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

message: 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)
thread_title: by country

message: *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 The list is always out of date when it is published, so it is never "accurate" as WillMak suggests it would be if Mikkalai was included.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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: First arbitrary section break

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for the info. Catbar 00:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does happen, see here, SqueakBox 16:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing of image files not being counted for me 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is the result of changing the length of the list: 5000, 10000, 6500...  `'Míkka 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I don't understand your response. Is this a mistake or not? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ah Thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bots/scripts 

message: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps we could simply update the instructions, stating the proper way to do it? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List update 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. `'Míkka 23:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maaaaarvellous. Fangsalot. --Dweller 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yep. `'Míkka 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puzzled... 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Powerless protest

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unnecessary