Wikipedia:Village pump/October 2003 archive 1

• move to Wikipedia talk:Www/en2 split

Watchlist

How about allowing a user who uses Watchlist to make use of the <diff> function seen in recent Changes? Also, my account has a habit of logging me out. LirQ

See wikipedia:bug reports to request new features

See wikipedia:how to log in for advice on login problems.

hth. hand. Martin 13:11, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

How are feature requests akin to bug reports? LirQ

Because both are done through Sourceforge, and the instructions for doing this are on the wikipedia:bug reports page. Angela 17:01, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

[Ustashe]]

User known as Mir Harven warned on talk page of Ustashe that "This page will be completely changed in near future, say, two weeks". I ask that some of experienced users put the page on their watchlists, as it is excellent NPOV. You suceeded in making two Serbs and two Croats to agree on this topic :) and I would hate to see it completely changed, especially by someone like MH (and don't intend allowing that anyway). Nikola 07:28, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Unilaterally revamping an article completely without other writer's willing inputs is not how Wiki works. I hope that's not what he meant by "will be completely changed" (although I see no other interpreation). --Menchi 08:15, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Seems entirely wiki in spirit to me. be bold in completely rewriting entire articles, if you think it will result in a better article, and a better encyclopedia. If people didn't want their text edited mercilessly, they should have submitted it some place else.

Might be best to wait until Mir actually makes any changes (if sie does). When sie does, you can drop it on wikipedia:peer review to get more eyeballs - but only if you think that's necessary. In any case, often by carefully merging an original with a bold rewrite, one can acquire an article that is better than either alone. Martin 11:20, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Compass construct?

An IP user User:64.230.131.102 has put a four-way compass navigation at the bottom of various Canadian city articles, such as Montreal, Quebec and Toronto, Ontario. While I actually find it kind of interesting to find out about other geographically close cities, is there a precedent for doing it this way? Pros/cons? Fuzheado 05:59, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that table is very pleasing to the eye, but I do think it is a very good idea! Perhaps it would be nice for someone to figure out a pretty/functional way to do it and create a new guidline. (Would this quiet the anti-Rambot debate as many articles would now be useful simply based on these tables? Hmmm.) -- Paige 06:14, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but it should be implemented on map rather than the Wikipedia pages .. isn't there are project to do this somewhere on Meta? -- User:Docu

m:Maps and m:Map generator. Angela

I have been doing something very similar for towns in Hawai'i. I have simply placed links in the text under subheading Geography (see for example Kaneohe, Hawaii). These links go to the surrounding nearest towns. I think this practice provides a very interesting way to explore places and, as pointed out, make use of the thousands of town "stubs". I'm not thrilled about the looks of the "compass" as presented at Toronto, Ontario, but I very much agree with the intent. - Marshman 22:23, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I did something similar for Gornji Milanovac, but with some explanations and links about roads. Each of the roads would, when finished, list all the cities/villages it passes through. Nikola 12:16, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just finished road Gornji Milanovac-Donji Banjani Nikola 08:49, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The ideal is a map that one can click on. But it maybe too complicated for most editors to use. -wshun 04:44, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't really like the table-based map. I think real maps (probably at the state or province level for large countries like Canada) are the way to go. Daniel Quinlan 04:15, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)

---

Service Temporarily Unavailable

The new message attached with the Service Temporarily Unavailable message:

Due to heavy load on the server, connections may be temporarily blocked from locations that fetch an unusually high number of pages. If you've just been heavily browsing, go get a cup of coffee and come back and reload in a minute. :)

Is much better than the previous message used. I had thought that the Unavailability was because of something wrong with wikipedia; turns out, it was because of something *I* was doing. When I am in the mood to do proofreading, I use the "Random Page" feature. Sometimes, while scanning words, I will click on "Random Page" 3 or 4 times in the span of 10 or 15 seconds. Now I know that I have to slow my "Random Page" rate down. My question is...What is the fastest rate I can use the "Random Page" feature without losing service temporarily? Or is this information held secret because a spider-author might read this? In any case, props to whomever wrote the new message. It is much more informative to users. Kingturtle 15:32, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The limit was originally 20 hits in 60 seconds, but I pointed out to Brion that that much coffee was not good me and he raised it to 50 hits in 100 seconds. But then, due to high server load, it was reduced again. I'm not sure what to, but probably the original 20 hits per minute. Remember that editing counts as two hits. Brion's advice on the mailing list yesterday was to "read the pages between clicks". :) See also: Original message introducing the limit. Angela 15:52, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, should be back to 50 in 100. Special:Randompage also counts as two, since it works by redirect. --Brion 19:20, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I presume it must be all related to the server problems, but I find I can no longer be logged on to pages I worked on just earlier today (although I remain logged on to other pages), whuich tells me it is not my cookie problem - Marshman 22:48, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Minor edit

I don't know whether this really matters, but I mistakenly marked an edit minor. I was multitasking while working on Earendil, and forgot that I'd made some substantive changes. If it's possible, and if a developer thinks it necessary, please remove the minor flag and delete the edit summary. -Smack 06:45, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's not necessary, but your striving for openness and accountable is commendable! Pete 06:49, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Some ideas:

• You can say so in the Talk if that change is really major and may be controversial.
• Or you can just make another edit, mark it major, and say "the previous edit was major" in the summary.

--Menchi 06:51, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Unresolved problem

I asked earlier why image uploading was not working but I didn't seem to get a streightforward answer. Could anyone englighten me? Also, how do I have my nickname and the time/date appear after my messages, like other posers have?

Uploads are disabled because the server which usually holds uploads is offline. We don't yet have a decent method of synchronising uploads between the two servers. Hopefully the problem will be fixed soon. Wikipedia is currently running on one server -- big thanks to Brion for managing to restore some semblance of normality in this extraordinary situation. Sign messages with ~~~~. -- Tim Starling 12:41, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

Note that this doesn't really have anything to do with the en2/www split. For a brief time you could access Wikipedia through either en2.wikipedia.org (pliny) or www.wikipedia.org (larousse). Then larousse was upgraded and given back full web serving duties -- the split officially ended and is not likely to come back any time soon. Then larousse crashed, so the entire load was moved to pliny. It's possible uploads are disabled simply because pliny's webserving component hasn't been reconfigured since the split. I'll ask Brion about it. -- Tim Starling 13:01, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks.. hmm it does post my nickname but not the date/time stamp

SD6-Agent

4 tildes for a time stamp, 3 for no time stamp. -- Tim Starling 13:01, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

Google links to Wikipedia articles

Don't Google hits/ links lead to the latest version of a Wikipedia article? I added a lot of info to a page yesterday since it was in the first page of Google hits. But today when I followed the Google link to the page it was in the same state as before my editing- though the address bar in IE is the same for both direct Wikipedia and link from Google.KRS 05:34, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Searching#Google_search_of_Wikipedia. Martin 13:16, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

actually, that's not answered your question. My apologies. Martin 13:45, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Did you try the "refresh" button? Can you see today the new content? Is the error reproducible with other pages on your computer? Maybe it has to do with our two servers: www.wikipedia.org and en2.wikipedia.org (see a little bit above) Fantasy 15:35, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The page is Indian writing in English( lower case 'w' in writing). When I created it I had named it as Indian Writing in English(uppercase 'W' in writing) and a veteran Wikipedian had done some redirection. Through some research I have come to this probable conclusion- the Google search gives the more popular usage capital "Writing" instead of small "writing". And this leads to a page that has a redirect. And this redirect page works on a cached version of the page concerned. I tried it a few times and everytime I got the same result. Does this happen with every redirect page? If so, then how much is the the time lag ? Is anyone aware of this problem. Please enlighten me/ or look into it.KRS 15:51, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Have you tried clearing your cache? Angela

I have tried it.Actually, as I mentioned it is not something to do within Wikipedia- here I get the correct version even in redirect (If it is to do with the cache I should get the same result even within Wikipedia). It is only when I type the words in Google and get a link through that do I get this problem. In fact when I tried to check page history after follwing through Google, the latest changes were recorded!!KRS 16:39, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

KRS, my guess is this has nothing to do with Google, case-sensitivity or redirects, but something to do with browser sessions, wikipedia or wikipedia's handling of sessions. I tried out exactly what you suggested and came across the same result. I still get a very outdated page if I go to the link via google.

I had discovered a similar problem when I once went to the URL http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lineage . It had some junk line "werfhjgu" and I put up the page at VfD. When I logged in and went to the same link, I found a neat page saying "(There is currently no text in this page)". When I logged out and went to the page, I found the junk again.

Are you opening a new browser window when you go to Google ? If so, you're not logged-in to Wikipedia thru' that browser. Solution to your problem would be to login to wikipedia using that very window, and u'll find all the recently added text magically re-appear. Open another Google window and go to the same link and you'll find its still got the outdated page ! (I assume you're using Internet Explorer. Opera users won't face this problem.)

Jay 18:19, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Whatever be the problem, the data should be somewhere in cyberspace.I don't think it has anything to do with browser sessions[ with my limited knowledge]. I think that there is some kind of permanent storage [I don't know computer terminology/ slangs for all this:-)]system in Wikipedia and this might be not uptodate. Somehow, maybe, the Google link goes here rather than to the latest versionKRS 10:21, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Lets narrow down and remove Google out of the picture. Step 1. open a fresh browser window and go to the URL "http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Writing_in_English" (W is in caps). You'll get a very old page. Step 2. Click on the "Log in" link and login to Wikipedia. You'll get the new page. Jay 17:18, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that the server-side HTML cache got stuck when the page was moved on July 24. I'll put it on my to do list. -- Tim Starling 23:59, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

Correction: the HTML cache for Indian_Writing_in_English was left in place after the page move on July 24. It was not invalidated, and hence anonymous requests return the old version. I guess the HTML cache for all incoming redirects should be invalidated when the article itself changes. As a workaround, you could edit the redirect in some trivial way, which will force the cache to be invalidated. -- Tim Starling 00:13, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks a lot,Tim Starling. I followed your suggestions. It worked!!!Thanks to Jay too, for taking the trouble.KRS 05:03, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I spoke too soon!The same problems arise as soon as another edit is made in the main page. Does this mean that everytime an edit is made in the main page, some change has to be made in the Redirect page? KRS 09:45, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, your diagnosis is correct. This is a bug, and will be fixed eventually. -- Tim Starling 00:35, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

Link to Wikisource on the main page

Any reason there's no link to Wikisource under the "Sister Projects" section of the main page? Axlrosen 17:56, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Because Wikisource is not a Wikimedia project yet (and may never be due to the fact that Wikibooks does pretty much the same thing already - although I did reserve the http://wikisource.org domain name just in case). All "Wikisource" is right now is a collection of text files squating on the Pashtu Wikipedia. --mav 06:10, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Media files

I just uploaded a sound file, but it seems that the pages relating to the uploading of files were designed for images, so the file is now named: Image:Albanian alphabet.ogg, and that page also is tailored for images. Is there a plan to make that page and the naming more generic? --Dori 03:15, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If anyone gets around to patching it up yes, but it's not a high priority, as there's no real functional difference to renaming the description pages. Use [[media:Albanian alphabet.ogg]] to create an inline link direct to an uploaded file (of any type). --Brion 03:18, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

photo overwriting

I notice that when I upload a photo I can upload another photo with the same name and overwrite the old one, without any kind of "are you sure?" warning. This is fine when it is my photo I am replacing, but how do I know I am not overwriting someone else's photo with the same name in another article, without realising it? Adam 05:43, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You check: look at the image description page, it'll list all uploads under that name. If you notice the mistake after the fact, revert to the previous version and upload your file with a more descriptive name. --Brion 06:12, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Making your image filenames personal will help, for example white.horses.dac.jpg. This is most unlikely to be repeated by another person.

Adrian Pingstone

Adrian's solution seems to be the best one. But would it not be useful to have a message which says "warning: there is already an image of that name in our server. Do you wish to replace it? If not, please rename your image."? Adam

Of course it would be useful, but it's very low on the priority list, which is topped with making the Wikipedia usable by humans as well as beings with much less hurried senses of time perception such as trees and geologic formations. :) So, it's left until someone with the itch scratches it and writes in the appropriate checks and interface. --Brion 08:59, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Brion is directing his sarcasm at me there, and if so why, but never mind. :) If someone would like to visit Vergina and fix my photo positioning and captioning, I would be grateful. Adam 09:03, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Don't think it was meant to be sarcasm... just an admission that our heroic but undermanned developer effort has to be directed at speeding up the pedia at the moment, and other things sadly have to wait. Pete 09:23, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It'll be helpful if the following line is included in Special:Upload page, beginning of the 2nd para. "If a file with the name you are specifying already exists on Wikipedia it'll get replaced without warning. So unless you deliberately wish to overwrite a file, it'll be a good idea to first check if such a file exists."

Above warning line has not yet been added in the Special:Upload page. Can someone with permissions to edit Special pages add it. Jay 19:49, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Agree that some extra overwrite protection in software is a good idea, and also agree that it's not a high priority.

The protection isn't too bad as it is, IMO. After uploading a new image, you should always update the image description page to add some details: Who created the image and when, and a copyright release notice, at the very least.

So if you've accidentally overwritten a previous image, there should already be details there, and so you immediately know you've blundered and can fix it.

If this image was already used by any page, there will be unexpected entries in the 'what links here' section of the image description page. If there aren't then at least you know that you haven't damaged any existing articles. The overwritten image was an orphan. Of course it could be one that someone is about to use, but when they do they'll see the problem. So you haven't actually damaged the content of Wikipedia, which is the articles it contains.

How's this for a suggestion: Immediately before uploading a new image, update the article in which you intend to use it, adding the image as you intend. This has three main benefits. Firstly, it allows you to see how your alternate text works. Secondly, it verifies for you that the image name you have in mind is free. Use 'show preview' to check this, and choose a new name at this stage if it's not.

After uploading the image you may still want to tweak the format, but it's far better if you can avoid this. Not everyone has the same screen parameters as you have. So it's far better for your layout to be designed to be logical rather than tuned to your own particular display settings. That's the third benefit, and may even be the most important of the three. Andrewa 06:36, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Feature request submitted to SourceForge - see wikipedia:bug reports for information. The advice on avoiding overwriting images should be added to wikipedia:image use policy, wikipedia:image description page and/or wikipedia:image markup gallery. Martin 11:01, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes. Perhaps I'm not being bold enough here. The image use policy page seems the obvious place for it IMO, but this page is already getting a bit long and messy, possibly needs a refactor in any case. And, I'm fairly new at using images, which is why I called my suggestion a suggestion rather than a recommendation. Andrewa 20:35, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mail notification with dummy mail ID

I receieved a mail notification from apache@www.wikipedia.org . I replied to it and my reply went to webmaster@www.wikipedia.org . 4 days later I received a mail delivery failure notification. Is this a dummy mail ID or I just need to try sending once again ? I've never seen www in a mail ID before. Jay

If this was a new-password e-mail, it's just a dummy address, don't respond to it. If it was something else, um, what was this e-mail? --Brion 18:19, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ya it was a change password notification. Henceforth, for such notifications we can have a line saying "Please do not reply to this mail."

ok here was the content of the mail : "Someone (probably you, from IP address 205.188.209.136) requested that we send you a new Wikipedia login password."

I replied saying that I have never requested for change of password, nor is the IP address mine, and listed a couple of users who have used the said IP address. Jay 18:46, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

A bug or something?

Goto The Golden Gate, click on Gates in Jerusalem's Old City Walls and you come to an edit box with a lot of text. But you are supposed to come to a written article! BL 22:11, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• Weird. I tried editing both the pages to see if that would help but it didn't. Angela 22:24, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
• It's working now (for me anyway). Angela 22:35, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
  • For me too.. weird. BL 22:41, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I had a similar case some shortly ago, when a link stayed red even though the article referenced existed, and thus the article was always called in edit mode. After the referenced article was edited once the database seemed to have updated the links. andy 07:25, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It happened to me, and one of our resident bird-ologists (forgot which) as well. --Menchi 07:37, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The link table looks fine, could memcached be the problem? Is there any easy way to find out? -- Tim Starling 07:55, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)

Login password

Wikipedia no longer remebers my login password, although I always click the "Remember my password" checkbox. Is this problem universal now or is it me? Tempshill

I have this problem too. — Alex756 22:31, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You may have cookies blocked. -Smack 02:00, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I had this problem for a while but it's now come good, no deliberate changes to cookie management at my end (with Win98 it's hard to be definitive on this, and XP is worse, hey that's POV but true). I assumed it was just part of the server problems, and my personal decision was not to even raise issues of this sort until the server situation improves.

I could be wrong, and in any case I haven't even asked our wonderful overworked underthanked server administrators if this is a good thing or whether they'd still like to know about every little glitch. They do need to know about any important problem, to me this is just a minor annoyance but sometimes knowing about a little glitch helps solve a big one.

(And in any case, people you are doing so much so well with so little, hang in there, and thank you.) Andrewa 05:59, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Another thing to check is exactly what domain name you're coming in on. The cookies are linked to the domain name, but for a while there've been several ways you could get to the site: www.wikipedia.org, wikipedia.org, en.wikipedia.org, en2.wikipedia.org, even www.wikipedia.com... If you logged in on one and then visited another, the second "site" couldn't read the first's cookie.

I've just tweaked up the config to standardize on en.wikipedia.org and send you there from whichever name variant you came in on, so from here out things should be easier. --Brion 08:00, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Bug/User:Sex/User:Zoe

Not sure if this is a software issue or something more sinster so thought I'd ask here first. The number one article on Wikipedia:Most Wanted Articles is User:Sex. Now I've never seen this user editing and editors who've signed comments on 1000+ pages normal have a user page and I've normally seen them editting.... thus I thought some prankster had editted the MWA page to put a non-existent User:Sex on top. But no, if you click http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Sex there are indeed 1400+ pages listed. So I thought I'd check a few pages out, get to meet this User:Sex but there was no such user making comments. To add a little more to the mystery all the pages that I checked out had the common feature that User:Zoe had signed a comment on them. However clicking http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Zoe gives a different set of pages. Any detectives in the house? Pete 14:34, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It looks like Zoe's page was moved to User:Sex at some point (I would guess by the banned user Michael), and then moved back again. Beyond that, I don't know what's going on. --Camembert

Ok, thanks for your help. I created a User:Sex page as a stop-gap solution so that it will be removed from MWA whenever it is next generated. 147.114.226.175 15:41, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That's a rather unfortunate case of link table corruption. Moving pages with lots of links to them can cause this sometimes. I'm fixing it... -- Tim Starling 00:19, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I changed all the entries in the link table that were pointing to User:Sex so that they point to User:Zoe. It's possible some legitimate entries got moved as well, so now Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Sex doesn't really tell you anything useful. -- Tim Starling 00:30, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

I think we should be ok, don't there has been a User:Sex (or at least if there has, they never had a user page) so your change should be 100% accurate. Thanks very much for sorting that one out, Tim. Pete 00:55, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Bali bombing

Also, why has 2002 Bali terrorist bombing disappeared from the Anniversaries section of the Main Page? It was there yesterday (Oct 11), but it has gone today (Oct 12), which is the actuall anniversary. Adam

Because generally events get listed a day after their corresponding day page drops off the Main Page. The other events act as a kind of "best of" summary at that point. --mav 08:50, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I checked about 5 versions of history and couldn't see why it's removed. Re-added. --Menchi 06:38, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Many thanks Adam

2003_invasion_of_Iraq

For some reasons I can't explain, I can't save my edit at 2003_invasion_of_Iraq. I want to revert, I go to history, choose an older version, edit, and save. It says it is saved, but it doesnot. Can someone check to tell me what is going on ? Thanks Anthère 15:50, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

the other reverted back his edit. Perhaps to the previous edit in history. Me reverting to the same history could perhaps explain that no change is taken into consideration.

I still do not understand well, but do not take into consideration then

Wikipedia:Clear your cache - it's always worth a shot. CGS 23:33, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC).

Photo overwriting

This section was moved to the archives with some unfinished work. Hence pasting it again :

It'll be helpful if the following line is included in Special:Upload page, beginning of the 2nd para. "If a file with the name you are specifying already exists on Wikipedia it'll get replaced without warning. So unless you deliberately wish to overwrite a file, it'll be a good idea to first check if such a file exists."

Above warning line has not yet been added in the Special:Upload page. Can someone with permissions to edit Special pages add it. Jay 19:49, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Good things come to those who nag. I'll shortly be putting this into the four different places necessary to make an immediate but permanent change to MediaWiki. I changed the wording a bit: "If a file with the name you are specifying already exists on Wikipedia, it'll be replaced without warning. So unless you mean to update a file, it's a good idea to first check if such a file exists." "Get" is such an ugly word. -- Tim Starling 09:35, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)

Edit count?

I always hear people mentioning the count of how many edits a user's done -- where can this be found? --Morven 00:23, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

For the more active contributors, the number often comes from Wikipedia:Wikipedians by number of edits. For a user who's not on the list, or for an up-to-date count, you can use the user contributions page, by hand-editing the URL. If you click on "user contributions", then "next 50", a URL appears with offset=50 and limit=50. I think most people just set offset to 0 and limit to some huge number, then count the lines using a text editor. Alternatively you could adjust offset until you find the end. -- Tim Starling 00:39, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

The offset doesn't work right. --Brion

Are you saying offset=0 limit=5000 would or would not list every edit by a user with less than 5000 total edits? --Morven 00:55, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That would. But offset=4999 limit=1 would not show someone's 5000th latest edit. Only offset=0 works properly. --64.163.244.155 01:30, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You have 598 edits. I copied the content of [1] and paste it into a word processor and convert bullets to list-number. --Menchi 00:59, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

For the *nix inclined: curl 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=username&limit=99999&offset=0' | grep -c '<li>'

Don't forget to replace "username" with your own username. Ed Cormany 00:14, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)