UnNews:Untransmitted Dads Army script discovered

---

The news outlet with approval higher than Congress

✪

UnNews

✪

Tuesday, November 5, 2024, 10:23:59 (UTC)

---

The Proposed Cast of Dad's Army

Archivists working at the BBC have announced an as yet previously unknown script for the popular sitcom Dad's Army about the antics of a platoon of the British Home Guard during the Second World War.

Controversially inline with the script is a suggestion by the writters for the actors to play the various roles, which are substantialy different to those who acted the parts in the previously transmitted episodes leading to speculation that this was an early draft for a Pilot episode.

Scene One

SCENE: A Church hall, a platoon of Home Guards men are milling about.

Captain George Mainwaring (User:Sophia): Sergeant would you call the men to order.

Sergeant Arthur Wilson (User:Nytrospawn): Come on chaps line up thats it, thats it.

(men line up into two rows)

Lance-Corporal Jack Jones (User:Rcmurphy): Platoon Attention.

(all the men come to attention, Jones a split second later and with signifacntly more enegy)

Lance-Corporal Jack Jones (User:Rcmurphy): Platoon all present and correct, sir.

Captain George Mainwaring (User:Sophia): At ease chaps.

(all the men go to at ease again, Jones a split second later and with signifacntly more enegy)

Captain George Mainwaring (User:Sophia): Now HQ has informed us that the hun has a new weapon it seems that Goebbels is getting a bit annoyed that we are using Hitlers picture and the Swastika in the Home Guard newsletter and has therefore developed the DCMA which is designed to attack or beach landing zones and defeat our Flak guns, now theirs no need to panic.

Lance-Corporal Jack Jones (User:Rcmurphy):(loudly) Don't Panic, Don't Panic Captain Mannering says Don't Panic

Sergeant Arthur Wilson (User:Nytrospawn): Calm down Jones and let Captain Mannering finish.

Captain George Mainwaring (User:Sophia): Now they have deployed this DCMA against Hodges' ARP and they are having a hell of a time with it, so we have to decide on a plan of action.

Private James Frazer (User:Stillwaters): Och eye were doomed, were doomed their going to come here and shut us all down.

Private Joe Walker(User:Flammable): I tell you what I reckon them Nazi's have self-esteem issues, pure and simple. Plus, they're a bunch of attention-deprived ATTN-WHORESOMGWTFPOWMIA911NevarForget That was mean. I meant to say, that it's stupid to poke fun at our google ad-age when it actually goes to running a site that gets exponentially more hits. OH! I WENT THERE. LOLZPPLGRANDPAISPROTECTEDATTHEBOTTOMOFTHESTAIRS.

Private Charles Godfrey(User:Carlb): My Sister Dorethy says that GirlVinyl is Sherrod DeGrippo (from now on a "he") from Atlanta, Georgia, a Gwinnett County Public Schools Central Gwinnett High School 1996 graduate, National Junior Classical League Latin scholarship winner, Linux Users Group at Georgia Tech creator, Raytheon Senior Intrusion Analysis Specialist for the Lost Wages, Nevada, Information Assurance Response Center of the National Nyookyular Security Administration of the United States Department of Energy, SwishTalk.com's ohmygodness harasser, "encydra" and "she"-Girlvinyl pretender, and DMCA violation denouncer. (Oh, I'm so scared. Sue me.) As always, remember, she's a he.

Private Frank Pike (User:Elvis): Captain Mannering, Captain Mannering, I'm not going to get in any trouble am I only I didn't realise that anyone running a site like ED would be such a wimp.

Private Sponge ((User:Famine): Not sure what you're sorry for Pikey - as far as I can tell, you abided by all the existing copyright information, and behaved in a manner appropriate for both wikis. To the extent that if we wanted to push this in court, we probably could. Your mistake was assuming that they were as friendly, sane, and professional as we are here. This leads to my vote of striking all ED from our newsletter- I'd rather not promote a bunch of assholes. We could have had a nice partnership, but we're not the ones who killed that.

(the platoon degenerates into a mass of conversations)

Sergeant Arthur Wilson (User:Nytrospawn): Come on settle down, settle down. (all go quiet again

Lance-Corporal Jack Jones (User:Rcmurphy): Permision to Speak Sir!

Captain George Mainwaring (User:Sophia): Yes what is it now Jones.

Lance-Corporal Jack Jones (User:Rcmurphy): Well sir when I was with Kitchener is the Sudan and we was dealing with the Fuzzy-Wuzzies we found that they They don't like it up 'em, sir they They don't like it up 'em!

Scene Two

SCENE: Town Metting.

Captain George Mainwaring (User:Sophia): Right gather round now Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica is a little known site of non worth. Our Newsletter is not a live journal, therefore I suggest we Huff it forthwith.

Sergeant Arthur Wilson (User:Nytrospawn): Oh I agree sir, I agree.

Private Charles Godfrey (User:Carlb): Well shouldn't we perhaps redirect it to 404 or perhaps to this page.

Reverend Timothy Farthing (User:IMBJR): I think we Rewrite it to indicate an inferior product and then protect the page.

Private Sponge ((User:Famine): Yes except that I think we should note that it died after alienating its sponsors/promoters.

Maurice Yeatman the Verger (User:47Monkey): I agree or maybe put a funny template. Such as Template:Fro.

Private Frank Pike (User:Elvis): Can't we Keep it , surely us and them have a lot more in common than we have differences, I know technicaly the page is a a bit too un-uncyclopedic but I think it's a useful place for stuff that dosn't fit here and vice verse.

Sergeant Arthur Wilson (User:Nytrospawn): Look Frank if we do keep the article, lets make it worse. This Sherrod fellow has been playin DMCA games for awhile.

Private Frank Pike (User:Elvis): Actualy can I change my vote I'm more inclined to Delete or Heavily Rewrite to massively rip the piss, Nelson Muntz getting his commupance style, if thats OK Captain Mannering.

Captain George Mainwaring (User:Sophia): Stupid Boy!

Mavis Pike (User:KP): Oy you leave my boy alone, you tell him Arthur!

Sergeant Arthur Wilson (User:Nytrospawn): Now Mavis he's got to learn.

Mavis Pike (User:KP): Well I think Move to Encyclopedia Melodramatica, an article about the “fictional” wiki devoted to LiveJournal-obsessed foul-mouthed juvenile people with fragile egos.

Private Charles Godfrey(User:Carlb): Well me and Dorothy think we should Delete template:Encyclopediadramatica as well, what we've had is is mild compared to Wikipedia:talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica or a Google on "Sherrod Degrippo" - I still can't make head nor tail of this. Why would a supposed computer security expert build a teenybopper-style LiveJournal fan site, use realname publicly on whois, then go off on a DMCA-abuse rampage both here and at Wikipedia in response to that name appearing in the respective encyclopædia Dramatica articles? Editing from an IP belonging to US Department of Energy in Nevada to try to get rid of the realname info, and multiple Wikipedia handles (encydra, encydra2...) with the same edit pattern (remove site owners name from wikipedia:Encyclopediadramatica, unlink image, spew spurious DMCA nonsense) isn't dramatic, it's stupid. Almost seems a few fries short of a happy meal... not something I'd really see wanting to link to right now, even if a few pieces of the puzzle are still missing.

Scene Three

SCENE: In the Church Hall but instead of Home Guardsmen it's full of ARP Wardens.

ARP Warden Bill Hodges (Wikipedia:User:Mikkalai)): Right you lot come on get in line, get in line, there is a war on your know!

ARP Warden Bill Hodges (Wikipedia:User:Mikkalai)): Right now someone has targeted us with a DCMA so what are we going to...

(interupted by the entrance of Captain Mannering and the Platoon and variouse towns people)

Captain George Mainwaring (User:Sophia):Right come on file in.

ARP Warden Bill Hodges (Wikipedia:User:Mikkalai)): What are your lot doing here "Napoleon" it's thursday this Halls the ARP HQ thursdays.

Reverend Timothy Farthing (User:IMBJR): Look this is still the Church Hall for the whole village.

Maurice Yeatman the Verger (User:47Monkey): Yer and don't you forget it!

ARP Warden Bill Hodges (Wikipedia:User:Mikkalai)):What's this all about!

Private Charles Godfrey(User:Carlb): Well from edit:

Revision as of 15:59, 14 August 2005

67.134.44.88 (Talk | contribs)

This image is copyright and NOT liscensed for redistribution. AT ALL. A DMCA notifcation has been sent . "Take" does not imply license to re-distribute.

The content deleted from this article was: - "Image:Sherrod degrippo.jpg|thumb|Sherrod DeGrippo, Owner of Encyclopædia Dramatica"

See also: Wikipedia:Request_for_immediate_removal_of_copyright_violation#Copyright_infringement as the question of DMCA abuse has been raised for discussion there.

The license to use this material (according to the original website, that of Sherrod DeGrippo herself) is:

From http://girlvinyl.com/C9/index.htm

"C9 Las Vegas April 24-27 2003

Feel free to take these pictures if you'd like. Please make sure to give a link back to my site when you do though" [1]

On these grounds, I believe that the repeated attempts to remove images or other factual information from this article wrt Sherrod DeGrippo to be vandalism. There's nothing here that isn't already of public record, either from lookup in a public source like whois or whitepages.com or from her having distributed the material herself online under the terms listed above. If "take" didn't mean "use", from where would the requested link back to her site be expected to be found? Normally, that'd be on whatever page is making the attributed re-use of the material, no?

Private Charles Godfrey(User:Carlb): Also my sister Dorothy thinks that the following are aliases of (girlvinyl | talk | contributions), created solely for the purpose of removing valid factual info from Wikipedia:Encyclopædia Dramatica and the Wikipedia:Image:Sherrod_degrippo.jpg description page:

• (67.134.44.88 | talk | contributions)
• (Encydra | talk | contributions)
• (Encydra2 | talk | contributions)

The use of multiple userID's by the same person is discouraged, according to Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Sock puppet, in a number of contexts not limited solely to their use on voting pages. For instance, use of multiple ID's to circumvent policies may qualify. I raise the question of Wikipedia:67.134.44.88, [Wikipedia:[User:Encydra|Encydra]], Encydra2 as a set of possible duplicate userID's of girlvinyl on the discussion page of the affected article, Wikipedia:Encyclopædia Dramatica.

The multiple ID's show the same or similar pattern in edit history; one of claiming in some form to hold intellectual property rights over publically-available (whois) information as to the ownership of the Encyclopædia Dramatica domain by one Sherrod DeGrippo, listed in whitepages as resident in Wikipedia:Las Vegas, Nevada, and of removing that information from the text. The link to image Wikipedia:Image:Sherrod_degrippo.jpg, legitimately available to us for attributed reuse under the terms stated on her own site girlvinyl.com and archived elsewhere online, is also the routine target of removal from the article by the various userID's listed below.

ARP Warden 1 (Wikipedia:User:Azathar) :I don't think it matters anymore, since the copyright notice on the http://girlvinyl.com/C9/index.htm website has been changed, and now disallows any usage, especially by wikipedia: No one has permission to use these images for any purpose. Specifically, these images may not at anytime be uploaded to any open content server or re-liscensed. To go further, these images are specifically prohibited from being used on the website wikipedia.org or any other sites associated with wikipedia's owners, mirrors or affiliates. (Bolding and Italics are mine) So, the whole argument is now moot apparently.

ARP Warden Bill Hodges (Wikipedia:User:Mikkalai)): Do I have to do everything here, Apparently you are not familiar with the ways how the copyright works. But I would say that a civilized way would be to honor the request of the person from the photo. We are not paparazzi here. An let us not make an innocent look: the selected photo is an embarrassing one, and I seriously doubt it was selected for the purposes of information.

ARP Warden 1 (Wikipedia:User:Azathar) :Paparazzi not-withstanding, I have always been under the impression that when one owns a picture, and lets others use it, that’s ok, but when the owner then says that you can't use it anymore, then that is no longer allowed. Also, isn't the owner the copyright holder, and in this case, she can say that it can't be used anymore, we can't use it, correct? If not, please explain how copyright works, or point me towards a good reference that explains it.

ARP Warden Bill Hodges (Wikipedia:User:Mikkalai)):I realized that we both are under wrong impression, because we are talking in imprecise terms. I suggest we leave this issue to lawyers. Why we both are wrong: You: if I have your picture by your permission, you cannot legally take it back. Me: I can sell your picture that you gave me, but I cannot sell copies of your picture without your permission. Girlvynil's "Feel free to take these pictures if you'd like" does not mean that I can take them and use in porno movies. Again, digital era has its own intricacies, so, again, in this particular case only lawyers, not "rocket science" editors can decide.

ARP Warden 1 (Wikipedia:User:Azathar) :Actually, Me: You can use the picture as long as you have my permission, but if I say you can't use it anymore, you can't use it anymore. But yeah, you're right, the digital era is very confusing. Oh well.

Private Cheeseman (Wikipedia:User:Depakote) : No. Nothing is being done wrong here Frank (referring to ARP Warden 1) . Everything's okay. I just can't wait until the copyright we bought windows xp on is withdrawn by microsoft! Oh dear. You can't do that, that's ridiculous. When the picture was posted, it was taken under the statuates that if you point a link back, you can use it. Case closed. Please.

Goebbels (disguised as a villager) (wikipedia:User:SchmuckyTheCat): Wrong or not, it's not relevant to the article.

ARP Warden Bill Hodges (Wikipedia:User:Mikkalai)): I hope you made sure your blackout curtains were shut when you left your house and where is your gas mask!

ARP Warden 1 (Wikipedia:User:Azathar) :Are you an ARP commnander Cheeseman ? I doubt it, , so, if you're not one, then you have no right to say case closed, and neither do I, since I'm not one either. Sorry, but I don't agree, she doesn't want her picture up, and if you look at her website, she specifically says that her image CANNOT be used on this website. Until I hear from a Wiki Admin, I'll take the pic down. Sorry, but her picture being up on wikipedia satisfies what, your curiosity about what she looks like? She changed the copyright on pictures she owns, deal with it. Either that, or get an ARP commander to lock the page.

Private Cheeseman (Wikipedia:User:Depakote) : Please don't split hairs -- Under the constraints of the 5 pillars you people are not proving you case -- your just giving legitimate ARP wardens trouble by causing pointless edit wars. If it's your desire to stir up and edit war against unbiased editors who follow the pillars, and face possible consequences, go ahead.

ARP Warden 1 (Wikipedia:User:Azathar) :How am I splitting hairs? Because I don't agree with you? Because you want to see what she looks like, when she has specifically stated not to use her picture on ARP newsletter? How do you think that makes ARP wardens look? I personally think it would make us look like asses to not do as she has asked, but whatever. We're going to have to agree to disagree. If you're saying I am not a legitimate ARP warden, then you are wrong. What is your justification for that? I also watch and edit other articles on the ARP Newsletter (see my user page for articles I watch and have created). My desire is to respect the wishes of the owner of the picture, not satisfy your personal curiosity as to what she looks like. After re-reading the Five Pillars, I don't think I am on unsolid ground. In fact, I'm requesting that this page be placed on protection until this issue can be resolved, because apparently you and I, Cheeseman are not going to resolve it.

Captain George Mainwaring (User:Sophia): Look calm down the pair of you can't you keep your men in line Hodges.

ARP Warden Bill Hodges (Wikipedia:User:Mikkalai)): I will if you will Napoleon!

Goebbels (disguised as a villager) (wikipedia:User:SchmuckyTheCat): I've removed information here on the talk page. It is nothing other than spreading personal attack information that isn't appropriate in the article and moving it to talk. A talk page is not a web forum nor a place for information that isn't good enough for the article. Does the discussion help the creation of an encyclopaedia? No, it's gripes from people disgruntled with the article subject and completely inappropriate.

Private Charles Godfrey(User:Carlb): I'm terribly sorry but you also appear to have also busied yourself removing information from the article itself, specifically the registered name of your Fuher, which is public information (whois). Please don't do this in cases where there is any means of verifying the info in question.

Goebbels (disguised as a villager) (wikipedia:User:SchmuckyTheCat): I removed the pic, which has an unknown copyright status, and an article section designed to be a personal attack that is only interesting to wikidrama followers. Whether the name on a whois report is interesting enough for the article, I take no position and haven't removed it in the past.

Private Charles Godfrey(User:Carlb): The copyright status is indeed known (original site prima facie does list the images as available for reuse on condition only that attribution be provided)... Do you suspect that the originating site itself doesn't have legitimate rights to redistribute the images - for instance if the photo were to happen to be of someone else and not of Sherrod Degrippo at all? Only reason I can see for this to be a legitimate copyright issue (as opposed to merely a blatant DMCA abuse to suppress facts). Deleting information isn't in any case bringing us any closer to answering those questions. I have a very bad feeling about this one.

Private Charles Godfrey(User:Carlb): Nonetheless, the supposed "personal info"? Much or most of what you've deleted is stuff available from a Google search on the name "Adolf Hitler", not exactly anything that you'd need a top secret clearance or any expertise in computer security to find. And yes, it's consistent with the whois on one of the IP's being used to delete info from the article. Big deal. Unfortunately that still doesn't tell us whether the photo is indeed of the person it purports to be (such is the magic of unisex names and hiding behind a computer) - and that's the one bit of info that will need to be known to determine ownership of the image. In order to respond to any DMCA abuse which may be directed against The ARP or The Home Guard, ownership will need to be determined.

Goering (also disguised) ((Wikipedia:User:Aussieintn): The above comment that "original site prima facie does list the images as available for reuse on condition only that attribution be provided" is untrue. The original site makes it very clear that the images are copyright, "not to be uploaded to any server" and so on.

Goebbels (disguised as a villager) (wikipedia:User:SchmuckyTheCat): The picture isn't relevant to the article, anymore than an article on wikipedia would have a picture of Jimbo.

Goebbels (disguised as a villager) (wikipedia:User:SchmuckyTheCat): Any other personal info isn't notable to the article either.

Goebbels (disguised as a villager) (wikipedia:User:SchmuckyTheCat): The description of the conflict is wiki-drama, not relevant to the subject of the article.

Goebbels (disguised as a villager) (wikipedia:User:SchmuckyTheCat):That it doesn't require any expertise to find the information isn't relevant, "Does it add to a readers understanding of the subject matter?" No.

Private Cheeseman (Wikipedia:User:Depakote) : You may be used to making points and assumptions and being able to make the final decision because your the commander in chief of the German Air force, but this is the real thing. The only people who are taking these pictures off are friends of Sherrod DeGrippo because she is paranoid about her name and her picture (public anyway, she has galleries of pictures with her on it). The picture itself was basically handed to us, if you can see by the archive she gave permission for anyone to use her pics as long as they linked back. Nothing being breached. Nobodies bleeding, nobodies hurt.

Goebbels (disguised as a villager) (wikipedia:User:SchmuckyTheCat): I don't care if Sherrod himself uploaded it. It's irrelevant to the article subject. Make a Sherrod DeGrippo article if you want to fixate on him.

Goering (Now unmasked) ((Wikipedia:User:Aussieintn): Again, the statement that Sherrod DeGrippo gave permission for use of the pics is untrue. Where is this permission? Do you have it in writing and signed, or is it merely an assumption?

Anthea Yeatman, the Vergers Wife (Wikipedia:User:2004-12-29T22:45Z): The thing is you are the Reich Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda and a nazi like Georing. Goebbels and Hitler, they have each other on their LiveJournal "friends" lists.

Lance-Corporal Jack Jones (User:Rcmurphy):Permission to speak sir!

Captain George Mainwaring (User:Sophia): Yes what is it Jones

Lance-Corporal Jack Jones (User:Rcmurphy):Oh my god it's Goering and Goebbels, don't panic, don't panic!

Private James Frazer (User:Stillwaters): Eye were doomed well be suffering under the jack boot of Nazi oppression by tea time, mark my words

Sergeant Arthur Wilson (User:Nytrospawn): Now come on Jones, Frazer calm down we all realise who they are now and they won't escape!

Goebbels (now unmasked):So what, we have babies? The newsletter article isn't about Hitler. He doesn't even contribute much content.

Private Joe Walker(User:Flammable): No, but if you understood basic logic, it suggests that your motives aren't exactly as noble as you would have us believe, by the way anyone need some Nylons I er, found some at the back of a cupboard.

Mavis Pike (User:KP):Oh I'll have a pair, Arthur you'll pay won't you.

Sergeant Arthur Wilson (User:Nytrospawn): OK Mavis.

Goering ((Wikipedia:User:Aussieintn): Yet every other contributor's motives are completely beyond reproach?

Private Joe Walker(User:Flammable):That wasn't implied. I stated what should have been an obvious inference. However, that's perfectly valid question, part of which I believe has been answered by previous discussion/speculation, I can also get hold of chocolate if anyone wants any.

Maurice Yeatman the Verger (User:47Monkey): Oy chocolate is supposed to be rationed!

Reverend Timothy Farthing (User:IMBJR):Never mind that verger, put me down for a bar, it's been ages since I've had any chocolate.

Goering ((Wikipedia:User:Aussieintn): I don't think motivation is relevant, anyway. If someone makes a factual statement, it is factual regardless of the person's motivation for making the statement. On the other hand, if a person makes an incorrect statement, the statement is false even if the person has completely acceptable reasons for making the statement or is merely misinformed.

Private Joe Walker(User:Flammable): You seem like the kind of guy who isn't happy unless they get the last word.

Private Joe Walker(User:Flammable): Kidding. Honest. I think this whole spiel is something best left to genuine third parties at this point.

(Georing and Goebbels throw down smoke bombs and manage to escape whilst the ARP and Home Guard argue over who should arrest them)

Mrs Fox (User:Sunsneezer): I can't see anything! What's with all that smoke?, Mr. Jones are you there?

Lance-Corporal Jack Jones (User:Rcmurphy): Don't Panic, Don't Panic, I'll save you Mrs. Fox