== Thanks back! == 

 I drop by once a month or so and very much appreciated your comment.  

 The Media Viewer discussion is one of the most painful and saddening that I can recall, and I've been an editor (under various logins as jobs/lifestyles have changed) for most of WP's history. To watch WMF simply archive and ignore a strong, consistent, rational, well-reasoned and well-explained consensus in favour of a Trust-Me-I'm-a-Doctor approach is much like finding out that The Great And Powerful Oz is nothing more than a carnival huckster who couldn't steer his balloon. My first edits were in 2003. Main Page, WYSIWYG, English v English, There Is No Cabal (and it's sudden reversal), even the Jesus Wars and The Great Censorship Campaign  after a long list of little wars that made me laugh, cry or rant, this is the first that made me seriously doubt the viability of Wiki's core "consensus development" model.  We have lost incredible editors each time and I always wondered, "Can't they SEE the bigger picture? Have they forgotten what we're building here?"   

 Interesting... now that I think of it, I have not made a single edit in several months, not even to correct grammar and spelling errors that I spot (and I'm an unrelenting grammar freak). Wikipedia was (and I'm using the past tense deliberately) the great work of our age, akin to the volunteer-driven OED at the close of the 19th century or the convergence of plate tectonics, meteorology and palaeontology a few decades later  largely the work of amateurs and dilettantes but destined to change our understanding of our world. Perhaps this is how such efforts always die; those who create are marginalised so "real professionals" can get on with the important work without interference. Maybe those editors of old DID see the bigger picture and, rather late in the day, the penny has finally dropped for me. An interesting thought, and I sincerely hope I'm wrong.