Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 2

message: Someone in Chinese WP suggests to create a the 10 most active Wikipedians of the day (top 10 Wikipedians of the day) and update it everyday. what do u guys think? --Yacht 09:25, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
*interesting.  Could be scary. (PS: for some reason I always read your name as "Yakt" instead of "Yot")  Exploding Boy 09:38, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
* This will encourage people to game the system to get on the list. I don't think that's a good thing. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:05, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
* Such a page would probably be best titled "Today's Revert Wars". Better to laud the people that make exactly one edit of a new, fully-formed and wikified article.  — mendel ☎ 13:31, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
** I think you're right there. The feature I've always wanted (I'm not serious here, BTW) is a tick box to say "this is a major edit" - sometimes I spend ages developing or reworking a page, and am sad to see it go unnoticed. But that's certainly the kind of edit I'd want credit for, if credit were to come my way. - IMSoP 14:58, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I support that, aside from recognising greatness; it draws attention to people who could be useful on other articles. Not quite so sure about the name though - seems a bit long.SimonMayer 12:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  the 10 most active Wikipedians of the day 

message: Whenever someone regenerates this list, could you please wikify all the username? It'd just be a nice convenience. Kent Wang 17:24, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: All the data comes from the unwikified csv link in the page. It is just as easy for anyone to wikify them as it is the person updating the page... still I supposed that's no reason for the person doing the updating to do that too. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:53, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikify usernames 

message: What is the fourth item in the CSV file? First is the language, second is number of edits, third is rank, and fifth is username. Is the fourth the old rank? If so, it should be relatively trivial to fulfill "Wikipedians desire a similar page showing changes in rank." --Ben Brockert 18:39, May 9, 2004 (UTC), stats junkie (just broke 1000)
*The CSV page is different than when I posted it; it's now 8 fields. Any guesses? --Ben Brockert 01:40, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
**First column: Language code
**Second column: Main namespace edits
**Third column: Number of main namespace edits in the last thirty days
**Fourth column: Non-main namespace edits
**Fifth column: Number of non-mainspace edits in the last thirty days
**Sixth column: This week's ranking
**Seventh column: Last week's ranking
**Eight column: User name
**Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Data in the CSV

message: How do I know how many edits I've made (short of counting them by hand)? It must be written down somewhere, but I've never found it. -Litefantastic 01:02, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: When will I know?

message: "The first list counts edits from the main namespace only. The second list counts edits from all namespaces."
What's the difference? - MPF 12:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends, some users do almost all their articles in the main namespace, whilst others, prefering to concentrate on policy areas, edit more in Talk: and Wikipedia: namespaces. See the list directly above for this for some actual figures. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this mean?

message: I've asked this question before, and I relaly do apollogize for asking it again: is there some place I can go on the Wikipedia, without scrolling through 5 million user names or adjusting the settings on some bar that was removed when the Wikipedia changed over to the new list to find out how many edits I've made? Last time I asked this I was told to check the CSV script; what is the CSV script? I'm sorry, I'm really lost. -Litefantastic 02:30, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: CSV is a file format. (like .doc is the file format for Word documents, and .pdf for PDF docuemnts). It is short for a Comma Separated Values file. As the article says "A list in unformatted form is available weekly here (). It contains data for all users". Save that file by right-clicking on the link and hitting "Save Target As" and then open the file any program that can read it (Notepad, Excel, OpenOffice etc etc). Hit "Find" or "Search" in the menu of that program and type "Litefantastic". It will immediately jump you to your number of edits. Hope that helps. Pcb21| Pete 11:01, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Quicker answer: You have made 587 main namespace and 230 non-main as of the last database dump. You are ranked 800th when ordered by main namespace edits. Pcb21| Pete 11:05, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks! -Litefantastic 01:35, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Pete, but how exactly do you interpret the numbers there? I'm rather confused by them. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi John. To interpret the numbers see "Data in the CSV" section above on this page. But bear in mind that they are currently wrong, unfortunately (see below for that!). Pcb21| Pete 14:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's try this again

message: This is truly amazing: people have been discussing the csv file, the logic behind it and possible bugs in the stats for months now, without anyone asking me for comment until today. Even made a script to combine stats per user, which I had already in the drawer, but wasn't sure anyone was interested (any busy elsewhere too) and which of course may combine users with same name on different wp's. I was't even made aware there is a discrepancy with international stats and other counts (the verdict whether any of these if buggy or whether is it a matter of definition is still out, but en: stats look odd indeed). I happened to browse the announcements talk page where Pcb21/Pete raised the issue and on request pointed to this page. My email address is on the bottom of each stats page. Erik Zachte 00:06, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the culprit. Now if someone would have alerted me to this problem earlier :(   It was relatively easy to spot once I stripped the original script to bare bones for specific tests. The script thinks it is ready reading the cur database when on 75% it encounters the SQL statement that signals end of data, but here as part of an article text. It was bound to happen sometime. Thus new articles which are all in the back of cur database are only counted after two edits (when they appear in old database). I'll send an update soon. Erik Zachte 01:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Many apologies for not getting on your back about it earlier. It was a slow realization about where the source of the error was, and actually I commented it on the other talk page not long after I realized what was going on (on a superficial level). Lucky you caught the comment there! Thanks so much for taking teh time to track the error down. I notice the fixed script has now been run, and I have updated this page accordingly. Pcb21| Pete 10:23, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Amazing