User:23skidoo

'''If you use the E-MAIL THIS USER feature to contact me and I don't know you, please make sure you indicate your Wikipedia user name in the message otherwise I cannot help you or reply. Thanks.'''





23skidoo is a trivia fanatic in Calgary, Alberta. His expertise includes James Bond, Modesty Blaise, Doctor Who, Bill Haley and His Comets, Star Trek, Buck Rogers, Enya, Laurie Anderson, television, music, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (his hometown), movie musicals, Eleanor Powell, Simon Templar (alias "The Saint"), and just about anything else that catches his fancy. He's also on the watch for vandalism, speedy deleteable nonsense articles and other silliness. He does not, however, support the philosophy of deletionism. Nor does he support current image use policy on Wikipedia on the grounds that it keeps changing all the time; for this reason he will no longer contribute images to the project nor will he attempt to "rescue" the hundreds of images (mostly book covers) that he has contributed over the last 4 years.

When he isn't spending far too much time on Wikipedia, he works as a freelance journalist, photographer, and book editor.

For an explanation of what "23 skidoo" means (or may mean), see the Wikipedia article on the subject here or read The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson.

To leave him a message, please go to his talk page.

NOTE: Please do not add this user to any Wikipedia User Categories without his permission. This has occurred several times and I do not approve. And I don't believe in giving polite warnings to vandals; no one accidentally or in "good faith" vandalises a userpage and I will permaban anyone who vandalises this (or any) user page without further warning. THIS constitutes the only warning such vandals will receive.

My AFD philosophy
I'm a frequent visitor to the Articles for Deletion discussion pages. I consider my WP inclusion philosophy to be more "inclusionist" than "exclusionist". I feel Wikipedia should be "about everything" within reason because this isn't supposed to be a carbon copy of things like Britannica, but more like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy -- a compendium of all knowledge. But within reason. I look at articles based upon their "viability" more than notability. I firmly believe that WP:OSTRICH plays a role in many article nominations, as does WP:IDONTLIKEIT which often rears its ugly head when articles about porn actors or TV series come up. I also feel that there is difference between articles with content issues and articles with viability issues. I will vote keep on some articles that require a lot of work and sourcing if I feel the subject is sound and worthy of an article; I am not frightened of stubs and if an article sits for a few years as a stub before someone with knowledge expands it, then so be it. I also tend to automatically vote "Keep" on articles that are re-nominated less than 3-4 months after a previous keep decision (but not "no consensus" or "delete"); I feel articles must not be renominated repeatedly in a short period of time. To me that's gaming the system, whether intentional or not. I have long advocated a minimum time limit between nominations of at least a year for articles that pass AFD, and a permanent AFD moratorium for some articles that are repeatedly renominated due to controversial content, WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues, or vandalism.