Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 5

message: I've just noticed that this page hasn't updated in just under a month (after reading it on 10 seperate occassions..) could we have an update? Please *pouts* Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this page is usually updated once every 3-4 months, although because the last update actually took month-old stats, maybe we'll get an update sooner. AFAIK, Gmaxwell is the one who generally updates this page, so you may want to request an update from him. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do, thanks Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last time Gmaxwell made an update, he simplified the format a bit and said that it would be easier to run for the future, so that it might get updated a bit more often.  At the same time, I know he has a tremendous amount of things on his plate.  It might be good if someone else could offer to help out with running this script so that all the burden does not fall to one person.  I am unfortunately not able to help out as I don't know how to run these sorts of scripts.  Actually, it may take someone with special database access, like Gmaxwell has, I'm not sure. Johntex\talk 16:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sure. I'll run it again tonight. Unless I forget, in which case I won't. :)--Gmaxwell 16:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: So Robdurbar 17:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: we Robdurbar 17:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: should Robdurbar 17:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: be Robdurbar 17:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: trying Robdurbar 17:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: to Robdurbar 17:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: boost Robdurbar 17:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: our Robdurbar 17:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: edit Robdurbar 17:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: count? Robdurbar 17:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: with Johntex\talk 17:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: lotsJohntex\talk 17:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: of edits? - yes, but note the database replication time - you're probably too late to affect this round. :-0 Johntex\talk 17:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: darn ;) Robdurbar 17:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I was actually running the query when replication was yanked out from under toolserver. Until toolserver is replicating again, I can't produce a current update. Sorry. --Gmaxwell 16:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about an update based on the data that's already there?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 17:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we getting a new update? 

message: I've checked my number of edits using the edit counter several times over the past few weeks, and the number is always the same.  Is the edit counter broken or no longer counting?  Badagnani 21:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. See Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters#Projects. Rfrisbietalk 22:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Wikipedia_talk:Toolserver.  enwiki moved to a new server, this broke the ability of the Tool Server to perform analysis on enwiki.  Johntex\talk 18:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit counter 

message: Are edits on deleted articles removed from a user's total edit count? Or does the counter only go up? What happens with merges? Just curious. Lee Bailey 23:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If an article is deleted, all its edits are lost and are no longer counted for the users who edited that article in the past.  With mergers, it depends on how the merger was done—if one of the articles being merged is deleted, the history of its edits is lost, and those edits are no longer counted.  If one of the article is merely turned into a redirect, all edits are preserved in the history and are still counted.  Hope this answers your question.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 01:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very slight correction or clarification: the edit histories aren't actually "lost" - they're still preserved and available if the article needs undeleting. But, as Ëzhiki says, they are lost from the point of view of the editcount. Grutness...wha? 01:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, that's what I meant—they are lost for edit counting purposes.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 03:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both. That's what I suspected to be the case, but I was still curious. Now I know. :) --Lee Bailey 07:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a simple question... 

message: The script for updating this seems to be invalid due to the change from SQL to XML. Ardric47 04:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we ought to alter it into an 'old' or retired list (I forget the exact term used) if it can no longer be updated. --Robdurbar 09:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to put an explanation rather than just a tag at the top of the page (right?)  Badagnani 11:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify; I added the second page as an explanation. --Robdurbar 09:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The best thing would be for someone to rewrite the script(s) to work with XML. Ardric47 03:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there hasn't been a successful dump from EN since sometime in February, so until those back-end problems have been dealt with there doesn't seem to be much chance.  Perhaps I'm wrong, though.  -- Visviva 06:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest dumps (earlier today) were all apparently successful! See . It is true that "All pages with complete page edit history" had failed every time since February, but "All pages, current versions only" has worked most of the time. I suppose that this edit count page requires the complete database, though. As an alternative, Flcelloguy's Tool could probably update the list, but I guess that would probably take a very long time. Ardric47 20:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Flcelloguy's Tool is not designed to handle those types of queries. It would take extremely long, it would be very inefficient, due to the way the tool processes contributions, and in some cases, the tool would run out of memory due to the incredibly-long edit histories of some users. That does not take into account that it would be cruel and unusual punishment for the Wikimedia servers, and whoever tries to do it would probably get firewalled by Brion. It would be better if the XML dump is analyzed instead. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't worry, we love you anyway :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can This Be Saved? 

message: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm#wikipedians has the top 50 some months ago.
It is fairly trivial (if slow) to produce a table from the complete XML database dump, however the last few times I've tried, the dump hasn't decompressed (on a 400G drive!), and I now don't have that much space avaialable any more. Rich Farmbrough 16:05 16  August 2006 (GMT).
I looked at the source code for the list of contributors, and I noticed that the numbers for the edit counts were static.  That isn't right...  Perhaps we should create a template showing the number of edits a user has made?  Basically, it would link to the page for the user's contributions (like Special:Contributions/Luigifan, for example,) and it would count the number of contributions the user made, and display that number.  This way, we don't have to painstakingly count each user's contributions individually and upload that data to this page (only to find that uploading it counts as an edit, and having to change one of the numbers.)  I'd do this myself, but I don't know enough about programming to pull it off, and I don't have the time, anyway.  Could somebody here help me out?  --Luigifan 13:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way to write a template that queries the database (or scrapes Special:Contributions).  Sorry.  This *could* in theory be maintained by a bot that would scrape Special:Contributions for all listed users, but that would require a) someone to write it, and b) approval at Wikipedia:Bots ... which I suspect might not be forthcoming, given the amount of scraping that this would entail, and the widespread attitude that this page is not constructive. -- Visviva 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative source of data

message: OK, not pretty, and no distinction between people and bots, but it's there. Anyone who wants to pretty it up, feel free.  Any improvements for next time, by all means ask, but I don't intend to put much time into this. Rich Farmbrough, 21:21 26  September 2006 (GMT).
Here's the perl. 
while (<>){if (/<(username|ip)>(.*)<.(username|ip)>/){$hash{$2}++;}}
my @list = sort byedits keys our %hash;
foreach $item (@list) {print "# $item $hash{$item}\n";}
sub byedits {our %hash; $hash{$b} <=> $hash{$a};}
This ran succesfully on the tr.wiki data, I used a more complex process on the en.data for historical reasons.  The amount of memory required for the larger wikis may be a challenge for this code as well.
Rich Farmbrough, 19:49 30  September 2006 (GMT).
:Sweet. Should we wikify all the users? --Liface 21:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. That would be awesome if you have the wherewithall. As you can see, I got a little bored with the data I was entering, but I still plan on finishing (or at least going to 1,000 or 10,000+ edits or somesuch.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of users on the list who don't have "(admin)" next to their name (such as myself, Mr. Lefty, Konstable, etc). Can I add "(admin)" to the appropriate usernames? --Nishkid64 23:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! Please do; I've been negligent in finishing, but I have every intention. If you want to pick up where I left off/collaborate, I would appreciate it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I'll get on it. --Nishkid64 17:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "raw" data uploaded 

message: How do I add myself to the list? --PaxEquilibrium 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't—the list is not supposed to be updated manually.  Why you don't show up as of this update, however, beats me.  You certainly have been around long enough to make it to the list.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - that's what made me try out manually (oh, the lust! ;) --PaxEquilibrium 01:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The list didn't identify anyone as an admin when it was generated. A few people went through and added the admin notes but didn't do so for all admins, and a number of admins have noted their status here since.-gadfium 04:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ah. okay, thanks for explaining that.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey 

message: *Hello, our page is still updated on semi-manual way, i mean we need to search user by user on editcount to get the statistics and digit on a table in Excel to update the wiki code. Isn´t there a way to get the number of editions and deleted editions from many users at once? I got  from this talk, but i don´t know how to use it (adapt), it only counts sysops, and doesnt have pt-wiki anyway. Anyone could help me making the script, if it´s possible. Ty. Danilodn 17:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone help with script 

message: Is here. If people prefer it they can put it over the pretty table. Rich Farmbrough, 23:54 6  December 2006 (GMT).
:Incidentally the perl is now 6 lines. Rich Farmbrough, 23:54 6  December 2006 (GMT).
::Speaking personally, I do, especially as it preserves the bot/person distinction.  If there are no objections, I'd suggest replacing it, with thanks to Yao Ziyuan for doing the number-crunching in the first instance.  Alai 05:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please return to the format preserving the distinction between users and bots.  Thanks.  Badagnani 08:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My latest version

message: To User:Dev920 for doing this so quickly, based on my doubtless rough and ready "how to". Rich Farmbrough, 22:04 8  March 2007 (GMT).
:After some dicking around in Excel, I figured out that on February 2, 2007, and for 100 < rank < 2500, with R=0.983, rank = e^((55710 - editcount)/6503). Whee. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was confusing to a non-programmer, but fortunately I found a programmer and got him to translate. :) Should be simple enough to do every few months now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: I'm curious - the article says it is based on the latest dump (Feb 2, 2007), but the current numbers are on older versions of the page (Dec 2006, for example).  Guettarda 15:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list itself is transcluded from Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/latest. Looking at an earlier version in the history of this article will still show the latest figures, unless you go back before the transclusion started.-gadfium 18:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh.  I see.  Guettarda 20:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're looking to compare with your previous rank, the old list is now here.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Latest dumps" 

message: The top of the list says that anons and bots have been removed. However, there are a couple of bots still on the list. Should they be removed or left on there? I don't think bots are that interested in how many edits they have compared to our human editors, but I may be wrong. --Nehrams2020 22:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bots?