MicroWiki talk:List of users by edit count

From MicroWiki, the free micronational encyclopædia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


User:MattL and User:Cristi are close to 2,000 edits. Z. Luna Skye (Prince Zed I) (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Summi_Imperatoris has 1,983. Z. Luna Skye (Prince Zed I) (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Only includes users with 1,500 or more)

Counting edits from past MicroWikis

What do you think about optionally including edits made on older versions of MicroWiki? (especially the original MicroWiki from 2005-2011)

I've tallied up the edits I made on MicroWiki's previous iterations while they were still the official MicroWiki, and have estimated that I am currently at around 10,165 edits. Detailed info below:

Iteration Edits Days Average Start date End date Notes
Original MicroWiki 1774  387 4.6 2010-05-23 2011-06-13
Post-Wikia, pre-modern 3429  892 3.8 Estimate †
Modern MicroWiki 4962 2295 2.2 2013-11-08 2020-02-20
† Unfortunately, it is impossible to know the exact edit counts from between the move off of Wikia to the establishment of today's independent MicroWiki in 2013. As such, 3429 (and, therefore, 10,165) is merely an estimate. The way I calculated this estimate, was I took the 387 days of history from before the unknown period, and the 387 days of history from after that period. I then calculated and averaged their rates, and multiplied the resulting rate by the 892 days of lost records.

If estimates are not sufficient, what do you think about at least including pre-move Wikia numbers if people are willing to provide them? It is easy to verify that I had 1774 edits on the original MicroWiki prior to the move. Adding those to my current edit count on modern MicroWiki yields 6729 verified edits to MicroWiki.

Ultimately, this is just a silly suggestion for some silly statistics; but OCD as I am, it would be neat to have my true edit count here.


/swέna/ 💬 20:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it is not possible to dynamically add the old MicroWiki value to the modern MicroWiki value, we could display the edit counts like 4962 + 5203 (or 4962 + 1774), which makes it clear that the old edit count is coming from a different source. We could also link the edit counts to a user's contributions: 4962 + 1774.

/swέna/ 💬 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ooo I would be interested in doing that. If other editors disagree with adding it we could perhaps add this as a separate list to the current page. I also think we should include the estimates. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page  Contribs  7:21 pm (19:21) 21 February 2020 (UTC).

@Z. Luna Skye: What do you think about sending out a message on Discord asking people with high edit counts to send in (1) the number of edits they made to the original MicroWiki before it moved (roughly around 1 Jan 2011), and (2) a link to their original MicroWiki profile (so that their claim can be verified)?

We could have two additional columns: one for edits from the original MicroWiki, and one for an estimate covering the time between when we left Wikia (~1 Jan 2011) and moved to the current site (7 Nov 2013). This undocumented period is around 1041 days.

For simplicity's sake, let's round to 1000, and treat the restart date as 1 Jan 2014. We can take the 500 days before 1 Jan 2011 and the 500 days after 1 Jan 2014, and add them together to roughly interpolate their true edit count during the undocumented period. This is obviously far from perfect, but it will at least get us an okay ballpark figure. It also makes the math pretty easy and straightforward, which is important given the number of people we'd have to look at.

It's much-less accurate than the way I calculated my own edit count, though, and it completely breaks down for users that joined Microwiki during the move; so we might end-up preferring the more-complicated (but also more-accurate) algorithm.

Iteration Edits Start date End date Notes
Original MicroWiki 1769 2010-05-23 2011-01-01
Post-Wikia, pre-modern 3117 2011-01-01 2014-01-01 Estimate
Modern MicroWiki 4962 2013-11-08 2020-02-20

/swέna/ 💬 12:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we want, I could probably make a Lua template that automatically calculates everything when given (1) an edit count on the modern MicroWiki, (2) an edit count on the original MicroWiki, and (3) a join date for the original MicroWiki. This would completely automate the calculations, which means it'd be easy for us to use the more-complex but more-correct algorithm.

We might be able to do this even more-simply, by writing a Lua template that takes an array of usernames (Wikia ones would be prefixed with "w:"), automatically gets their edit counts from the specified timeframes, and returns a total sum. This would necessarily be asynchronous, though.

We could also probably write a Lua template that automatically sorts the table by edit count, thus avoiding the need for manual updates.

We'd probably have to check with MicroWiki technical admins on how and whether we can create Lua templates.

/swέna/ 💬 18:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. We can speak to Luxor about it. Also, yeah, we should go ahead and announce it on the Discord. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page  Contribs  11:49 pm (23:49), 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The Lua template idea is very ambitious, and may not turn out to be feasible. For the time-being, I've added just my verified pre-move edit count to the table. /swέna/ 💬 00:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Increase threshold for inclusion

@Z. Luna Skye:

The current threshold for inclusion in the list is 1000 edits; but the records section requires at least 2000. What do you think about setting the threshold for the main table to 2000 as well? This would make the table half its current size, and make it much-easier to maintain.

Another option is to limit the total number of entries in the main table to 50 or so.

Thoughts? /swέna/ 💬 19:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright claim issue.

Hello Microwiki. I want you to know I am copy right claiming you for copying the sorce of wikipedia. If you have proof that you bought the writes to this code I will apologize for bothering you.

Signed- Leah Mikheeve

All content on Wikipedia is public domain under the Creative Commons licence and can be freely redistributed. ADAMVS PRIMVS IMPERATOR 19:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoops sorry to bother you. I just joined wikipedia as an admin I did not know sorry.

Really? what's your details on Wikipedia if I may ask?  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me  Look at what I've done.  20:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding more people

I would be relatively high up --Andrew Brotherton of Roscamistan 19:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template talk:Users by edit count

I left a message on the talk page above, I was just clearing up a footnote. His Majesty John by the Grace of God of Baustralia, King (talk · email) 04:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fandom edit count

Did I notice that edits on the Fandom website apparently count towards edits here? If that's the case, please add 543 edits that I have on that website to my count. --Confederation of Malus (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They do not—tl;dr is that that website used to be MicroWiki until 2010. As stated in the lead of the article: "MicroWiki was originally hosted on Wikia (now Fandom) from its foundation until the community moved on 14 November 2010. These edits counts … are not counted on MicroWiki. In order to attempt limit this discrepancy, the below list includes the edit counts of users on the former Wikia website." And the accompanying efn note states "Though a controversial issue, all edits made on MicroNations Fandom after 14 November 2010 should not be counted, as it is considered a separate wiki unaffiliated with MicroWiki; see migration from Wikia." For instance, the user Austenasia has 2,111 edits listed here but actually has 4,111 on Fandom itself. ZabëlleNB ♥︎ (formerly Z Luna Skye) (talk | edits) 20:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note(s) to self when edit counts are fixed

Sadivanti + pp should be added when edit counts are fixed. Template:ZedSig (talk contribs) at 05:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phenn reached 10,000 edits on 3 September 2023. :] Template:ZedSig (talk contribs) at 11:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MattL reached 40,000 edits on 17 October 2023. Template:ZedSig (talk contribs) at 05:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noone reached 60,000 edits on 1 November 2023. Template:ZedSig (talk contribs) at 05:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
John of Baustralia reached 40,000 edits on 16 December 2023. Template:ZedSig (talk contribs) at 04:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very confusing list

I saw the article being List of users by edit count and just figured I'd check it out. To my surprise, I was apparently the 99th most prolific editor. Neat, yea? Instead as I scroll up, I see completely random inserts, such as User:Eric 22 being the 26th most prolific editor for a staggering... 1,038 edits. Or, User:Adml1 boasting 14th place with over 9,000 edits, with User:Summi Imperatoris being below them at 15th for over 11,000 edits. These numbers confuse me. Is there an explanation? Is it random people trying to insert themselves? Ela'r'oech Charles (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Additionally, I have gone on to User:Eric 22's User page and see they are claiming to hold many more edits than their Edit Count page states, for example the page states that they have 1038 edits, however on their userpage they claim the following;

"1. edits - 24th November 2019 (12:07)
1000. edits - 16th February 2020 (~18:28)
2000. edits - 25th March 2020
2500. edits - ~30th April 2020
5000. edits - 20th November 2021 (13:28)
7500. edits - 4th May 2023 (21:02)"
Is this an issue with the edit count or is this user falsely claiming that amount of edits?
Ela'r'oech Charles (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It has come to my attention that User:Eric 22 does have 7501 + 1038 edits. While this still isn't the number one should have to claim #26, it should be noted that this users edits are on the Czech MicroWiki. Is there a way we can add a template similar to the format we're using for English MicroWiki, and then grab it from Czech users? Ela'r'oech Charles (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ela'r'oech Charles: Thanks for your question—so, the list originally used {{Special:Editcount/User}}, which displayed and automatically updated edits made by users. This was a MediaWiki extension. On 2 August, this was replaced with EditCountNeue because this one could be used in templates. However, EditCountNeue did not include deleted edits. A deleted edit is an edit that was made to a now-deleted page; for instance if a user tagged an article for speedy deletion and the article was subsequently deleted, this method of counting edits would not include this now-deleted edit as having been made and thus remove it from a user's total edit count. This meant that the edit count for many users, especially in the top of the list, decreased, with the most being a loss of 14,000 edits. Edit counts could also thus regularly go up and down (which is quite silly). In November, Luxor modified this to include deleted edits—not sure how so I cannot elaborate, I am not that familiar with the internal code of MicroWiki.
However, curiously, the edit count is still slightly inflated; for instance, the table states that I have 61,653, but in Special:Preferences I have 60,388—this disparity generally decreases the lower one goes on the list. Me and Luxor brainstormed some options a month or so back but we could ultimately not identify the cause. Though, I have ruled out page moves (In a user's Special:Contributions, if a user renames (moves) a page, that adds a history entry on both the old and new names of the page to show that the page has been renamed, and therefore counts as 2 towards a user's contributions count.), edits made to sister projects of MicroWiki, and other actions that do not constitute edits, such as page deletions (these are not 'edits').
On top of that, as you I see now you have mentioned, the edit counts also do not include edits made to other projects of MicroWiki, like MicroCommons or Czech MicroWiki etc., which they previously did (hence why the edit counts of Vidlák 101 and Grand Duke Nicholas I. or Eric 22 are so low). However, there is an argument to be made that they do not belong here, and that this should be for edits made to the English MicroWiki only. Czech MicroWiki does actually have their own informal (but accurate) list maintained by AtomCZ: naplněné pískem here it is.
While the slight edit disparity that I have still not figured out cannot be addressed, we can modify this list to only include edits made to the English MicroWiki, and that way we can get the list back to the way it was prior to the installation of EditCountNeue, and have it regularly updated. We can add a notice somewhere in the article above that there is a slight disparity resulting in some increased edits.
It does not matter how outdated the list is right now, as I am willing to diligently fix it. Template:ZedSig (talk contribs) at 17:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Solved—turns out page moves are counted twice. Template:ZedSig (talk contribs) at 03:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]