1890 edits at a very low edit rate. Little evidence of vandle fighting and has failed to create any featured articles. The distibution of edits is
pretty good although
a little low on article space. Would probably get through RFA but
would not be completely clear cut.
In another 30 edits, that could be describing me :)
Seriously though:
Username Jimbo Wales Total edits 1890 Image uploads 9 (7 cur, 2 old) Distinct pages edited 727 Edits/page (avg) 2.60
First edit 2001-03-27 20:47:31
Articles 417 Talk 211 User 128 User talk 809 Project 198 Project talk 62
1 in 4 edits actually in the article space, and twice as many on user pages? Not to mention 128 edits to his own user page? I'm not sure what measure you use to judge "pretty good" edit distribution - the guy is clearly not here to create an encyclopaedia :)
Steve (who has 18 times more edits in the template namespace, so must be 18 times cooler...)
On 2/1/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
1890 edits at a very low edit rate. Little evidence of vandle fighting and has failed to create any featured articles. The distibution of edits is
pretty good although
a little low on article space. Would probably get through RFA but
would not be completely clear cut.
In another 30 edits, that could be describing me :)
Seriously though:
Username Jimbo Wales Total edits 1890 Image uploads 9 (7 cur, 2 old) Distinct pages edited 727 Edits/page (avg) 2.60
First edit 2001-03-27 20:47:31
Articles 417 Talk 211 User 128 User talk 809 Project 198 Project talk 62
1 in 4 edits actually in the article space, and twice as many on user pages? Not to mention 128 edits to his own user page? I'm not sure what measure you use to judge "pretty good" edit distribution - the guy is clearly not here to create an encyclopaedia :)
On the other hand, the high number of "talk", "user talk", and "wikipedia" edits could indicate that the user is pretty good at calming down edit wars -- exactly the sort of person we want as an admin. You'd have to check a sample of his edits to determine this.
-- Mark Wagner [[User:Carnildo]]
On 2/1/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand, the high number of "talk", "user talk", and "wikipedia" edits could indicate that the user is pretty good at calming down edit wars -- exactly the sort of person we want as an
Or participating in them :)
admin. You'd have to check a sample of his edits to determine this.
Fascinating. My brief sample reveals frequent page blanking. Actually what's fascinating about that is that's one of the first things I did when I got my account and I got rapped over the knuckles for it :)
Lest there be any confusion at all, I'm pursuing this conversation only in an ironic spirit, I think Jimbo is perfectly fit to be admin...:)
Steve
On 2/1/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote: I think Jimbo is perfectly fit to be admin...:)
Steve
I dunno I seem to recall he mentioned haveing a life outside wikipedia as one point.
-- geni
On 2/1/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I dunno I seem to recall he mentioned haveing a life outside wikipedia as one point.
Removed as unverified, possibly libellous ;)
-Matt
Mark Wagner wrote:
On the other hand, the high number of "talk", "user talk", and "wikipedia" edits could indicate that the user is pretty good at calming down edit wars -- exactly the sort of person we want as an admin. You'd have to check a sample of his edits to determine this.
His editing pattern is suspiciously similar to trolls. Also, notice some of those recent edits -- it seems like every time there's a controversial biography he comes along and blanks the page.
tsk tsk, a sure troublemaker ;-)
Clear case of editcountitis. Jimbo does work to promote Wikipedia outside of things that are recorded in edit counters. This is a clear example of why edit counts don't say everything.
Mgm
On 2/1/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
1890 edits at a very low edit rate. Little evidence of vandle fighting
and has
failed to create any featured articles. The distibution of edits is
pretty good although
a little low on article space. Would probably get through RFA but
would not be completely clear cut.
In another 30 edits, that could be describing me :)
Seriously though:
Username Jimbo Wales Total edits 1890 Image uploads 9 (7 cur, 2 old) Distinct pages edited 727 Edits/page (avg) 2.60
First edit 2001-03-27 20:47:31
Articles 417 Talk 211 User 128 User talk 809 Project 198 Project talk 62
1 in 4 edits actually in the article space, and twice as many on user pages? Not to mention 128 edits to his own user page? I'm not sure what measure you use to judge "pretty good" edit distribution - the guy is clearly not here to create an encyclopaedia :)
Steve (who has 18 times more edits in the template namespace, so must be 18 times cooler...) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/1/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote: <snip>
Username Jimbo Wales
<snip>
Articles 417 Talk 211 User 128 User talk 809 Project 198 Project talk 62
1 in 4 edits actually in the article space, and twice as many on user pages? Not to mention 128 edits to his own user page? I'm not sure what measure you use to judge "pretty good" edit distribution - the guy is clearly not here to create an encyclopaedia :)
Steve (who has 18 times more edits in the template namespace, so must be 18 times cooler...)
Not to be nitpicky (ok, to be nitpicky and absolutely nothing else), 18 x 0 = 0. So why not say you have 18,000 times as many edits (once you're multiplying by zero, who cares?)
Steve (who has 18 times more edits in the template
namespace, so must
be 18 times cooler...)
Not to be nitpicky (ok, to be nitpicky and absolutely nothing else), 18 x 0 = 0. So why not say you have 18,000 times as many edits (once you're multiplying by zero, who cares?)
I actually trimmed a few bits before I pasted. Jimbo has 3 edits in the template namespace, I have 54.
Steve