Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 3

message: Is User:Ram-Man a bot?
Acegikmo1 16:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That account contains a mixture of bot and hand edits, IIRC. Pcb21| Pete 16:15, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Ram-Man|Ram-Man]]

message: I'm less than a 1000 edits away from the #1 spot in the ==All namespaces== list! Honest, I'm not a bot. --mav22:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So you think you are not a bot... Although you might enjoy activities outside of Wikipedia and memories of a full and rich life, can you be so sure you are not a replicant?    :-)   -- Solipsist 10:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ack! 

message: Is there any way that this page can be automagically re-generated every week? The date on the page now is from a month ago, though the list was updated at some unknown point after that. It just seems to me that there is too much required human interaction in this task for it to be reliable.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all of the factors against such a thing, but it seems to me that it wouldn't be a large undertaking to write a cron job to run every week or so during off-peak hours, and it would be a nice little thing for motivation purposes. Just a thought. ClockworkTroll 15:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Some thoughts and options. You'll know from the above talk how this page is updated. It firstly relies on a successful database dump. This step probably can't be trusted to cron without fail, because it involves chucking gigabytes of data around (I believe). However if lots of people like the data on this page - and more so than the more restricted list on the stats page (only has 50 users), then we should appeal to Erik to change his script. Then this latter script (my python script) would be redundant, and at least some time would be saved. What do you think? Pcb21| Pete 16:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feared there would be such an impediment as a large DB dump. Personally, I find the CSV much more useful than the page itself because I haven't yet earned a place on the main list, but I would assume that the larger (1000 wikipedian/list) page is more useful to many simply because earning a place on that list is much easier than making the "top 50", and therefore doesn't seem to be an impossible challenge and therefore a useful motivator. ClockworkTroll 17:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes the 50 is not enough, but I am sure it would just be one line to change in Erik's script. Incidentally when I arrived here 22 months ago, you needed about 600 edits to get into the top 200, then I changed it 500 entries in the list and then later to 1000. But the minimum requirements are still higher now (about 1000 edits) than then. I can change the number of entries by changing one line of my script if need be. Pcb21| Pete 19:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: First of all, I would like to thank User:Pcb21 for taking on the task of updating the page.  It's an important task that allows people to keep track of how much they've contributed, but it also seems to be a thankless job.
I have noticed one issue about the updates.  The Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits archive isn't updated anymore.  If I remember correctly, it used to be updating by actually moving this page to (for example) Wikipedia:List of Wikipedias by number of edits until September 26, 2004 (if Sept. 24 were the date on which this page were updated).  Then this page would be re-created with updated information.
Recently, this page has been updated by simply changing the data and the last archive that exists is from 16 June 2004.  Older updates are now located in this page's edit history.
My question is: Should be continue to create archives by moving old versions of this page or should we leave old information in the page history?
Cheers,
Acegikmo1 23:45, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving the page did turn out to be a bit fiddly (in fact stopping doing it probably reduced the time it took me to update the page by about 75%!) and I did come to the conclusion that the value of doing it wasn't worth the effort considering, as you point out, the data is in history anyway. However if there is a strong will to have a full archive I could start doing it again no problem. Pcb21| Pete 23:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If it makes updating more efficient, then not moving the page is no problem.  What do you think about having links to older versions of this page on the archive page?  Acegikmo1 00:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's do that. Pcb21| Pete 13:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Hey, I'm not a bot, nor do I have the bot designation, yet I'm listed as such on the list! To clarify a little bit, most of the edits that I performed under the account "Ram-Man" were actually done manually by hand.  That may be hard to believe, but I used complex SQL queries and other data manipulation on my computer to create the article text, and then I manually cut and pasted the articles into Wikipedia.  It was a long and tedious process, but the rambot itself (which automated the process) was not invented until some time later.  As such, many of the "bot" entries are not actually entries added by a bot.  It is true that the rambot used the "Ram-Man" account for a short time before moving to "rambot", but that represents fewer edits than at first assumed.  -- Ram-Man 12:04, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Any reason why Robbot has a ranking number when none of the other bots has? Perhaps, given Ram-man's human condition, Robbot's number should be removed, Ram-man should get a numbber, and the rest of the top 20 names should have their numbers changed. This is, of course, assuming that Robbot is a bot and Ram-Man isn't... Grutness 07:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bots 

message: Something isn't right about this week's CSV...
This is the data I got last week:
*Main namespace edits (last 30 days): 320 (214)
*Non-main namespace edits (last 30 days): 735 (653)
*Total edits (last 30 days): 1055 (867)
This is what I got this week:
*Main namespace edits (last 30 days): 158 (114)
*Non-main namespace edits (last 30 days): 150 (133)
*Total edits (last 30 days): 308 (247)
My number of contributions is almost 1500, and I'm reasonably sure that I didn't make any negative edits, so it's safe to say that there's a little glitch somewhere.
Just a heads up to anybody that relies on the CSV results that hasn't noticed already.
ClockworkTroll 04:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd results in the CSV 

message: zwitter has created (and released into the public domain) a python script for producing a list of users by edits which I've modified slightly to format in wikitax and uploaded here.  I don't know python so I can't say if my changes will work.  To use it you'll need to take the database dump and create a users table:
:create table kate_curold users (select cur_user, inverse_timestamp from cur) union (select old_user, inverse_timestamp from old); create index user_timestamp on kate_curold_users(cur_user, inverse_timestamp);
and add the data from the db dump to run the script on it.  I don't have the time (and probabaly don't have the expertese) to do this myself, so I've left the script up for somebody else to play with. Joe D (t) 17:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Update script

message: *Either the date at the top of the page is wrong, or I'm getting an old version of the csv. not sure which. --DMG413 03:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates

message: Without loading that massive list, and without actually counting them, is there any expedient way I can check on how many edits I have, to the minute? EventHorizon 06:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup - Kate's tools (wonderful to see them back in action!). go to , select "Count edits" and type in your username.  Grutness|hello?  07:19, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: True, sadly. However, as noted on the Village Pump, Kate has put an earlier version online at .  Grutness|hello?  09:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Has anyone ever done any analysis of the number of edits? For example, creating a histogram of the number of edits and comparing it to the normal curve, as well as finding mean and standard deviation? I, personally, think that would be fascinating. I'm sure someone out there could whip up a program that takes in the number of edits from the SCV dump every week and graphs it all, as well as finds those statistics. LockeShocke 02:22, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
I've done some work on it. Stirling Newberry 02:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And? Got anything to show off? :) LockeShocke 18:01, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
A model of decision information using wikipediaStirling Newberry 17:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistical analysis 

message: According to a message on wikipedia-l, Erik Zachte has mananged to do a stats scripts for 1.4... I'll try and change out the details soon and hopeful get this page going again.... Pcb21| Pete 21:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Erik triumphs!

message: The following are bots but are not shown in grey:
* User:Pearle
* User:Grammarbot
* User:HasharBot
* User:Snobot
* User:NetBot
HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 13:17, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
::Thanks, added to the page and to the list of bots in my script, which is maintained by hand. Pcb21| Pete 14:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bots not marked as such