Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 September 21

= September 21 =

Shin splints
I recently got shin splints from running. I put ice on it and it feels better. I was wondering, does the ice actually help cure the problem? Or does it just make it so that you don't feel any pain, but the problem's still there?--75.185.120.28 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You may read the article titled Shin splints, but any attempt to diagnose or recommend treatment for your condition would consitute medical advice, and the best place to get that is from a qualified medical professional, in your case either a doctor or a sports medicine professional, like a trainer, may be appropriate. -- Jayron  32  05:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * They didn't ask for medical advice. Dismas |(talk) 08:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * They did ask if a treatment they attempted cured their condition. We cannot know that for certain unless we examine them, and as such we should probably not make an attempt to say "yes you are cured" or "no you are not".  It would be nice if we didn't give people the false sense that this reference desk is a place to get reliable, safe answers to questions about the efficacy of treatments, and then have them act on our answers in a way that turns out to harm themselves.  -- Jayron  32  13:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So we could have pointed them to articles or medical journals that describe what ice does for shin splints. That would not be advice and it would answer their question.  Dismas |(talk) 05:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Which I did...as did someone else below-- Jayron  32  05:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The other uses section of Ice says: "Ice can be used to reduce swelling (by decreasing blood flow) and pain by pressing it against an area of the body." You might also want to look at RICE (medicine) and Cold compression therapy. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Green Lego bricks
Why are the green Duplo bricks older than the smaller green Lego bricks? --88.78.7.34 (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

They aren’t. Duplo bricks were first made in 1977; Lego bricks have been around since 1949. I strongly doubt color has anything to do with it. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I do think colour is a factor. For many decades, Lego bricks came only in five colours: black, white, red, yellow, and blue. It is only recently that they have started coming in every single colour imaginable to be able to perfectly recreate some one-second scene from a hit movie. 194.100.223.164 (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There were green bricks in the Samasonite packs which I believe which was before Duplo, but yes I think green was just associated with baseplates and the ground as grass. The whole idea of Lego was to build things up with a limited supply of different parts and use your imagination. No evidence for this but they might also have associated green bricks with the military. 07:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In this Samsonite Lego 1964 catalog small flat roof bricks and large base plates are advertised but not bricks, It looks like the 2x4 bricks didn't come till the 90's. Anyway the real experts will be on LUGNET nut here. Dmcq (talk) 08:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah - I'm pretty sure that's it. Duplo had green bricks almost from the start and Lego added them relatively recently.  Lego are actually working hard to REDUCE the variety of weird and specialised bricks - but the growth in the number of colors available goes on unabated.  The frustrating part for most Lego fans is that some of the nicest & most interesting colors are only available in tiny quantities in expensive kits.  The avoidance of association with the military is somewhat overplayed.  What they've avoided is modern military stuff...there are no Lego tanks or modern artillery for example - although there are pirate cannons, revolvers (eg from the Indiana Jones sets), red-coat soldiers with muskets, Knights with all sorts of nasty-looking weapons, WWI biplanes, etc. SteveBaker (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Big Cat - Small Cat Interaction
Hi, I've looked on wikipedia and done a google search but have been unable to find any information about how Big Cats interact with smaller cats within their territory.

Do the Great Cats (Lions, Tigers etc etc) simply display apathy towards small cats or do they chase them out? Or hunt them for food?. My main lingering question though would be what the big cats would "think" the small cats are.

Would they see them as food? Would they not care? Would they think they were just another cat?

Anything anyone can do to answer this would be very much appreciated Cheers.


 * Lions will kill cheetahs on sight. B00P (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Animals in general are not deep thinkers, capable of large-scale organizing and classifying as we are. They don't see other animals through a scientific eye. It's unlikely that a lion would recognize a housecat or any cat not of its species as being a distant cousin - it would be just another small animal ripe for the killing. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? I heard that Lions specifically target Hyena's and Wild Dogs and will deliberately go out of their way to kill them 60.234.138.157 (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither hyenas nor (wild) dogs are cats -- and certainly not small cats.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 19:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for the Detroit Lions, there are no NFL teams that fit that description. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheetahs and hyenas are rivals to the lion, occupying similar ecological niches. Lions believe in monopolies. ("Circle of Life" may sound all warm and fuzzy coming from a cartoon lion; real lions play "King of the Hill" with no doubt who the king is.) A house-cat would be beneath a lion's notice, except - very unlikely - as a snack. B00P (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly doubt lions will kill cheetahs, wild dogs, or hyenas on sight. As far as hyenas and lions go, it isn't uncommon for groups of hyenas to run lions off from one of their kills. Lions would almost certainly not try to kill a hyena if it is in a pack. Occasionally hyenas may die if they attack the lions or one gets maimed while defending a kill. I am skeptical that a lion would try to attack a pack-less hyena unless the lion intended to eat it. Why harass a smaller, less meatier animal when there are herbivores that do not have bone crushing bites around? Wild dogs probably have similar relationships although they may be run off a kill more often. Cheetahs are not "killed on sight" as B00P above suggests. Lion predation is a significant figure in cheetah cub mortality. Also, lions very successfully drive cheetahs from their kills which forces cheetahs to hunt where and when lions aren't around. Cheetah populations flourish where there aren't any lions. Again though, I doubt lions are going to harass the adult animals which have nasty bites and are fast when there are other prey animals around. All this is sourced from here: . 152.16.15.144 (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

well i hav seen on the Discovery channel that even lions are eating a lioness after attacking her so i think that they all see each other as food if they can get.
 * I took the liberty of moving the above response from the section below about ninja's. It was unsigned and I was too lazy to find who signed it but I doubt it was intended for below since I don't see any relevance of lions eating a lioness to ninjas in the UFC Nil Einne (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Are ninjas banned from the Ultimate Fighting Championship?
I don't know why this would be the case but I've heard it from a few people now that ninjas are not permitted to compete in the UFC and most similar MMA organizations any more. Does anyone know if this is true and if so, why? Thanks. --84.68.32.176 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How would you even define "ninja" for their purposes? It sounds pretty silly to me. You aren't allowed to use throwing stars, wear a mask, and hide in the rafters, which would preclude the stereotypical Hollywood ninja from being able to do much. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I was using the term 'ninja' to refer to "one who practices the martial art of ninjutsu". Not nescessarily the guys who dress all in black with the masks, though I understand that some do dress like that when fighting in competition. --84.68.32.176 (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't any MMA sanctioning body actually would refuse to allow a person based on any skills they may have, but they all do regulate which attacks are allowed and disallowed, and it may very well be that most of the "moves" unique to ninjutsu may be disallowed by UFC and other sanctioning organizations. But I cannot imagine them actually refusing to allow a person to fight merely because they "know" one martial art or another.  -- Jayron  32  13:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * According to my 10 minute research on the internet, "Ninjas", or "ones who practice the matial art of ninjitsu" are to this day able to fight in MMA and UFC fights. The SWAN or "Shadow Warriors Association of Ninjitsu" trains fighters to fight in MMA and UFC fights. i would suggest reading this. It may help.
 * --JD's Web Service 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The short answer is "no", they aren't banned. There was iirc, a ninja in one of the first UFCs (either the first or the second, again, iirc). Why don't they take part now? Partly it's precedent (the first ninja got his ass kicked, as did the first karate guy so we had to wait ten years for another decent karate guy to show up) and partly due to the style. Ninja make extensive use of weapons and their martial arts train for things that are only of secondary importance in a ring match (balance) or of no importance (moving silently). It's kind of a mismatch; a ninja is supposed to go undetected and kill someone quietly and efficiently - you can't do anything quietly in the middle of the Mandalay Bay event center and you'll get disqualified for killing the guy. :-) Matt Deres (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought the Ninja relied heavily on gadgets and equipment - stuff that's not going to be allowed in competitions like this?
 * Besides - if you let them in - you're going to have to allow Pirates too... SteveBaker (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Would peg legs and hooks be allowed in the ring? Probably not. Which rules out most pirates. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then there is that depth perception issue... Googlemeister (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Arrrr! 'E poked me in me good eye! No pullin' on th' beard! --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm - sorry, your post is just two days too late to be extremely topical. SteveBaker (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at the list of fouls in UFC, the first 18 or so outlaw things that (AFAIK) Ninjutsu specifically trains a fighter to be able to do effectively. Take away that, the weapons and the element of surprise/stealth stuff and what's left isn't particularly competitive against guys who've trained to beat/submit their opponent in the cage over n rounds. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

trauma
I am in Africa Botswana and was recently involved in a car accident with my girlfriend, the accident left her traumatised such that she is afraid to get in a car ! The part where we are doesnt have counseling services so how do i help her get through this????


 * Please see my response to this same question at the science desk. Wikipedia does not give out medical advice.  -- Jayron  32  13:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

small retail
Dear Wiki team,

We often hear the expression "small retail"... however, there is no clear information about a few topics:

What defines a small retail? Which criteria is used to stablish if a retail is small, medium ou large? Is it by revenue? Profits? Number of stores? Number of check-outs? What is the difference between a retail and a small retail?

Within the category of small retail: what are the main activities of the sector? how many small retails are there, in comparison to other (medium and big)? Which countries have more small retail business? In Which countries the medium and large retail format is found easily?

I apologise in advance for any English mistakes the text might have - I am not a native speaker. And I also thank you if you could help me with my doubts.

Cheers,

Fabi


 * See Small business for more info; the term "small retail" is a more formal term for what is usually called a "mom-and-pop store". By contrast, large retailers would generally be large national or international chain retailers like Wal-Mart.  -- Jayron  32  13:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How do I get over my fear?
I have a really bad fear of severe weather, but I want not to be afraid, how can i get over it?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 16:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not an uncommon fear - and not inappropriate, if you're in tornado alley, for example. Wikipedia editors are not qualified in the treatment of phobias. If you feel this is a debilitating problem, you should see a professional. If not, some editors could help. I personally find thunderstorms relaxing. Everyone is different. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional reply removed. Leave suggested medical courses of action to appropriate professionals. &mdash; Lomn 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to Southern California! Problem solved, no medical intervention necessary. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless the OP has a similar fear of earthquakes. PhGustaf (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Earthquakes aren't weather. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's always a trade-off. But L.A. traffic is far more deadly than L.A. earthquakes. Got to be afraid of the right thing! --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I like to find out as much information about a storm as possible. (I live in Virginia. Thunderstorms aren't always happening, but when they do, they're strong.) Going to Weather Underground, typing in your area, and clicking on the radar can tell you a lot of information about the storm (if you know what you're doing) - where it is, where it's headed, if there are tornadoes forming, where the latest lightning strikes are, etc. You can also listen to NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards (which is useful if you don't have a radio). Above all, remember that it's only weather, and it will end eventually. Xenon54 / talk / 20:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The missing piece here, assuming this is not a true phobia that would require professional treatment, is just what is it about the storm that causes fear for the questioner? Is it the thunder? Is it the flashes of lightning? Or the wind? Or the rain itself? All the above? The point is that to overcome a fear, you need to evaluate what it is that triggers the fear, and think of ways to resist it. However, if you're simply afraid of tornadoes or hurricanes, that's a useful fear. And while lightning is interesting to observe from a distance, you don't really want to be out in the middle of it. But I would like to hear more from the OP about the sequence of events in his situation. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots


 * I agree that it's only a phobia if it's an unreasonable fear. Having some fear of violent weather is a good thing if it causes you to take cover.  We need to find a way to get crazy people who go out chasing tornadoes to have some of this fear. StuRat (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Although, prior to the advent of home video, there was almost no video of tornadoes at all, and they were kind of mysterious. Now we have tons of information. Including one fact that remains unchanged: They are dangerous and not to be messed with. I recall one video from years ago where a guy was in his house, shooting the approaching tornado almost to the last second, before running down to the basement. A minute or so later he came back upstairs - and his former house was now just a large patio. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am just afraid that someday the storm will kill me. How much wind does it take to tear down a house. The house is on foundation, and has sturdy walls. Same with hail.Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends on the storm. Also, are there any tall trees in the area that could fall on the house? Perhaps the real problem is not fear of a storm, but fear of dying? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * well only one, and I would like to die without any pain, and I am afraid dying in a storm, wont accomplish that.Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a suggestion for you. You can reduce the fear if you build a "storm cellar", specifically designed to keep you alive during a tornado, and stock it with emergency supplies.  This may also provide protection from other threats (which I won't mention out of fear of inspiring more fear). StuRat (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If indeed you do have a phobia, this becomes a medical advice question, and you should see a mental-health professional. If, on the other hand, you simply are unaware of the likelihood of dying in a storm, here is a chart of severe-weather fatalities in the U.S.: . You can see that the chances are literally less that one in a million that you will die in a storm in any given year. An average of 257 Americans a year died from floods, lightning, tornadoes, hurricanes or winter storms in the period reviewed. By contrast, in 2006, 43,664 Americans died in motor-vehicle accidents, 37,286 from poisoning, 30,896 from gunshot wounds and 21,647 from falls: . So you are far less likely to die in a storm than to have your life cut short by other means. So wear your seat belt! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hair
Hayley williams has nice hair. How do I get hair like hers? Is it dyed or cut in a certain way to achieve that look? Here are some reference images, ,. Links to guides on how to get this style please! Thanks
 * Go to a hair stylist and say "Hayley williams has nice hair. How do I get hair like hers?". DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I want to do it myself, at home. I know asking a stylist would be easier, but I'd like to at lease give it a go myself. You know, buy the right products, dyes, etc
 * You might be better advised to find a forum dedicated to hair; in which case google is your friend --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Er... ok but I asked here. Is the Reference Desk incapable of helping with hair related questions?
 * The reference desk usually works with factual questions, like "what is the tallest mountain in Egypt". We don't tend to deal with how to kinds of things. Nothing personal, it's just what we are here for. Of course you might find a hair stylist has answered, if you check back. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I totally understand and I wasn't expecting anyone here to provide a "how to" guide themselves. I was mainly hoping someone would know what this style of hair is called and be able to link to an online guide for me. I suck at google and finding things in general.


 * Ok, there's been some confusion so I'm going to re-ask the question in a slightly different way, hopefully this will clear things up :) Does anyone know what this style of hair is called? And, would it be possible for someone to link to an online guide detailing how to achieve such a style. Thanks!
 * If you can be bothered, you might find the style of cut listed somewhere here. The colour looks as if it arises from ample doses of henna hair colouring. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this WikiHow entry at all helpful? –RHolton ≡ – 19:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice! Thank you!


 * I was going to suggest another method of getting Hayley Williams' hair that involves waiting outside her bedroom window with a pair of scissors until she goes to sleep, but I see you already have your answer. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was anywhere near her bedroom and she was sleeping, I would just watch her sleep and cry because she's so beautiful

From what I can see from the photos, you could either go to a high-price stylist who could likely duplicate it meticulously; or you could take a pair of scissors and chop randomly. Pretty much the same outcome. :) →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The question is perfectly appropriate for the Ref Desk, since it is a topic covered by magazines whose covers I see while in the supermarket check-out, along the lines of "How to make your hair look like Starlet X." I would ask a stylist or find a reliable fashion magazine, although there are several websites with instructions I will not link to, since bizarre results could come from an amateur going at her hair with scissors, bleach and dye. Several years ago I overheard a conversation between a young lady with absolute movie star quality shoulder length blond hair and her friend. Blondie said "My husband just does not understand that good hair is worth $300 a month." Cutting, perms, tinting, conditioners.  Perhaps extensions. Allow 30% for inflation since then. Several visits a month at big bucks per visit.  Farah Fawcett with curly blond hair was once the envy of many young ladies who tried to duplicate the look at home. They often would up with lots of curls in front (from the curling iron) and flat hair in back. That is a hazard of the do-it-yourself approach. Edison (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Godiva Chocolates
After reading the brief Godiva article, I still don't know why their chocolate is superior to the ones on the candy stand at Safeway. What exactly makes it so expensive? --Reticuli88 (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In short, the market economy. Godiva has successfully positioned itself as a brand of chocolate that is more valuable than that sold at Safeway; thus, it is able to charge more for its product.  Is that a circular answer?  Sure is.  Any further hows and whys are quite likely nebulous and speculative, though.  You'll find the same sort of thing across the market, but it's probably most pronounced in the area of luxury goods. &mdash; Lomn 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Godiva would say: they use better ingredients, better recipes, and have a better product. The economist would say what Lomn wrote: they price them as the market can bear it, and if the market thinks their chocolate is worth 1000% more than Safeway chocolate, then it is. The skeptical consumer would say: you are buying the brand, not the chocolate, especially since most chocolate is given as a gift anyway (you are telling someone how much you think they are worth by proxy), so it doesn't matter whether it is comparatively better than Safeway (luxury products emerge in part because of a need to define "luxury," independent of the manufacturing costs of the product). The chocolate enthusiast would say: chocolate (like coffee and wine) can have very complex flavors depending on how it is made and with what quality of product, and the mass-produced, bottom-of-the-barrel Safeway stuff is probably not made with any attention to such factors. The Safeway people would say: our stuff is so cheap because we don't spend gobs of money advertising it in Vanity Fair, that's all (of course, we are buying cheap and selling high as well, so imagine how cheap it really must be to manufacture!). The 12-year-old boy would say: they have a naked lady on a horse as their logo! Ha! --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Building off the chocolate enthusiast point: you also get self-sustaining impact at some point. I recall seeing a piece recently on wine reviews, which are typically conducted with the reviewer aware of what he's evaluating.  This piece noted that reviewers tended to use the word "harvest" with cheaper wines and "vintage" with expensive ones, even though the meanings are identical.  One, however, sounds much more impressive than the other.  So to go back to Godiva: is the chocolate enthusiast raving about complex nutty flavors because it's truly superior to bargain-bin chocolate?  Or is he just making sure that no one suspects he likes the cheap stuff just as well, knowledge of which would destroy his professional credibility?  In the absence of scientific studies, it's impossible to distinguish.  That's why I put in the bit about "nebulous and speculative" -- personal biases abound, and while they're very much real, they're not objective. &mdash; Lomn 21:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgetting the price issue, Godiva chocolate definitely has a different taste than your typical Hershey bar. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Though it's of note that your typical Hershey bar will taste different than most "real" chocolates. See Milk_chocolate. It has its own special category, as it is actually quite strange tasting for chocolate. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know about Godiva specifically, but better chocolates tend to have more cocoa content and perhaps use actual sugar instead of "corn syrup solids". Some really cheap chocolates might also still contain trans-fats.  As far as taste-tests go, any reputable test will be double-blind or at least single-blind (meaning the tester doesn't know which is which, but the moderator does).  However, it's still possible the taster may identify one taste as "fancier" and say that it tastes better when it really doesn't, just to be a snob.  One show that seems to get it about right is America's Test Kitchen.  A typical result is that they say the cheapest brands are awful, but also say the ultra-premium brands "taste weird", and thus settle for a middle-priced product as the best tasting.  StuRat (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In my experience, the cheaper chocolates are extremely sweet and gobby. High-end darker chocolates are more bitter and taste less like generic sugar. It can be an acquired taste. The difference doesn't necessarily correlate with the markup, of course. I doubt Godiva is really that different from any other high-end, cocoa and real sugar product, of which there are many. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There's also the difference between milk chocolate, which has a low cocoa content, milk products, and lots of sugar or corn syrup solids, and dark chocolate with a higher cocoa content and less sweetener. Dark chocolate can taste bitter to those used to milk chocolate. StuRat (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Those who like Hershey's special dark chocolate bar would probably find Godiva more to their liking. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Godiva is relatively cheap - according to their web site, they generally charge a little under $1.50 per piece, however: FatTurkey chocolate are $25 for 12 pieces ($2 per piece) and there is a company here in Austin, Texas SXUL who are selling FOUR pieces of chocolate for $60 ($15 per piece) - a clear 10 times more expensive than Godiva...but every piece is dusted with real gold leaf. Yes - it is stupid. SteveBaker (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians' editing patterns/demographics
This question falls into a sort of RefDesk/HelpDesk no man's land. Please move/cross-post if it should be elsewhere. Basically I'm trying to find out what the demographics and editing pattern of the WP regulars are, both normal editors as well as admins. I'm frankly astounded at some of the edit counts racked up by people in a very short space of time. To put it into context, I've been a non-stop WP editor for FOUR YEARS and I'm only racking up my 2,394th edit with this post (under 2 per day). I mostly just keep an eye on my watchlist for vandalism and keep it trimmed at 100 pages. Occasionally I do a bit of research if something promising comes up and I get the urge. But at most I would spend a couple of hours once-off on such an activity, I do have a full-time job to attend to. What I wanted to know is how are these massive edit counts being achieved? Some people's are FAR in excess of 100 per day. Even with tools you'd have to be spending most of your working day/weekends editing that much. Are WP's "power editors" mostly a bunch of unemployed layabouts? :P Where do they find the time? I'd appreciate any links to surveys about Wikipedia, but more than that any anecdotal stories of your own experience would be appreciated. Especially from people with full-time jobs and yet with high edits/day. Thanks. Zunaid 21:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are many factors, not the least of which is the breadth and depth of one's interests. My watchlist varies, but it currently contains 6,400 articles.  That is probably among the largest watchlists around, but I've never attempted to do any comparisons with other editors.  It is what it is, that's enough for me.  Time is certainly another factor.  I was unemployed for quite a while over the past couple of years, enabling me to get completely sucked in to my wiki-addiction.  But even when I'm more than fully gainfully employed, I can sometimes do 30 or more edits in a day, during my spare time in the mornings and the evenings.  I was never a "layabout", btw.  I consider contributing to WP just as worthy as achieving world peace or solving the global economic crisis or finding the cure for obesity.  We're volunteers of the mind, rather than of the body, heart or spirit.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been editing Wikipedia since 23/4/05 and probably have 8300 edits total (8200 of those under a name) in that timespan. I used to edit a lot, but I just don't have much time anymore. I wake up, go to school, come back, work my butt off for an hour or three, then edit Wikipedia if I feel like it (which I usually don't - today's a good day). I think most Wikipedia editors just have a lot of time on their hands, whether they stay up late at night or don't have any obligations in the day. Using automated tools also make it relatively easy to rack up a ridiculously large edit count. Using Twinkle, reverting vandalism alone takes 2 edits; sitting there for an hour can easily rack up hundreds of edits or more. Tagging an image for (pseudo-)speedy deletion can make up tens of edits, depending on how often the image is used. When evaluating someone's edit count (e.g. for an RfA), I look and see if they use any tools. I think of it as "quality, not quantity" - a person with 7,000 edits and a few good or featured articles or DYKs will inherently have more experience than a person with 15,000 edits of Twinkle-vandalism-reversion. Xenon54 / talk / 22:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been in full time employment for most of my wikipedia addiction. I average about 18 edits per day over 5.5 years, for an edit count of about 37,000. What I do varies; so, for instance, I racked up a couple of thousand quick edits in September '09 doing a fairly mindless article recategorisation task. In other months I manage as few as a couple of hundred edits, possibly because I'm writing articles, which, all things being equal, require a lot more work per edit. Users of AutoWikiBrowser can with ease rack up very high edit counts, since much of the work done with that tool is by design quick to do. An hour will give you 60 or 100 or 200 edits.
 * And an hour a day is not that much. You might want to read a short article on the cognitive capacity freed up by alternatives to television - the thing that so many of us have sunk so much (wasted) time into. Full time workers tend to work for about 8 hours, and perhaps spend another 2 hours travelling ... 8 hours sleeping ... that leaves, by my calculation, 6 hours per weekday to spend on eating, chores, socialising, &c.


 * You might (or might not) find some food for thought in Wikipedia in academic studies or in Academic studies about Wikipedia. Trust all that helps somewhat. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been on Wikipedia for over 4 years now, and have more than a few edits to my name. (What tool does one use to get the edit count anyway ? My old tool no longer works).  I tend to read and edit here while doing other things, like watching TV, playing a video game, doing laundry, etc.  So, I may be here for many hours a day, but I also accomplish other things during those hours. StuRat (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Something like this --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. So I'm close to 32,000 edits, although I've dropped off quite a bit lately.  I hope to get back to over 3000 edits a month, if my fingers can stand all that typing.  Maybe I should wait for a direct brain interface. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have something similar, accumulated over seven years. I used to have thousands of edits per month, but that was back before Wikipedia required pesky "references" and "citations", and before I had a thesis and a family to occupy my time. I think the demographic is generally "people with nothing better to do." Adam Bishop (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I must really not have a life. I'm up to 45,500 edits in just under 6 years, or about 21.5 edits a day on average.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm a newbie here and I only frequent the Ref Desk. I tend not to write any articles, nor do I edit any (unless I find articles with information which is plain wrong, and where I can find the refutation easily). That's because my knowledge is broader rather than deep. I've always had the sort of brain that retains useless information, and I feel I can make more of a contribution here than in the main pages. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dont let your edit counts go to your heads: there have been people with as many edits (and some with many more edits) who have been blocked or banned for upsetting the Admins'peaceful lives it appears.--CruelSea (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that the more you edit the more likely you are to run afoul of some Admin, similar to those who drive more getting more tickets. Similarly, in order to get permanently banned based on one edit, it would have to be quite an impressive edit. StuRat (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)