A little under a month from now, my first edit will have been eighteen years ago. that's long enough to raise a child. I feel like that's enough.
Over the last several months there have been several changes in my life, and for a while there I simply did not have the time for this. I kind of have the time now, but find I've lost the enthusiasm. I still believe in this project and it's goals and wish everyone the best, but I'm probably done being a regularly active editor.
It isn't any one thing, I just had to take a break, and the longer that break has gone on the more I feel like I am ok with it being more of a permanent thing. I may still make small edits here and there but my "power user" days are over.BeeblebroxBeebletalks18:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's great to hear that you feel like you have more free time than previously, because that's important in life, and I hope that you're already using it for something more fulfilling for you. Wishing you the best of luck and appropriate amounts of fun for the future. —Alalch E.23:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if just the occasional visit, hope we'll still see you around from time to time. I certainly wish you the best going forward in whatever you do in the future.SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to read this, but I do understand. I took a year off and at the time did not expect to be back. We will leave the light on and the welcome mat out when you are ready. In the meantime, enjoy all the free time. -Ad Orientem (talk)04:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you get around to it, you may want to remove the administrator userbox on your userpage, now that it's no longer accurate.Useight (talk)15:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a hard place to leave completely; I suspect/hope we'll still see you around from time to time. Good luck with your other pursuits, and cheers. You were one of the good admins/arbs. --Floquenbeam (talk)18:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing whatFloque just said, it really is a hard place to leave completely and you'll be very much missed. I tried for two full years but it didn't work. I've been pretty much put out to pasture by the new generations though but I still follow a few things. Looking at the lineup for this year's scramble for the two community seats on theBoT election, while the contenders all mean well, apart from a couple it's more like a modern quest for takers for Arbcom. I'm sure though that you will turn out to vote, so if you do,here's my take on it, and I make no apology for canvassing. Best, Chris.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)03:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I am late to this party but I couldn't miss an opportunity to thank you for all you've done for Wikipedia; editors and its readers alike. Your countless hours of volunteerism have helped to spread free knowledge, made the community a better place to edit, and enriched the lives of many - only a small portion of them represented here - with your friendship, good humor, and willingness to do what you felt was right even when it was inconvenient. Like Seraphim and Floq have already said (and characteristically better and in far fewer words) I hope our paths will cross again. All the best,Barkeep49 (talk)03:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions, Beebs. I'm sad we won't have you around here, which is tempered only by my confidence that you will bringing your thoughtfulness and dedication to whichever other lucky group you instead spend your time with. And I certainly hope that this project will continue seeing you around in whichever form you find fulfilling. Best,KevinL (akaL235·t·c)19:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with your real life. Similar to Floque, I hope to see you around every now-and-then. —usernamekiran(talk)07:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was sorry to see you go, as I have always thought you were one of the best administrators, but you've put in good service, and nobody can be expected to keep going forever. Thanks for your contributions.JBW (talk)20:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:AMHS logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).
I'm looking for a bit of help withthis edit that you made, which turned an{{Unblock-spamun}} template into a{{Unblock reviewed}} template. When you responded,|Chris at Cloudforge|Denote individual person}} was turned into|1=Chris at Cloudforge|Denote individual person}}.
In the original template, "Chris at Cloudforge" was the unnamed|1=, and "Denote individual person" was the unnamed|2=. In the result, "Chris at Cloudforge" was explicitly|1=, and "Denote individual person" was the unnamed|1=. This caused the page to be added toCategory:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. It looks like "Denote individual person" should have been explicitly assigned to|2= or some other parameter.
@Jonesey95. Can you please do an edit to fix that diff, then reply with it and ping me? Would love to get a complete set of diffs (before, after incorrect, after correct). Thanks. –Novem Linguae(talk)08:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Novem Linguae:I'm pretty sure thatthis addition of 2= is all that is needed. I was wrong. The two templates do not match up.Here's a hacky way to address it that repeats "Request reason", which is not ideal, but it preserves the original content. Hmm. If the script processes other unblock requests, they may need a different approach if the parameter arrangement is different from Template:unblock-un. –Jonesey95 (talk)22:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like there's probably a more correct way to do that. If there isn't, this may need fixing on the template side in addition to on the unblock-reivew userscript side. –Novem Linguae(talk)11:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This concerns a block on the editorBertlookslikebowler. My guess is that you won't object to restoring talk page access, in view of your decision to be de-mopped, but I'm mentioning it to give you the option of commenting if you do wish to.JBW (talk)14:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Ponyobons mots18:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)18:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
