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

Are we getting a new update?
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* H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 20:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Will do, thanks H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 15:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * "Sure. I'll run it again tonight. Unless I forget, in which case I won't. :)--Gmaxwell 16:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)" Everyone! START EDITTING! *gets hit by wave of 50s middle-aged women trying to buy tupperware* H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 17:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So Robdurbar 17:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * we Robdurbar 17:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * should Robdurbar 17:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * be Robdurbar 17:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * trying Robdurbar 17:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * to Robdurbar 17:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * boost Robdurbar 17:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * our Robdurbar 17:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * edit Robdurbar 17:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * count? Robdurbar 17:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * with Johntex\talk 17:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * lotsJohntex\talk 17:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


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

Well not if he lives in the middle of the pacific ocean... maybe he has a way of cutting through the downtime? H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 18:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Still not updated. - Centrx 15:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * What about an update based on the data that's already there?&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 17:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit counter
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)
 * Yes. See WikiProject edit counters. Rfrisbietalk 22:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

Just a simple question...
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)
 * 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&mdash;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.&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 01:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yup, that's what I meant&mdash;they are lost for edit counting purposes.&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 03:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

Can This Be Saved?
The script for updating this seems to be invalid due to the change from SQL to XML. Ardric47 04:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Better to put an explanation rather than just a tag at the top of the page (right?) Badagnani 11:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify; I added the second page as an explanation. --Robdurbar 09:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The best thing would be for someone to rewrite the script(s) to work with XML. Ardric47 03:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 07:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Figures...right when I'd be on the list, it stops working. --Kaz 00:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, we love you anyway :)&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternative source of data
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)


 * 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 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)

New "raw" data uploaded
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.

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)
 * 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)


 * 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? -- Nish kid 64 23:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Alright, I'll get on it. -- Nish kid 64 17:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Update
This needs to be updated, it has been almost a month since anyone did. — Moe  16:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On you go, Moe. Don't let us stop you. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * Unfortunately there's not been a successful data dump since then. Rich Farmbrough, 23:24 3 November 2006 (GMT).


 * Now there has. Rich Farmbrough, 00:07 21 November 2006 (GMT).

Hey
How do I add myself to the list? --PaxEquilibrium 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't&mdash;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.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed - that's what made me try out manually (oh, the lust! ;) --PaxEquilibrium 01:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I made the list and it displays the correct number of edits, but it does not list me as an admin. Definitely some weird stuff with it.—WAvegetarian&bull;(talk) 04:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * ah. okay, thanks for explaining that.—WAvegetarian&bull;(talk) 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

But it still does not explain why am I not here... --PaxEquilibrium 22:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not an admin... --PaxEquilibrium 19:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Update
Updated. All the nice notes have gone, but I have put (bot) where I can. Pax is there - but is not in the previous list at all. Don't know why, but the new method is simpler. It took me from about the 4th 'til this morning to download the stub-history file. Rich Farmbrough, 00:10 21 November 2006 (GMT).
 * JUst thought, stub-meta-history may not contain all name-space. Rich Farmbrough, 00:15 21 November 2006 (GMT).
 * Nice job. --PaxEquilibrium 21:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yay! Thanks.  -- Visviva 08:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Pleasure Rich Farmbrough, 17:33 28 November 2006 (GMT).

2486
Such an aribitrary number to use. I am just wondering why that is used. Seems a little odd of a chocie, I would say. Any reasons? Kaiser matias 10:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It probably based on a number of edits limit, no the number of users. semper fi — Moe  20:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on the number of bots in the previous run, we would have had 2,500 in the list. Rich Farmbrough, 17:03 28 November 2006 (GMT).

Update?
How/when is this list updated? I checked the edits of users and these results are way too old; a week or two backwards... --PaxEquilibrium 21:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It usually doesn't get updated for 2-3 months, let alone weeks. This is fairly accurate. semper fi — Moe  20:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When a succesfull data dump of the en:wikipedia file is made (supposed to be every two weeks, but actually monthly attempts), I download it. This takes from 1 day to three weeks(!). It then gets uncompressed (a few hours) and the perl script run (about 2 hours). I have asked for a toolserver account, which may mean a better way can be found. Rich Farmbrough, 17:02 28 November 2006 (GMT).
 * Wow... remind me to give a barnstar for that one... --PaxEquilibrium 23:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits per day info
As of February 2005, the English Wikipedia received more than 15,000 edits a day. Is there any newer, more recent information? It's been nearly two years since that last check - is it actually possible to calculate the number of edits per day? –- kungming·  2   (Talk)  08:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia statistics is the place to go. [Edits per month/day] suggests that as at June 06 (the most recent month for which we have statistics) we're running at 3.6 million per month = 120,000 per day. Not sure how the calculation of the percentile of edits made by the prolific editors was ever arrived at. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Thank you! =) –- kungming·  2   (Talk)  10:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone help with script
./wiki.sh enwiki-20061104-stub-meta-history.xml.gz
 * 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)
 * http://magicnumber.sourceforge.net/wiki.tar.gz, here is my own script to generate this list. Yao Ziyuan 23:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Uncompress the file, and you will get 3 perl scripts and 1 bash script. use the following command and it will generate the result in file wiki.txt:
 * The text of table header in output file was in Traditional Chinese, but it can be replaced by any languages. It will generate result for both registered and anonymous users. Yao Ziyuan 23:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My latest version
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)


 * Please return to the format preserving the distinction between users and bots. Thanks.  Badagnani 08:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK done. The other version is linked to. Rich Farmbrough, 21:49 10 December 2006 (GMT).

Bot accounts
I've updated this list, as there were 13 accounts listed as users which were actually bot accounts. Something wonky happened when I hit save page, and I'm assuming it was the new system going into effect, but it's possible it was something else, so if this messed anything up, feel free to revert. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, weird. My edit doesn't show up in the history of page. But it's there. Firsfron of Ronchester  02:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * SPmewhat late note, not all bots have bot flags. Rich Farmbrough, 22:07 8 March 2007 (GMT).

Prediction
The biggest riser in the next list will be User:HagermanBot. If we ever have a seperate mainspace/allspace list it will be the account with the biggest disparity between the two. Rich Farmbrough, 10:26 12 December 2006 (GMT).
 * You're probably right, when is the next list? Dfrg.m s c 1 . 2 . Editor Review 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I second asking about the next list. More importantly, is there anything I can do to help you generate/format/post it? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Downloading data for next list now. Rich Farmbrough, 23:24 29 January 2007 (GMT).
 * What about non bot/non admin? Lugnuts 20:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Question
I have at present just under 5,000 edits in total. Including talk-page, granted. Should I show on this page? Because I don't seem to.--Anthony.bradbury 01:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No. At the time of the data cut, 30 November 2006, you had only about 3900 edits, whereas the cut-off the for the list was (for whatever reason) 4588. Whenever the list is next generated (and it gets done only rarely) you /might/ appear. Depends what the cut-off is when next it is run. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * That's incorrect. I've had over 10,000 on 30 November and it still shows me below. --PaxEquilibrium 12:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It was correct for the case of Anthony.bradbury, who simply had too few edits to qualify. It showed you as having 9851 edits, putting you at position 1021 in the list. Referring to Editcount, you currently have 10886 edits. Wannabe_kate agrees, and suggests that you have made 349 edits in January and 837 in December. On this basis your edit count at the end of November would be 9700. So, we can say that there is a discrepancy between these tools and the list of wikipedians by number of edits data. But I think we can be reasonably secure that you had fewer than 10,000 edits at the end of November. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * Note that since deleted edits aren't counted, it is possible for edit counts to drop, certainly if they are up to a given date. Rich Farmbrough, 23:26 29 January 2007 (GMT).

How to...?
Can somebody add 'how to update this page' section? In either case, with over two month old data this can use an update. Also, I wonder if we can use data from old old revisions which I dug up to generate some graphs?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this page updated? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have put details earlier. Download a database dump (when one is made, this was just completed), and run the script I uploaded.  It is not, I believe, the absolute latest script I wrote which is temporarily (I hope) lost, as it does not attempt to distinguish bots. Rich Farmbrough, 19:56 6  February 2007 (GMT).
 * When will the list next be updated? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should add how to update the list to the project page or in a messagebox at the top of this page. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I cannot find the place you put the details later. I know that Database download describes how to download a database dump, but I cannot find the script. If we had a nice, down-to-earth 'how to' section we could get much more frequent updates, I believe.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. Does anybody know how to? NikoSilver 01:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the script's here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this thing needs an update. The problem is (A) finding someone who knows how to do it and (B) convincing that person to find the time to do it. Or, in the alternative, (A) figuring out how to do it and (B) finding the time to do it. Dino 18:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot? Simply south 22:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, actually, I'm updating it at the moment. Th eonly reason I haven't updated if for April is because the dump didn't work on the download site. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't distinguish bots or better still, list them seperately. I'd love to see where my bot stands, and it has too many edits to use one of the toolserver edit counters. --kingboyk 14:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Write me a better script then. I'm only running the one Rich gave me. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm replying to Rich. He said: "It is not, I believe, the absolute latest script I wrote which is temporarily (I hope) lost, as it does not attempt to distinguish bots." i.e. if you're running the old one that's fine; if Rich finds the new one I'm asking if he could put bots into a seperate list section rather than discount them all together :) I hope that clears my point up. --kingboyk 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He lost the new script when his computer died, and it did separate bots. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks. Well, I hope he finds it then. (I feel the pain btw and hope nothing important was lost. I've had more than my fair share of computer and HDD crashes). --kingboyk 15:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Disk is still O/S, more important things to do than rescuing it ATM.  However I might find time to re-write that bit of script. Rich Farmbrough, 15:24 1 June 2007 (GMT).

Thanks
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)
 * 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)

"Latest dumps"
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)
 * The list itself is transcluded from 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)
 * Oh. I see.  Guettarda 20:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Bots?
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)

IPs
"Note: Bots and IPs were removed by hand"

Ips are still technically users so why have these been removed? Simply south 11:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's hard to say if an IP address is really one person or just a busy shared IP.  &mdash;Cel ithemis  11:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Users are not created equal. Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has written that:


 * users with "anonymous IP numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits." -- Jimbo Wales


 * -- Fyslee (collaborate) 12:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Jimbo actually said that??? MetsFan76 14:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's right there on his talk page. Follow the link. I have incorporated that quote in this greeting template which I use:




 * You can try it on the next red IP talk page link you see. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not for nothing, but that is a very uncool statement. Anons contribute so much to WP and by saying that kind of belittles them.  MetsFan76 20:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It really has nothing to do with the quality of their edits, but that they are missing out on privileges they can enjoy as registered users. Another situation that applies in BLP situations. The subject of an article has more rights if they identify themselves. They can correct inaccuracies and get listened to in a more serious way. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 20:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure. It sort of sounds that to be a "good" editor, you need to have an account to make "good" edits.  I definitely respect your response though.  I just think Jimbo could have stated that a little better. MetsFan76 20:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course the statement had a context: -- Fyslee (collaborate</b>) 20:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In that context, then yes, I see the point. But many unregistered editors make excellent contributions here.  I still say Jimbo should have acknowledged that.  MetsFan76 20:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He wasn't addressing that fact. While many unregistered users do good work, many also create a large percentage of our time-consuming problems. This is of course an old discussion, and that's not my mission here. I just figured Jimbo's quote might be interesting to consider in this context. Cheerio! -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> (<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">collaborate</b>) 21:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A large percentage of registered users also cause many of our time-consuming problems LOL. Have a great day!! MetsFan76 21:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How right you are! -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> (<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">collaborate</b>) 21:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than removing bots, could they perhaps be marked as bots or listed seperately? --kingboyk 14:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Formula for estimating edits
Based on some numbers I am playing with (basically regressing total numbers of edits of sample of editors from this page on their rank), I created an equation to estimate your 'most active Wikipedian no' which can be used for editors who have too many edits to be on that list but still would like to know an estimate of their rank. The equation is [you are most active editor no.]=-295+(1346*(10000/[number of editor edits])). R squared of my model is .979, standard error of the estimate is 104.5. PS. And the scatterplot of 'number of edits total' to 'most active editor' is a hyperbola.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "editors who have too many edits to be on that list":- now that is scary... Rich Farmbrough, 15:22 1 June 2007 (GMT).

So how does this work?
Okay, so how does this list get updated? Can it be done by anyone, or does it have to be done using a bot or program of some sort? Thanks. · <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">AO</b> <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Talk 20:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Pick through How To a few posts up, and then come back with any remaining questions. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * That said, the sooner we write a 'how to' section for the main artile as I suggest before, the sooner we won't have to answer such questions :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur. --Sn0wflake 01:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote a bit of a how-to, can someone check to make sure it's the proper procedure? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

script by rich f. doesn't work on windows?
I'm using windows with an up-to-date version of perl. Apparently the script only works on unix. So I started my own script, but I never touched perl until today, so could someone fix it and finish it? Thanks. Hoogli 01:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't a working script be put on wikimedia, so all the sites, not just wikipedia, could find it easily?

Hoogli 14:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * actually, i got it to work! type this in to command prompt:


 * Good stuff. While I would like everyone to think I exclusively use Unix tsh command prompt.... I have in fact only used that script in Windoze.  Rich Farmbrough, 15:20 1 June 2007 (GMT).