![]() | 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 |
I suggest creating a Wikipedia:Retired Wikipedians page for those who have explicitly said good bye, and leave the unexpected disappearances to this page. hbdragon88 ( talk) 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support creating a separate Retired wikipedians page, as reitired wikipedians are not truly missing-they intentionally stopped editing. Also, when Wikipedians retire, there is frequently an inciting event (e.g., a block, failed RfA, personal attack, deletion of a page) whereas with missing wikipediands they stopped editing for no reason what so ever. Immunize ( talk) 15:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
(this is he, returning just for one little nitpick) The last sentence at the end of my entry totally misrepresents the content and direction of the discussion to which it refers. Rather than fix it myself I'm sure everyone would agree that it would be much less contentious if some conscientious individual were to at least rewrite it so it's less vengeful and more accurate. I will not be responding any more to this topic; just wanted to get this out there. 216.135.28.176 ( talk) 01:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we change this into a category instead of a WP: page? It would be much more useful. Math Cool 10 Sign here! 01:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
From User talk:Louis Kyu Won Ryu:
I have contributed under other names and plan to continue to do so; I fear I do not wish to have the other accounts publicly known. Jimbo and a couple others are aware of the particulars. Most of my contributions to everyday, hum-drum, non-controversial topics are under one persona. I am Louis for more controversial edits and policy discussions. Periodically, I abandon a persona and create a new one.
I do this for a number of reasons, but chiefly because I believe that the Wikipedia edit history will remain public for decades and I want to erect some barriers to the convenient retrival of a full list of edits, to articles, talk pages, and all, by some investigator twenty years hence when I'm looking for a job. In contrast to on-line communities like The Well (where you "own your own words"), there is no provision on Wikipedia to delete one's own contributions. Even on UseNet, while more compete archives exist, most respect X-No-Archive, and dejanews/google groups allows you to retroactively remove content. And in the absence of a meatball:UseRealNames philosophy, I see no reason why I should in effect sign every post. Martin is aware of my real name, as are a few others who I trust; it is unique enough that Usenet and Web searches return a fair number of valid hits.
In any case, I ask for no more consideration than a casual anonymous user. I ask for no special status based on my past history, and would hope that no one would ascribe any. Actual experience bears this out, as Wikipedians rarely give greater credence to material written by longtime users. On the other hand, there is some development of cliqueish groups who are mutually supportive due to a similar viewpoint on issues of mutual concern. Each edit speaks for itself on Wikipedia, by and large, and that's probably OK.
As a rule, I don't edit the same page under more than one persona, at least not on purpose. For one thing, I might get in an edit war with myself :-). But seriously, that would raise issues of fairness. And, as a rule, I try to avoid voting on anything, under this persona or any other.
In any case, I'm here to write an encyclopedia, to foster community, create shared understanding, support the Meatball:RightToFork, support the free availability of the content in perpetuity, and be part of something that is unique enough that no one really knows how it will turn out.
Louis Kyu Won Ryu 02:02, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Makes me question whether it's worth adding anyone at all to this list. -- OlEnglish ( Talk) 03:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you think maybe we should have a section somewhere on the wikipedia where people's views have been expressed as to why editors have left and maybe therefore we can improve this project to make sure that the number of editors rises instead of falls. Maybe im focusing on the negative, i know there are tons of people doing great stuff on here and they don't get recognised but i have just over the years come across many reasons and i think there should be one place where this can be documented so we can learn from one another. Messages like this, or this just to link a few. Cheers 211.30.120.216 ( talk) 11:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
This page, from January 2006 until today, instructed editors to "wait about a month" before listing another editor as missing. Prior to January 2006, the instructions were to "wait at least several weeks", instructions that were not unlike the previous ones.
Any consensus for a change to "at least 3 months" (which I have reverted per WP:BRD)?
Bongo matic 03:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
OK so I'm gonna go ahead and change it to 3 months minimum, unless Bongo do you want to start an RFC for wider community input? I can agree to leave MGM in the list as an exception. -- œ ™ 17:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
3 months seems a bit to long to me. My assumption would be that most, but not all very involved editors would not abandon editing for 1-2 months without notice. I would say 1 month seems like a more reasonable guidline, unless, of course, they leave a goodbye message or retirement template, in which case I think the editor should be added to the list after 2 weeks of inactivity. Regards. Immunize ( talk) 19:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I feel that it depends on the actual contributor. Some contributors (including myself) are on almost every day, thus a 2 week break would be highly unusual. Other editors are less reliable-they come for a week-they go for a week. I feel that you should wait at least 1 month if an editor is in the latter group, but that they may be put into the list if they are in the former group and disappear for 2-3 weeks. Regards. Immunize ( talk) 15:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
A couple decently established editors who haven't edited in at least a month include the following whom I just requested a status update from: [1] and [2]. Both were assets to our project and I am concerned what happened, i.e. no dramatic departure, they just stopped. A couple others who stopped editing unannounced include User:Randomran and User:Sephiroth BCR. Anyway, at least a few editors with whom I had many interactions and who were not like on the verge of being banned, so, just a bit concerned. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 03:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should be listing any users who have requested meta:Right to vanish. I'm assuming they would not want to be listed. Thoughts? Anyone agree/disagree? -- œ ™ 04:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Extraordinary Machine ( talk · contribs), who had not edited since August 13, 2009, made a number of edits on January 30,2010, so I removed him from the list of missing wikipedians. Immunize ( talk) 00:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I intend to add Emmanuelm ( talk · contribs) to the list of missing wikipedians,as he has made no contributions since December 20.He left no indications of a wikibreak prior to his departure. Immunize ( talk) 16:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I get a little pissed off from time to time and sometimes I think about tossing in the towel and leaving. Can I get a listing on this page... or do I have to wait until I'm so pissed off that I really do leave for good? JBarta ( talk) 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Among those users that retired or left rather than just 'disappeared', many of them leave statements and good-bye letters on their user pages stating why they chose to leave. If someone could sort through and arrange all these various reasons this would provide useful insight on what we're doing wrong, what we could do better, and could make for a good report for the Community Health Task Force at the Strategy Wiki site, or at least some interesting statistical information to display on a subpage here. Thoughts? -- œ ™ 08:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Some relevant links:
Another good resource to discover reasons why certain Wikipedians leave is the history of the Wikipedia:Stress alerts page. For instance, have a look at this particular revision: [3] where a number of Wikipedians explain their issues. -- œ ™ 12:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
HighinBC mostly made edits favourable to cannabis, which led to threats against his family. Cannabis causes much crime and the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.55.93 ( talk) 11:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there any particular logic to when this should be used? It seems decently consistent for those who still have the admin bit, but much more random for former admins. 「 ダイノガイ 千?!」 ? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 05:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The use of the admin bullet causes an accessibility problem for me as a screen reader user since it doesn't contain a "*" to signify the start of a list item. I would like to be able to move through the list by pressing "i" to get to the next list item, but I can't do that reliably because of the mop icon. The best way of illustrating this problem is with an example. In the "c" section I hear: "list of 2 items, Camptown, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, list end; mop icon: CanadianCaesar; list of 7 items, Cantthinkofagoodname ..." and so on. Ideally I'd like to have all the names in each section as one long HTML list. How can this problem be resolved? Graham 87 03:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
re: [4] .. Actually, the {{ mop}} icon was intended to function as a stylized bullet itself, but oh well, I guess this'll work too. -- œ ™ 04:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Because some entries are 3 lines or more I think it would look neater and read more clearly if this list could be formatted with the hanging indent style; similar to how WP:Wikipedians with articles does it. Anyone know if this could be done in conjunction with the {{mop}} icon and also without causing any accessibility headaches? -- œ ™ 17:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Or we could just drop the mop icon altogether, (Just found out that the mop icon CAN work with the handing indent style!) in which case here is an example of how the list would look like with hanging indent:
User:OlEnglish/test. What do guys think? --
œ
™ 17:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I just looked over this list and it's depressing to see how many of my wiki-friends circa 2003/2004 are on here. Raul654 ( talk) 09:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Change the "
#" header to a level 2 header, titled "0-9" (to fit the coding, because [[Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians##]] doesn't work with coding when typed). Also, "Index" box at the top should include " [[##|#]] ". Change
to include " #" before the " A". Also, change the " Missing Wikipedians" header to a level 1 header, to fit the below alphabetical headers. 71.146.20.62 ( talk) 00:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering if anyone cares to try and assess statistics of Wikipedians who made a very small, but important contribution to Wikipedia, such as this one for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rtseosupermario Ottawahitech ( talk) 18:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I have just moved the entry user:Giovanni Camporeale to have it properly sorted. Afterwards I noticed that this editor has less than the required number of edits to be included in the list - yet this entry has been around for a while (btw how can I find out when this entry was created?). X Ottawahitech ( talk) 13:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I know the edit threshold is meant to keep people from adding others willy-nilly, but I think we could make some exceptions for those who were quite active and made huge, even if few, contributions in their areas of interest. I just came back from seeing a guy's page with a barnstar on it for working hard to promote Christina Aguilera's articles to GA, and he's only made 942 edits ATM. If he were to leave right now, I'd say he could be put here because apparently he's had a huge impact on Wikipedia, even if he wasn't the only one responsible for those GAs. LazyBastard Guy 04:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I have come across a few mentions of Esperanza, but don't know what it was. I see on the article page the mention that Eequor (Last edit February 16, 2006) left a note at Esperanza that said "I don't expect to come back again."
I would like to read this discussion but don't know how to find it. Is there a way, or is it one of those topics that only admins can see? Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Apparently Fastily stated that he/she is quitting English Wikipedia, not Wikipedia at all. He/she is still active in Commons and Meta. Spartacks Compatriot 11:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I happened to visit another wikipedian's user page and found this. I wonder if others also keep track of their own MW's? Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I have been gtetting a lot of error messages recently when I try to see someone's count. This should be a problem for anyone browsing/contibuting to this wiki-page? Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I have been getting Proxy Errors for the last little while (after clicking "count"). Anyone else? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
See my edit summary here, regarding this edit. Graham 87 02:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
This is the second time that I added a blocked editor to the list. The first time my edit was removed by someone who had first hand recollections of frustrations involved with the particular editor, so it appears that the editor was not really missed.
The editor I inserted recently seems to have a number of talk-page supporters, so I thought it would be interesting to see if anyone here objects to this entry and to see the reasoning. After all there are thousands (I think) of blocked editors, so I assume some are missed? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I have just had another addition of a wp:blocked user reverted. This one was not a wp:Sock Puppet but was wp:indefntiely blocked after making more than fifty thousand edits on Wikipedia. I had come across this editor myself a few times, and he seemed to be a serious contributor. I was shocked when I found out he was blocked indefinitely. There is no block notices on his user or talk pages and no explanation/reason for the block.
Is there a way to tell which blocked editors are acceptable to include in this list and which ones are not? Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Revolution1221 left a template and message on his user page, stating he was abruptly leaving. 173.73.64.153 ( talk) 21:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
My general thought about the idea is meh ... it could be marginally useful, but it would also make it harder to update the list (especially for newer users). I left it there after this edit because I didn't want to interfere with the "style" of each individual's entry, if you know what I mean. Graham 87 02:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I Have been getting a message:
When I try to get an editor's count. Anyone else? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 21:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I got this error message when trying to add user: Gungadin to the list of MWs:
But it looks like the entry was added anyway. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
While notifying one of the editors that he was added to the list of missing wikipedians, I noticed an older message that may need some action:
The last edit by Noetica as a Wikipedian was in early February 2013. Editors can check his contributions at
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Noetica, but they may wish to avoid seeing the last three posts that he made, in April 2013, "as a consumer", where a profane expression was discussed in the second post. At 11:37, 3 February 2013, Noetica
posted in reference to his talk page "I would prefer that it be kept very bare. I do not want notifications of any kind here".
—
Wavelength (
talk) 04:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
I suggest creating a Wikipedia:Retired Wikipedians page for those who have explicitly said good bye, and leave the unexpected disappearances to this page. hbdragon88 ( talk) 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support creating a separate Retired wikipedians page, as reitired wikipedians are not truly missing-they intentionally stopped editing. Also, when Wikipedians retire, there is frequently an inciting event (e.g., a block, failed RfA, personal attack, deletion of a page) whereas with missing wikipediands they stopped editing for no reason what so ever. Immunize ( talk) 15:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
(this is he, returning just for one little nitpick) The last sentence at the end of my entry totally misrepresents the content and direction of the discussion to which it refers. Rather than fix it myself I'm sure everyone would agree that it would be much less contentious if some conscientious individual were to at least rewrite it so it's less vengeful and more accurate. I will not be responding any more to this topic; just wanted to get this out there. 216.135.28.176 ( talk) 01:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we change this into a category instead of a WP: page? It would be much more useful. Math Cool 10 Sign here! 01:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
From User talk:Louis Kyu Won Ryu:
I have contributed under other names and plan to continue to do so; I fear I do not wish to have the other accounts publicly known. Jimbo and a couple others are aware of the particulars. Most of my contributions to everyday, hum-drum, non-controversial topics are under one persona. I am Louis for more controversial edits and policy discussions. Periodically, I abandon a persona and create a new one.
I do this for a number of reasons, but chiefly because I believe that the Wikipedia edit history will remain public for decades and I want to erect some barriers to the convenient retrival of a full list of edits, to articles, talk pages, and all, by some investigator twenty years hence when I'm looking for a job. In contrast to on-line communities like The Well (where you "own your own words"), there is no provision on Wikipedia to delete one's own contributions. Even on UseNet, while more compete archives exist, most respect X-No-Archive, and dejanews/google groups allows you to retroactively remove content. And in the absence of a meatball:UseRealNames philosophy, I see no reason why I should in effect sign every post. Martin is aware of my real name, as are a few others who I trust; it is unique enough that Usenet and Web searches return a fair number of valid hits.
In any case, I ask for no more consideration than a casual anonymous user. I ask for no special status based on my past history, and would hope that no one would ascribe any. Actual experience bears this out, as Wikipedians rarely give greater credence to material written by longtime users. On the other hand, there is some development of cliqueish groups who are mutually supportive due to a similar viewpoint on issues of mutual concern. Each edit speaks for itself on Wikipedia, by and large, and that's probably OK.
As a rule, I don't edit the same page under more than one persona, at least not on purpose. For one thing, I might get in an edit war with myself :-). But seriously, that would raise issues of fairness. And, as a rule, I try to avoid voting on anything, under this persona or any other.
In any case, I'm here to write an encyclopedia, to foster community, create shared understanding, support the Meatball:RightToFork, support the free availability of the content in perpetuity, and be part of something that is unique enough that no one really knows how it will turn out.
Louis Kyu Won Ryu 02:02, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Makes me question whether it's worth adding anyone at all to this list. -- OlEnglish ( Talk) 03:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you think maybe we should have a section somewhere on the wikipedia where people's views have been expressed as to why editors have left and maybe therefore we can improve this project to make sure that the number of editors rises instead of falls. Maybe im focusing on the negative, i know there are tons of people doing great stuff on here and they don't get recognised but i have just over the years come across many reasons and i think there should be one place where this can be documented so we can learn from one another. Messages like this, or this just to link a few. Cheers 211.30.120.216 ( talk) 11:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
This page, from January 2006 until today, instructed editors to "wait about a month" before listing another editor as missing. Prior to January 2006, the instructions were to "wait at least several weeks", instructions that were not unlike the previous ones.
Any consensus for a change to "at least 3 months" (which I have reverted per WP:BRD)?
Bongo matic 03:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
OK so I'm gonna go ahead and change it to 3 months minimum, unless Bongo do you want to start an RFC for wider community input? I can agree to leave MGM in the list as an exception. -- œ ™ 17:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
3 months seems a bit to long to me. My assumption would be that most, but not all very involved editors would not abandon editing for 1-2 months without notice. I would say 1 month seems like a more reasonable guidline, unless, of course, they leave a goodbye message or retirement template, in which case I think the editor should be added to the list after 2 weeks of inactivity. Regards. Immunize ( talk) 19:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I feel that it depends on the actual contributor. Some contributors (including myself) are on almost every day, thus a 2 week break would be highly unusual. Other editors are less reliable-they come for a week-they go for a week. I feel that you should wait at least 1 month if an editor is in the latter group, but that they may be put into the list if they are in the former group and disappear for 2-3 weeks. Regards. Immunize ( talk) 15:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
A couple decently established editors who haven't edited in at least a month include the following whom I just requested a status update from: [1] and [2]. Both were assets to our project and I am concerned what happened, i.e. no dramatic departure, they just stopped. A couple others who stopped editing unannounced include User:Randomran and User:Sephiroth BCR. Anyway, at least a few editors with whom I had many interactions and who were not like on the verge of being banned, so, just a bit concerned. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 03:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should be listing any users who have requested meta:Right to vanish. I'm assuming they would not want to be listed. Thoughts? Anyone agree/disagree? -- œ ™ 04:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Extraordinary Machine ( talk · contribs), who had not edited since August 13, 2009, made a number of edits on January 30,2010, so I removed him from the list of missing wikipedians. Immunize ( talk) 00:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I intend to add Emmanuelm ( talk · contribs) to the list of missing wikipedians,as he has made no contributions since December 20.He left no indications of a wikibreak prior to his departure. Immunize ( talk) 16:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I get a little pissed off from time to time and sometimes I think about tossing in the towel and leaving. Can I get a listing on this page... or do I have to wait until I'm so pissed off that I really do leave for good? JBarta ( talk) 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Among those users that retired or left rather than just 'disappeared', many of them leave statements and good-bye letters on their user pages stating why they chose to leave. If someone could sort through and arrange all these various reasons this would provide useful insight on what we're doing wrong, what we could do better, and could make for a good report for the Community Health Task Force at the Strategy Wiki site, or at least some interesting statistical information to display on a subpage here. Thoughts? -- œ ™ 08:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Some relevant links:
Another good resource to discover reasons why certain Wikipedians leave is the history of the Wikipedia:Stress alerts page. For instance, have a look at this particular revision: [3] where a number of Wikipedians explain their issues. -- œ ™ 12:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
HighinBC mostly made edits favourable to cannabis, which led to threats against his family. Cannabis causes much crime and the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.55.93 ( talk) 11:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there any particular logic to when this should be used? It seems decently consistent for those who still have the admin bit, but much more random for former admins. 「 ダイノガイ 千?!」 ? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 05:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The use of the admin bullet causes an accessibility problem for me as a screen reader user since it doesn't contain a "*" to signify the start of a list item. I would like to be able to move through the list by pressing "i" to get to the next list item, but I can't do that reliably because of the mop icon. The best way of illustrating this problem is with an example. In the "c" section I hear: "list of 2 items, Camptown, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, list end; mop icon: CanadianCaesar; list of 7 items, Cantthinkofagoodname ..." and so on. Ideally I'd like to have all the names in each section as one long HTML list. How can this problem be resolved? Graham 87 03:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
re: [4] .. Actually, the {{ mop}} icon was intended to function as a stylized bullet itself, but oh well, I guess this'll work too. -- œ ™ 04:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Because some entries are 3 lines or more I think it would look neater and read more clearly if this list could be formatted with the hanging indent style; similar to how WP:Wikipedians with articles does it. Anyone know if this could be done in conjunction with the {{mop}} icon and also without causing any accessibility headaches? -- œ ™ 17:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Or we could just drop the mop icon altogether, (Just found out that the mop icon CAN work with the handing indent style!) in which case here is an example of how the list would look like with hanging indent:
User:OlEnglish/test. What do guys think? --
œ
™ 17:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I just looked over this list and it's depressing to see how many of my wiki-friends circa 2003/2004 are on here. Raul654 ( talk) 09:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Change the "
#" header to a level 2 header, titled "0-9" (to fit the coding, because [[Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians##]] doesn't work with coding when typed). Also, "Index" box at the top should include " [[##|#]] ". Change
to include " #" before the " A". Also, change the " Missing Wikipedians" header to a level 1 header, to fit the below alphabetical headers. 71.146.20.62 ( talk) 00:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering if anyone cares to try and assess statistics of Wikipedians who made a very small, but important contribution to Wikipedia, such as this one for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rtseosupermario Ottawahitech ( talk) 18:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I have just moved the entry user:Giovanni Camporeale to have it properly sorted. Afterwards I noticed that this editor has less than the required number of edits to be included in the list - yet this entry has been around for a while (btw how can I find out when this entry was created?). X Ottawahitech ( talk) 13:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I know the edit threshold is meant to keep people from adding others willy-nilly, but I think we could make some exceptions for those who were quite active and made huge, even if few, contributions in their areas of interest. I just came back from seeing a guy's page with a barnstar on it for working hard to promote Christina Aguilera's articles to GA, and he's only made 942 edits ATM. If he were to leave right now, I'd say he could be put here because apparently he's had a huge impact on Wikipedia, even if he wasn't the only one responsible for those GAs. LazyBastard Guy 04:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I have come across a few mentions of Esperanza, but don't know what it was. I see on the article page the mention that Eequor (Last edit February 16, 2006) left a note at Esperanza that said "I don't expect to come back again."
I would like to read this discussion but don't know how to find it. Is there a way, or is it one of those topics that only admins can see? Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Apparently Fastily stated that he/she is quitting English Wikipedia, not Wikipedia at all. He/she is still active in Commons and Meta. Spartacks Compatriot 11:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I happened to visit another wikipedian's user page and found this. I wonder if others also keep track of their own MW's? Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I have been gtetting a lot of error messages recently when I try to see someone's count. This should be a problem for anyone browsing/contibuting to this wiki-page? Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I have been getting Proxy Errors for the last little while (after clicking "count"). Anyone else? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
See my edit summary here, regarding this edit. Graham 87 02:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
This is the second time that I added a blocked editor to the list. The first time my edit was removed by someone who had first hand recollections of frustrations involved with the particular editor, so it appears that the editor was not really missed.
The editor I inserted recently seems to have a number of talk-page supporters, so I thought it would be interesting to see if anyone here objects to this entry and to see the reasoning. After all there are thousands (I think) of blocked editors, so I assume some are missed? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I have just had another addition of a wp:blocked user reverted. This one was not a wp:Sock Puppet but was wp:indefntiely blocked after making more than fifty thousand edits on Wikipedia. I had come across this editor myself a few times, and he seemed to be a serious contributor. I was shocked when I found out he was blocked indefinitely. There is no block notices on his user or talk pages and no explanation/reason for the block.
Is there a way to tell which blocked editors are acceptable to include in this list and which ones are not? Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Revolution1221 left a template and message on his user page, stating he was abruptly leaving. 173.73.64.153 ( talk) 21:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
My general thought about the idea is meh ... it could be marginally useful, but it would also make it harder to update the list (especially for newer users). I left it there after this edit because I didn't want to interfere with the "style" of each individual's entry, if you know what I mean. Graham 87 02:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I Have been getting a message:
When I try to get an editor's count. Anyone else? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 21:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I got this error message when trying to add user: Gungadin to the list of MWs:
But it looks like the entry was added anyway. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
While notifying one of the editors that he was added to the list of missing wikipedians, I noticed an older message that may need some action:
The last edit by Noetica as a Wikipedian was in early February 2013. Editors can check his contributions at
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Noetica, but they may wish to avoid seeing the last three posts that he made, in April 2013, "as a consumer", where a profane expression was discussed in the second post. At 11:37, 3 February 2013, Noetica
posted in reference to his talk page "I would prefer that it be kept very bare. I do not want notifications of any kind here".
—
Wavelength (
talk) 04:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)