-treatment of internet celebrity jameth by the moderators and idiots at wikipedia. girlvinyl decided it was time to present an alternative to the fascist hold they had over information on the internets." Nonetheless, advocating an approach of running straight to arbcom when lesser measures would suffice is an abuse of process and an inconsiderate waste of resources. Wikipedia deserves better. --carlb 19:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

See my comment directly above this section, SqueakBox 19:57, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, what you just said is not a "punto final" nor a "punto". It's a comma at most, because we're not allowed to see the different versions of the deleted page nor its history, so we're not allowed to see whether Elvis's vote really was there before the deadline. I would like an administrator to put back and freeze the page to see if it's true that Elvis's vote got deleted. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please desist in attacking me as it makes you appear not serious and very rude. I have corrected my name from ShriekBox. I would be happy to have the history of the page under scrutiny as it would absolutely prove my point and that others had no right to attack me for anything I did in rtelation to this rfc, SqueakBox 21:45, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

All right, I'm not gonna change your nickname anymore. I myself would also like to see the history of the page frozen and displayed. I agree. I want some transparency here. Who do we contact to see if they can display the page without making it modifiable? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:34, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

A solution
IMO the only way forward is for those who believe it was unfair because 2004-12-29T22:45Z and Depakote might have erroneously thought their original signatures were valid (a spurious argument as if that were the case they should have re-signed) they should re/create the Rfc from scratch and see if 2 people sign it within 48 hours, and sticking carefully to the rules which means no pasted material from talk pages or anywhere else, and no adding other people's signatures for them; ie make a legitimate rfc, and see if it gets endorsed or not, SqueakBox 17:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * (a spurious argument as if that were the case they should have re-signed) Except User:2004-12-29T22:45Z did and you refused to accept that..........--ElvisThePrince 22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

His signature wasn't valid as the 48 hours were up. To have accepted that signature after the 48 hours were up would have made a mockery of the Rfc process. The solution I am proposing was the only valid one even then, SqueakBox 22:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

What I asked before is whether the page can be displayed again, or "undeleted", as they call it here. I agree that Depakote's vote and my vote were invalid, because they were copied to the page by Carlb. Carlb should have taken into account that voters can change their minds after they vote, and that about a week had passed between the voting on the ED talk page and the copying of those votes to the RfC page. So to me, that's not the problem. I agree with that.

Now you say that the only way forward is if someone disagrees with the affirmation that those two votes were invalid, but I don't see why. We can still ask an administrator to freeze and display the page. I still wanna see the history of the deleted page and the page itself, but, of course, frozen, so the editing and the reversals don't continue.

What I mean is, we can still check whether everything was right before another RfC is posted. I don't see why the people who are still interested in the RfC should start the RfC page from scratch when the previous RfC page could still be valid. But, anyway, if that's too big of problem for administrators, then I would agree that the whole thing be started from scratch by those still interested. So I first wanna know who I can contact to see if they freeze and "undelete" the page. I first wanna see some transparency before those interested in an RfC have to make a second RfC page. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * You might want to look into Undeletion policy and Votes for undeletion if undeletion (or temporary undeletion) is needed to determine if this page was deleted out of process or to address any allegations of tampering. If you just wanted to put the original question back up for RfC (without determining responsibility for the shenanigans which've already taken place here), the basic RfC text (sans signatures) could be reconstructed using the article talk page text and the template (/Example_user) for posts here. --carlb 22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you cannot create a new Rfc with the old signatures. That would defy due process, be entirely in bad faith, be clear tampering if it were someone else's signature, and would be an ideal candidate for a speedy deletion. What is clear that Carlb did tamper with the original Rfc by pasting signatures from a talk page, and is now propsoing to repeat his actions. Please do not do so, SqueakBox 22:14, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Please re-read my post; I said that "the basic RfC text (sans signatures) could be reconstructed using the article talk page text and the template...". You are twisting words here! --carlb 23:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I apologise. If you look at the bottom of my user page you will see I have French=0. I shouldn't have used punto final (S[panish) either. The text without the signatures is exactly what could be done for a new Rfc, SqueakBox 23:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Heres an idea why not, undelete the oringinal then remove the signatures signature (given that User:2004-12-29T22:45Z has already resigned it!!!!) that you find so offensive, is that not the common sense approach!!!, oh wait we essentialy tried that but you whinned and it got deleted, No you would rather than everyone certifiers, endorses, outside viewers run around redoing ALL their work again just for your amusement! --ElvisThePrince 22:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

if you really believe his 2nd signature dated the 22nd should be accepted as valid put your ideas at Village pump (policy). All I want is a clear valid process, not for my amusement but to ensure that invalid Rfc's are not treated as valid one's. The consequences of not doing so woul;d be to defy policy and to make a mockery of the Rfc process. Which is why Slim was right to delete the page I asked an admin to delete, SqueakBox 22:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I would not do it for my amusement but to ensure that girlvinyl has a afair hearing. Or is that not important to you? SqueakBox 23:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on Requests_for_arbitration
This is probably pertinant.

Requests_for_arbitration

--ElvisThePrince 23:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

For those who don't know this is a request against DreamGuy which 2 separate people asked me to contribute to. I agree it is pertinent, SqueakBox 23:22, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Changing other peoplpe's comments
I wasn't going to get involved but after seeing User:DreamGuy and User:SchmuckyTheCat claim to have an "outside" view (which I've moved to the response section where they belong) when they are both directly involved with not only the edit war on Encyclopedia damatica but the discussion on Talk:Encyclopedia damatica, I felt I had too.--ElvisThePrince 10:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. Loved the way User:SchmuckyTheCat removed my endorsement at the same time as claiming to be have an outside and therefore unbiased view now that shows class.--ElvisThePrince 15:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jesus christ now User:DreamGuy has removed my endosement!!!--ElvisThePrince 17:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I simply reverted some malcontent who changed the outside views to responses... I didn't purposefully remove your endorsement. If peoplpe would stop screwing around changing other people's edits then this stuff wouldn't happen. DreamGuy 17:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * EtheP, it was not my intent to remove your endorsement. I didn't notice that along with the other changes when you moved my summary.  Sorry 'bout that. SchmuckyTheCat 17:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey NP --ElvisThePrince 17:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

My view is an outside view. This RfC was neither created by nor involved me, hance outside. You are not allowed to change other people's comments on an RfC just because hyou mistakenly think they should not be outside views. Please take a few minutes to actually read the RfC policy as described on the page before jumping in and screwing things up with your highly biased modifications. You are only showing your bad faith even more by playing with other people's comments. DreamGuy 16:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Outside views are Response
Seeing as User:DreamGuy and User:SchmuckyTheCat won't be happy until they start a revert war here as well I will state that in my opinion that both of their summaries are "Response"'s not "Outside View"'s and leave others to draw their own conculsion about their reaons for insisting otherwise:

Response Definition:This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

Outside View:This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

How users involved in a revert war of the article in question and information being selectively deleted by the user in question can claim to be "not directly involved with the dispute" is obviously beyond my feeble intelligence, perhaps they have invented some new form of Quantum Logic or something--ElvisThePrince 17:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not directly involved in the dispute as listed in this RfC. I did not remove any mention of the individual or remove the photograph in question. I am not saying the person was right to use sockpuppets. That's an outside view. Please read the rules for RfCs, maybe get a little experience, before jumping in and making such accusations. Oh, and, while you are at it, it's pretty clear you desperately need to read and follow the Civility policy. DreamGuy 17:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Puzzled View by McClenon

 * I have read this RfC, and I have no idea what violation of Wikipedia policy is being alleged. Unless I have read the dispute wrong, girlvinyl is the originator of Encyclopedia damatica, and should have the right to remove images from it. The statement of the dispute does not say that she is misusing Wikipedia.

Um, look again... the misuse of a Wikipedia article named Encyclopædia damatica and a related Wikipedia image talk page are what's alleged. This person is using multiple userID's to repeatedly remove very specific pieces of information from the Wikipedia article, namely the info as to who owns the encyclopædiadamatica.com site. --66.102.74.90 15:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
Eithier I'm being thick or the RFC page needs re-writting but where on the RFC page does it say "2 Days without endorsement" I can see:
 * 1) Once the request for comment is open, these two people must document their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page. Requests for comment which do not meet these minimum requirements after 48 hours from creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed. The subject RFC page will also be deleted, unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained.
 * And it seems to be that these efforts have been meet:
 * these two people must document their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:girlvinyl

Am I missing something and being unable to see the wood for the trees?--ElvisThePrince 19:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No, you are right, that's why I keep removing the tag. DreamGuy 21:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll contact the users who have been disenfanchised then, seems a bit arbitary not matter your views on the matter....--ElvisThePrince 23:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

''==== Users certifying the basis for this dispute ==== --carlb 20:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

--2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)''

Clearly this Rfc fails the 2Users certifying the basis for this dispute test as there were not 2 users certifying it within 48 hours. You have no case. Please restore the delete tag as it is now clearly a candidate and should be left for an admin to decide. It clearly has no future so it all abit of a waste of time. You cannot subvert the process merely by removing the tag. It is no longer at Requests for comment so it is just so much waste paper (sic), SqueakBox 23:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * So your arugment boils down to.
 * I removed User:2004-12-29T22:45Z signature, leading too:
 * User:2004-12-29T22:45Z have to resign to make you happy, BUT now it's more than 48 hours between the RFC and the signature.
 * I removed the link from Requests for comment, ergo you have no case.
 * ???--ElvisThePrince 23:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If it's removed from Requests for comment then I'll just go put it back... It clearly had four people certifying it well before the cut off date... The fact that Squeakbox personally removed some from the list shows clear bad faith and deceptive practices. DreamGuy 00:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me. You claimed it only began on the 19th August, so I removed 2 sigs from the 15th. It has not had 2 people certifying it within 48 hours is a fact. however much that annoys you don't blame me, and please don't subvert the legit Rfc process by reinserting an article that failed to get certification within 48 hours. bullying won't work, SqueakBox 00:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

If you look you will see only 2 people have certified the dispute but not within 48 hours. Why can you not accept this is not anymore a legit Rfc. You are making a mockery of Rfc, SqueakBox 00:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to sound rude, but are you in the right frame of mind to be editing here at this time? I am actualy quite worried for you, if your a diabetic I think you may need to check you blood sugar levels. Can you just assure me your OK--ElvisThePrince 00:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Your actions here are completely inappropriate. They worked on this RfC before it was moved to the RfC space, they had two signatures already on it. If you count from the time it was started then, then they had two then. If you count from the time when it was officially started they also had at least two, counting the people that were already there (and they would have resigned to get the date stamp correct if someone had pointed it out to them earlier). The fact that you waited until after 48 hours and erased the names yourself is not at all proper procedure. You should either count those names ar have had them resign it when they could have. Of course if you do delete it they can just refile it immediately and get all the signatures they need right away and we'll be right back to where we started. There's no possible justification for you to be trying to delete this RfC. You are the one making a mockery of the process, because you are deleting names that were there for no good reason. DreamGuy 00:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You are wasting your time as the Rfc still will go nowhere, stop calling me a woman or I will take it as a personal attack, SqueakBox 00:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry if Squeak is a male and I've been referring to him as a she, but the name seemed feminine to me. Frankly, from the speedy delete tag being applied for no genuine reason I assumed it must have been this girlvinyl person trying to get rid of the RfC improperly. DreamGuy 00:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * In DreamGuys defense without going to SqueakBox his actions would appear to be the work of a GirlVinyl sockpuppet (which of course it isn't)--ElvisThePrince 01:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm considering deleting this for two reasons: (1) there are no diffs showing prior attempts by each of the certifiers to resolve the dispute: talk pages have been offered but no diffs; and (2) one of the certifiers' names is there without a signature and date stamp so it's not clear when it was signed, if at all. Can anyone shed light on this? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll leave to User:Carlb, User:2004-12-29T22:45Z and User talk:Depakote (original certifiers)
 * Which certifier are you refering too?--ElvisThePrince 00:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Elvis, I was referring to User:2004-12-29T22:45Z. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I would support a speedy on the grounds that it wasn't endorsed by 2 people within 48 hours. This vinylgirl has made less than 20 edits in 4 accounts, SqueakBox 00:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * This is completely false, it was signed, I saw it. Squeakbox removed two of the signatures. They worked on this on another page before it came here and you completely disregarded their signatures. If you didn't want to count them as valid you should have alerted them to that fact beforehand. You are completely disenfranchising them by not counting them and pretending that they didn't exist. I simply cannot believe the audacity of some people here to flagrantly violate the rules of this site. DreamGuy 00:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * I've deleted it as uncertified, because there was definitely something fishy. It was dated August 15, posted on August 19, and one of the certifiers dated his signature August 22, but without actually signing it. And as you say, it was a new account with a number of deleted edits, which I restored and which indicated the account had been deleted before for some reason. It all adds up to a spurious RfC. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I saw them working on this RfC originally on the page in question. They originally put it together on the talk page or a user page beforehand and then moved it over. The early signatures means they signed it before it was transferred. Yes, it may look fishy but those people were valid endorsers and fully intended to have this thing go forward. DreamGuy 00:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You should try Kate's edit counter. Alsao my user page which opens with a pic. squeak is my female dog, Box is the male, maybe I should have been called boxsqueak but SqueakBox has more of a ring to it. I would also point out that nobody had informed vinylgirl of the Rfc, and with less than 20 nedits to her 4 alleged accounts we can assume she did not know about it. If those people had wanted to go forward they would have needed to do it properly, like everyone else. i actually had removed 2 for not meeting the 2 person threshold within 49 hours, promoted one that had and left one that still has time. i was being impartial and evenhanded, SqueakBox 01:04, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Right Timeline (some errors on exact times may exist)
 * August 15 USer:Carlb Drafted RFC here: Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_damatica
 * (later) August 15 User:2004-12-29T22:45Z sign's draft
 * (later) August 15 User:Depakote signs draft
 * August 19 having (in his view) tried and failed to resolve problem User:Carlb files RFC
 * August 20 User:SchmuckyTheCat adds Outside View
 * August 20 User:DreamGuy adds Outside View
 * August 20 User:Robert McClenon adds Outsied (cofused?) View
 * August 20 User:ElvisThePrince (me!) Endorses + stuff thats not important right now (see above)
 * August 22 User:SqueakBox deletes from RFC and adds speedy delete tag
 * August 22 Both myself and User:DreamGuy point out the are at least 4 endorses/certifiers.
 * August 22 User:SpueakBox deletes certifiers + adds delete tag again
 * August 22 revert war, revert war
 * August 22 User:2004-12-29T22:45Z (resigns) (I don't know why his sig dosn't link to his user space with the article deleted I can't create a diff but it's there if you had looked.
 * August 22 Revert War
 * August 22 You ask some questions and before they are answered delete
 * This timeline brought to you by the number 3 and the letter W --ElvisThePrince 00:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the 2 illegitimate sigs from 15th Aug that cl;early should not have been there as the Rfc began on the 19th. They were imported, clearly illegitimate, and therefore needed removing. There were never 2 endorsements within 48 hours, otherwise I would have had no reason to remove it in the first place. At that time I did not even know that in all 4 accounts Vinylgirl had done less than 20 edits, and only later realised it was an entirely spurious Rfc of the sort Wikipedia doesn't need. As I said above I examined the 4 Rfc's in the needing endorsement section and acted impartially with all 4 (if I had had any involvement in any of them i would not have touched it). I was doing some janitorial work and feel I am unjustly being given a hard time for it. Dreanmguy could easily have checked I was not Vinylgirl before engaging in edit warsd with me, SqueakBox 01:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Even, even ignoring the legit sigs, both Carlb and myself signed so Your Case = Case - Leg to stand on, you made a mistake and rather than being man enought to admit it you threw a hissy fit deleted the other sigs and went on a crusade, when users from both sides of an RFC tell you your wrong that might be a hint that you are (shock horror) wrong.--ElvisThePrince 01:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * We can't use imported signatures from other pages written four days before the RfC goes up. It's a simple matter for the certifiers to come and sign the page within 48 hours of the RfC being posted, and if they're not able or willing to do that, you have to wonder why not. We have to stick closely to the certification rule to avoid frivolous RfCs being posted, so I'm standing by the deletion. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Whats that do I see common sense flying past my ear, my god it's fallen out the window!!--ElvisThePrince 01:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Slim, I doubt that it's they were "not able or unwilling" to sign as much as thinking that they already had. The proper thing to do in these situations is to alert them to the problem and educate them instead of totally disregard their input. Perhaps you are not able or unwilling to try to help editors here, but the intent was absolutely clear that they had already certified this RfC. By deleting it all you are going to do is piss a bunch of people off and have them refile and resign and end up exactly where we already were other than the wasted time and the newbie biting. I see a lot of people complaining about how the admins here do not want to try to work with people and make arbitrary decisions to have things their own way, and I have to tell you that this is yet another example. I signed this as an outside viewer thinking it should go nowhere, but the callous disregard for signatures and the lack of any attempt to explain these things to the editors involved before simply tossing their words aside is extremely disturbing. This whole episode of unfriendliness and using the rules as a club instead of working with people is the exact same thing you try to accuse me of, and here you are doing it yourself without any sort of attempt to deal with people in a responsible manner. DreamGuy 01:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * This is as dodgy an RfC as I've seen. Apart from the date and signature problems, User talk:2004-12-29T22:45Z appears to be a sockpuppet. I'd say let it go, DreamGuy. Some of the editors here were acting in good faith, but some appear not to have been. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

If DreamGuy and Elf are so impassioned perhaps they can explain why we must bite the newbies (20 edits), why did neither of you move the Rfc from vinylgirl to Vinylgirl, and why did neither of you consider it important to inform the person that they were under an Rfc. Your calls for justice ring hollow. If you block the Arbcom up with spurious Rfc's you subvert the legitimate ones and waste everyone's time, SqueakBox 03:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Improper Deletion?
Looks like the Rfc was indeed certified, ,

Although it was aggravating the non-history-preserving strategy that was taken to create the Rfc (building it as a section on a talk page, then moving it), it does not seem obvious that it failed the certification requirement. Someone care to clarify? (After further examination the usefulness and merits of the Rfc seems very questionable though) --Mysidia (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Those are diffs at Talk:Encyclopædia damatica. You can't certify an Rfc from there, you can't expect someone to find even that page, and they validate nothing. Or perhaps you would like to point out where in policy and guidelines it says Rfc's can be validated in talk pages, SqueakBox 03:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * I had originally raised the issue on Talk:Encyclopædia damatica as this user's edit pattern (creating multiple accounts and making just a few edits from each, directed almost entirely to articles Encyclopædia damatica and Image talk:Sherrod_degrippo.jpg) meant that a post-to-user-talk would likely not be seen (username keeps changing) but post-to-article talk (the approach used, I posted to both affected article/image talk pages long before coming here with this) would be the most likely to bring this matter to the attention of user Sherrod Degrippo and the various 'girlvinyl' or 'encydra'* alias used by this person to edit these two pages.
 * If the matter comes up again on RfC, yes I would sign again. Enough people had attempted to resolve this (without success) on the article talk page to qualify it for inclusion here. Nonetheless, it wasn't my intention in posting to the article talk page first that this gather signatures there - I just posted there in the hopes that the one narrow issue (sockpuppet use in deleting info from the article) could be addressed before making any decision as to whether it needed to be brought here at all. Given the relative unimportance of the affected pages to the task of constructing an encyclopædia (an article about one individual website that's neither in the top 100000 by alexa rank nor in the list of largest wikis here, already VfD'ed once, speedied once, narrowly survived a second VfD under a slightly modified name), I'd have been quite content if the issue were to have been resolved and gone away without wasting additional time and resources. --carlb 16:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

My view of the whole story
Look, first of all, I don't understand what's going on with my user page all of a sudden. Its history list shows three edits, two on June 2, supposedly by Mikkalai, and then another edit in July. That's bananas. Nobody ever edited my user page, and all of a sudden it's no longer blank. Some four hours ago it was still blank. That's totally strange.

Secondly, I've never before participated in a requests-for-comment page, so I didn't know how this whole process works. The thing is I just added myself on that list started by Depakote on the Encyclopedia damatica article talk page, just to show my opinion. Of course, when I signed, I didn't know what "requests for comment" was all about. I just thought Depakote had started a list of voters to see who agreed with him. Obviously, I agreed with him in that those three or four accounts mentioned on that talk page belong to Sherrod DeGrippo, no doubt about it.

But again, back then I didn't know that Carlb was gonna copy the whole section to "requests for comment", and I guess neither did Depakote, nor did Carlb know how to start a "request for comment" properly. Of course, that means that the whole process of copying all that info that was on that talk page section about Encyclopedia damatica was wrong. I mean, Carlb made a mistake. He shouldn't have copied the whole thing to "requests for comment". Instead, he should have written on "requests for comment" his own version of the story, and then he should have asked us who initially agreed with Depakote to cast again our votes here on "requests for comment". I mean, Carlb should have written the whole introduction on "requests for comment" on his own, and then he should have told Depakote, possibly Elvis, and me, that there is a "request for comment" going on here.

I hadn't visited the Encyclopedia damatica article talk page for like two days, so I didn't have a clue that Carlb had copied that section to "requests for comment", until Elvis sent me a message to my talk page, but by the time Elvis had sent me that message, and by the time I added those two votes, one on the "approvers" list, or whatever it's called, and another one on that "additional approvers" list, just in case, it was already too late. So in the end, my vote or votes don't count here. That's for sure. What I don't know, though, is if Elvis had cast a vote, as he tells, and then somebody deleted it. I mean, that's what I don't know. Strange things happen here, so I don't know.

And another thing: SlimVirgin, or whatever its name is, it said I hadn't signed one of my invalid votes. That's not true. I signed all my votes. Apparently, like many other users, it confuses my nickname with the date, but the two are not the same. Most of the time, I don't forget to sign my messages.

Again, I would have voted like Depakote, Elvis and Carlb if I had been given the opportunity, but I have to say that Elvis only has a point here when discussing the deletion of the page if somebody really deleted a vote of him that was on the list. Again, I don't know, but since strange things happen here, and since those administrators from the Encyclopedia damatica seem to be conspiring against us, what Elvis says about the deletion of his vote may quite be true. I don't count that one out, since SlimVirgin didn't give us more time to check the history of that deleted page. I mean, why delete the page if you know it's still gonna be grounds for discussion? Why not just freeze the page instead of deleting it? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 05:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * You've confirmed that the RfC wasn't filed correctly, which is why it was deleted. I'm not an "it," by the way. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, anyway, does that mean we can start the whole request-for-comment process again if we do it correctly? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 13:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wait for it, I'm getting a vision, yes it's becomming clearer now, if you do then, er not sure what that is are yes I see now, if you do and even if it's:
 * 100% completly accurately filled out
 * every i dotted
 * every t crossed
 * with form 22.3b v.22.3 subsection C filled out in triplicate.
 * stamped with the Great Seal of Wikipedia itself
 * signed by Jimbo himself
 * a blood hair and saliva sample collected and logged with the WHO for all involved
 * Everyone has sworn on the holy bible, in heaven, witnessed by Jesus and the host of Angels (with their signatures of course).
 * And the papers were not lost in the floods of 1965, the move from whitehall in 1975, the merger Trades Council and the Department of Industry in 1984, the close of the India Office in 1945 or due to bomb damage in WWII.
 * EVEN THEN User_talk:SlimVirgin and User:SqueakBox will go "A-ha"! this is just a copy of an old RFC that was deleted!!!, WP:POINT, WP:POINT" and delete it anyway completly ignoring the point that it was original deleted on dubiouse grounds and for, at best, purely buracratic reasons. I hate to be so negative but thats what you get with jobsworth's like this who miss working in the civil service. --ElvisThePrince 14:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies. An Rfc against Vinylgirl, who has less than 20 edits, would clearly be spurious. But from my perspective do take it to the arbcom, as they clearly have the power to punish anyone involved in an Rfc: ie get involved with the arbcom and take the consequences. I would push for a ban myself, SqueakBox 16:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, first of all, by the time Girlvinyl started editing on Wikipedia, he/she wasn't new to editing with MediaWiki. Girlvinyl had already created a wiki based on MediaWiki back in December and edited on it multiple times, so he/she's not inexperienced. And he/she has experience with newsgroups and computer security, so he/she does at least have a notion of how to edit on a wiki based on MediaWiki. So, from my perspective, I wouldn't call him/her a "newbie". He/she's not a "newbie" at all.

 * Next thing, I'm not gonna bite him/her. And now that I know what a request-for-comment page is all about, I see it makes no sense to push it any further. It's not worth the effort right now to ban Sherrod DeGrippo, because he/she doesn't edit that much, and it's not worth it just because of a stupid photograph of him/her. I mean, we're allowed to mention the name "Sherrod DeGrippo" on the article about Encyclopedia damatica, so that's more important than the photo itself.

 * Another thing I wanna point out is, the real motive for Sherrod DeGrippo to send a DMCA violation notice to the Wikimedia directors is not that putting the photo on the article really violated a copyright. We all know that's nonsense, whether you wanna admit it or not. No copyright was violated. The site clearly stated that one can "take" the photos from the Sherrod DeGrippo site as long as there's a hyperlink back to the site. Just because he/she changed the text on his/her photo gallery after the photo was put on Wikipedia doesn't mean he/she's allowed to take it back. That's nonsense.

 * The real reason for Sherrod DeGrippo to try to delete the text about him on the article and to remove the photo is because of his/her site and wiki and photos, which are based on sexuality. He/she's ashamed to have his/her name mentioned on the article because of that. But, anyway, his/her identity was public beforehand, so his/her attitude is naive, at least, and I won't count out that it was done in bad faith, because I don't think that person is naive enough not to realize that many people can identify him/her with a simple Whois database search or seach engine search. Even the phone numbers are listed on Google PhoneBook and other white-pages sites. So I have lots of reasons to believe he/she didn't try to remove the content because he/she's naive, but because of having bad intentions. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 16:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Deleting the Rfc had nothing to do with Girlvinyl or her innocence or guilt and everything to do with the fact that it wasn't endorsed by 2 people within 48 hours, as would have been necessary to take it forward. That is indisputable. Punto final, SqueakBox 19:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

don't byte the n00bs???
In response to user:Squeakbox above:
 * Don't bite the newbies. An Rfc against Vinylgirl, who has less than 20 edits, would clearly be spurious. But from my perspective do take it to the arbcom, as they clearly have the power to punish anyone involved in an Rfc: ie get involved with the arbcom and take the consequences. I would push for a ban myself, SqueakBox 16:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that Sherrod Degrippo (by whatever name or handle) qualifies as 'n00b', having already been on Wikipedia (and already having an axe to grind against Wikipedia) long before starting ED in Dec 2004. From ED's article on itself, "Encyclopediadamatica was created December 9th 2004 while girlvinyl was impatiently awaiting the delivery of her ibook. ghettofinger and girlvinyl were outraged and amused by the ill-treatment of internet celebrity jameth by the moderators and idiots at wikipedia. girlvinyl decided it was time to present an alternative to the fascist hold they had over information on the internets." Nonetheless, advocating an approach of running straight to arbcom when lesser measures would suffice is an abuse of process and an inconsiderate waste of resources. Wikipedia deserves better. --carlb 19:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

See my comment directly above this section, SqueakBox 19:57, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, what you just said is not a "punto final" nor a "punto". It's a comma at most, because we're not allowed to see the different versions of the deleted page nor its history, so we're not allowed to see whether Elvis's vote really was there before the deadline. I would like an administrator to put back and freeze the page to see if it's true that Elvis's vote got deleted. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please desist in attacking me as it makes you appear not serious and very rude. I have corrected my name from ShriekBox. I would be happy to have the history of the page under scrutiny as it would absolutely prove my point and that others had no right to attack me for anything I did in rtelation to this rfc, SqueakBox 21:45, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

All right, I'm not gonna change your nickname anymore. I myself would also like to see the history of the page frozen and displayed. I agree. I want some transparency here. Who do we contact to see if they can display the page without making it modifiable? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:34, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

A solution
IMO the only way forward is for those who believe it was unfair because 2004-12-29T22:45Z and Depakote might have erroneously thought their original signatures were valid (a spurious argument as if that were the case they should have re-signed) they should re/create the Rfc from scratch and see if 2 people sign it within 48 hours, and sticking carefully to the rules which means no pasted material from talk pages or anywhere else, and no adding other people's signatures for them; ie make a legitimate rfc, and see if it gets endorsed or not, SqueakBox 17:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * (a spurious argument as if that were the case they should have re-signed) Except User:2004-12-29T22:45Z did and you refused to accept that..........--ElvisThePrince 22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

His signature wasn't valid as the 48 hours were up. To have accepted that signature after the 48 hours were up would have made a mockery of the Rfc process. The solution I am proposing was the only valid one even then, SqueakBox 22:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

What I asked before is whether the page can be displayed again, or "undeleted", as they call it here. I agree that Depakote's vote and my vote were invalid, because they were copied to the page by Carlb. Carlb should have taken into account that voters can change their minds after they vote, and that about a week had passed between the voting on the ED talk page and the copying of those votes to the RfC page. So to me, that's not the problem. I agree with that.

Now you say that the only way forward is if someone disagrees with the affirmation that those two votes were invalid, but I don't see why. We can still ask an administrator to freeze and display the page. I still wanna see the history of the deleted page and the page itself, but, of course, frozen, so the editing and the reversals don't continue.

What I mean is, we can still check whether everything was right before another RfC is posted. I don't see why the people who are still interested in the RfC should start the RfC page from scratch when the previous RfC page could still be valid. But, anyway, if that's too big of problem for administrators, then I would agree that the whole thing be started from scratch by those still interested. So I first wanna know who I can contact to see if they freeze and "undelete" the page. I first wanna see some transparency before those interested in an RfC have to make a second RfC page. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * You might want to look into Undeletion policy and Votes for undeletion if undeletion (or temporary undeletion) is needed to determine if this page was deleted out of process or to address any allegations of tampering. If you just wanted to put the original question back up for RfC (without determining responsibility for the shenanigans which've already taken place here), the basic RfC text (sans signatures) could be reconstructed using the article talk page text and the template (/Example_user) for posts here. --carlb 22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you cannot create a new Rfc with the old signatures. That would defy due process, be entirely in bad faith, be clear tampering if it were someone else's signature, and would be an ideal candidate for a speedy deletion. What is clear that Carlb did tamper with the original Rfc by pasting signatures from a talk page, and is now propsoing to repeat his actions. Please do not do so, SqueakBox 22:14, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Please re-read my post; I said that "the basic RfC text (sans signatures) could be reconstructed using the article talk page text and the template...". You are twisting words here! --carlb 23:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I apologise. If you look at the bottom of my user page you will see I have French=0. I shouldn't have used punto final (S[panish) either. The text without the signatures is exactly what could be done for a new Rfc, SqueakBox 23:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Heres an idea why not, undelete the oringinal then remove the signatures signature (given that User:2004-12-29T22:45Z has already resigned it!!!!) that you find so offensive, is that not the common sense approach!!!, oh wait we essentialy tried that but you whinned and it got deleted, No you would rather than everyone certifiers, endorses, outside viewers run around redoing ALL their work again just for your amusement! --ElvisThePrince 22:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

if you really believe his 2nd signature dated the 22nd should be accepted as valid put your ideas at Village pump (policy). All I want is a clear valid process, not for my amusement but to ensure that invalid Rfc's are not treated as valid one's. The consequences of not doing so woul;d be to defy policy and to make a mockery of the Rfc process. Which is why Slim was right to delete the page I asked an admin to delete, SqueakBox 22:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I would not do it for my amusement but to ensure that girlvinyl has a afair hearing. Or is that not important to you? SqueakBox 23:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on Requests_for_arbitration
This is probably pertinant.

Requests_for_arbitration

--ElvisThePrince 23:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

For those who don't know this is a request against DreamGuy which 2 separate people asked me to contribute to. I agree it is pertinent, SqueakBox 23:22, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Gangmumei Kamei

Gangmumei Kamei (21 October 1939 – 5 January 2017) was a notable Indian historian and scholar of Manipur. He was also a politician in his later career, and served as a minister in the Government of Manipur.

Academic career
Kamei was born in Imphal, and taught history at Manipur University. He was regarded as an expert on the history of Manipur.

Books:
 * Anal, A Trans-Border Tribe of Manipur (1985)
 * A History of Manipur: Pre-colonial Period (1991)
 * Ethnicity and Social Change: An Anthology of Essays (2002)
 * History of Zeliangrong Nagas: From Makhel to Rani Gaidinliu (2004)
 * Essays on Primordial Religion (2006)
 * On History and Historiography of Manipur (2006)
 * From Tribalism to Feudalism: Evolution of the Meitei State in the Pre-colonial Period (2010)
 * Lectures on History of Manipur (2012)
 * The Rise of Middle Classes in Manipur (2012)
 * A History of Modern Manipur 1826-2000 (2015)

Role:
 * Professor of History in Manipur University
 * Elected president of the Northeast India History Association (NEIHA) in its Kohima session of 1986
 * President of the Manipur History Society
 * Coordinator of the Centre for Manipuri Studies & Tribal Research of Manipur University
 * Member of the Advisory Committee of the Anthropological Survey of India (1984–87)
 * Member of the ICSSR panel on Tribal Studies
 * In 2010 he was awarded the Platinum Jubilee Samman by the Manipuri Sahitya Parishad for his contribution to history and tribal culture
 * Awarded a National Fellowship by Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla in 2010-2012

Political career
Gangmumei Kamei was the founding president of the Federal Party of Manipur which was formed in the year 1993. He was elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly in the year 1995 and again in 2001 Manipur Assembly. He was the minister for Forest, Environment and Higher Education and has held important portfolios in the then Manipur Government led by Shri Nipamcha Singh in 1998 and 2001. Kamei joined the Bharatiya Janata Party in 2012 and contested the outer Manipur Lok Sabha Constituency. However, he lost and later led development of party policy. Kamei held membership in the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) and the Regional Planning Body of the North Eastern Council (NEC).

Death
He died on 5 January 2017, aged 77.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Gangmumei Kamei


text:
Talk:23 skidoo (phrase)

Skidaddle?
I wonder if it's related to "skidaddle"? I remember the Gopher using it in the Walt Disney version of Winnie the Pooh. -- Adam78 10:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I seem to remember that Gopher speaking in a '49er dialect, so if anything wouldn't that slang be a bit advanced for him? ^^

NFB Film
The National Film Board of Canada made a short documentary film with this title, listed here. There is an IMDB "stub" for it here, but the NFB link has more info. The theme of this film was the aftermath of nuclear holocaust (specifically, the neutron bomb, which had been in the news around the time the film was made, 1964). It was nominated for a BAFTA award in 1965 for best short film. My understanding is that the term 23 skidoo was a Cold War phrase associated with the nuclear threat, something which is not mentioned in this article. Slowmover 15:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Material removed
I'm removing the items in the "Cultural References" section, as follows:
 * 23 skidoo is a phrase considered to be freighted with latent and portent meaning in the The Illuminatus! Trilogy; the explanation given is that the number is deeply related to the all-important number 5 of Discordianism (as 2 + 3 = 5).
 * No source citation provided. Should not go into the article until a source citation to a published reference can be provided, per the verifiability policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

 * "28 Skidoo", a spoof of 23 Skidoo, is mentioned "The Ballad of the Sneak", a web cartoon featuring the old-timey cast of Homestar Runner. The cartoon can be seen here and the lyrics can be found here.
 * This web cartoon is not very famous, and "28 Skidoo" does not play an important part in it. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Marge Simpson has said it in a few episodes of the Simpsons.
 * Monty Burns said it.Eregli bob (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No source citation provided. Should not go into the article until a source citation to a published reference can be provided, per the verifiability policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed this (again, it appears). Source, please. I spent some time trawling the Internet for  a mention and couldn't find one.--Marysunshine 21:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a correct understanding of the verifiability policy. When someone is directly quoting a book, film, or TV show, then that material is its own source.  We don't need someone to publish a quote from a Simpsons episode in order to verify it — the episode itself IS the source .  So there is no reason to remove this kind of material unless you are claiming that it is verifiably false.  Slowmover 13:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What we could really use are some contemporary illustrations of how the phrase was used at the time when it was popular. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

New explanation for 23 Skiddoo
I was recently on a tour bus in NYC and the tour guide explained that the derivation of the term "23 skiddoo" actually came from NYC's Flatiron building (seen in The Spiderman movies) which is located on the corner of 23rd Street. It is known as the Flatiron building due to its unique aerodynamic design, which is trinagular in nature, and due to this, creates gusty winds on this particular location. When women at the turn of the century would stand on this corner, the winds would toss up their long dresses so loitering men could see their ankles, which was considered quite risque at the time. When the police would pass this corner and see this, they would holler out: 23! Skiddoo!. In other words: you, standing on corner of 23rd Street.....You're out o' here..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cathyb108 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

 * That sounds interesting, but the video accompanying this discussion clearly shows a woman walking over a dark patch on the sidewalk that does what such things still do today, all over New York: when a subway car comes by (under the street) it pushes air up the vent (which is what this patch is) in front of it. Marilyn Monroe is famous for standing on one of these in a color feature film. So it isn't an example of the Flatiron building, but any of a thousand sidewalk vents and should be removed from this page. 74.10.198.105 (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

 * FWIW, the Marilyn Monroe film in question is The Seven Year Itch. --LizFL (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

 * It has nothing whatsoever to do with subway grates. Spend some time in the Madison Square vacinity (where I live), and you'll experience the shifting winds that come from the convergence of a north-south canyon of buildings (Fifth Avenue), a northwest-southeast canyon (Broadway) and an east--west canyon (23rd Street), all funneling air currents to the square.  These currents hit the Flatiron Building like water breaking past the prow of a ship, and the eddies that result are sometimes almost enough to knock you down -- and certainly enough to send hats flying and skirts raising. That's the physical reality of the spot, so there's no need to remove it from the article -- but, of course, the mere existence of such wind eddies doesn't in any way prove that this is where "23 skidoo" comes from, since the explanation could easily be ex post facto.  It is, however, consistent with the explanation. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 * 74.10.198.105 isn't saying the effect is due to subway grates, they're saying the video on the page looks like a subway grate. However, if it's from the era it claims to be (ca. 1901), that's impossible, since the subway wasn't completed until 1904, when what became the Lexington line opened from City Hall to 42nd st, and even then, there was unlikely to have been a grate near the Flatiron building over on Fifth.  But I agree, the video sure looks like a woman walking over a subway grate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.60.208 (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Subway grates are typically larger that the rectangle seen on the video -- which, incidentally, doesn't purport to show the sidewalk outside of the Flatiron Building, but just somewhere on 23rd Street. Since the clip is by Edison, I assume that it's a set-up filmed for commercial purposes, in which case the grate is probably set in a vaulted sidewalk area over a building's basement, with someone stationed below with a bellows to blow up the skirt at the opportune moment. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

23 Skidoo. The intersection of 23rd and East Yesler in Seattle. AKA Skid Row, Skid Road. I remember my Mom telling me back in the late 1950's. When we were driving past, there was a black man with no legs on a creeper pushing himself about. I had never seen a black man and certainly not one without legs. Sorry, just an anecdote.

Deleted content from the disambiguation page for 23 skidoo
This info was placed in the disambig page by an anon IP and quite rightly removed. But I think it might contain useful info so I've moved it into the article Talk page:

"Origin

It isn't certain how '23-skidoo' (or skiddoo) originated. There are numerous competing theories; which is a sure sign of doubt. It seems that '23' originated as a fad term in the USA in the early 20th century.

In 1899, George Ade explained the slang term "twenty-three". This story appeared in an October 1899 edition of The Washington Post:

"By the way, I have come upon a new piece of slang within the past two months and it has puzzled me. I just heard it from a big newsboy who had a 'stand' on a corner. A small boy with several papers under his arm had edged up until he was trespassing on the territory of the other. When the big boy saw the small one he went at him in a threatening manner and said: 'Here! Here! Twenty-three! Twenty-three!'. The small boy scowled and talked under his breath, but he moved away. A few days after that I saw a street beggar approach a well-dressed man, who might have been a bookmaker or horseman, and try for the unusual 'touch'. The man looked at the beggar in cold disgust and said: 'Aw, twenty-three!'. I could see that the beggar didn’t understand it any better than I did. I happened to meet a man who tries to 'keep up' on slang and I asked the meaning of 'Twenty-three!'. He said it was a signal to clear out, run, get away. In his opinion it came from the English race tracks, twenty-three being the limit on the number of horses allowed to start in one race. I don’t know that twenty-three is the limit. But his theory was that 'twenty-three' means that there was no longer any reason for waiting at the post. It was a signal to run, a synonym for the Bowery boy’s 'On your way!'. Another student of slang said the expression originated in New Orleans at the time an attempt was made to rescue a Mexican embezzler who had been arrested there and was to be taken back to his own country. Several of his friends planned to close in upon the police officer prisoner as they were passing in front of a business block which had a wide corridor running through to another block. They were to separate the officer from the prisoner and then, when one of them shouted 'Twenty-three,' the crowd was to scatter in all directions, and the prisoner was to run back through the corridor, on the chance that the officer would be too confused to follow the right man. The plan was tried and it failed, but 'twenty-three' came into local use as meaning 'Get away, quick!' and in time it spread to other cities. I don’t vouch for either of these explanations. But I do know that 'twenty-three' is now a part of the slangy boy’s vocabulary."

'Skiddoo' is another slang term, also originating around the same time and place, meaning much the same as 'skedaddle', i.e. 'leave', 'depart', 'get out of here'.

Here are a few theories as to how '23' and 'skidoo originated' - there are others:

1. In Charles Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities, Sidney Carton is No. 23 of a multitude executed by the guillotine. "In the last act of the theatrical adaptation, 'The Only Way,' an old woman sits at the foot of the guillotine, calmly counting heads as they are lopped off. The only recognition or dignity afforded Carton as he meets his fate is the old woman emotionlessly saying 'twenty-three' as he is beheaded. 'Twenty-three' quickly became a popular catchphrase among the theater community in the early twentieth century, often used to mean, 'It’s time to leave while the getting is good."- Who Put the Butter in Butterfly? by David Feldman, Harper & Row.

2. " …in the first few years of the century, memorabilia sold at vacation resorts and fairs were emblazoned with either 23 or Skidoo, and the two soon met." (Dalzell quoting Partridge.)

3. "Tom Lewis originated the fad word '23' in 'Little Johnny Jones' in 1904, and 'Skidoo' was tacked on later. (Dalzell quoting Partridge.)

4. "23 was possibly derived from a telegraphic shorthand code, not unlike trucker CB code, meaning Away with you!'" (Dalzell quoting Partridge.)

5. Thomas Aloysius Dorgan (TAD), a cartoonist and sportswriter, coined the phrase. The expression never appeared in his work but the simple 23 did appear in a comic published on February 16, 1902. (Dalzell.) Skidoo was simply a fanciful variant of skedaddle." (Feldman)

Skedaddle, according to "The Dictionary of Contemporary Slang" by Tony Thorne, Pantheon Books, originated in the American Civil War and "…suggestions have been made as to the word’s derivation; it is probably a form of a dialect version of scatter or scuttle."

6. 23-skidoo came from an expression that construction workers used while building the Flatiron Building on 23rd Street in N.Y.C. 23rd Street is one of the wider streets in New York that is like an uninterrupted wind-tunnel between the East and Hudson Rivers. Frequently, when one is walking north or south on the avenues and comes to such an intersection, they can experience a sudden blast of wind as soon as the pass the wall of a corner building. Apparently, when the workers sat on the sidewalk to eat their lunches, they would watch women's skirts blow up from the sudden gusts.

7. The phrase originated in the Panimint Mountains in Death Valley in the early 1900s. The mining town of Skidoo had 23 saloons and if you were going to go get drunk you would try to get a drink at each of the saloons. This started the phrase of going 23 skidoo if you were going to have a good time.

Whatever the source, the term was much in vogue in the USA during 1906. In that year there are many examples of its use in various contexts in US newspapers, and no such entries date from 1905 or before." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

 * You're right that it should be integrated into the article, the problem is that it's clearly a straight copyvio lift from somewhere, so while we could use the sub-sections which have cites if were sure the cites were accurate, the provenance of the whole thing being suspect, the cites are suspect as well. Until we know where it came from, or the individual cites can be run down and verified, I wouldn't consider this to be a reliable source. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me more like there's someone out there who's done a lot of research. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's why it sounds like a copyvio. In fact, it's a straight lift from here. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Right-o. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Honeymooners
The phrase was also used in the Honeymooners episode "Young at Heart". Psalm 119:105 (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Use it in a sentence
So what's the proper usage of this phrase in a sentence? Just by itself? Or something like "Let's 23 skidoo out of here"? Excise (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's also been used in period 1920s drama in the variant "99 skidoo" (perhaps a reference to the year it first apepared, 1899).

http://www.chakoteya.net/DoctorWho/10-2.htm "DALY: What a head, eh? By gad, I'd love to have that on the club wall, what? (The Doctor and Jo try to sneak through but are spotted before they can open the inner door.) DALY: Oh, hello! DOCTOR: Oh, hello. Topping day, what? DALY: Absolutely splendid. DOCTOR: Yes, ninety nine skidoo! Well, must press on. Pip pip, old chap. DALY: Just a minute. You two passengers?" 2.31.162.90 (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Birth year
My Mom, who was born in 1923, told me that when older kids wanted to shoo her away, they'd say "23 skidoo, small change," meaning that because she was born in 1923 she was too young to hang around with them. I don't think that's a good enough source to include in the article, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. HMishkoff (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Anecdote
23 Skidoo. The intersection of 23rd and East Yesler in Seattle. AKA Skid Row, Skid Road. I remember my Mom telling me back in the late 1950's. When we were driving past, there was a black man with no legs on a creeper pushing himself about. I had never seen a black man and certainly not one without legs. Sorry, just an anecdote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:c501:f300:b1b4:9037:d1d0:6a3d (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Two things: (1) Personal anecdotes without citations from reliable sources to support them aren't terribly useful in building an encyclopedia, and (2) Article talk pages are intended for discussions about how to improve articles, not as a forum to discuss the topic generally. No harm, no foul, but please keep these in mind in the future. BMK (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Herbie Nichols
Jazz pianist Herbie Nichols recorded his instrumental, "2300 Skidoo," circa 1955. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggann (talk • contribs) 13:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Expression
I suppose it's just a coincidence that this expression is classic Cockney rhyming slang for 'shoot through'. ..🤔 ..!! 125.168.242.251 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:23 skidoo (phrase)


text:
Yarloop, Western Australia

Yarloop is a town in the South West of Western Australia along the South Western Highway, between Waroona and Harvey. At the, Yarloop had a population of 395. On 7 January 2016 a bushfire destroyed most of the town.

History
The name Yarloop is said to have originated from the words "yard loop", the rail loop into the timber yard there. However, the name is more likely Aboriginal in origin (most likely from the local Bindjareb Noongar people). Yalup Brook is situated about 5 km north of Yarloop and there is similarity in pronunciation of the word, and the early spelling variations of the siding (Yailoup and Yarloup) support it being Aboriginal.

In 1849, Joseph Logue arrived in the area and farmed at nearby Cookernup. He was followed by  Eastcott, who used to collect river red gum bark and pit-sawn timber for other settlers, and John Bancells in 1886.

In 1894, Charles and Edwin Millar moved into the district looking to put nearby stands of jarrah to use – they had exported jarrah blocks to London for use in street paving. They soon established their 300 acre timber town with accommodation and support facilities, located 2 km south of a government-surveyed town site as the company wished to maintain effective control over staff and workmen. However, not everyone working at the mill wanted to live in the facilities, so a company town on the eastern side of the railway and a public town on the western side developed. A siding on the Perth-Bunbury Railway came into being in 1896.

In 1901, they made Yarloop the centre of their operations, and the town became even more important when in 1905 they closed their Denmark mills on the south coast. At their peak, they employed over 500 people in the Yarloop area. By the 1930s, they boasted the largest private railway in the world with eight railway systems and 25 locomotives. The timber mill, originally known as the Waigerup mill, still operates and in 1984 the mill town was classified as a conservation area by the National Trust and is now protected by the Yarloop Conservation Plan (1998) administered by the Heritage Council.

The town was gazetted in 1962.

Modern era
Yarloop became home to citrus growers, dairy farmers, vegetable growers and commuters. Until the bushfire of 2016, the town centre included many restored timber buildings along with the historical steam workshops. The workshops had many operating steam engines along with displays of the equipment used to maintain 25 steam locos and the timber production of millers. There is a heritage trail around the old mill town and conservation area. Facilities included a primary school, local shop, bowling club, hotel, post office, community centre and various types of accommodation.

A notable issue in the town was alleged emissions from the Alcoa alumina refinery at nearby Wagerup. For years, some residents have reported illnesses such as respiratory irritation, frequent blood noses, headaches, nausea and cancer, as reported in numerous media outlets, including the Four Corners program "Something in the Air", although no formal causal link has ever been established. These claims are also disputed by a large section of the local population. Alcoa subsequently obtained permission (September 2006) to double the size of the refinery to become the biggest such refinery in the world, although very strict conditions have been imposed on the expansion by the Health and Environment departments. A minority of the residents announced plans to fight the decision in the Supreme Court.

2016 bushfire
On 7 January 2016, 121 homes were destroyed by a massive bushfire. Over a seven-minute period, the fire also burned the historic timber workshops, factories, an old church, the old hospital, shops, the hotel, fire station and a part of the school. Local politician Murray Cowper, observing soon afterwards that the town now looked "very surreal", said: "This could well be the end of the town." Those visiting the town after the fire described the level of destruction as "apocalyptic". However, Western Australia's Premier Colin Barnett said that the town would be rebuilt, and a majority of residents voted in favour of rebuilding. On 9 January the remains of two men were found in burnt-out houses.

Public access to Yarloop was restored on 11 August 2016, seven months after the fire, when roadblocks were removed.

Rebuilding
A new community centre was built, incorporating the facade of the original town hall, and opened in November 2019.

Transport
Yarloop is situated on the South Western Railway, and is a stopping place for the Australind passenger train from Perth to Bunbury.

title: Yarloop, Western Australia


text:
Kamen Ringu

Kamen Ringu is an Indian politician from Arunachal Pradesh who resurrected PPA. He was the President of the Arunachal Congress, a regional political party in the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. Currently he is associated with People's Party of Arunachal as chairman of the party.

title: Kamen Ringu


text:
Someday (Nickelback song)

"Someday" is a song by Canadian rock band Nickelback. It was released on 28 July 2003 as the lead single from their fourth studio album, The Long Road (2003). It reached number one in Canada for three weeks and number seven in the United States. In the latter country, it charted for 50 weeks, thus becoming Nickelback's longest-charting single. It also charted within the top 10 of the UK Singles Chart, where it peaked at number six.

Music video
The music video was directed by Nigel Dick. A version with an alternate ending also exists.

Track listings
Canadian maxi-CD single
 * 1) "Someday" (single mix) – 3:25
 * 2) "Someday" (album mix) – 3:23
 * 3) "Slow Motion" – 3:32

Australian CD single
 * 1) "Someday" (album mix)
 * 2) "Someday" (acoustic mix)
 * 3) "Slow Motion"

European CD single
 * 1) "Someday" (single mix) – 3:14
 * 2) "Someday" (album mix) – 3:25

European maxi-CD and Japanese CD single
 * 1) "Someday" (single mix) – 3:14
 * 2) "Someday" (album mix) – 3:25
 * 3) "Slow Motion" – 3:32

UK CD single
 * 1) "Someday" (album version) – 3:25
 * 2) "Slow Motion" – 3:32
 * 3) "Someday" (acoustic version) – 3:23
 * 4) "Someday" (video)

Credits and personnel
Credits are taken from The Long Road album booklet.

Studios
 * Recorded at Greenhouse Studios (Burnaby, British Columbia) and Mountainview Studios (Abbotsford, British Columbia)
 * Mixed at The Warehouse Studio (Vancouver, British Columbia)
 * Mastered at Sterling Sound (New York City)

Personnel

 * Nickelback – music, production
 * Chad Kroeger – lyrics, lead vocals, guitars
 * Mike Kroeger – lyrics, bass
 * Ryan Peake – lyrics, vocals, guitars
 * Ryan "Nik" Vikedal – drums
 * Brian Larson – additional strings
 * Cameron Wilson – additional strings
 * Henry Lee – additional strings
 * Zoltan Rozsnyai – additional strings
 * Joey Moi – production, engineering, digital editing
 * Randy Staub – mixing
 * Zach Blackstone – mixing assistance
 * Alex "Laquaysh" Aligizakis – assistant engineering
 * Ryan Andersen – digital editing
 * George Marino – mastering

title: Someday (Nickelback song)


text:
Dipankar Bhattacharya

Dipankar Bhattacharya (born December 1960) is an Indian politician and the national general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation. He was the top ranker of the 1979 higher secondary board examination and has an M.Stat. degree from the Indian Statistical Institute. Bhattacharya succeeded Vinod Mishra as the national general secretary of the party in 1998. He was formerly the secretary of the Indian People's Front and All India Central Council of Trade Unions.

Early life and education
Dipankar Bhattacharya was born in Guwahati, Assam in December 1960. His father was Baidyanath Bhattacharya who was an employee of the Indian Railways. He studied in Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalaya, Narendrapur near Kolkata and was the top ranker of the 1979 board examination of the West Bengal Higher Secondary board. After completing his higher secondary, he joined the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata. He graduated with a Bachelor of Statistics (B.Stat.) degree in 1982 and completed his post-graduation with a Master of Statistics (M.Stat.) degree in the year of 1984.

Political views
Bhattacharya states that a large section of the population is rendered invisible in the country and that only a tiny minority holds the reins of political power and benefits from economic progress. He holds the view that economic growth in India has not coincided with the empowerment of people and defines empowerment as material questions such as employment, education, housing and hygiene, that the policies of privatisation and commercialisation of healthcare and education are contradictory to the vision of an empowered India promoting further dis-empowerment.

Political career
Dipankar Bhattacharya became involved in political work during his course in the Indian Statistical Institute. He served as the general secretary of the Indian People's Front between 1982 and 1994 and later became the general secretary of the All India Central Council of Trade Unions. In December 1987, he was elected to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation. After the demise of Vinod Mishra who was the general secretary of the party, Bhattacharya was unanimously elected to the post.

title: Dipankar Bhattacharya


text: File:Nickelback - Someday - CD cover.jpg