This editor has decided to leave Wikipedia.

I've decided to leave wikipeadia for good. I have come to realise that Wikipedia simply does not work.

• WP:V and WP:RS were meant to stop people adding stupid comments, and not to tag pages on actors or get rid of episodic articles
• Some people are interpreting WP:RS to tag entirely obvious statements - which was not the intention
• WP:TRIVIA was meant to stop wikipedia becoming a fan site, not to stop important information being tagged just because it is trivial
• WP:NOR is not meant to stop people adding things which are obvious by the "1+1 =2" method
• My conclusion is that wikpedia will eventually be broght down (and in fact IS being brought down) - not by IP's but by ordinary wikipedians, some of whom are acting for the good of the project
• So basically, wikipedia does not work, and there is nothing you can do to make it work. Goodbye and good luck

It's always sad to see a good contributor leave, especially with these observations. You are right - this happens far too often - and the only thing I can say is that people like you are the kind we need to help fix the problems. That said, I wish you well. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, you'll return... you've been a great editor, and it is too bad it has come to this. Best of luck. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've done so much good, for that well done, since the day I started editing I have always seen your name pop up, always adding things and making wikipedia a better place, it has its faults and I hope you come back, but if you dont, well done and thanks, its sad to see such a good wikipedian go, goodbye.--Wiggs (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely bang on. No deals with you but I found this via the Doctor Who project and congratulations on saying things that others either do not agree or have the guts to say. Porterjoh (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have 3 user talk archives (see below), which I have re-orginised into 2, plus a Sandbox. Feel free to delete those if required.

Archives
User talk:StuartDD/Archive 1 User talk:StuartDD/Archive 2 User talk:StuartDD/Archive 3

I slightly sympathise. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you come back one day... once we get rid of all the fundamentalist deletionists. Wikipedia used to be th eplace where all human knowledge used to live. — Edokter • Talk • 11:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed - I've only just discovered you'd gone, sorry to hear it Stephenb (Talk) 18:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry to see you go. You were the first person (and only, to date) that left me a nice little message on my talk page. Well, I guess in a way, I've picked up the torch from you. I hope to do you proud should you ever lurk on back. Homoaffectional (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Astrid Peth, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrid Peth. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Luke Smith, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 59.167.59.201 (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Astrid Peth, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrid Peth (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. magnius (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please if you have time and you know anything to it (I have seen that you have made edits in the article area which owns relations on it) , please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what you would say to the merge and the delete discussion. And possibly it could help to contact other people that they should help also. )-: Merry Xmas --Soenke Rahn (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Dark Husband has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lack of significant coverage and failing to meet general notability guidelines. There is a lack of reliable sources for this article online. Existing external link is production company's website. List reference to this article is at Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Torpedoi (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]