Wikipedia talk:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd

Canvassing anyone?

I don't have the energy, but it may be a good idea to go thru the participants from the first time, and send them a "hey, you want in" sort-of reminder... --Jayron32 03:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I can do it with my bot. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

well.... Sounds good to me. It looks like maybe 7-8 people were notified by italian flag dude, but there were many participants the first time around. Also, maybe a note in the Signpost or something would drum up some support. --Jayron32 04:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Doing, then. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done, I think. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If Jimbo signs up again and adds the notice on his talk page we're sure to get a huge flood of editors signing up. -- œ^™ 20:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Gawd, I can't remember any other initiative initiated by me getting all this support, in one day! ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 16:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I might be in...

...depending on the result of the ArbCom election. Steve Smith (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

...depending on whether I decide leaving AE to lie fallow for 5 days is hilarious or terrible.--Tznkai (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Text colors used

Who decided to use the white color for texts??? It is simple unreadable!!! I had to highlight the message to read it. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 14:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA?

Just wondering why RfA wasn't mentioned. Did someone think its vital?--Tznkai (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone notice this?

[[1]]Seems to only to be making fun of the Dramaout.Abce2|Free lemonadeonly 25 cents! 17:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Trolling, vandalism, needless drama, biased rule-making, bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, how to properly form a hyphen or a dash, moving quotes before and after punctuation marks, changing "color" to "colour" and back again, date-linking and date-unlinking, etc., etc., etc. This is all going to continue during the short run of this project. And it will still be there when it's done. Our purpose will be to concentrate on contributing actual content. That this bothers some is far more a comment on their activities here, than ours. So let them throw their sticks and stones. I wouldn't pay any attention to it. I, for one, am looking forward to the drama-out. Happy holidays. Dekkappai (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not going to pay attention to that crap.Abce2|Free lemonadeonly 25 cents! 14:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there was no need to start a thread about it as it could lead to unnecessary dra– you know what, never mind. Good luck with the "dramaout" and may it have a long lasting effect. Otherwise what would be the point. Nev1 (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect a lot of the "Counter"-dramaout thing is just bait to test our resolution. Don't fall for it! :-) Dekkappai (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Those who are most addicted to drama can add the following line to their stylesheet:

textarea { background: url("http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/Nodrama.png"); }

This will add a nice background to the edit box which will remember you to think twice whether the edit you're about to save on a talk page is really constructive to the article. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 12:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Quitting

I think it is very significant that during the run of this project Jimbo took time here to thank the most appallingly dramatic, schoolyard-bullyish, openly contemptuous for "consensus" anti-content Admin I have had the misfortune to encounter here. Since I have been so mistaken in my understanding of the ideals which I thought Wikipedia stood for-- freedom of information, collaborative editing, discussion, NPOV, sourcing, etc.-- I see no point in continuing on the wrong side here. I suppose my choices are two: Become a Machiavellian power-gaming scumbag, or quit. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Door #3...recognize the harm done by tens of thousands of articles on living people that few if any see or fact-check in 3+ years...is still a choice. Don't be afraid to crack it open. Tarc (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it isn't the drama pages that are the problem, but the propensity of our community members to rely on straw man arguments instead of actually trying to talk to eachother?--Tznkai (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And what does this have to do, in the slightest, with the Dramaout? Quit Wikipedia if you want to, but why do you need to announce it here? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Calling somebody a dramatic, schoolyard-bullyish, openly contemptuous for "consensus" anti-content Admin is one way to make the decision easy, unfortunately. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it time to award the barnstar?

It's been about 2 days since the dramaout ended, and when looking at the image of the barnstar template, it is only used on 2 pages: the template, and a Juliancolton talk page archive. Normally, I'd expect the barnstars to be given out by now. Anyone wanna take a shot at that? ConCompS talk review 03:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I rather feel someone should have a go at making a sort of template / box at the top of the project page reflecting (with humour!) on why this dramaout kinda didn't really work, co-inciding, as it did, with prolly the biggest drama broo ha ha in ages! I wouldn't want to blame the dramaout for the dramain, but in it most certainly was (and still is! matinees at 2, three shows an evening in every timezone!) - there's really no shame in the somewhat spectacular miss this one ended up, in fact, it's quite good comedy soil if someone fancies whipping something up..... you gotta laugh (it's the best medicine) ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I spent my week producing content. I don't think the whole BLP-debate missed me all that much. What's everyone elses excuse? --Jayron32 21:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh jeez, can we just get back on topic? ConCompS talk review 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you give it a shot ConCompS? :) -- œ^™ 10:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)