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

Easy updating
OK, so it's a completely geeky thing to do, but I came up with a one-liner that will produce a new version of the list based on the current CSV file. Assuming you have the appropriate programs available (Perl, libwww), you should be able to execute the following command at a *NIX prompt to get the latest "top 500" in a file, ready to copy and paste. Enjoy! - IMSoP 16:35, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)




 * Are there any perl programs that are not one line long :-). Less geeky characters will be pleased to hear that it is dead easy to save the CSV file, open it in your favourite spreadsheet program, crop out the foreign wiki data and sort the en data, then copy and paste into the waiting Wikipedia edit window. With the promise of weekly updates, it would be nice to have Wikipedians by number of edits in March 2004, etc. We have one such month (July 2003) already. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:42, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * "3j3 4m teh l337 haxxor" etc. My main motivation was to combine extracting the data with formatting it into links - you'll notice I did the latter on the existing data (using a somewhat shorter one-liner...), which makes it far more useful than plain-text, IMHO. I'm sure you could do a "find&replace" in a spreadsheet app, but it's more effort than copying&pasting the above into a *nix shell if you have one handy. - IMSoP 16:57, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Totals across projects
As a person who, in the last year has been most active in sister projects, I would very much appreciate seeing total edits in all projects. This list underappreciates efforts in other languages and other projects. Eclecticology 17:40, 2004 Mar 15 (UTC)


 * Without a unified login, how would you know that users across different projects with the same name are the same people? Dori | Talk 17:45, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

With the but given by Dori, as well as the one that one person can have different names, and that many interwiki regulars tend to not log in when going to another language, I used the data linked to above to make a list. Note that this is for wikipedia in all languages, but not for meta or for the other projects. Note also that yours not-so-humbly retakes his position just below mav :-). Anyway, here is the top 50 of usernames with most edits (I originally did 10,000 edits or more, so number 50 may be wrong, but that is more than compensated by not counting 171 edits of username 'Koyaanisqatsi'). - Andre Engels 22:46, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you sure this does cover all languages. I thought I'd edited a lot more than 29 languages. Angela. 03:56, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, not all. Only those languages that are shown on the statistics page. At the time of making the table that were about 50 languages, now there are about 80 (I gave Shaihulud a list of languages to add). - Andre Engels 09:31, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. It would be neat if we could persuade Erik Zachte to extend the stat run to cover non-encylopedia Wikimedia projects too. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Rambot - 49116 - en:49116
 * 2) Ram-Man - 43276 - en:43276
 * 3) Maveric149 - 37891 - en:36706, es:1012, de:173
 * 4) Andre Engels - 31188 - en:14202, nl:12455, de:1416, fr:422, pl:420, sv:302, fy:290, eo:247, es:243, da:199, etcetera (42 languages in total)
 * 5) Olivier - 30684 - en:28940, fr:1744
 * 6) Conversion script - 29857 - en:29857
 * 7) Robbot - 28704 - en:8548, nl:7742, pl:2721, fy:2309, fr:1872, zh:1538, fi:1350, af:1091, it:328, ia:305, de:279, etcetera (29 languages in total)
 * 8) Den fj&auml;trade ankan - 23132 - sv:20647, en:2277, da:68, also on de:no:fi:pl:fr:
 * 9) Glenn - 22426 - da:18483, en:2277, da:68, also on de:no:fi:pl:fr:
 * 10) conversion script - 21300 - pl:7537, de:2640, nl:2666, es:2349, sv:2104, da:404
 * 11) RomanNose - 18373 - sv:18373
 * 12) Zwobot - 16680 - de:16310, es:370
 * 13) The Anome - 16576 - en:16576
 * 14) HasharBot - 16564 - fr:16564
 * 15) Moriel - 16434 - es:16417, en:17
 * 16) Michael Hardy - 16173 - en:16173
 * 17) Patrick - 15845 - en:15237, nl:500, de:34, etcetera (20 languages in total)
 * 18) Jiang - 15711 - en:15711
 * 19) Wik - 15345 - en:15343, de:2
 * 20) Hephaestos - 15334 - en:15305, fr:16, de:10, simple:3
 * 21) Stefan K&uuml;hn - 15226 - de:15193, en:13
 * 22) TUF-KAT - 15150 - en:15150
 * 23) HooftBot - 15131 - nl:8736, es:1573, eo:1527, sl:1504, ro:844, sv:746, ru:157, also on pt:ko:ja:cy:
 * 24) Olafbot - 15093 - pl:15093
 * 25) Bryan Derksen - 14811 - en:14811
 * 26) Kpjas - 14186 - pl:10852, en:3060, de:266, also on hr:sv:sl:es:
 * 27) Morwen - 14030 - en:14017, cy:9, de:4
 * 28) WhisperToMe - 13967 - en:13349, es:501, ja:49, also on fr:eo:sv:
 * 29) Infrogmation - 13897 - en:13897
 * 30) Orthogaffe - 13404 - fr:13404
 * 31) XJamRastafire - 13394 - sl:9523, en:3871, ru:38
 * 32) AxelBoldt - 12886 - en:12857, de:29
 * 33) Looxix - 12466 - fr:6999, en:5442, oc:10, also on nl:de:eo:
 * 34) Ahoerstemeier - 12258 - en:10311, it:2, nl:1, th:5, de:1939 (on de: as AHoerstemeier)
 * 35) Docu - 11478 - en:11477, fr:1
 * 36) Wst - 11110 - de:11057, en:53
 * 37) Tarquin - 11083 - en:9576, fr:1397, de:71, also on nl:ca:eo:da:
 * 38) Phido - 11059 - fr:11059
 * 39) Angela - 10966 - en:9782, simple:623, de:114, etcetera (total 29 languages)
 * 40) Camembert - 10813 - en:10808, fr:4, eo:1
 * 41) Jimfbleak - 10582 - en:10582
 * 42) Mikue - 10524 - de:9324, fr:1136, en:34, also on nl:simple:
 * 43) TakuyaMurata - 10342 - en:10180, ja:162
 * 44) Ellywa - 10310 - nl:9515, en:737, fy:58
 * 45) Minesweeper - 10257 - en:10255, simple:2
 * 46) Menchi - 10175 - en:8874, zh:1063, simple:81, etcetera (total 16 languages)
 * 47) Jan Pedersen - 10118 - da:10072, en:46
 * 48) Zoe - 10087 - en:10087
 * 49) Dysprosia - 10021 - en:10011, fr:10
 * 50) Koyaanis Qatsi - 9947 - en:9711, de:124, nl:62, da:50

the 10 most active Wikipedians of the day
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|&#9998 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. &mdash; mendel &#9742; 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)
 * I would like to see a count of the number of changed characters in the edit history of an article by each edit. Bevo 17:46, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Nice though that would be, it's not really possible with the current diff functions: moving a paragraph appears in the diff as deleting that much text from one place and adding it in another. More powerful diff tools do exist, but seeing as it's not particularly important, it doesn't seem worth putting much effort into. - IMSoP 19:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Even if a simple move produced an exagerated number, it would still be interesting in general to detect most large versus small edits. - Bevo 16:09, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I think (as the above users have pointed out) that while this sounds good in theory, in practice it would be an unmitigated disaster. It would only encourage people to make meaningless edits, and the people who are in prepetual revert wars would always be at the top. Nope, sorry - this is not a good idea. &rarr;Raul654 17:13, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Should I put Wikipedians by number of edits on VfD, then? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:17, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * No - first, it's not updated all that often, and it's cumulative, so it rewards longtime contributors rather than participants in the edit-war-dejour. Plus, most people don't really know about it, so there's not much incentive to artificially inflate the numbers. &rarr;Raul654 17:20, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

I've been thinking of making Great editing in progress as a counterpoint to Vandalism in progress and people who are noticing other people doing good work can post it there. This adds some subjectivity so it's not just a raw count of possibly irrelevant edits. moink 16:13, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 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)

~
 * You never know the consequences until you try the experiment. - Bevo 16:40, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Plautus Satire

 * Hmm, I'm surprised that Plautus Satire did not make this list! Was he excluded? Arno 08:50, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * He mostly edited talk page which are not included in these stats. Angela. 06:47, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * I hadn;t realised tat talk pae contributions did not count. Arno 11:01, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikify usernames
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)
 * 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)

Listing oddities
KoyaanisQatsi is on the list twice, once as KoyaanisQatsi and once as Koyaanis Qatsi, but KoyaanisQatsi (contribs) does not seem to have made any contributions. Is this a bug? Can the two be merged in the stats somehow? Angela. 21:55, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, curious. My suspicion is that the contributions are counted by looking at the history for each page when all the other stats are generated. This would include all the edits made when there was no user namespace. And MAYBE it is difficult to get a "contributions" page for those old edits? Would that explain the inconsistency? Just guessing.... Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:53, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Even worse, I'm on the list twice (with the same username)! ··gracefool |&#9786; 03:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Errmmm... no you're not. Pcb21| Pete 06:04, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm... you're right. There's a very weird bug going on. I can see myself in #512 as well as where my name is in the wikimarkup, #622. Possibly it's a Firefox bug (sorry about the .bmp format, I'm on someone else's computer):
 * (image)


 * As far as I can see you are 622 on the main namespace list, and 512 on the all namespaces list, no bug. Pcb21| Pete 07:40, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah. Erm. Thanks for clearing that up. :*) ··gracefool |&#9786; 09:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Data in the CSV
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)
 * Hey, thanks for that, and thanks for the new pages. They show that I spend too much time doing cleanup on non-article pages; I'm #170 on the last 30 days of article space, but #40 for all space. --Ben Brockert 14:11, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

When will I know?
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)
 * You have 409 according to the CSV file. Other ways of counting your edits are mentioned earlier on this very page. --Ben Brockert 01:38, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * "Earlier on this very page" now means at Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 1. ··gracefool |&#9786; 09:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More statistical titbits made possible by the extended CSV table
(stats taken from the 500 list only)

20 users making the highest proportion of their edits in the main namespace


 * 1) 	99.76%	Wikibot
 * 2) 	99.73%	Yas
 * 3) 	99.53%	Zoicon5
 * 4) 	99.52%	Glenn
 * 5) 	99.50%	Tucci528
 * 6) 	99.49%	Smallweed
 * 7) 	99.37%	Dimadick
 * 8) 	98.93%	Kchishol1970
 * 9) 	98.92%	Modster
 * 10) 	98.81%	Snobot
 * 11) 	98.59%	Pedant17
 * 12) 	98.54%	Paul W
 * 13) 	98.27%	Meswiss
 * 14) 	98.15%	Dale Arnett
 * 15) 	98.09%	Wayland
 * 16) 	97.94%	Ben-Zin
 * 17) 	97.89%	Peterlin
 * 18) 	97.88%	Tobias Hoevekamp
 * 19) 	97.45%	Bernfarr
 * 20) 	97.40%	Hashar

20 users making the lowest proportion of their edits in the main namespace


 * 1) 	44.12%	172
 * 2) 	42.51%	Eloquence
 * 3) 	41.91%	Pakaran
 * 4) 	41.67%	Michael Snow
 * 5) 	41.67%	Bcorr
 * 6) 	41.47%	Theresa knott
 * 7) 	41.35%	Isomorphic
 * 8) 	41.21%	Sj
 * 9) 	39.88%	Tim Starling
 * 10) 	39.80%	Slrubenstein
 * 11) 	39.42%	Anthony DiPierro
 * 12) 	38.71%	Jwrosenzweig
 * 13) 	38.67%	MyRedDice
 * 14) 	38.34%	Arpingstone
 * 15) 	36.89%	Jamesday
 * 16) 	36.65%	Fennec
 * 17) 	36.36%	Mbecker
 * 18) 	35.40%	Anthere
 * 19) 	28.69%	Sam Spade
 * 20) 	20.45%	Texture

What does this mean?
"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)


 * 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)

Scripts
What was used to genereate the page and Wikipedians by number of recent edits? With the new fields, I wouldn't thnk the old scripts would still be working properly. --Ben Brockert 22:38, May 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Erik Zachte's has a whole suite of scripts that generate the pretty Wikipedia statistics pages . The users stats are generated as part of that and dumped to the CSV linked from this page. They are effectively unrelated to the old scripts. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I was asking about the script you're using to turn the CSV into a list of users by rank, though that link is really useful. --Ben Brockert 21:56, May 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh right, sorry. I've just done it by hand in Excel. (Hence why there is an occurence of #NAME everytime I do an update because I keep forgetting we have active user whose username is also an invalid excel formula!). The perl one-liner nearly does the job, but appears to be broken by the extra column. I am sure however that some perl hacking wizard will have sorted it by the next time I read this page though ;). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Darn. I was hoping you had been using Perl, so that I wouldn't have to try to remember regexp syntax. Ah, well, it's good for me. Here's the updated oneliner: it should do the exact same thing as the old oneliner, ignoring the new columns.




 * GET won't work on my system for some reason, so I can't actually test this, but I trust it to work. --Ben Brockert 22:55, May 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've downloaded the script - thanks to User:Brockert! What I'm unsure of is how to interpret them.  There are several column of numbers, which I understand to refer to different kinds of edits users have made - am I right?  But what do the columns actually signify?David Cannon 01:32, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Scroll up for a beautifully crafted explanation. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Positional change
Compare SimonMayer on the current list with SimonMayer on the 7 May list. Both times at 319, but a positional change of -5 is recorded. Have I missed something or is it quite blatantly wrong? SimonMayer 15:32, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The positional change is on 30 days ago, NOT the 7 May list. The data is taken from the CSV file, which records changes from 30 days ago, but is published (almost) every week. This page is not guaranteed to be updated with such clockwork regularity, unless someone says they'll do it (I have updated it the last four times). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks SimonMayer 16:14, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you still doing it in a spreadsheet? I've gotten perl scripts running that can make a dozen different stats pages in a few seconds. Is there anyone other than me that would run them? --Ben Brockert talk: 17:55, May 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Nah, prompted by the comments we exchanged on Friday, I automated the whole process this afternoon (though my poison is Python not Perl). What sort of stats are you thinking about adding? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


 * There's the six easy ones: Main edits, non-main edits, all edits; month's main edits, month's non-main edits, month's all edits. An all edits for every contributor to en is tempting as well, so that new people don't have to search through the csv for themselves. After those, there a number of different things that could be done like your earlier examples, like highest percentage of edits in main or non-main, and the same thing for the month. That's only ten total pages, though, so I'll have to come up with two more... --Ben Brockert (:talk:) 22:45, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

The position change number is not very intuitive. If you say my position is up 5 from 100, I know I climbed up the list to 95. But If you say my position is plus 5 from 100, should I be at 105 or 95. By judging from 0 edit results in a negative change, I can tell a minus means increase in the rank number and plus means decrease. e.g. 100+5=95 Isn't that +/- sign counter-intuitive? I need to think a little everytime I read that number.

Replace +/- by arrow
Suggestion: if it is not too difficult, replace + with ^ and - with v or some real arrow symbols (&#8593; & &#8595;). Kowloonese 01:09, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I would have to disagree. Intuitively, when I see "+", I think of improvement, which in this list is indicated by a lower number. I don't think any difficulty is caused by the current system. -- Emsworth 01:13, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * The confusion is the usage of the two words "improve" = "increase". That equation does not work very well with ranking because a ranking improves by decreasing the rank number.  An up arrow and a down arrow will show you which way you are going without a second thought.  It was the second thought that I called counter-intuitive.  Do you disagree with my reasoning or you disagree that my suggestion is an improvement?  Kowloonese 01:20, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your reasoning... BUT I think your suggestion would be an improvement in appearance. If one is really up to it, one could put the "up arrow" individuals in green, and the "down arrow individuals" in red, etc. -- Emsworth 02:42, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Intuition according to the dictionary based on how each person perceives. In other words, it is very subjective.  It is pointless to argue if something is intuitive or not based on just my opinion or your opinion.  To you, the current implementation is intuitive.  To me, it is counter-intuitive.  I may be a wierdo but assume there is 1% of the users here perceive the same way as I do, then there is room for improvement.  The arrows should work for 100% of people which is better than 99%.  Kowloonese 05:36, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks like there is room for improvement. It will be trivial to change the script. Please tell me the correct wiki markup for a green up-arrow and a red down-arrow and I will change it. (btw I think it would be a much to put the whole line in green/red... just the arrow and may be the number should be coloured, right?). Pcb21| Pete 11:09, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The arrow and number would suffice. Try: &#8593; &#8595;, yielding &#8593; &#8595; . -- Emsworth 14:34, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok done. I've also increased the count to 1,000 contributors in each list, as requested elsewhere. Pcb21| Pete 15:58, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let's try this again
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)


 * 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)


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


 * 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)


 * 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)

Amazing
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

CSV data is buggy/incorrect and (or) old/out-of-date!
For reasons of vanity, (prompted by slashdot) I took a gander at the CSV data in search of myself... It shows that I have a grand total of 6 edits ... which is crazy since I've started/revised at least 50+ articles. linas 17:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This tool by Kate says that you've 1566 edits as of date. -- 10:36, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)