I never thought I'd see a section anywhere called "block of Drmies" and now my history is full of such references. Time to re-evaluate what I'm not doing right here. In the meantime, happy new year to all, including IP vandals, socks and masters, IP99, abusive admins, non-abusive admins, allegedly enabling admins, abusive content contributors, bots, vandal bots, dramahmongererers, ArbCom members, Jimbo, Badmachine, the Lady, Mandarax, Bbb, Ironholds, Dennis, Mandarax (again), MF, Floquenbeam, MONGO, Scottywong, Dougweller, and everyone else. Try to keep it clean and remember we're supposed to be here to write articles and help others write articles. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear you're taking a bit of a break, but please don't "re-evaluate" yourself off of the project entirely, that would very bad indeed. Happy New Year, and I hope you enjoy the Notre Dame/Alabama game. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia seems to have deterioted 3x quicker in the last week than it did the last few years. It has jumped a few of the loops of the death spiral, unfortunately closer to death.—cyberpowerChatOffline19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there have been prophets of Wikipedia's impending doom ever since the project began, but I sincerely doubt that Wikipedia's demise will come about because of implosion from within. It's much more likely that it will survive until something better comes along, which, at this point, would probably have to be a commercial venture. At some point, some sharp cookie is going to see the profit potential in an online encyclopedia, and if they've got the bucks, a project set up to be a collaboration of volunteer editors, but with a more coherent and effective administrative and oversight structure, would probably spell the end of Wikipedia, since they'll have all of our faults to learn from. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure they'd find some system of "paying" editors in points, or rank, or the equivalent of barnstars and Wikilove. If they're there to make money, the less they give away, the more they'd get to keep.
What's more important is that a coherent and rational top-down system of rules would probably have much less individual interpretation of what is and isn't a transgression, and (I would suspect) some sort of sliding scale whereby newbie editors would be given a break, and well-established editors would be also be given some leeway in light of their value to the project - so that Drmies would never have been blocked in the first place. We almost have that de facto now, except for those foolish people who insist that everyone should be treated precisely and exactly the same, no matter have much they've given - a serious mistake, in my view, because we're here to create an encyclopedia, that's our paramount concern, and whatever "community" comes about is a mere by-product. It's the friction between those two viewpoints that fuels the periodic eruptions such as the one yesterday. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they'd have to ID to the company, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the identification would have to be public.
Look, I'm not pushing the idea, I prefer to have a not-for-profit project, I was just pointing out that with the tremendous head-start Wikipedia has, its brand recognition and positioning, the only kind of start-up competitor that has any real chance of succeeding is a for-profit one, and that until that happens (if it ever does) Wikipedia is unlikely to fold simply because of conflict between editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see you've been around this morning handling a Boobnipple. Take your time mending fences (and I mean that only in the literal sense). Enjoy your break, and I know you realize that there are tons of people (and yes, you can take that literally too!) who want to see you back on regular duty. HAppY NЄW YЄAR! • !ЯAЭY WЭИ YqqAH – MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM21:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To continue my support of your attempts to gain youth cred, I have to point out Aymatth2's and Dr Blow-Dry's mistake with Riin Tamm (AfD discussion). Everyone knows that doing articles on scientists isn't hep and in the now, man. As you can see from User talk:Aymatth2#A New Year's present for you., Aymatth2 is even doing very dead scientists, which is even worse. And as you can also see from User talk:Aymatth2#Joseph Colt Bloodgood there's a whole load of very dead fellas, grandfathers and grandsons, with the same name that are leading Aymatth2 astray yet further. Very dead mayors aren't popular; and all these are only serving to lead Aymatth2 into contact with Poms who read noticeboards. Poms on noticeboards are things to be avoided.
Now you could do some more work on a K-Pop sub-unit of twee, and counter Pommiepedia bias. But that would be missing out on the Wikipedia editorship's mission to get every reality/talent show winner into Wikipedia. Rimas Valeikis, cartoonist, painter, and winner of Baltic Robinson, is absent, for example. As is his nieceMiglė Vilčiauskaitė, better known by her stage name of Migloko, whose album is reasonably priced. Lithuanian pop culture is what you want if you want effective youth cred. Not that science, history, geography, and philosophy dren.
After all, the Wikipedia editorship at large wants pretty pictures of young pop singers, not boring things for squares. Only a square, man, would have Wikipedia tell the world (or at least tell Greg Bard) that Arvydas Juozaitis was a prominent member of Lietuvos Persitvarkymo Sąjūdis and a scholar who did his dissertation on Wilhelm Dilthey; and that his withdrawal from the 1989 election led to Algirdas Brazauskas winning his seat. Lithuanian history ain't where the cool cats are at, man.
Kloek, Els; Teeuwen, Nicole; Huisman, Marijke, eds. (1994). Women of the Golden Age: An International Debate on Women in Seventeenth-century Holland, England and Italy. Uitgeverij Verloren. ISBN9789065503831. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
But you are sneakily leading Dr mi estas into doing non-pop-culture topics, M. Cripes It's 1942. Next, you'll be having xem writing about Judith Leyster's The Proposition, which Amanda Cross turned into a short story. Then you'll be getting xem to write about bottom wiping in Dutch art, such as Jan Miense Molenaer's The Sense of Smell and Adriaen van de Venne's illustration of Johan de Brune's Emblemata (1624). I suggest that Dr mi estas rightly cast your begilded and beguiling temptations aside, as the insidious distractions from the pop culture of Lithuania that they are.
Hofrichter, Frima Fox (1975). "Judith Leyster's Proposition: Between Virtue and Vice". Feminist Art Journal. 4: 22–26. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Hofrichter, Frima Fox (1982). "Judith Leyster's Proposition: Between Virtue and Vice". In Broude, Norma; Garrard, Mary (eds.). Feminism and Art History. New York: Harper & Row. pp. 173–181. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Kahr, Madlyn Millner (1978). "Judith Leyster: The Rejected Offer". Dutch painting in the seventeenth century. Harper & Row. pp. 65–66. ISBN9780064335768. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Schama, Simon (1988). "In The Republic of Children". The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age. University of California Press. ISBN9780520061477. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
van der Weij, Marleen (2003). ""A Good Man, Burgher, and Christian": the intended reader in Johan de Brune's Emblemata". In Adams, Alison; van der Weij, Marleen (eds.). Emblems of the Low Countries: Book Historical Perspective. Glasgow Emblem Studies. Vol. 8. Librairie Droz. ISBN9780852617854. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Westermann, Mariët (2005). "Texts and Images". A Worldly Art: The Dutch Republic, 1585–1718 (2nd ed.). Yale University Press. pp. 55–56. ISBN9780300107234. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Sure thing. I appreciate your note, given that the close (which is a bit muddled given the discussion) didn't really go your way. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I had my opinion, but the issue wasn't nearly as important to me as it seemed to be to some other contributors. It was better to get it closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
