Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Template:User wikiprayer

Because the Wiki Prayer is genius and almighty, use this: {{User wikiprayer}}

This Wikipedian recites the Wiki Prayer regularly.God, grant me the serenity to accept the pages I cannot edit,
The courage to edit the pages I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

---

Why not post "neutrality disputed" disclaimer in article

---

Thanks for making the page, I'm loving the humour!--Daftism (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Just some ramblings -- not sure we need another silly page, so I'm hijacking this empty talk page.

Wikiprayer (or whatever it's called)

I have a complaint. I do NOT like that prayer. You don't for things like that in Christianity. --User:Thebigfan (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A new Wikipedian recently wrote "I'm having a great time." This struck me. "You're in phase 2" I thought. So here are the phases of descent into Wikipediholism. They're more relevant than the 12-step programme out of Wikipediholism, because, let's face it, who has ever made it out willingly?

1. Inquiry -- "what's this strange place?"
2. Discovery -- "I'm having a great time"
3. Enthusiasm
4. Dependency
5. Realising your previous lifestyle of bicycling, dinner with friends, seeing the sun and doing laundry was like being a caterpillar, and that you are now a free-flying wikimoth.
6. Resignation to the fact that you now belong, body & soul to the Wikipedia, and are forever flying into the irresistible flame of the wikicandle.

---

Perhaps we can cure Wikipediholicism by remembering that you should contribute what you know? Martin

---

I'm going to move this to meta. Objections? Martin 23:51 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes. While it's a silly page, it's linked to a lot of other silly pages, and moving just this one to Meta doesn't seem like a good idea, and it's clear that many of the other ones refer specifically to the English wiki. So I think the whole bundle should stay here. --Eloquence 23:53 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I was just going to move this and the "in denial" list, and maybe the test slightly later. They're mostly linked in user pages and talk pages - I'm happy to fix those to point directly at meta. I thought it'd go nicely with meta:Wikipedians by favourite color and similar lists. Checking the links back they don't seem particularly strongly interconnected - should be an easy move.

Doesn't look particularly English-specific, either. But I'll not move it for now. Martin 00:10 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Real funny.I know its serious,but its funny at parts nonetheless.(The "you know you have a problem when") New Babylon.

Real cases

This page and others like it are mostly humourous and give no help, respect or recognition to those people who have a serious problem with Wikipedia. There is no system to help such people, that I know of. A small number of Wikipedians who are particularly close to me have confided in me regarding their feelings towards Wikipedia. No doubt the problem is fairly common.

If anyone would like to talk privately and confidentially about how Wikipedia is affecting your life, please email me and we'll see if we can set something up. At the moment we don't have much of a support network, but we'll see what we can do. -- Tim Starling 15:20, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Why only Wikipedia?

wikipediholic (n) - one who is addicted to wikipedia - why not to Wikibooks or Wikiquote or Wikisource or Meta-Wiki? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

wikipediholic

you could just call it "Wikiholic" then you have every wiki included

HTL2001 (Talk|Contrib) 18:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Real work to be done

My addiction to wikipedia seems to increase when I have an essay to do, and become stronger and stronger as the deadline approches (and the work remains undone)--JK the unwise 14:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Ditto (replace "essay"->"work deadline"). Elf | Talk 21:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Me too, I just want to delay doing the paper/work/stuff I don't want to do. Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 00:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sexism

Does anyone else agree that the His (or Her) reference throughout is sexist, and should be changed to His/Her, or indeed Her/His?--Cormaggio 20:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. (Unless this was meant as a joke, in which case surely something better could be arrived at--say, "wikimer".) Elf | Talk 21:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Light Bulb -> God?

Why does light bulb link to god in "The Subterranean Wiki Prayer Revisited, Nos. 5 and 36"?

translation

I want to translate this page to hebrew, how can i do it?

Learn English and then learn Hebrew. -- Imadeausername! (talk|contribs) 05:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You Know You've Got an Editing Problem...

... when you spend all night wondering if "anal-retentive" has a hyphen.

Is a score of 331.86 points really bad?

Hi, I just took the test; avoided taking it for the last one month but thought I shd chk it out today. The score is in the range given as fatal. I'm a wee bit (probably more) worried. Pl. reply on my talk page, else I'd be adding his to my watchlist and refreshing it :-( --Gurubrahma 11:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Damn me! I got 2000+ altough more active in id.wikipedia than in en.Aditthegrat 19:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Lol I got 1100 or so... Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!} 10:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I got over 4000 O.0 Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 00:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I got 3000... If you include the "Does your score depress you? (1000). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJRocket53 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

definition

I deleted the dictionary definition from the top of the article. That kind of thing belongs in Wiktionary, and the first paragraph does a fine enough job explaining what a Wikipediholic is.

Information addiction

Does opening tab after tab of wikipedia articles (I think I have 11 up right now D:) count as wikipediholicism?

Only 11?

• I got 43 at the moment... Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!}

• • 76, but at least I didn't edit most of them! Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 01:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Uncool : move to meta

What's with moving the whole page to meta without discussion? I think this page serves a great purpose here; it's on many watchlists; it links to many pages which should show this page in ther "what links here" list. CoolCat, please explain what's on your mind... 140.247.73.254 03:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

He's done the same thing on nl, where it was reverted too, and i can guess on a bunch of other wikipedias too ;-) Venullian 09:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Whats not cool about it and why is an anon lecturing me? What is there to be explained on a move to meta? Its now at meta. Just like images get moved to commons, wikipedia related stuff that doesnt help us create a better encyclopedia (aka stuff that is strictly part of wikipedia culture) are always moved to meta. What else is the point of meta? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's totally not cool, Cool Cat. You cannot say that every article good or bad depending on you like or not. Wikipedia's the community-based encyclopedia. --manop 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC) /Thai Wikipedian

Another Type of Wikipediholisism

Well, I'm a Wikipediholic, but not in the sense this page describes it - I start browsing wikipedia and simply CANNOT help but visit a ton of links from a page, then visit MORE links from each of this page, until I've got about fifty windows open and have to force myself to not open any more. I've talked to a few people who are like this as well - maybe we should add it to this article. -Jetman123 01:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Me too, I usually don't edit or log in, just browse. Noobeditor (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that stops me is the fact that my taskbar is not long enough to open 20 articles AT ONCE!!! Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 01:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

At the bottom

I don't gamble, I don't play games or read other websites much more than other people I know, but I log in and out of Wikipedia for hours on end, saying I'm going to stop and coming back thirty seconds later to check my watchlist (which is large enough that there is a decent chance that something has happened in thirty seconds) and then rearrange some more categories, or fix all the incoming links to the first dab page I can find, or just hit alt-x over and over looking for violations of my idiotic pet peeves. I can't even remember how many accounts I have. I'm in my thirties; I have a cool job; I hold advanced degrees; I have a black belt; I've slept with beautiful women; I've traveled the world; I'm fluent in several languages. Life could be good, but I am throwing it all away spending fifty hours a week on Wikipedia. I've lost my wife already, and will likely soon lose my job. Why can't I control this? Lowest 04:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Consider yourself a Wikipediholic, my friend. -Jetman123 08:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, why am I at Wikipedia?!? I'M SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING!!! Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 01:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A psychometrically valid questionnaire is needed

I began the questionnaire, but I found it rather too long and tedious (perhaps the acid test of being a wikipediholic is whether one has staying power to complete it!) I really feel that if this page is to feature a test, it should be a psychometrically valid and reliable one, so that one can check its validity and Cronbach's alpha. Can we have a briefer instrument, one that has less amusing questions, and one which is less transparent, please? I would be interesting to read of validation data on this test, for example evidence that people who have used Wikipedia just about every day really do score higher than those who score seldom use it. I use Wikipedia with just about every internet visit, at least from my home PC, but felt somewhat happy doing the questionnaire that there are evidently people who would score higher than me. I am not meaning to offend Wikipedia there, just believe that one should combine use of Wikipedia with other internet resources. ACEO 19:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is offended. You may use Wikipedia and other resources...BUT...if you are a wikipediholic, "other resources" may mean wikipedia in other languages and automatic translators. Nobody can claim this is a healty attitude, but it is an effective shortcut for a yes/no answer, instead of taking the whole questionnaire.--FocalPoint 21:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean?

I really don't quite understand the reference to 'coconut mokeys', and the "and good memories" part of the same sentence. Can someone explain that further?

Weird article

If this article is supposed to be funny instead of being true information, then I don't think this article should exist. Wikiholism is NOT real. I cannot talk to myself online. I think the creators somehow are BREAKING THEIR OWN RULES. (Plainnym 14:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

• As a matter of fact there are some cases of REAL Wikiholicism. Extremecircuitz^Ubox 19:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Er, I can. Agreed? Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 01:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Yup. Minkovskij (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Am I going insane? I'm chatting to my own sockpuppet... Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 09:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I believe so. Minkovskij (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
          • So, can we go out for tea? Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 09:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
            • Why not? Minkovskij (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Have I provided enough citations? Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 09:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
                • Which article do you mean? Minkovskij (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
                  • All of them I created! Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 09:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
                    • I think their introductions are overly technical. They might be better redirected. They mightn't be notable enough. Minkovskij (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, it is real! Cheaper and sobrer than alcoholism and gambling, but nevertheless. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You know you have a problem when...

• You edit from work.
• You are subscribed to the Recent Changes RSS feed - and it doesn't update often enough for you. MonaLS 02:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Be bold in updating pages. GeorgeMoney ^{(talk) (Help Me Improve!)} 05:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a serious problem

I don't think it's a joke! My GPA must have been at least half a point lower last year because of all the hours I spent on Wikipedia every day. Then again, it probably also was boosted half a point by the random knowledge I gained. Could we have some doctor look at this so we can get rid of the joke tag!? -newkai | talk | contribs 22:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism.

Is there a page where vandals, like wikiholics, can recover? 63.23.7.233 04:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Yes -- the sandbox. SWAdair 04:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The "See also" section

...lists a user because he has contributions in five digits. Um, I'm not impressed. On Wiktionary, I'm about halfway to six digits (not including my 'bot accounts.) Surely some here have passed the six digit milestone already, right? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 14:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Humour lost on some

Since this is mainly a humour page, shouldn't it get the notice at the top (like the Wikipediholic Test)? I've actually seen some people point to this page as "evidence" that Wikipedia editors (and therefore articles) cannot be trusted (I'm sure everyone will spot the irony in that).

--RMN 20:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Pathetic

You people need to get a life/get laid. --Stukov 17:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

If this is a joke then it should have the {{humor}} thing at the top.--Scott3 15:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Size

Can people one down and stop adding to this? It takes me ages to get through this as it is. And i am refering to the quiz. Simply south 17:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've created two new terms (you might want to add them here somewhere.)

1) Wikihole 2) Wikinesia feel free to edit the definitions....

thanks!

,.maw —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattitya93 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedihol?

Being addicted to alchohol is known as alchoholism. So wouldn't a being addicted to Wikipedia be Wikipediaism (or Wikiism)? There is no such thing as Wikipediahol (or Wikihol)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SillyHeads (talk • contribs) 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See Workaholic. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So it would be workaholicism and wikiism? Noobeditor (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Age

I started at 8.--RoryReloaded 08:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite funny!

It made me laugh!!! YaBoiKrakerz

You know you are a Wikiholic when:

• early stage
  • You get in revert wars with yourself.
• middle stage
  • You get in revert wars with yourself and find Template:uw-3rr on your user talk page.
• late stage
  • You get into revert wars with yourself and are blocked for violating WP:3RR.

19:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You say that as if it were a Bad Thing. :-) Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{14:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)}

'Talking to yourself is not a problem - it is when you start losing the argument with yourself that you have a problem.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedophile

An addition by User:Weasel Fetlocks included the term "wikipedophile". I am going to remove this as I think it is not appropriate. Sagaci (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Cure

Here is a cure that I found worked for me. Dying. 23:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure a Wikipediholic could do that...he would be too busy editing Wikipedia! Double sharp (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you know it works? Did you try it? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD

AFD this article and its sub pages because THIS PAGE AND THE SUB PAGES IS VANDALISAlUM--Rabbit67890 (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:Vandalism, Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I don't think this page does that, it's just some humour in the Wikipedia namespace. Of course this should never appear in the article mainspace, but otherwise I see no problem. Besides, for pages outside the main namespace, it isn't WP:AfD, it's WP:MfD. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My contributions

I think it might be wikiholic to patrol "My contributions" daily to see if one still has the top edit on all the pages one has recently edited, to check if the cumulative edits since are agreeable, and to act if they are not. Perhaps I am wrong. Either way, "My contributions" is not listed in this article. Please say something if you agree that such actions are wikiholic.

Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 03:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikiprayer (or whatever it's called)

I have a complaint. I do not (underline not) like that prayer. You don't pray for things like that in Christianity. --User:Thebigfan (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a travesty of the Serenity Prayer used by the 12 step fellowships, for example Alcoholics Anonymous. Mange01 (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

USERBOXITIS

I have created a page called Wikipedia:Userboxitis and I would like to move it into the Wikipediholism series of articles and category. Mainly, I want my article to appear with editcountitis and adminitis in the Template:Wikipediholism template. Can someone help? -- Imadeausername! (talk|contribs) 05:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

# of edits

Bearcat does not have the most edits, Koavf and a placeholder have more.--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Why does this article have a question on how many times the test has been edited?

I know that this whole test is a joke, but I am at a loss to understand why the fourth question asks how many times the test has been edited. This is something which could change, and is therefore against Wikipedia style ( it is feasible that one day, it will have been edited by the extreme figures quoted). Added to which,surely true Wikipediholics would spend more time reading Wikipedia articles than count how many times a joke test has been edited. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Many apologies - that last comment was meant for the separate article on the Official Wikipediholism Test! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Another sign

You can no longer distinguish between bots and real editors (see [1]). Daniel Case (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Perhaps Q4-11 could ask whether one has downloaded the icon to help one log in on one's desktop. I have done that - does that make me an official Wikipediholic? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipediholic testing

Dear Dr Wikipedia. A method of approximating the time spent on WP could be made from user contributions. If time between edits less than a few minutes )for arguments sake) is measured for all edits then an indication of the minimum time spent editing could be calculated. Has anyone done this? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why Here?

This article is exactly why Uncyclopedia was created. Why not move it there? 175.176.202.9 (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not an article. It's just some humour in the Wikipedia namespace. Double sharp (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A religion

I am just joking (obviously), what if wikipedians had their own religion, called wikireligion. Fits with the prayer.--Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

meta:Really Reformed Church of Wikipedia? Though it is a rather old joke. There's also the meta:Reformed Chruch of Wikipedia. Double sharp (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

wikiauthor

It means a Wikipedia author. He/she deserve(s) a wikipage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.220.197 (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Embedded links

I know this isn't a serious page, but should there be so many external links embedded in the text?
I think this proves I'm a Wikipediholic. 220 of ^Borg 05:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Another sign

You take personal umbrage when someone says, "I would never look in Wikipedia because it's unreliable... ." or some such. Not sure where that belongs, but I know it fits somewhere. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on including "You still live in your mother's basement at the age of 30+."

No idea under which RfC category to put this under, sorry if it's wrong.

The phrase "You still live in your mother's basement at the age of 30+." was recently removed from Level V by @Usernamekiran:, calling it "neither logical, relevant, nor funny". I reverted it because I thought it was a good, long-standing entry and a common stereotype for too-online nerds. I'd like some opinions on whether to keep it or not. QoopyQoopy (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Why have you taken this straight to RfC without, so far as I can tell, observing WP:RFCBEFORE? That aside, |soc is for discussions about articles, and Wikipedia:Wikipediholic isn't an article. RfC categories available for non-article pages are: |style |policy |proj |tech |prop. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to proj, since this is a project-page, and it doesn't qualify for any of the more specific ones. Anyway, it is kind of funny, but it's a stereotype about "too-nerdy" people, not about Wikipediholics in particular. I also doubt that it describes the average Wikipediholic, who is more likely a retiree, a student (doing poorly for not studying enough instead of Wikipedia-izing?), a librarian, a tech supervisor whose team is mostly self-managing, or a professor at a small institution without huge demands on their time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

God I think i am an addict

Can i die? Where cure?

"It is often considered an obscure form of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)."

Just thought I'd pop in to say before I edit, but - I'm going to take this reference to OCD out.

As someone who's suffered OCD, part of its definition is that it causes significant distress to the individual, who feels they have no choice but to engage in compulsions (the 'C') in order to temporarily assuage their obsession/s (the 'O').

It was, and is, a horrifying condition. Wrecked most of last year for me. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that this is deeply incomparable to the genuinely enjoyable and fulfilling act of editing and contributing to Wikipedia at all.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"Wikiholic" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikiholic. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 20#Wikiholic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)