Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Could someone update this list?

Could someone care to update this list please? I'm curious more than anything else on the new results :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary King (talk • contribs) 17:59, 3 June 2007

Even better, could we have an editor or project conduct regular updates so that nobody has to keep asking for this to be done every few months? Badagnani 00:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm generating the list right now... not sure how long it will take. Now that I know how to do it, it shouldn't be a problem to just download the xml file and run it on a regular basis. Of course, I wrote the how-to at the top of the page so that everyone will get their chance to run a four-line perl script on a 33 GB xml file :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the list has been updated. I leave it to you all to sort out the IPs and bots, to link names, and to tag the admins. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A good regex search/replace would link all of them... I'd hate for someone to do that manually. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I did a find/replace regex and fixed most of the usernames, although it choked on the ones with special symbols, but there are so few of those that they can either be done by hand or re-regexed later. The latest regex code in C# :

string regexStr = @"# (?<name>.*[A-Za-z0-9æ²先生!@\(\)\-,\.\:\?]) (?<count>[0-9]*)$";
string replacement = @"# [[User:${name}|${name}]] ${count}";

—Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. What is the thing that drives people to edit so much? LordMalak 11:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A desire to improve the encyclopedia, and/or obsessive-compulsive disorder. In my case, sometimes I wonder which one is 60% and which one is 40%. Dekimasuよ! 11:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My main motive is that it is a good substitute for malakia. I really hope your name doesn't derive from it, though. NikoSilver 12:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

by country

Are there any statistics out there for percentage or number of edits of English wikipedia by country (using IP addresses)? Thank you. Malnova 00:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Next update

I'm downloading the latest dump: enwiki-20070716-stub-meta-history.xml.gz. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Processing now. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The two times I've tried to generate this list, perl has crashed, so I'm not sure about the reliability of the results. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You should probably ask User:Rich Farmbrough to do it, or set a limit to how many of the users we are to list here, like the first 1000 contributors or so. — Moe ε 09:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I did it last time; I think my computer just needed to be restarted. I'll try again soon. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why the first 1000? Usually its like the first 2500. Anyway - thanks for the update. When do you suppose you will have it ready? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Last time it updated it did 3,176 editors. It seems like every contributor who had 5,000 or more edits was listed. Now don't get me wrong, 5,000 is a lot for someone on Wikipedia, but if we started listing everyone who had 5,000 over time, this list is going to grow out of control by 2008 or so. I think as Wikipedia gets more popular, lists like these either need to stop updating or set a limit.. — Moe ε 11:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we should just always list a set number of contributors, regardless of what number of edits those in that set number have. i say the top... 3000 -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters in terms of the ability to get results up, because as far as I can tell the script has to be run past all contributions to all pages either way (there's no way to know which editors to check beforehand). The only thing limiting the number of users listed does is make the page shorter. Dekimasuよ! 02:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think at least the top 3k should be shown. When will the next update be? Any progress? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Moe here; the list is really too long at this point. I would set the lower threshold to at least 10,000 at this point, maybe even higher. Chubbles 03:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong with a long list? It seems fine as it is now, so why not just update it with the same number of list items? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My cutoff is 5000 edits. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and used the result that the perl script gave, even though it appeared to crash each time it was run. After glancing through it, the edit counts seemed to be close enough to what I was expecting them to be. I also applied my updated regex, so there should be fewer username linking errors than last time. As usual, there are bots and IPs in the list. I wish someone could come up with an easy way to check if an account is a bot... —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My "lost script" did this with registered bots. I might re-write it since there is now a good chance of another full dump. Rich Farmbrough, 18:25 13 September 2007 (GMT).

Well, there's a new stub-meta-history, but I haven't started processing it yet. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried running it, and perl crashed several hours into it; up to that point, it had counted about 15k of the 20k edits for me. Perhaps I don't have the memory available to run it on my computer? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits

Not sure where to ask about this so I'll go ahead and ask here.

I was wondering where we could find out how many edits we've made individually? Is there a section in our account area where this data is available to be viewed?

Thanks — Movie Junkie 13:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

go here to see your personal edit count. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) — Movie Junkie 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the wannabe_kate tool stops counting at 45,000 edits. --Yamla 23:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Those top 50 or so Wikipedians must be so sad about that. Just curious, why is the limitation set at that particular number? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I have 44,000 contributions, so wannabe kates' tool will stop working for me soon... — Moe ε 13:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're only interested in the number of edits this is infinitely faster and less drain on the servers. And it goes beyond 45000. the wub "?!" 20:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be case-sensitive - 'gwern' fails but 'Gwern' succeeds. --Gwern (contribs) 21:34 4 August 2007 (GMT)

The two edit counters don't give me the same number; gtools says 19235 and wannabe_kate gives me 18829. Odd... —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've encountered the same situation, but reversed. Simply south 22:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this edit counter is it doesn't count page moves as edits. It is basing it's numbers of pages we literally edit. While page moves cause a physical edit to come up in our contributions, it's not an edit, its result of moving. Thats why I come up about 5,000 edits short of what my actual edit count is using this tool. — Moe ε 03:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I'm willing to compromise and set the limit to the top 2,500 or 3,000 users if everyone agrees. Were up about 400 more users since the last update, and a line to how many users needs to be drawn at some point, and I think before it gets too large, we should set the limit. Agreed? — Moe ε 13:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the minimum number of edits just needs to be higher. If you take it up to 10,000, you'll get a lot fewer users and room to expand. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what Chubbles suggested above.. Anyone disagree to this? If anyone doesn't then I'll make the change once everyone agrees. — Moe ε 14:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

When the list is generated, the output file is a 80MB list of *all users that have ever edited* and as such, it doesn't really "hurt" to grab a large number, because the list has already been processed. It's just a matter of picking a cutoff. My cutoff has been 5000 edits, and that already excludes a large number of frequent contributors. However, I'd be willing to raise my cutoff; the list shouldn't exceed 150kb, as MediaWiki tends to choke on pages much larger than that. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should have the same number as we did in past versions - lets keep consistent. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't 10,000 be a good cutoff Anonymous? At the current rate we would literally have about 1,000 more editors getting 5,000 edits by 2008, topping the list at over 4,000+ editors. 5,000 is a lot of edits, but it's far too common amongst editors now. And FYI, only the last couple have had the cutoff at 5,000, so consistancy isn't much of an issue. — Moe ε 03:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not number of edits to keep consistent - number of people on the list. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That hasn't been consistant either. Dating before the method of the 5,000 edits cutoff, the number of editors were 2,481 and 2,435. Then before that we had the cutoff at 2,500 editors, and before that 2,000 editors. So are you proposing a consistant number or a old numbering method? — Moe ε 09:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the general consensus from the above threads and this thread seem to indicate that 10,000 contribution should be the new minimum. I am going to implement this now. — Moe ε 19:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any general consensus... How about moving it to 7500 instead? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Disavian. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

How about...6500? And Moe - there is no general consensus yet. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the no consensus. I'd personally say that if file size is a problem, then cap it at a certain number of users. If you go by the number of edits, be it 6000, 7500, or 10000, you're eventually going to have to revisit that number as more people edit. With a cap on the number of users, you won't have a file size problem again. --Kbdank71 10:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed to 6,500 cutoff. Better? — Moe ε 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I generated a new list from the August 2 dump, which I believe is a record on making these. The edit crop that I posted was 5000, feel free to cut the list down to size. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Bots need to be removed again though. — Moe ε 21:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You'd think that someone could use Category:Wikipedia bots to write a complicated regex that could be applied at once... I don't feel like doing it, and don't know of any fancy WP commands that would allow me to dump a category into a text file. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Counter proposal

First, any cutoff that is generated for this list is going to be arbitrary.

Second, whether an editor has made 10 edits or 10,000 edits they are valued contributors here. This list creates an inherently false valuation of editors based on the number of edits they have performed on the project. Instead of all the hand wringing over what just the right cut off is for this list, why not simply replace the page with "All editors, regardless of how many edits they have are valued at Wikipedia". Sure, it makes this a bit of a honey pot, but that would reflect reality.

Stop treating editors with less than an arbitrary cut off as somehow not worthy of the list, or that placement on the list make you 'higher' than someone else. Down with this list! --Durin 16:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the sentiments of all editors are useful regardless of edit counts, I don't think editors with 10 edits should be listed here :) The limit is for the sake of the size, not to degrade anyone. And I don't think your going to get much support for the downing of the list either. — Moe ε 20:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• What's the purpose of this list? --Durin 21:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• I see no purpose. I suppose it's just to list the editors who have logged the most contributions I suppose. — Moe ε 21:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• So if there's no purpose, why do you think there'd be support for keeping it? What's the point of keeping it when it has negative effects? --Durin 21:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• No purpose doesn't default to a negative effect. At this point, the only reason I really care is because wannabe kate's tool will soon stop working for my large edit count and this will be the only way I can accurately look it up. It has it's positives like my example and the negatives like users edit counting for 'superior contributors' like you posted. — Moe ε 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not saying it defaults to negative, but that it IS negative. I strongly advocates editcountitis and creates notions of superiority based on edit counts. As for your own edit counts, does [1] work for you? --Durin 22:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• If you think it advocates "editcountitis and creates notions of superiority based on edit counts", fix it to say that it doesn't matter. I could have sworn it did before, but I don't see it now. As I stated above, that edit counter isn't accurate to the actual contribution log. I see about a 5,000 edit difference in my actual edit count compared to the one provided there. Edits resulting from page moves aren't counted on this counter I believe (estimating on why it would come up 5,000 edits shorter). Re-uploads that show up as an edit might also not be shown, but are shown in the contribution log may also be a cause. — Moe ε 22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• *huffs* According to my contributions log and the update just provided, even this page is about off by about 2,000 edits for me. Wannabe Kate's tool was the only accurate one, unfortunantly, once I top 45,000 it won't work anymore :( I found interiot's old counter has finally caught up in the replication lag, so this one seems fine now. — Moe ε 22:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This may depend on the database dump being used to generate the list. Could it be mainspace edits only? And yes, it may not count moves, or may count them as one edit, where they show on the edit history as two. Rich Farmbrough, 11:43 15 September 2007 (GMT).

Note

The reason there tends to be a slightly odd number of accounts in the ist is those preareing it try to end up with 2500, but then have to add a guessed number for bots and IPs. Rich Farmbrough, 11:38 15 September 2007 (GMT).

Mikkalai name removals

Section head

Those who watch Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/latest have noticed that User:Mikkalai keeps removing his/her name, while others revert, resulting in an edit war. We need some consensus on what should be done. I feel that even if the person who removes the name is the subject, they are not the "owner" of this page, and for accuracy the user should be left on here. If there is a suitable way to keep it in for accuracy, but still allow the user to remain anonymous, I believe we just need to find an agreement on it. Possibly not adding a link to the name, or adding a note like "user chooses to remain anonymous"? How can we find a solution to this? --WillMak050389 18:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with him removing his name. If you wish to preserve the rankings then simply leave a blank space where he would appear. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This list is so unimportant (although I do check it out now and then :), if someone wants to remove his/her name, fine. Who cares. Garion96 (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is not a wikipeida article, neither it is a policy or a guideline. I am plainly and violently refuse to take part in this pissing contest. I feel insulted and humiliated when people associate my name with the number of my mouseclicks rather than with my contributions. You are talking about "accuracy". You must be kidding. This list is inherenly false and misleading and cannot serve any useful purpose. And I don't see how -1 in ranking can hurt someone's ego: everyone below must be happy to sit on a higher chair. `'Míkka 18:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If its Mikkalai removing his name I see no reason for anyone to revert him. While I dont entirely agree, Mikkalai, with your opinions about this page I do absolutely support your right not to be on it, and we can follow Christopher\'s either leaving a blank space or [user chooses anonymity] type of refactoring if the rankings are so important, SqueakBox 18:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the user to choose to remain anonymous, my main goal with this discussion was to find out how to bring the edit war to an end. My personal take was that keeping a placeholder (at the very least) should be on the page to keep the listing accurate. I fully realize that the number of edits does not determine the usefulness of the editor (I know that their are others on Wikipedia that have a lower count than me that have done significantly more work). Some people may just want to know their rank (with no other motive) which I believe is the aim of the page. --WillMak050389 18:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly against any blank places or other placeholders, because these will be even stronger curiosity magnets, and anyone ith minimal knowledge of wikipedia will be tempted to look into page history. And once again, the notion of "accuracy" in this list is simply inapplicable, and anyone who will be worried with +/-1 in this list IMO has serious problems. `'Míkka 19:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel the same way about anyone who is in such an uproar that they'd edit war to have a name put on or taken off the list. An edit war and discussion, which now that I know about it, will cause me to go find out exactly where you are on the list, removed from it or not, whereas if none of this had happened, I'd have blissfully gone through life not caring how many edits you have. --Kbdank71 11:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me restate it again. Many people mock wikipedia:editcountitis, I am taking a stand against it. I cannot forbid y'all to have this pissing contest, but I refuse to take part in it, and I am sorry your blissful life of editcountitis disturbed. BTW the wikidrama in the section #Editing of image files not being counted for me below urges me to list this page for deletion, but I am more than sure that petty vanity will keep it. `'Míkka 15:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The page has been nominated for deletion before; it survived, and will survive again if you'd like to delete it. Deletion would be the right thing to do. Not looking at the page would be the right thing to do. Removing your name is a petty and futile and wrong thing to do. You do not own your name on this list. You do not own the right to distort this list by removing your name. Either get the page deleted, or stop messing with it. --Tagishsimon (talk)

You have serious editcountitis is you care about +/- 1 entry. It doesn't matter. Drop it. — Moe ε 17:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

First arbitrary section break

• I concur with Mikkalai and have also removed my name from this list. The list is always out of date when it is published, so it is never "accurate" as WillMak suggests it would be if Mikkalai was included. The list is meaningless and not useful in any way in contributing to the development of the project. I also agree it should be deleted. --Durin 16:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  This list is useful in the way that it stops people from going to the edit counters. Which can be a strain on the servers I read on Wikitech. Garion96 (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  I doubt people are coming here to see edit counts of particular editors. --Durin 19:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  No just their own edit count. But I guess people will go to the edit counters anyway. Probably every few days. :) I also am guilty of checking this list out every half year or so, just curious how much time I spend on Wikipedia. But I also wouldn't miss it if this list got deleted and the edit counters would go away. Garion96 (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  Since edit counters do not contribute to wikipedia project, why not charge a modest donation, like, $1 per count? If it is a real strain as you suggest, it will buy wikimedia a dedicated server. You know all these "Walk for Breast Cancer" or "Bike Naked for AIDS". Why not "Count for Editcountitis"? `'Míkka 20:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • There is no way that somebody without a knowledge of Mikkalai's edit count could possibly guess that it is he who has such a high edit count out of the enormous number of editors, thousadns of regulars etc. I would suggestt that those who want the list removed mfd it but hey dont do anything that makes the list inaccurate (ie just remove their names and not leaving a blank space) as such a move is clearly disruptive, SqueakBox 16:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 16:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • There isn't anything anywhere that says a user is forced to appear on a list somewhere. Removing oneself from a list that is inherently inaccurate and non-contributive to the project is not in any way disruptive. An argument can readily be made that removing yourself contributes to the project. What is clearly disruptive to me is the existence of this list in the first place. --Durin 16:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree with users rights here. Why should somebody be on this list when they dont want to? The only argument i have heard against is it it could throw somebodys egotistical position on the pecking order of edit counts by +- 1 or 2 positions. Edit warring here is WP:LAME and the most counterproductive thing I have ever seen. If they dont want there names here, let them take them off and leave them alone. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Durin, if you think the list is disruptive please take it to Mfd, and let us know here. I support the right of you folk to not be included but if you are 229th and arent included we should leave a blank space in 229, what I object to is being labeled 257th when in fact I should be 259th, ie what is disruptive is knowingly have a disruptive list because a few people are activelty making it inaccurate. If a number of folk choose to be blanked its beyond the capability of the average wikipedian to figure out who this blanked person is. I aint going to edit war over this one and my own position has fallen and I am not crying but we need to reach a compromise and blank spaces for those not wanting to be here strikes me as that compromise, SqueakBox 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Your ranking is utterly and completely meaningless. It should not matter what your ranking is, whether you are #1 or #1000000. Are you an editor in good standing? You're not blocked, so yes. That's all that matters here...not how many edits you have. I concur with what Mikkalai said above. If a blank is left, it will encourage others to determine why there's a blank and who belongs in that blank, thus effectively removing one of the reasons for removal. Mikkalai already objected to the compromise, and I do as well. I don't see a need to compromise on a page that is so worthless to the purpose of our project. --Durin 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • My edit history shows I am a regular and not being an admin that is useful though the regularity of my contribs is much more telling. If you dont want the blank spaces IMO you must mfd as I consider that the only other acceptable solution. Its only a bit of harmless fun most designed to appeal to adolescent boys, and of course edit counting should never be encouraged because it encourages people to stack up 5 edits to an article where one would do. But all the sam I cant see it being harmful but would respect your POV more if this went to mfd. I dont believe it is technically possible to determine who is in the blank spaces, that strikes me as a red herring, SqueakBox 22:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "I don't believe it is technically possible to determine who is in the blank spaces": If these blank pages are left by the 'bot which generates the list and takes on input the list of user names, or if the 'bot driver removes them manually before posting here, then your proposal is acceptable. My objection is for the today's arragement: if I simply replace my name by the blank, anyone may easily look into the page history. `'Míkka 23:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "bit of harmless fun": I can assure you if is not so harmless as you think. It is in human nature to prove that you are better than someone else, and it reflects in wikipedia in numerous ways. Some are up to the neck in wikilawyering to prove that they are always right, others put 150+ userboxen on their userpage, still others keep self-nominating themselves in the WP:DYK and proudly brandish the list of DYKs. Pissing contests are all over wikipedia. The first signs of the vanity disease was recognized when people started giving out wikipedia:Barnstars to each other. Those who recognized the inherent sickness of this idea declared their user pages Barnstar-free zone, so I claim no priority in refusing to take part in pissing contests here. `'Míkka 23:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I see exactly one editor actively linking to the Barstart free zone image. There is no harm in community-building practices such as awarding barnstars. As for the editcount of editors, it is useful information for non-wikipedians, as it can be attested by the recent interviews with high edit-count Wikipedians in the media, as well as asserting Wikipedian-pride. After all, we are volunteers. For those that do not believe in Wikipedian-pride or community-building practices, or that believe that it is a "pissing contest", they do not need to engage in these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You are looking into wrong link page. How about this User:Micahmn? Your diatribe is misplaced and your opinion and advice are yet again misjudged. This is not vote for deletion. And I am doing exactly what you are suggesting: excluding my engagement here. `'Míkka 02:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes I misjudged. There are 15 editors that link to that image, not one. Sorry for the massive discrepancy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy? The page is accurate, unless someone comes along and deletes entries. If some user wants to associate a moral value or worth to edit count, that's his business really. If you don't associate any value to it, then that's good for you. This is publicly available information made from the logs at Wikimedia, so if you don't want your name associated with these edits, you should edit anonymously or not at all. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Red herring and putting words in one's mouth. I don't want my name associated with this list. `'Míkka 01:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? You're acting pretty aggressive; take a moment to explain yourself and I might understand what it is you're saying here. I didn't put the word "inaccurate" in your mouth; you said that this page is "inherently false" (whatever that means.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; not aggression, but writing in haste, without re-reading the dialog as a whole. I was referring to your "if you don't want your name associated...etc." As for accuracy, I wrote "This list is inherently false and misleading", for a dozen of reasons, but this was not the reason of removing myslef, so I will not explain why. `'Míkka 02:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Second arbitrary section break

I too have removed my name and number from the list. Justin (User:Koavf) added the editors who had removed themselves; I removed them as well. --Iamunknown 02:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy Iam and Mikka: you make the list be inaccurate when you remove users. Mikka, your claim about the list being inherently false is pretty inflammatory and (since you refuse to explain yourself), baseless. Why would you two want to make this list inaccurate? Did either of you refer to the similar talk in the archives of this page? As an aside, no apologies necessary, but thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am surprized why you are taking this personally. I am not saying that you, Koavf, are trying to cheat someone by printing this list. I am saying the list is Bad Thing. Please see Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits#Caveats! for a polite way of saying this. `'Míkka 03:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how inaccuracies in this list are harmful. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are asking me, I did not say that. On the contrary, I wrote " I don't see how -1 in ranking can hurt someone's ego: everyone below must be happy to sit on a higher chair.". If you are asking someone else, please address by name. If you still think that I have to answer, please quote my sentence which prompted to ask you this question. `'Míkka 03:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Mikka and Chris Mikka - I don't take it personally (consequently, no apologies necessary); I can respectfully disagree with you and vice versa. I am interested in this page because it confounds me that users would 1.) not want to associate their names with their edits under their name, and 2.) that you apparently have a desire to have an inaccurate list, consequently deceiving users. If you think this list is a bad thing, nominate it for deletion. Chris - Why are inaccuracies harmful? They are deceptive. I honestly don't know how to answer this question, as it seems patently obvious. If there is something clever I'm missing here, let me know. It would be to no one's advantage to include deception/misinformation/etc. into any page in Wikipedia if the stated goals of the project remain as I understand them to be. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Justin, would you provide differential links to where exactly Mikka, Chris, or myself have stated, "that you apparently have a desire to have an inaccurate list, consequently deceiving users"? Otherwise, stop it with the patently false nonsense. Thanks, Iamunknown 03:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Koavf, the list is inherently inaccurate because it is not automatically generated. It is inaccurate the moment any one of these most active 6500 Wikipedians makes an edit. Further, it's updated so infrequently that it is routinely not just inaccurate, but extremely out of date. The removal of my name or any other name from the list makes it no less accurate. Further, even if doing so DID make it less accurate, it would be only in the ranking of Wikipedians based on the number of their edits, since it has no effect on the edit counts of any other editor on the list. The rankings are utterly meaningless. They have no bearing on the value of any editor or their contributions, and are so far disconnected from reality in this regard as to be useless. I refuse to contribute to this list in a way that will result in my name being used on it. I am not going to be coerced into membership on this list against my will. --Durin 03:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• The list is accurate as of the time it was generated. That's pretty clear. So all of this talk about the list being "inherently inaccurate" is quite misleading. As for being out of date, updating it more frequently wouldn't fix that. Regardless, if these people want to leave the list, let them go. It has no bearing on what your count is. And this isn't a game, so your rank shouldn't matter. --Kbdank71 10:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• According to this list, you have 68753 edits. Since 2 August 2007 when this list was last updated, you've conducted 302 edits. Thus, the list is already inaccurate. Further, the person next on the list right behind you (User:Darwinek had 68530 edits. That person has made 665 edits since then, moving them 140 edits ahead of you. So, not only is the list inaccurate for both of you in terms of total edits, but it is also inaccurate in terms of ranking people. Please stop making claims that inaccuracy statements are "quite misleading". The proof is obvious and blatant that it is not misleading. --Durin 13:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That is as fatuous a statement as saying that Roger Bannister never ran a world record time, because other people later beat him. The lists are a faithful count at the time that the count was made. The time that the count is made is recorded at the top of the list. What part of the emboldened sentence do you disagree with? --Tagishsimon (talk)

• The list was published on 6 August 2007 from data four days old. It was inaccurate the moment it was published. This is "List of Wikipedians by number of edits" not "List of Wikipedians by number of edits at certain points in history". The intent here is a scorecard of sorts to rank Wikipedians by the number of edits they have. That's rather worthless in itself, but assuming it is worthwhile; the scorecard doesn't show anything relevant. All it does say is "at some point in time, you had edits and at some point in time you were ranked" There's no relevance to now of any kind. Further, since multiple users do not want to be listed on the rankings, they are inaccurate in their rankings anyways...even if you think they are accurate representations of snapshots in time. --Durin 13:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• That is the single lamest argument I've ever read on wikipedia, and I've read some real cringeworthy arguments. To paraphrase "because the list is not updated in real time, it is of no value ... because some people do not want to be on the list [and although there does not yet seem to be consensus on how to handle the removal of names] the list is also inaccurate. Absent prejudice against the list, it is clear that the list is a snapshot in time, and accurate at that. Absent the same prejudice, one would assume a mature view would accommodate the fact that lists such as this tend to be produced from data dumps, in arrears - and should be published with sufficient metadata to make clear the time of the dump. Whatever your argument is, you devalue it massively by making specious assertions. --Tagishsimon (talk)

• When you decide to discuss things in a civil manner, I'll be happy to talk with you. Until then, I'm ignoring your comments. Have a pleasant day. --Durin 14:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Third arbitary section break

(ec) When people show you pictures of them, how quickly do you tell them their pictures are worthless? "That's an inaccurate photo of you, my friend. Why, it was taken yesterday!" I know very well that edit counts are fluid. I don't look at a list that clearly states "The list is derived from the file "stub-meta-history.xml.gz" dated around 2 August 2007" and think "OMG, I've made edits since then, why isn't it updating? What a POS." I don't think anyone else does, either. Again, it was accurate the moment it was created, and yes, you calling it inaccurate is indeed misleading. It is out of date, not inaccurate. --Kbdank71 14:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• You say tomato, I say tomato. Out of date is, to me, inaccurate. There's no intent to mislead here and I'd appreciate the reduction in rhetoric. --Durin 14:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• So. Following that logic, your own user page is inaccurate. Why would you intentionally maintain an inaccurate user page? --Tagishsimon (talk)

• When you're done being uncivil, I'll be happy to discuss this with you. --Durin 15:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Amusingly enough, despite edit count figures being worthless, Durin maintains a boast-list of the number of edits he's made on his user page, in some sort of pot-kettle-black vortex. Ah well. --Tagishsimon (talk)

• When you're done being uncivil, I'll be happy to discuss this with you. --Durin 14:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Civility issues aside, he does bring up a good point. You are against this list but keep your own edit count (with average edits per day) on your user page. So your problem can't be the edit counts themselves. Is it the ranking? I can see that being a problem, as this isn't a game. What if the list were sorted alphabetically? --Kbdank71 15:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• The point he raises is a straw man, and has nothing to do with this list. It being sorted alphabetically still leaves extant the problem of this being an elitist list; those not on the list are somehow not as good as those on the list. If this list contained all editors, and was sorted alphabetically, then it would not have this problem. But, such a list would be very massive indeed. --Durin 15:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, then I must commend you for standing up for those with very few edits. As for the straw man, it's really not. Mikka stated he is taking a stand against editcountitis, and you concurred with him, even though you appear to have editcountitis based upon your user page. In the end, though, I don't care if you're on the list or not, I was just curious as to your line of thinking. --Kbdank71 15:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not going to respond to Tagishsimon's statements/questions, even if restated by another editor. As to support for new editors, I've held for as long as I've been here that all editors in good faith are equals. That's the Wiki way. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That's the philosophy. Creating and maintaining a list like this encourages the notion that some are more equal than others. --Durin 15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• the problem of this being an elitist list; those not on the list are somehow not as good as those on the list. Where does that come from? Those on the list have not made as many edits. The list has a caveat at the top speaking exactly to this point. Why is it that edit counts on this list are inaccurate, and edit counts on your page are not inaccurate? --Tagishsimon (talk)

• When you're done being uncivil, I'll be happy to discuss this with you. --Durin 15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• When you're done hiding behind the civility excuse, I'll be happy to hear your response. (Oh, btw, is it not inconsistent of you to say "I'll be happy to discuss this with you" and "I'm not going to respond to Tagishsimon's statements/questions, even if restated by another editor." Which is your position? --Tagishsimon (talk)

• It is not uncommon to encounter people who use insult-style tactics in attempts to undermine other people's opinions. I find such tactics to be rather lacking in their ability to effect any degree of cogent debate. They are non-contributory on their face. I fail to see any reason why I should support such tactics by agreeing to respond to a person who feels that such tactics are useful. I refuse to be drawn into debate with someone who uses such tactics. --Durin 15:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Or perhaps you recognise and are unwilling to explain the inconsistencies between your arguments here, and your user page editcountis. We'll let the reader decide, eh? --Tagishsimon (talk)

• Have a nice day. --Durin 16:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• A cynic would suppose that you were merely trying to bump up your edit count with these effectively null edits :) --Tagishsimon (talk)

• Have a nice day. --Durin 16:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Name removal

To be left off future versions of this list add your name here. I will do my best to comply with your wishes , should I ever generate the list again, and I guess other list-generators would too. Rich Farmbrough, 11:55 15 September 2007 (GMT).

Editing of image files not being counted for me

I just checked the latest edit count list and found I've lost credit for thousands of images I created. The May 10 version shows 12,801 edits for me. The July 16 version shows 9,100. My current edit total from wannabe_kate is 8,300. I put lots and lots of effort into those dot files. I'd like the minimal credit of having my edit count right, please. Thanks. Catbar 23:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume they've been deleted and moved to commons; your edit count probably correctly reflects the deletion of a few thousand of your edits. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. Catbar 00:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It does happen, see here, SqueakBox 16:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bots/scripts

Still on the list The list claims that bots(/scripts?) were removed by hand, but this clearly isn't true, as you can see from the first few entries. Is this just an oversight? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It is the result of changing the length of the list: 5000, 10000, 6500... `'Míkka 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I don't understand your response. Is this a mistake or not? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The list was reset for different length withour re-removing the 'bots, which were removed manually from the initial update by several editors. `'Míkka 02:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah Thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's because I updated the list based on a new database dump. The bots have to be removed from each dump manually, and I updated it earlier tonight. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

List update

User:ST47 updated the list using some sort of database magic. I vote to deprecate / remove the instructions at the top of this page regarding how to generate this list. --MZMcBride 00:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could simply update the instructions, stating the proper way to do it? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Puzzled...

Lead says this is correct as at 12/9/07, "Past versions" says it's correct as at 6/8/07 Have I missed something or is there an inconsistency? --Dweller 23:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. `'Míkka 23:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Maaaaarvellous. Fangsalot. --Dweller 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm more puzzled. It seems I didn't edit once between early August and 12/9/07... and neither did anyone else. That can't be right. --Dweller 00:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm to you too. :-) That's right: that can't be right, and indeed it isn't. Dweller reportedly made 11772-10203 = 1569 edits and counting since early August. Are you sure you clicked what you wanted, like, here & there? `'Míkka 02:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. There must be some clever trickery here (transclusion?) as the page you're linking to has a "/latest" suffix. --Dweller 10:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. `'Míkka 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Automatic Edit Updater

Hello Everyone! Is there a code or tamplate that you can paste to your User Pager to gat you number of edit updated automatically? Any Help would be greatly appreciated - (♠Murchy♠) 15:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

I don't believe so. The fastest things with a simple count is this or this, but both still require a mouseclick. See also WP:COUNT —Moondyne 16:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit count (including deleted edits, which is what this list pulls from) is in your preferences. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I never knew that! How long has it been there? —Moondyne 03:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I see you answered below. —Moondyne 03:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not long, I just noticed it and came here to tell those who might be interested. Incidentally mine just changed by 9000 in the last couple of hours, so perhaps it's not stable yet. Rich Farmbrough, 09:43 21 September 2007 (GMT).

Powerless protest

The text "The list is filtered, however the same statistics are available in a fully accurate form here" is a spit in the face of those who decided to eleminate themselves from this rat race. The behavior of ST47 is despicable. Unfortunately there are no solid wikipedia rules that may prevent him from doing this besides the general advice to respect other editors and the basic rule that wikipedia is encyclopedia. Obviously these features are not installed in ST47 and some other so-called "admins". `'Míkka 21:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh... I have no clue why you'd be so upset about this, or what the "to [sic] solid wikipedia rules" that you refer to are. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It was typo: I meant "no solid rules" `'Míkka 00:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Evula, thanks for your comment. For the record, this is not a case of trolling. It is in great part my fault that Mikkalai is so upset about this. I don't agree that including a single sentence is a "spit in the face", or that ST47's behavior, by including his link, is "despicable", but Mikkalai is clearly upset, and that is mostly my fault. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm upset with Mikka's idea that she/he can edit wikipedia, but that others cannot undertake statistical analysis of number edits which she/he has done. In the same way that the edit page reminds us not to post if we're going to be upset with other editors editing our words, I'd suggest that once you start editing in wikipedia, your actions are part of the public record and open to these sorts of analysis. I acknowledge that mileages vary on this matter, but I detest the sort of censorship which Mikka appears to be promulgating. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Statistical analysis must be performed by a qualified person, whio knows what they are doing. Statistical analysis of apples and oranges is deception, so please don't use tall words here. Just as someone can post a nonsense list in wikipedia space, someone else has rights to object this. This page is subject to the same rule "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Feel free to store whatever garbage you collect on your personal webpage. This is wikipedia namespace. `'Míkka 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Apples & oranges can easily be compared on the level of being spherical-ish fruit and, for instance, counted. Try and have sufficient good faith to suppose that we are not trying to do apples and oranges analyses here; we're merely counting edits. I note your edited mercilessly and raise you by WP:POINT. I could do without the deception and garbage vitriol, if it's all the same to you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not even accurate. This is the list in fully accurate form. Of course, if you just want to link to the list with fewer bots and not have to recreate the thing in your own user space, you could just replace the link to point here. I can understand people not wanting their names on the list for whatever reason, but unless the originally posted list doesn't include you, there are ways to show where you are on it. I don't see the to-do about this, anyway (either side). Don't you people have better things to do than move yourself up the list by adding and removing people from it, and then complaining about it? How's this: ignore the damn list. Is having your name on it, or someone else's off of it, going to change what you do around here? Are people commenting to you, "Nice edit count!" or "Pfft, your rank is artificially high." Seriously, just go edit the encyclopedia. --Kbdank71 16:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary

I always thought this page was handy. To stop people from using the edit counters. Since I discovered you can see your edit count also in your preferences I really see no need anymore for this page. Since when has that counter been there? Since always? I must have been blind/slow to miss that. Garion96 (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this page hasn't been to show your own edits, so I don't see why it would suddenly be unnecessary.
As for how long it's been there, I think about a month. It was added very subtly to all the wikis. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I guess people also want to look at other people edit counts. Never mind then. If it stops people from using some edit counters, which can slow things down according to wikitech, it serves a purpose. Perhaps the list should be ordered alphabetically, to stop getting that pissing contest feeling when I see this list. :) Garion96 (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That might help. However, this list was apparently slashdotted at one time, and appeared in print media (back when SimonP was at the top of it); there is evidence that external sources are interested in the list, in addition to just Wikipedians. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want people knowing what I put into wikipedia. Number of edits shouldn't be put out there like this. Who cares if we have a zillion edits to our name. How can this possibly help the mainspace? We all know who the top contributros are anyway, Its almost like some sort of score on a video game or something. Not necessary especially as we now all know our edit counts in our preferences ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 09:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)