This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
With in the last week 3 admins, Essjay, Doc glascow, and Robchurch have appeared to have left. Should I add them now. -- Aranda 56 16:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
With Hajor that is 4! If you are sure they have left definitely add them, SqueakBox 17:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I've already removed myself from the list. -- Essjay · Talk 21:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Should we add Zscout370? He last editted back in April, almost half a month ago, and apparently isn't on break. -- maru (talk) contribs 17:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
He had listed himself when he left (10 Nov. 2005), but this was unlisted somehow. I have relisted him. He has not edited since 10 Nov., and I do miss him. Also, in the same edit, I removed HighHopes, as I concur with Squeakbox above. Xoloz 18:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
HighHopes left a message on my talk page saying he had left, had actually made more than 2 edits, and would I please leave it in. Strange, SqueakBox 19:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Last edited 3 days ago so has no right to be on this list. He isn't missing. Nor do we want his soap bnox rant about wikipedia. Go take it to a forum which wikipedia is not, SqueakBox 19:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
SEW, please stop the blind reverting. The page says to include only people who were integrated into the community, and who are genuinely missing. Zordrac ( talk · contribs) was never integrated into the community so far as I know (he had been here only a short time) and is still editing despite having announced his departure many, many times. Zephram Stark ( talk · contribs) had made only 220 edits to articles, was a troll, was banned by the arbcom, and then came straight back with a sock puppet, so he isn't missing either. This page isn't for every single account that has ever stopped editing, or promised to. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza, this page has been moved to a subpage of Esperanza and will be used in conjunction with Esperanza's alert page as a record of "Leaving-Wikipedia" alerts that are not successful in encouraging users to stay. Non-Esperanzans are welcome to edit and help maintain the page. -- Tantalum T e lluride 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm just going to toss an idea out there but does anyone else think the page would be more beneficial if it was in chronological order from the "time they left/their last edit"? I'm willing to spend time in reorganizing it if anyone else thinks it's a good idea. — Moe ε 03:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
It's worth noting that Corvus13's last edit was in November 2001, before all revisions of pages were archived. If you look at his contribution history, you'll see even the edit of his leaving message doesn't exist anymore in the Wikipedia archive (that's why I just added the month and year instead of the exact day). He may only have 91 archived edits, but I'm sure he made a lot more. Billy H 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Pjacobi 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it posible to sort this by date? — Cool Cat Talk| @ 23:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Who would do that? Obviously you're not missing: You're lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuffyz ( talk • contribs)
Alot of people acually added themselves before when they tried to leave wikipedia. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Should we really have Cortonin on the list, if Cortonin was banned (even if only from some articles)? -- maru (talk) contribs 04:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
What should we do about banned users? We still have AI listed here.-- Cúchullain t/ c 16:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
And Mike Garcia isn't listed. He hadn't edited since August 8, and he made some edits on September 4 that resulted in him getting blocked. I don't know what's going on, but I think he did so much work here he deserves to be listed.-- Cúchullain t/ c 16:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've been seeing three formats - YY/MM/DD, MM/DD/YY, and DD/MM/YY. Can we get some consistency here? Hbdragon88 07:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Danakil's last edit was in fact on Sep.14th,check his/her user contributions.
October 6th 2006, Camembert made a few edits. So, he isn't missing anymore. -- 66.218.12.60 02:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Reporting a Wikipedian. Wernda said on his talk page,
"I have decided, after much consideration, to discontinue my support for Wikipedia indefinitely. The project has become simply too nasty for me. I will edit actively on other Wikimedia projects. If you need me, email me, or contact me on another project."
--Werdna 04:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Probable reason: "The request for adminship on this bot was just closed by Taxman with no consensus."
He's confirming he's User:O^O. Should we remove him from the list? - Emir214 06:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
A rather large percentage of those who are on the list are active again. Perhaps we should remove those who've edited frequently lately? [wossi]
How is this notable in any way? 128.193.238.6 06:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no mentioned rule. Cuchullain ( talk · contribs) took away Notransistory ( talk · contribs) because he has less than 500 edits. If there is a 500 edit rule, please show it to me. - Yancyfry
The 1000 edit rule is hard to understand. If a scientist writes two articles which nicely summarize his specialty and both are deleted resulting in that scientist refusing to contribute anymore well that scientist's name should go on this list. If the loss of important contributions isn’t the point of this list what is?
As mentioned in the economist: There is a limit to how much information a group of predominantly non-specialist volunteers, armed with a search engine, can create and edit. Producing articles about specialist subjects such as Solidarity activists, as opposed to Pokémon characters, requires expert knowledge from contributors and editors...To create a new article on Wikipedia and be sure that it will survive, you need to be able to write a “deletionist-proof” entry and ensure that you have enough online backing (such as Google matches) to convince the increasingly picky Wikipedia people of its importance. This raises the threshold for writing articles so high that very few people actually do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.160.41 ( talk) 08:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I recently found that that Jerryseinfeld had been blocked indefinitely by RadioKirk in September 2006. Would it be worth putting this piece of information in? After all, since the user is blocked indefinitely, they'll never edit again with that account. Acalamari 20:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess I can retire now. After I click Save, I will have 1308 edits. - Yancyfry 02:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The result of the MFD was keep. However, this list needs some serious pruning as it is becoming very large. There are some useful suggestions in the MFD discussion. -- Core desat 05:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added the former administrator RadioKirk, because he announced his was inactive on April 3rd 2007. He came back very, very briefly on May 16th 2007, but only to announce that his (quote) 'administrative access has been removed by request' on his userpage. So I think he should definately be added. Lra drama 13:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we could make the 1000 edit rule an exception when the member did something notable like write a featured article. Cheers, Je t Lover 23:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I added two people to the list that were very meaningful to me. I have had User:Cuchullain and then User:IPSOS remove the names from the list according to their various biases. User:Cuchullain removed them saying that they had less than 1000 edits and that was the criteria. User:IPSOS added several people to the list with less than 1000 edits, but removed my names because they did not fulfill his mainspace criteria. I believe I should be able to add people who were meaningful to me and a group of editors. Regards, -- Mattisse 01:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This page mentions adding your name to WP:ALERT instead of here, but that project is inactive. Curious as to how someone ought proceed. Not for myself, of course, but it strikes me that that would stress users more. Denna Haldane 13:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a note: Phaedrial hasn't left officially. Until she leaves a goodbye message or hasn't made any edits for a long-period of time, it should not be implied that she has officially left. - Yancyfry 04:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Plato (talk • contribs • count) - Last edit for a while was 14 May 2005. It had been reported on this page that he had died (and he was asked about this on his talk page), but he made three edits between 1 February - 2 February 2006. I'm not dead! I'm very much alive--Plato 06:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Can someone please remove this? -- Plato 05:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
BostonMA's line contains the phrase, "stopped editing proflicially in February". Looks like the author meant "officially" or "prolifically". "Proflicially" isn't a word; it turns up 2 Google results, one of which is this page. It should be corrected by someone who knows which word is appropriate for BostonMA. 64.222.229.46 ( talk) 03:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and done some reformatting on the # section of the list. Where details were provided I've largely preserved them, but in each case have added (or augmented):
I intend to proceed with the other sections, but wanted to get opinions from people before doing so, and so am placing this notice here to see if I can get a consensus to proceed (obviously I won't if one is not forthcoming). I commit to refrain from making further reformatting edits for one week from this posting, to allow consensus to form. If there are no responses, I will take that to mean I am OK to proceed.
So, what are your thoughts? — digitaleon • talk @ 10:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The time period allowed for consensus to form has elapsed. Based upon the above, I judge there is sufficient cosensus to proceed with updating the page, and will be doing so, section by section, during the coming days / weeks. Thankyou to everyone that had input. If there are any issues that come up whilst doing this, please leave a message either here or on my talk. Cheers! — digitaleon • talk @ 15:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me if there's a place for this page at all it shouldn't be a manually edited page, but an automatically generated page with well documented criteria. Right now it's really not terribly accurate, even supposing everyone agreed on the criteria, and I see no reason to believe that would change without a move to automation. Hmoulding ( talk) 02:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
When I started working on this, I didn't imagine I would end up being a candidate for the list itself! Unfortunately, that's what's happened; you can see my reasons on my user and user talk pages. My apologies for not completing this work. My plan had been to contribute to policy discussions (amidst regular article edits) using the myriad valedictions listed here as a basis. Both items are open for others to continue with if they wish. All the best, — digitaleon • talk @ 14:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
With in the last week 3 admins, Essjay, Doc glascow, and Robchurch have appeared to have left. Should I add them now. -- Aranda 56 16:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
With Hajor that is 4! If you are sure they have left definitely add them, SqueakBox 17:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I've already removed myself from the list. -- Essjay · Talk 21:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Should we add Zscout370? He last editted back in April, almost half a month ago, and apparently isn't on break. -- maru (talk) contribs 17:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
He had listed himself when he left (10 Nov. 2005), but this was unlisted somehow. I have relisted him. He has not edited since 10 Nov., and I do miss him. Also, in the same edit, I removed HighHopes, as I concur with Squeakbox above. Xoloz 18:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
HighHopes left a message on my talk page saying he had left, had actually made more than 2 edits, and would I please leave it in. Strange, SqueakBox 19:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Last edited 3 days ago so has no right to be on this list. He isn't missing. Nor do we want his soap bnox rant about wikipedia. Go take it to a forum which wikipedia is not, SqueakBox 19:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
SEW, please stop the blind reverting. The page says to include only people who were integrated into the community, and who are genuinely missing. Zordrac ( talk · contribs) was never integrated into the community so far as I know (he had been here only a short time) and is still editing despite having announced his departure many, many times. Zephram Stark ( talk · contribs) had made only 220 edits to articles, was a troll, was banned by the arbcom, and then came straight back with a sock puppet, so he isn't missing either. This page isn't for every single account that has ever stopped editing, or promised to. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza, this page has been moved to a subpage of Esperanza and will be used in conjunction with Esperanza's alert page as a record of "Leaving-Wikipedia" alerts that are not successful in encouraging users to stay. Non-Esperanzans are welcome to edit and help maintain the page. -- Tantalum T e lluride 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm just going to toss an idea out there but does anyone else think the page would be more beneficial if it was in chronological order from the "time they left/their last edit"? I'm willing to spend time in reorganizing it if anyone else thinks it's a good idea. — Moe ε 03:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
It's worth noting that Corvus13's last edit was in November 2001, before all revisions of pages were archived. If you look at his contribution history, you'll see even the edit of his leaving message doesn't exist anymore in the Wikipedia archive (that's why I just added the month and year instead of the exact day). He may only have 91 archived edits, but I'm sure he made a lot more. Billy H 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Pjacobi 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it posible to sort this by date? — Cool Cat Talk| @ 23:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Who would do that? Obviously you're not missing: You're lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuffyz ( talk • contribs)
Alot of people acually added themselves before when they tried to leave wikipedia. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Should we really have Cortonin on the list, if Cortonin was banned (even if only from some articles)? -- maru (talk) contribs 04:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
What should we do about banned users? We still have AI listed here.-- Cúchullain t/ c 16:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
And Mike Garcia isn't listed. He hadn't edited since August 8, and he made some edits on September 4 that resulted in him getting blocked. I don't know what's going on, but I think he did so much work here he deserves to be listed.-- Cúchullain t/ c 16:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've been seeing three formats - YY/MM/DD, MM/DD/YY, and DD/MM/YY. Can we get some consistency here? Hbdragon88 07:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Danakil's last edit was in fact on Sep.14th,check his/her user contributions.
October 6th 2006, Camembert made a few edits. So, he isn't missing anymore. -- 66.218.12.60 02:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Reporting a Wikipedian. Wernda said on his talk page,
"I have decided, after much consideration, to discontinue my support for Wikipedia indefinitely. The project has become simply too nasty for me. I will edit actively on other Wikimedia projects. If you need me, email me, or contact me on another project."
--Werdna 04:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Probable reason: "The request for adminship on this bot was just closed by Taxman with no consensus."
He's confirming he's User:O^O. Should we remove him from the list? - Emir214 06:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
A rather large percentage of those who are on the list are active again. Perhaps we should remove those who've edited frequently lately? [wossi]
How is this notable in any way? 128.193.238.6 06:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no mentioned rule. Cuchullain ( talk · contribs) took away Notransistory ( talk · contribs) because he has less than 500 edits. If there is a 500 edit rule, please show it to me. - Yancyfry
The 1000 edit rule is hard to understand. If a scientist writes two articles which nicely summarize his specialty and both are deleted resulting in that scientist refusing to contribute anymore well that scientist's name should go on this list. If the loss of important contributions isn’t the point of this list what is?
As mentioned in the economist: There is a limit to how much information a group of predominantly non-specialist volunteers, armed with a search engine, can create and edit. Producing articles about specialist subjects such as Solidarity activists, as opposed to Pokémon characters, requires expert knowledge from contributors and editors...To create a new article on Wikipedia and be sure that it will survive, you need to be able to write a “deletionist-proof” entry and ensure that you have enough online backing (such as Google matches) to convince the increasingly picky Wikipedia people of its importance. This raises the threshold for writing articles so high that very few people actually do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.160.41 ( talk) 08:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I recently found that that Jerryseinfeld had been blocked indefinitely by RadioKirk in September 2006. Would it be worth putting this piece of information in? After all, since the user is blocked indefinitely, they'll never edit again with that account. Acalamari 20:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess I can retire now. After I click Save, I will have 1308 edits. - Yancyfry 02:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The result of the MFD was keep. However, this list needs some serious pruning as it is becoming very large. There are some useful suggestions in the MFD discussion. -- Core desat 05:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added the former administrator RadioKirk, because he announced his was inactive on April 3rd 2007. He came back very, very briefly on May 16th 2007, but only to announce that his (quote) 'administrative access has been removed by request' on his userpage. So I think he should definately be added. Lra drama 13:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we could make the 1000 edit rule an exception when the member did something notable like write a featured article. Cheers, Je t Lover 23:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I added two people to the list that were very meaningful to me. I have had User:Cuchullain and then User:IPSOS remove the names from the list according to their various biases. User:Cuchullain removed them saying that they had less than 1000 edits and that was the criteria. User:IPSOS added several people to the list with less than 1000 edits, but removed my names because they did not fulfill his mainspace criteria. I believe I should be able to add people who were meaningful to me and a group of editors. Regards, -- Mattisse 01:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This page mentions adding your name to WP:ALERT instead of here, but that project is inactive. Curious as to how someone ought proceed. Not for myself, of course, but it strikes me that that would stress users more. Denna Haldane 13:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a note: Phaedrial hasn't left officially. Until she leaves a goodbye message or hasn't made any edits for a long-period of time, it should not be implied that she has officially left. - Yancyfry 04:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Plato (talk • contribs • count) - Last edit for a while was 14 May 2005. It had been reported on this page that he had died (and he was asked about this on his talk page), but he made three edits between 1 February - 2 February 2006. I'm not dead! I'm very much alive--Plato 06:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Can someone please remove this? -- Plato 05:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
BostonMA's line contains the phrase, "stopped editing proflicially in February". Looks like the author meant "officially" or "prolifically". "Proflicially" isn't a word; it turns up 2 Google results, one of which is this page. It should be corrected by someone who knows which word is appropriate for BostonMA. 64.222.229.46 ( talk) 03:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and done some reformatting on the # section of the list. Where details were provided I've largely preserved them, but in each case have added (or augmented):
I intend to proceed with the other sections, but wanted to get opinions from people before doing so, and so am placing this notice here to see if I can get a consensus to proceed (obviously I won't if one is not forthcoming). I commit to refrain from making further reformatting edits for one week from this posting, to allow consensus to form. If there are no responses, I will take that to mean I am OK to proceed.
So, what are your thoughts? — digitaleon • talk @ 10:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The time period allowed for consensus to form has elapsed. Based upon the above, I judge there is sufficient cosensus to proceed with updating the page, and will be doing so, section by section, during the coming days / weeks. Thankyou to everyone that had input. If there are any issues that come up whilst doing this, please leave a message either here or on my talk. Cheers! — digitaleon • talk @ 15:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me if there's a place for this page at all it shouldn't be a manually edited page, but an automatically generated page with well documented criteria. Right now it's really not terribly accurate, even supposing everyone agreed on the criteria, and I see no reason to believe that would change without a move to automation. Hmoulding ( talk) 02:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
When I started working on this, I didn't imagine I would end up being a candidate for the list itself! Unfortunately, that's what's happened; you can see my reasons on my user and user talk pages. My apologies for not completing this work. My plan had been to contribute to policy discussions (amidst regular article edits) using the myriad valedictions listed here as a basis. Both items are open for others to continue with if they wish. All the best, — digitaleon • talk @ 14:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |