Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Weird Questions

I have a question, are we supposed to answer yes to the completely stupid and ridiculous question like "because you had medical personnel install an internal catheter so you can spend more time using Wikipedia? (500)"

i don't think that's exactly realistic, so do we just ignore it or is it free points, cause if i included all those types of questions, then i'd have a more seriously ridiculous score (which is quite an acomplishment scince i already have about 7611.211 points)

anyway peace-Three ways round 21:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that kind of question is really bad for the test. No one answers yes, exept cheaters, we don't learn anything about areas of wikipedia (something important about this test), and they get boring after the second go, so they aren't very funny. I'll remove all the "nonsense" questions this weekend. Otherwise, the test will be too long, will lose popularity, will be MfD'd, and will be ancient history. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 19:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

good idea-Threewaysround 16:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take the test between tomorrow and Sunday then. I'll remove all the nonsense, non-wikipedia, and unanswerable questions (except the "Are you Jimbo Wales" one :). · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 16:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Score

I scored somewhere around 800. Does this indicate a problem, that I'm in acceptable condition, or that should I spend more time on Wikipedia? MacGuy 02:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You decide for yourself. There is no problem, low or high; this test isn't official, it's just an estimate. If you want to spend more time here, great, if not, it's fine too. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 11:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't really serious. I know that there's a scoring chart at the bottom of the test, but I've seen scores of around 200 described as "fatal", which doesn't seem congruent with the given system.

MacGuy 16:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding strange scores

How do I go about adding scores like 0xA, 6.67E-9, etc., and still have them register on the automatic version? MacGuy 03:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll probably have to modify the automated script to support that. I've added a link to the source code at the bottom of the test page. Merphant 05:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Short automated version a con!

I am pretty upset! I did the short automated version, and having finished it, it wouldn't give me any score or feedback until I had supplied some personal data ("for statistics" it said), and a username.

Being naïve about such things (yes, still...), I went ahead, and found myself having subscribed to some damn matchmaking site called OKCupid.

I wasted a few valuable minutes trying to find how to delete my account there.

This is nothing less than sharp practice, and I vote that this link be deleted. Anyone else have any strong feelings?
Nick Michael 15:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Short automated doesn't even give you as many points; I think it should be deleted. I'm not sure who added it though. · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 10:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the "short automated" version is a spam; I think that it should be removed.--Joshua Chiew 10:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's a waste of time i say we delete-Threewaysround 15:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You can leave the fields blank. I tried it and it worked. --218.186.9.5 11:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"non"existent article

Can we change it into a coding trick like Wikipedia talk:Are You a Wikipediholic Test ? (credit to Wodup and MOTD) --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 05:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated Version "per"

Suggest adding input boxes so that you can enter in how much when the score is "plus 10 points per time" or whatever. Maybe detect a specific pattern and rewrite scores that do that to use that? --Random832(tc) 19:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I've actually been considering doing this for a while, but so far I've been too lazy. A link to the Perl source code is now at the bottom of the test page if you feel like doing it yourself :) Merphant 05:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

mechanics?

How does the auto-grader work? Or rather, where's the source coding?

Cheers,

RelentlessRouge 05:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's here: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~merphant/wikiholic/

I've added a link to the bottom of the test page, since people keep asking that question. Merphant 05:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Score!

I'm now 11 and 358 days, and I got a score of 9088.439784062848

I only started a year ago! HELP! I'm a Wikipediholic! --Andrew Marsden 20:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

1grlrevolution

Holds 2nd place right now but has less than 100 edits and is fairly new to wikipedia (about a month old) I suspect cheating. Bring on the elephants!!! --ROASTYTOAST 22:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I sent a comment to this user on the user's talk page, but it appears to no longer exist. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I could agree no more! This user does not even know how to make links to her userpage. Elephants are needed for this, definitely.  Smcafirst | Chit-Chat  posted at 00:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

One giant leap (the only serious thing here)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Wikipedia:Are You a Wikipediholic Test → Wikipedia:Are you a Wikipediholic? — Strangely, it sounds before like "Are you a test?". Possibly disambig. Other options could be to Wikipedia:Are you a Wikipediholic? test, Wikipedia:Are you a Wikipediholic? Test, etc Simply south 17:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

I'm just going to suggest as a second option something like Wikipedia:Are you a wikipediholic? test. Simply south 23:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in support of the move

2. Weak support. That's true, it does sound like asking if you are a test, but it would be best if the new location had the word "test". However, I am worried that people who make moves may be too lazy to follow the instructions. Whoever moves it should check for any double redirects by actually following the instructions by going to the old "What links here" link. Other than that, I support the move, as long as the move doesn't cause any problems with the auto version. That concludes my answer. Also, if not moved, the title may be too long. Thanks. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Weak Support. If it ain't broke don't fix it. I think someone broked it.--ROASTYTOAST 02:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test. · AO ^Talk 13:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Weak Support. New title suggestion: Test: Are you a Wikipediholic? Dammit, now I hafta update my watch list. Or do bots take care of that? samwaltz 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
   • "Test" isn't a valid namespace, and yes, the article will still be on your watchlist (although it's not the bots that do it). · AO ^Talk 14:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
     • However, you would have both the new page and the old page in your watchlist (I noticed it the rist time a page on my watchlist was moved and it caused the amount of articles there to increade). TJ Spyke 17:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • But it's easy to remove it. · AO ^Talk 19:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Per nom. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. weakly opposed not for any moral reason or anything like that. I just feel that it's a big waste of time, ya it kinda sounds like your asking if you are a test but people get the point. Also there is a big possibiblity of double redirects, and then you have to go through the whole changing the redirects and everything, and it just seems like a whole lot of effort wasted. But if your really really bent and obbsesive compulsive about it hey i don't mind that much. - Threewaysround 22:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose No reason to move it, and it would just create a lot of uneeded work (fixing redirects and double redirects). TJ Spyke 17:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose I guess it really depends on how you read it. But I would prefer it here. It would be a bit confusing to completely move such a large page after it has been rooted here for so long. Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose Only Wikipediholics would bother with such an unnecessary move. Any possible want for a misunderstanding should be dissipated by referring to WP:COMMON SENSE. –Pomte 08:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

I'm not a test. Those are serious accusations.--ROASTYTOAST 02:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I offer an alternative approach: Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test or Wikipedia:Test for Wikipediholism. By reducing it to a noun phrase, the ambiguities evaporate. --Stemonitis 10:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I like Wikipediholism test. · AO ^Talk 13:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Same here. If it has to be moved then that would be my choice. I'm just wondering, where are all the wikiholics? There's more than just us. Can they please vote too? Hello? Oh, and when is the survey going to close? Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 06:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's a wikiholic to a degree. Off topic but still on this move, it has been relisted so possibly 24th. Simply south 10:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Wikipedia:Are You a Wikipediholic Test to Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 18:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ellomate

SUPPORT ELEPHANTS--Another case of cheating maybe? Less than 25 edits. It seems like a newbie.--ROASTYTOAST 02:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

folagi

folagi curently has 12th place with a score of 17739. He/she doesn't have a user page or talk page, and has less then 20 edits.

I'm pretty sure we're gonna have to call in the elephants on this one.

peace-Threewaysround 20:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Humor template?

This is not humorous, it's serious you can loose your life here I guess. Removing the template would be fine. --Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

N8Stauffer

N8Stauffer, which I had checked his/her contributions, which provens this account DOES NOT EXIST! He/She currently claims first, scoring 68000, but wih no user accounts, this is not possible. He/She typed comments on his or her user talk to disguise this account existent. He/She claims to edit several articles, including Devon Preparatory School. I believe he/she is using IP address 71.225.107.2 to contribute to Wikipedia. I checked that IP address's contibutions, and I found that this IP address edits on Wikipedia only several times to Wikipedia. I suspect cheating. I removed the score. If there are any reasonable objections, I will "re-paste" the score back on. But for now, BRING IN THE ELEPHANTS!

Well, I removed the score, if you want to see how N8Stauffer had posted faked score, it could be viewable here Wikipediholism Test Version 117571544.

P.S. He/She copied my signature style, but I believe that is not "illegal".

 Smcafirst | Chit-Chat | SIGN  posted at 19:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

More fake scores

These following users are suspected for posting fake scores: ST47, Yuanchosaan and Mewtwowimmer. As everyone who took this test knows, the highest score possible is 1038670.6910796031, which are only possible for Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger, since there is a question in a test like

Are you Jimbo Wales? (1000000)

Since these three users aren't Jimbo Wales or Larry Sanger, and their score is WAY HIGHER than the highest score possible, I suspect more cheating. Mewtwowimmer has even posted inappropriate words, that needs immediate revert due to vandalism. I am posting messages at these users' talk pages, and hope they have a reasonable explanation for this matter.

Also, Mewtwowimmer should not have gotten this score as he/she is known for vandalism, and not citing his/her work, see his/her talk page, and his/her edit count is less than 500. ST47's score is the most believeable out of the 3 users, since ST47 has a bot, but still, the score should not exceed the highest possible score. Yuanchosaan, has less than 800 edits, and should not have gotten such a high score either.

The scores are ready to be reverted, please click on the link to see the differences. WP:TEST Edit Version 117704905

 Smcafirst | Chit-Chat | SIGN  posted at 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few questions with open ended answers - such as "Have you ever added an interwiki link" which awards 15 points for each, I was counting my bot's contributions in that ;) ST47Talk 19:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is not "quite fair" if you count your bot's contributions. Not every Wikipedian knows how to write a bot, or own a bot. If everyone counts their bots in, the score will be skyrocketing.  Smcafirst | Chit-Chat | SIGN  posted at 19:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

ST47, I'll hold on to your score for now, which means I am keeping it for now, however, I am removing the other two's scores, since theirs are unbelieveable.  Smcafirst | Chit-Chat | SIGN  posted at 19:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I feel that ST47's score is perfectly fair. If his bot does the work of human editors, and he is controlling the bot, then it's fair to say that he is making the edits (he holds the copyright to them, and is ultimately responsible for them). If there was to be no discrimination between bot owners and non-bot owners on the test, then we wouldn't have the bot-op questions :). My summary - let the score stand. Martinp23 19:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the other two's score, and let ST47's score stand, check the current revision.  Smcafirst | Chit-Chat | SIGN  posted at 19:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Though, I must say, I didn't claim to be a cyborg, just that I owned them - perhaps that 50000000 question should be stricken downwards by a factor of 10000 or so? ST47Talk 20:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. User:Patricknoddy has claimed top place. Please lower the scores that are over 1 million except for the jimbo ones by a factor of 100. This user claims to have a score of >50 million. I do believe that this user's score is partially real, have you seen his move logs, userboxes, etc? You have to change that 50 million question, whatever it is! I believe, to calculate his real score, you must subtract 51 million from it. Please either do so, remove the score, or change that question. Thanks. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 21:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG!!! Being a cyborg and using it to improve wikipedia is figurative, even if you feel a bot is part of you, a bot is not a cyborg!!! These are FIGURATIVE, nobody is a real cyborg!!! You're actually giving free points to whoever wants them, because anyone can pretend to be figuratively a cyborg, not literally!!! You could add questions on whether you areliterally a cyborg and have used it to improve wiki, and bots are not cyborgs!!! There's no such thing!!! (That we know of, at least.) Nobody has evolved into a wikiborg yet!!! Please change them to less than 1 million!!! Jimbo and larry deserve 1st-2nd place, if they ever take the test!!! Please change it! You are welcoming fake figurative scores! (NOTE: sorry for being such a spaz, you can remove the exclimations if youlike, this is mostly a humour test anyway.) Thanks. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 21:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have done that, AstroHurricane001.  Smcafirst | Chit-Chat | SIGN  posted at 22:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the maximum/minimum scores using a script to count, I'll try to keep it up to date. ST47Talk 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

i beleive User:Folagi is cheating too. i also said this in a few sections above but whatever. He/she has less than 20 edits (from the last time i checked), no talk page, and his/her user page consists of the test userbox. any thoughts????

peace-Threewaysround 23:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on Smcafirst's talk page. I'd like to apologise for the confusion too. Here is the message:

Greetings Smcafirst!

About that score, I think there's been a mistake. Someone added questions with a very large point score. If I remember correctly they are:

• Have you evolved into a cyborg due to overexposure from Wikipedia?
  • Because you consider anyone associated with Wikipedia to be a cyborg?
    • Do you use these powers you gained to greatly assist Wikipedia?
  • Or do you use them to vandalise unstoppably?

Or something to that effect. Each was worth about 1000000 points except for the last which was negative a similar amount. I clicked the second one which resulted in the high score. It was probably just vandalism and I apologise for being so gullible(sigh).

Anyway sorry for all the confusion. Since you probably can't accept that can you please remove the notice from my talk page, and restore my previous score. Thank you for being so considerate as to notify me. Hopefully I can be de-elephantied.

Sincerely,

Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 06:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As you can see it was a giant mistake. I publicly apologise for this mishap. But thank you for your concern.

Sincerely,

Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 06:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. At least it's all cleared up now. But right now I've got to go play whack-a-vandal. Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 06:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

About time to archive

Well, this page discussion is beyond comprehension. See as this has not been archived (it seems, even the old link does not show this), this should go ahead. Or how about assigning a Bot e.g. WerdnaBot? Simply south 00:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. If no one minds I'll do it in a few days time. Happy Editing! Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 07:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's done now. I've left the self-scoring section up the top as that section has already been done. Now back to work! Happy Editing! Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 08:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Size

This is getting ridiculous. Take a look at the archived version (a link at the top of this page, on the left); it's about 1/10 the size of the current version. I started to take it about three months ago, but never finished due to it's length. People are going to start losing interest if something isn't done (and you know what happens when people become disinterested, case in point, Wikipedia:Esperanza; I know several people who would like to see this page MfD'd). · AO ^Talk 12:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? I guess it is a bit long. Just a bit ^-^. But we don't need to chop it down too much, maybe just about 20%. Think of it a measure of your Wikiholism if you can complete it. Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 02:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've taken this test more than anyone (weekly for months, even daily sometimes, and I added about 30 questions; BEAT THAT YOU USERPSER!!! HAHAHA!!!). :-) Anyways, this isn't "the real" WP:HOLICTEST: this is the WP:HOLICTEST, with a whole lot o' junk added to it, making it 5 times as long. If that's how you like it, okay, but remember, one day, you're going to complain of it's length too... · AO ^Talk 08:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can doubt how much you're addicted ^-^. But your right, cut it down a bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuanchosaan (talk • contribs) 10:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Am I addicted?

My score was 4241.4600001. Am I addicted, and can I get into the top 10? [edit -- top 20] And if so, how?

too lazy to log in. Until next edit, SonicBoom95, currently editing from 64.198.215.3 22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

See, here I am with 5468.74803409875, and I took the test yesterday and got 4241.4600001. Untii next edit, SonicBoom95 18:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Test

I like to be confused! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Melonite (talk • contribs) 01:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Scoring

Time to edit "Interpreting your score". Anyone want to put up a new table here and let us see if it's good? OhanaUnited 17:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that the automated version does not support "50 + 1 point for whatever" accmulating questions' score. This can make their actual score lower than the score calculated. OhanaUnited 04:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to code something like that, boxes to type an answer that will then be multiplied by that +1 and factored into the final score? I'm sure it's not too complicated but my coding skills are way to archaic to figure it out. I'm sure this has been brought up before, but does anyone want to undertake this task? --Valley2city^₪‽ 17:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Maximum score is around 21,000. I updated the Interpreting your score section. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 12:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

And the scoring also missed the last part about the red links... probably because it's in the next section. Maybe we could add a line in the previous section to tell users to take a look at score table and see if they think those are broken links. That should solve this problem. OhanaUnited 03:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the automated version messed up?

I just scored 6596, which seems odd, since I know there are users more dedicated than myself out there, and I didn't really check off that much. I think a lot of it came from " Because you've requested it? (1000) Because you couldn't sustain your wikibreak? (50) " (true story, had User:Kuru block me so I could study for GEDs), and the one about amount of vandalism reverted (might've been a bit too high, but that's 95% of what I do, so I figure it's not very far off. So basically, is something on the automated version set to a value way too high, or am I really that addicted? -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 08:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't even access the automated version, but that's another issue. ajdlinux 09:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Except now I can. ajdlinux 09:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So is it working ok? -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be fine right now. The automated test runs off the Toolserver, so if a bot on the toolserver goes crazy and someone blocks it, it can potentially block the autotest too (and everything else on ts). That should be pretty rare but it does happen sometimes. Merphant 04:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have my own problem. Check my score out: 500000014522. Not kidding. I got it on revision 142463358 due to the "Willy on Wheels" question. Should we change the point value on it? It's a 500000000000-point question on this revision. And, should I use 500000014522 or 14522 in my userbox? Or is that one too high too? Is this entire page messed up? Am I asking too many questions? Fine, I'll stop. But, could someone look into this please? ---Signed By KoЯnfan71 (User Page—My Talk) 01:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't have shortened it

Do you realise that, after shortening the Wikipediholic Test, few people are taking it? Or rather, nobody has bothered to update the statistics.

Also, what is the purpose of the interpretation of some very high scores, because with so little questions, few caan hit those scores. Littleghostboo[ talk ] (Win an argument and leave your mark in history.) 07:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? How many questions were there? ~Doggitydogs

It was about three times as long. It was easy to get a score of over 15 thousand (almost everyone would get that), but it would take over two and a half hours with the automated (and about four with manual). · AndonicO ^Talk 01:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Top X userboxes

The top X userboxes disappeared. Has anyone made a suitable replacement so that I can make them remain happily on my user:page? --tonsofpcs _(Talk) 23:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hide the scores???

This may seem a bit silly, but how about somehow hiding the score amounts, so that they can't be seen by the person doing the test. Then they can't tell how much anything scores, and cheating is less likely. I'm probably wrong, but that's pessimistic (I'm not always pessimistic!!!) me. Or myself. Or I. Me myself or I 20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC) And I mean for the automated version only, with manual, if you hide the scores then you can't get your score. The scores will not be visible to test taker on the automated version. It will give a score.

Hi. As far as I know, once you make an edit on the manual version, it automatically appears on the auto version. However, I could be wrong, because I never programed any of it. Some people however, like myself, always use the manual version (I still can't be sure the auto version actually works with weird scores, eg. "-15 + +2 for every $USD10 you spent", or if it gives you a box to type how much you spent, etc). Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, editing the manual version updates the automated. And the automated gives you a box (located after the last question, before score interpretation) to update questions like the one you cited. · AndonicO ^Talk 01:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

About Adding Questions

I know there has been some recent discussion about the number of questions on this test, so to minimize that problem, should we post potential questions here first to see if they will help the quiz, or should we just go ahead and post them to the quiz and asume that others will edit them as they see fit? ~ Chokolattejedi 00:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Posting here is too complicated, as there are too many users adding/changing too many questions all the time. Go ahead and edit the page, as you would anywhere else. :-) · AndonicO ^Talk 01:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Where'd the Top 20 go?

I scored 24502 and I want to know where the top 20 is. I-a-m-a-d-d-i-c-t-e-d-b-u-t-I-d-o-n-'-t-f-e-e-l-a-t-h-i-n-g. And I haven't been a member for long. JoshuaArgent 08:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I think someone removed it as the test was being shortened during the MfD. I know, I dissagree with the removal as well. If you want, you can add the score to your userspace. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't Top 20 be created into an userpage, so it doesn't need to be in the "Wikipedia" mainspace? ~Iceshark7 09:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Top 20 was removed because it promoted cheating, and over-involvement with this test (trust me, I was over-involved thanks to it: over 100 edits here). Cheating not necessarily in the "unacceptable" sense, but, for example, one user counted his bot's edits as his own, and received over twice the then-#1 score. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Lowest score

Moments agoe a Mr. HIYO took a Wikiholism test.His score is -1.0000000000e.21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.129.214 (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My score... (And a thought)

2790.

Nothing spectacular, but it would have been much lower if I hadn't gotten those "bonus points" on the last question.

Anyway, I realize this test is designed for humour, but Wikipediholism is a real issue, and I really think a serious test should be made for this. (I actually "darkened" another 'holism test in the same way, on a forum I used to belong to.) Considering that a negative score means that you're a vandal, I don't think this is a really good linear determination for 'holism at all. (Considering how long this test is, I can see why most of you think it's a waste of time.)

I'm thinking of making a real, clinical-style test for Wikipediholism, loyalism to Wikipedia, and vandalism myself.

ZtObOr 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This test used to be that way... unfortunately it just turned into a mess. Besides, a "serious" wikipediholism test would still need the "humor" tag at the top. ;) · AndonicO ^Talk 15:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Well, other than possible brain tumour, vision detierioration, headaches, vommiting, diarrhea, neausea, finger arthritis, memory loss, and cerebral overfeed, the long-term effects of wikiholism aren't really that severe. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

-20 for a Barnstar

As I was going through the quiz, I noticed that one of the questions, asking how often you revert vandalism, claimed that I should get a barnstar in addition to my points. But another question claimed that you get -15 points for giving yourself a barnstar. In short, you are given something by the quiz and get points off for having it given to you. In short: Wtf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.145.180 (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, that's not the idea. The question is not telling you to give yourself a barnstar, it's saying you deserve one. Besides, if you got a barnstar everytime you deserved one, I should have 5 barnstars by now. So, it doesn't really work that way, so don't give yourself a barnstar if you think you deserve one. In fact, it's only truly a barnstar if someone else gives it to you, as it would only then be deserved. That's why I never ask for a barnstar, as that probably won't increase your chances anyway. Hope this helps. ~AH1^(TCU) 14:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clarifying that for me. I was kind of confused by that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shroopliss (talk • contribs) 02:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

10-point test

I couldn't be arsed answering all those questions, so I made a 10-point version. What do you think? Suggestions/improvements welcome. Flowerparty^☀ 09:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

vandalism question vandalism

Hi. Ok, this has gone on long enough. The point of the "vandalism" in the question is so that people can get the 12 points for removing it and 8 points for putting it back. In fact, the most recent edits reflect that all this has to do with the question. Now, we need a resolution, because all this reverting coming close to an edit war. I've reverted removal of the gibberish many times, stating that you can't get the 20 points without is. I've suggested that you can either use a different gibberish or remove the question altogether. Remember, we could always add a new question or replace it with another one that is not so diruptive. I need more opinions on what we should do, because this may be a problem to people who take the test. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

sERIUS ISSUI

Hello I have a serius case of Wikiholism. I overdosed and and almost hit someone. Can you please help?

• Oh wait this is'nt AA. But still Wikipediholism You and alcohole almost made me hit someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardcore Hak (talk • contribs) 14:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Was this just me?

Have you ever been on a public IP Network (say at your school or place of work), looking up something on Wikipedia when you get a message on the IPs talk page saying a person under the same IP address has vandalized a page? This has happened to me twice and both times I complained loudly about it in hopes that person would stop it. Thereen (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have actually never seen the "new messages" bar on Wikipedia while logged off, but something similar did happen once. I was at school (this wasn't long ago but don't try to guess my age), and was on the hurricanes wikia, because I have an account there and wanted to see if anyone posted after my comments. At the top, it said, "you have new messages on Halo Wiki". Before that, I hadn't known that different wikia sites will display that, but of course, the school being a heavy user of Internet censoring tools, blocked the halo site (please don't use any of this to try to figure out where I live). Other than that, I've never seen the new messages bar outside my own house while logged off. However, I have been sitting near someone using Wikipedia before outside my own house, and I saw the new messages bar pop up because the person was vandalising or whatever. That's about all. Well, I think it would be a good kind of question to include on the test, but I'm still too (what's an synonym for lazy-procrastinative?) to edit the test right now. If I did, I would spend another hour doing so, and possibly add dozens of questions and subquestions. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you get the "new messages" notice on the wikitest, try this: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~merphant/ts-msgs/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merphant (talk • contribs) 00:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Astro, read WP:BEANS recently? :P · AndonicO ^Talk 04:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Old Questions

The last time I took the test, there were some good questions that I saw and are gone. For example,

Do you want 100000 points? (100000)

Did you do some of the things in this test just to get a higher score?

Did you lie during this test?

There was sections about Uncyclopedia, using other wikis, and other sections that I can't remember right now. What happened to them? Chenhsi (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit ocean :-) . The thing is, if even one person doesn't like a question, and other people don't seriously object to its removal, and no one cares to put it back, it'll be gone forever. Well, some questions have survived quite well, I remember some of these questions are well over a year old. I might add some more questions sometime in the future, but I don't have that much time right now. Also, that "do you want 100000 points?" question encourages cheating, and someone who actually wants that many points should only be wikiholic enough to recieve, say, 100. If you want, you can probably add it back in the appropriate spot, but you may have to check the edit history to see why someone removed it, if it's not too ancient, to make sure you're not offending someone's important desision. Also, make sure that the question is actually appropriate. We need more funny questions! I remember LOLing for like, 5 minutes because they were so funny. Sometimes funny things on Wikipedia can make me laugh for as long as 15 minutes! Well, I have to go now. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit

Just re-worded the results to the quiz and fixed the way that the scores are displayed. The original one made it confusing if someone got 10,000, for instance... they would be under two results instead of one. (Terra Xin (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

Ideas for the test

It was here a question:

1. Have you ever edited one page so much you think it's your own page, even though you didn't create it? (-100)

I think it will be better if add like this:

1. • ... or it was created by a vandal, and you replaced the vandalism content by the good one? (110)

It is (as I think) very often. An user founds in Special:Newpages the page about... for example, Cthulhu, and sees that it contain... for example, "Cthulhu fhtagn" (what was added by a vandal). I think that almost any user who know anything more good about this theme would add it - and if he add more enough, it would be really his own page - but it will be created not by him, but by the vandal. (It is not very good to say that such page are created by the vandal - even though it formally is. And what if it will be, for example, 2,100,000-th? Would you give the award to the vandal who formally created the page? I think you would not.)

And there is another idea - maybe even more interesting.

What we have now on almost the end of the Interpreting section:

Score	Result
17,500	The effects of Wikipediholism at this range cannot be cured. Please stop. If you continue to edit Wikipedia with such vigor, you will indirectly block others from editing.
500,000	You are a total maniac. This makes you the ultimate Wikipediholic! Congratulations! Now, get back to editing (What are you doing here? Work!)
1,000,000	You are Jimbo Wales. We love you.
3,000,000	Congrats! You are the Wikipedian manifestation of Vishnu and can run the entire Wikimedia foundation! Vandals, fear in this person's wake!

What we will have:

Score	Result
17,500	The effects of Wikipediholism at this range cannot be cured. Please stop. If you continue to edit Wikipedia with such vigor, you will indirectly block others from editing.
500,000	You are a total maniac. This makes you the ultimate Wikipediholic! Congratulations! Now, get back to editing (What are you doing here? Work!)
900,000	Your name is Jimbo, and your surname is Wales (or your name is Wales, and your surname is Jimbo, or your name/surname is Jimbo and you are from Wales, and so on). Simply, you are Jimbo Wales, but not the Jimbo Wales. To get the more real score, substract 1,000,002 and see again.
1,001,000	You are Jimbo Wales. We love you.
3,000,000	Congrats! You are the Wikipedian manifestation of Vishnu and can run the entire Wikimedia foundation! Vandals, fear in this person's wake!

If you (plural :-) ) aren't against, I will add this to the test. (Sorry for my English, I'm from Russia.) --January First-of-May (for fans of Star Trek here), January 27, 2008 14:43 local (11:43 UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.42.139 (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I "treat Uncyclopedia as Wikipedia". In only Wikipedia, I think I will have about 500 or less. --January First-of-May (for fans of Star Trek here), January 28, 2008 26:34 local (23:34 UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.127.199 (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Too long

The test is much too long. It is distracting me from editing. JFW | T@lk 21:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

hahaha, me too...i got bored in the middle...it's taking my time in browsing and editing more Wikipedia articles...hehehe--Ja 1207 (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions: NPOV?

I saw some questions that doesn't have a NPOV, and realized that a lot of the questions don't have NPOV. For example, one question asked if I was on a certain airline, and would award me points. This article should be proof read for NPOV.

And also, some of these questions award too little points, or take away too much. Each question should be awarded accordingly, based on how much that action shows wikipediholism.

O—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 06:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I know this page has long distracted me from editing it. However since I'm trying to edit in many different aspects of Wikipedia I guess this is a good time to edit it. It might take a while though. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 15:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

have I done this wrong?

I scored about 2000 points less than last time I took it:( Why, do you think? It can't be that I'm less addicted lol:) special, random, Merkinsmum 22:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's right. As you know, the Wikipediholism Test changes every day, so its scoring can be different. Just last time, someone named AstroHurricane redid the test and corrected the scores, so that may be the problem.

O—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

lol how disappointing. I suppose my partner will be happy I didn't get a highter score:) special, random, Merkinsmum 00:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

semi=protect

I found vandalism. It had inappropriate language. Can we semi-protect for a bit?

Lunakeet 14:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Test is too long

This user scored 180845380 on the Wikipediholic test (revision 155032219).

I am a korean wikipedian. en-2 user.

Test is too long for en-2 user.

I suggest that 20 questions in simple english "for World Wikipediholism Test"

I think that 20 questions is good for translation to other language.

And, I think that perfect score should be 100. :) -- WonRyong (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

tavix?

I think the edit's by Tavix should be reverted. But, I'm not doing it unless I get the okay, if I do, I might get in a load of crap. Altenhofen (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Consecutive checkmarks?

Do I check each box consecutively? For instance, one of the questions is has answers:

   * ... more than two hours? (50)
   * ... more than three hours? (60)
   * ... more than four hours? (80)
   * ... more than six hours? (150)
   * ... more than eight hours? (275)
   * ... more than twelve hours? (500) 

If I estimated four hours, would I check each individual box up to four hours (checkbox two, three and four?) Yngvarr (c) 21:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Four hours meets the requirement for each of those, I don't see why not. If it were worded "more than two but less than three hours" or "two - three hours" then check only one... However, four hours is not more than four hours, so if you're estimating high, I'd only check two and three. --tonsofpcs _(Talk) 02:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

is it meant to be funny?

it doesn't read like a wiki policy page and the results range from funny to weird. Although it would make it very dull and boring to change it I think it would be more in line with the syle of wikipedia. I almost though this was an unencyclopedia page at first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.86.136 (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is meant to be funny. If it wasn't, It would be very Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggg (get the picture yet)?

Member of the VFD 12:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Rident

Points for finishing?

If anyone actually finishes this test, shouldn't they get points toward being a wikipediholic? If they can spend hours on wikipedia figuring out if they're addicted, they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Square126 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though that would just rais emy score even more. Currently its at: 500350222.3cdmajava There are always possibilities... 00:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What am i

This user scored 501171427 on the Wikipediholic test (revision 234119326).

I got the score above in the test... what does it make me? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It makes you "the ultimate Wikipediholic", if you read the Interpreting your score section at the bottom of the page. But seriously, how is it possible to score that much? Jprulestheworld (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels

What did he do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.46.230 (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

we took the current test I think, or the last version.Cdmajava; Darn sig didnt wanna work 06:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdmajava (talk • contribs)

What did willy on wheels do??????--Kanata Kid (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

He was probably a very dangerous vandal who liked to blank pages and put pornographic pictures on articles-Abomasnow (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, he was a page mover a few years back, changed page names to stuff like "[Page name] ON WHEELS!!!". He had a long-term abuse page years back, but they got rid of it, here's the red link: Deletion log G2sai (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence seems to say that he was based somewhere in Canada, and had some strange connection to his username, had a constantly changing IP address that would change every time he edited, and it was very difficult to block him because Wikipedia didn't want to just block the whole country from editing. Shannon1^{talk contribs} 23:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What am I?

My score is off the charts! The Scoring Chart doesn't go up this high. And I skipped some questions too, my score should be higher...

This user scored 500350222.3 on the Wikipediholic test (revision 236810378).

cdmajava There are always possibilities... 00:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

New Saying

Hey for a high score there should be one saying "If you are not an Administratior, enter the job list NOW.--Wikipeeeeedia (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than seek help? Seems like the wrong approach, if you have anything approaching a career or family. Le sigh (11,000+ score) MrZaius^talk 16:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Recovering from addiction

I'm not sure how best to fix this, but the test has inflated its scoring enough over the last year that I've gone from a ~7800 to an ~11800 despite having cut my monthly edits to less than a fifth of their peak last year. The test should have rewarded me with a much lower score. Cleanup warranted. MrZaius^talk 16:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone here hear of "web 2.0"?

This thing should be automated, eh? (But not necessarily in Canadian) Huw Powell (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You ever notice this? --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

8 years

In a couple of weeks, it will actually be possible for some people to legitimately have 8 years of Wikipedia editing experience. *Dan T.* (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It already is. I changed the number from "eight years" to a timer displaying the time since Jan 14, 2001 (one day before the launching of Wikipedia). I hope this will be enough for a LONG time... though probably an "eight years" question will be added after a few months anyway. --January First-of-May (for fans of Star Trek here), February 5, 2009 21:00 local (18:00 UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.248.73 (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

?!

Question #7 under When using Wikipedia is confidential, plus the other activities.

I do have to agree that question 7 is completly out of order, it may have been funny at first, but it should be changed. If we start a vote on this, I'd strongly vote for opposing to keep this question as it is. Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 17:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Vote for opposing? You could just vote against it, or oppose it. Best wishes, A Pedantic Wikipediholic aka SimonTrew (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Very amusing.

Well done that's funny without being over the top. SimonTrew (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Links don't work

Just so everyone knows, putting links inside of the parentheses doesn't work with the automated version. It will make it so that the question will just be the question, without a box to check. There was only one question with that, and I attempted to make it sound okay without a link. Just make sure you don't add anymore like that. Hi878 (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Point tallying

I am somewhat confused about a certain aspect on this test when it comes to point scoring. For instance, for the first below question, I don't know whether to get one set of points from this question or to add the total amount of points that apply to me (such as 40 + 50 + 60 + 80, for example). When I did this test last year, during July 2008, I tallied my points by doing the first method for the first below question and other similarly formatted questions, and did the second method for questions such as the second below question. I ended up receiving a score of 4,533, which confirmed what I already knew; I'm a wikipediholic. I sure hope the way I did things when I took this test during July 2008 is the right way of doing this test. I [lan on taking it again soon.

1. Do you typically use Wikipedia for more than an hour a day? (40)
   • ... more than two hours? (50)
   • ... more than three hours? (60)
   • ... more than four hours? (80)
   • ... more than six hours? (150)
   • ... more than eight hours? (275)
   • ... more than twelve hours? (400)
   • ... more than eighteen hours? (600)
   • ... 24 hours a day? (-1000, you liar!)
     • ... really 24 hours a day? (2000, and how long have you been on Wikipedia?!)
   • ... 27 hours a day (-1000, idiot, only 24 hours in a day!)
2. Have you ever made nonsensical edits to pages that no one will ever see anyway just because you can? (-10)
   • Have you ever reverted those changes out of guilt? (3)
     • ... and then reverted them back (and maybe back again) to increase your edit count? (-1000, get a life)

Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 04:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that we check them all off, but that's just me. It only makes sense with the ridicously high scores here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous Scores

Isn't this getting a bit stupidly over the top now? I like the test, but some of the points you can earn are half a page long now. I point you to the section on editing Wikipedia from planets other than Earth. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is most of your time on Wikipedia spent editing this test, or commenting on it on its talk page?(200)

(actually, out of respect for my not going insane, i wont add this to the test, or any more edits. and i wont revert any that are removed, though i probably will watch this page obsessively. "its like going to a 12 step meeting, yeah, thats it")Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not the questions I mind, I like those. It's the scores (e.g. 99999999999999998888888888888888888888, 797979797979797979797979797979797979797979797979 and 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (I mean, for God's sakes, that's twenty-illion, a number so large there's not even a word for it. It's 10⁶³!)). Yes, there have always been stupid scores, but if there are too many of them, it's not funny at all. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is. It's vigintillion. But you're right about the stupid scores. Double sharp (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Vigintillion? Thanks! *memorises* --Thejadefalcon (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Checkbox missing

For the section WP:WHT#How Wikipedia has affected you, (automated version, don't know how to link there), Question #3 has no check box. I don't know how to change it, but thought I would mention it here. PopMusicBuff ^talk 15:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Automatic test = down?

The automatic test seems to be down atm in Västerås Sweden (ISP: TeliaSonera and some others...). It was down since at least friday. Other pages on the same place seems to work[1] Any kind of confirmation? --SakJur (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Had the same problem. Jonathansuh (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still down here in Harrisburg, PA. (ISP: Comcast) John, Paul, George, Ringo 20:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's down in Washington State, US too (ISP: Comcast) --Samwb123^T-C-@ 16:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone...?Abce2|This isnot a test 16:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's down everywhere. Maybe we can get someone on this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to use it on Firefox and Safari. Both - nothing.  Cargoking  talk  22:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me either. :( Armbrust (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Still down... Illinois. (ISP:Verizon) Jonathansuh (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Bedfordshire, UK, reporting in. Doesn't work here either. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Still seems to be down, just shows a fancy blank white page. Guess we'll have to do the test by hand ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't wanna. Too long. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 11:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Down in Ambler, PA Jasonxu98 (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm working on fixing it. Should be back up in the next few days. Merphant (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you, thank you, thank you! --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

IU ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the automated test is back up; sorry for the delay in fixing it. If it ever goes down again, send me email through my Wikipedia user account. Merphant (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone express their love for Merphant! (expresses) --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of questions

I would like to bring up a valid point. In the subsection Physical behavior of section How Wikipedia has affected you, the following questions stand:

1. Have you ever dreamed about Wikipedia? (50)
   • More than 50 times? (125)
     • ...everyday? (350)
   • Have you ever dreamed about other Wikipedians? (5)
     • ... do you have sexual fantasies about other Wikipedians? (-10000, wtf?!?)
       • ... have you experimented with them? (-1000000, UM, EWW!)

I would like to draw your attention to the last two questions (with bolded arrows, added for your convenience). I believe the negative point value of these questions is unfair, per the following:

1. ) Some people just have more active hormones than others. Not their fault.
2. ) Perhaps your wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend is also a Wikipedian, in which you have probably have had sexual fantasies about in which have possibly experimented with. That's not very fair.
3. ) Considering that the final negative scores on the test indicate a vandal, questions with negative values should result as such. These questions do not indicate that a Wikipedian is a vandal.
4. ) Having "sexual fantasies" might actually be a good thing, as this could make one Wikipedian interact with another on the site with the person whom they have fantasized about (whether it be collaborating with or looking at their edits), which could result in more constructive edits.

While we could adjust the point value for these two questions, I believe it could go either way that it should be positive or negative. Thus, I have replaced it with this question:

• ... did the dream involve harassing or otherwise doing something negative to that Wikipedian? (-50, be more nicer in your dreams!)

Just thought I'd let you guys know. Thank you. (If only I devoted this time into schoolwork, would my grades be amazing) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Good points all. Huh. So that was where I lost all those points... err... I mean... >.> --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 11:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem with this quiz...

Am I the only one who thinks the questions that take away points with "LIAR!!!" written after the score (followed by another question that asks "REALLY?" and give all their points back and then some) are stupid? Honestly, what's the point of asking something like that? Why not just put the number of points they'd end up recieving if they answer both next to the original question? Or better yet, get rid of those questions altogether? Xhaoz ^{Talk • Contribs} 01:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...I see your point. Using the handy Ctrl+F option, it does look like it is very overused. I don't think they are completely stupid, as I find it perfectly fine if it is used once or twice throughout the test. What I do think is unnecessary is when it is used again and again. At this point, it just gets repetitive, annoying, and not funny now that the joke has already been pulled multiple times. I don't think it should be completely removed, but perhaps cut back a little. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions about MediaWiki

I've got MediaWiki installed for several times. May I get some points, please? :) --Asavartsov (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Point removal

I have removed about a billion points from the test, as it was really getting out of hand. I'm sure some editor won't like this, but I believe that we should keep scores from going into the zillion category, as they used to stop at a million. I'm all for reducing this further to keep it so that Jimbo would max out the point total. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done, I'm all for it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Test Too long

The test is too long. I couldn't even finish half.--DailyWikiHelp (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...I don't find it to be. It actually took less time then I initially thought it would when I took it a month or two ago, and I took the manual version. Definitely less than 2 hours. I guess it depends on how much time you have and how fast you go. How long did it take you and how far did you get? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad that the "humour" Tag was added

I am so glad that the tag at the start of this page warns that this is a humorous, perhaps joke, article in Wikipedia. I have to admit that some of the material made me laugh - especially Question 15! How many people get time to travel to other planets as well as edit Wikipedia, I do not know (my guess is "very few"). I also think that who ever created this page has a somewhat overworked imagination! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, wikiholism and languages

Perhaps there could be some more questions related to the fact that Wikipedia is available in different languages. How about:

Have you taken a course in a new language, so that you could edit the Wikipedia in that language?

Do you regularly visit Wikipedia in languages other than English?

Five others languages

Twenty plus other languages

Fifty plus other languages

Four hundred and fifty other languages (check your count again, there are not yet 300 languages in which Wikipedias exist)

There are over 200 languages in which one can find a Wikipedia - do you campaign to get Wikipedia in other languges, such as Livonian, Lakota or Klingon? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Though some of the questions you listed, plus some others, are already scattered around in the test:

• Did you take a language course just to edit Wikipedia in more languages, or to translate Wikipedia articles in other languages to English?
• Have you ever edited Wikipedia in a language that is not used in the country you live in?
  • ... in two or more?
• Have you written or read for Wikipedia to improve your foreign language skills?
• Do you edit articles in foreign languages? (100)
  • Even if you don't understand them? (-20)
    • Do you use babel fish for your edit summaries? (50)

We could probably clump them together in a section, along with adding some of the new questions you suggested. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, here are some further questions on a similar theme: Have you thought about creating your own language simply to become a language for another version of Wikipedia? Have you ever thought about creating a new alphabet for the purpose of a new version of Wikipedia?

If English is your first language, do you think that the differnt dialects of the United Kingdom (e.g. estuary English, Yorkshire dialect should all have their own Wikipedias?

Do you feel that languages that are nearing extinction, such as Livonian or certain forms of the Sami languages, could be preserved if there were Wikpidias in these languages?

Do you sometimes begin talking in the last language in which you read one of the available Wikipedias, as listed at List of Wikipedias? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Test is 404

The automated test can't be used as it says:

“ 404: User account expired

The page you requested is hosted by the Toolserver user merphant, whose account has expired. Toolserver user accounts are automatically expired if the user is inactive for over six months. To prevent stale pages remaining accessible, we automatically block requests to expired content.

If you think you are receiving this page in error, or you have a question, please contact the owner of this document: merphant [at] toolserver [dot] org. (Please do not contact Toolserver administrators about this problem, as we cannot fix it—only the Toolserver account owner may renew their account.)

”

Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ouch - it seems like the host, Merphant, has not been active for a while, so their account has expired at Toolserver. I have gone ahead and placed a notice on the test next to where it links to the automated test. In addition, I have sent Merphant two emails: one to the email he provided through Wikipedia, and another to the address given on the 404 page. Hopefully Merphant'll receive the message and will be able to take care of it by renewing their account. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see this. I sent Merphant an email just now before seeing this. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 17:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I missed the deadline for extending toolserver accounts. Oops. The toolserver admins have been notified, twice, so hopefully they'll reactivate the account soon. Merphant (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the toolserver admins have reactivated Merphant's account since the automated test seems to be working now (with no 404 message popping up), so matter resolved then? --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it certainly looks like it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you take this test?

I'm looking, but I don't see a link to a non-public version of the page, other than the one that's not in service. Are you supposed to copy the text, and put it in a user-subpage, or in a subpage of the test page itself? Or do you just read through the questions, and write down your answers and scores on a piece of paper? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The test is solely based on score; there are no right or wrong answers, so there is no need to keep track of your answers. To take the test, all you have to do is go through all the questions and answer yes or no; if the answer for you is yes, you add (or subtract) the value in the parentheses. At the end, once you've added up your score, you can see how much of a Wikipediholic you are based on thescore table at the bottom of the page. The only difference between the automated version and the manual one is that the automated version has checkboxes that you check for each question and it scores for you. However, since the automated version is down, you'll have to add it up yourself. I recommend just taking a calculator and inputing the numbers as you go. Hope this helps. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that was actually what I was doing, but it suddenly dawned on me that there might have been a more mechanical method provided. Thanks! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Would it be alright if I added in a question in the "Starter" section, concerning this sort of situation? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go right ahead - anyone can expand the test. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My score...

-931372

Too low?

But I made one mistake, on the very final question, which I didn't do it for real, but... "You~ Just wasted~ one million points of my~ life~" So my real points was 68628.

And I never laugh in the question until one of the final one which said "Did you use 30 seconds?". For real, I've used only 30 seconds!

A question in early, "Have you used Wikipedia with mind-controlled computer?", YES! And I'm currently taking test (and typing this) on mind-controlled computer! That's why I've used only 30 seconds.--125.25.39.185 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Technology and this test

How about a special section devoted to various technological devices, asking questions such as:

Do you think a new computer should be invented which, when it switched on, takes you straight to Wikipedia? Do you think that mobile telephones should also enable you to access Wikipedia from your mobile telephone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACEOREVIVED (talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the best place to put questions like that would be in the section "Computing habits". As for your questions, however, I don't think they are the best, as you can already do those things :) You can already make Wikipedia startup as soon as you turn your computer on by setting your browser's homepage to Wikipedia, and then making your browser start as soon as you turn your computer on. As for mobile telephones enabling people to access Wikipedia, as long as your cell phone can browse the internet, you can already do this. There is also a mobile version of Wikipedia meant specifically for this, in addition to individual applications that are available for smartphones (like the iPhone) to browse Wikipedia with. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I broke it!

I just replaced all negative numbers (like -10) with the correct form (in WP:MOS we trust) that uses the minus sign (like −10). However it seems that the automated version isn’t really good at math, and can’t tell a minus sign. As a result you can’t get negative points anymore. Somebody fix the script!

Ah, so tired. I’ll rest for just a moment. // stpasha » 02:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest reverting the change until the script is fixed. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Then it probably won’t ever get fixed... // stpasha » 19:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Point inflation

The test is wayyyy too long, resulting in excessive scores and excessive time taken. Also, I imagine it's a bit of a maintenance nightmare. I propose that roughly 80-90% of the questions be eliminated. --70.41.70.6 (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you aren't a wikiholic because your score is -10,000 for thinking it's a waste of time. Joseph507357 (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And you're not a user. This test is only for users. Try signing in or making an account. It's easy. Joseph507357 (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

When to take test

How often should I take the test? Joseph507357 (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

However often you feel like it. If you want to take the results in a more serious sort of manner and compare scores over time, you could come back every few months or so and re-take it to see how your score has changed since. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Weird score

I checked every box on the automated version and it gave me a score of -1e+115. Anyone know what that means?-Zyrath (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

-1e+115 is written in scientific notation, which is basically just another way of writing numbers, particularly large ones. In the case of -1e+115, scientific notation basically says that you take the number -1.0, than move the decimal 115 places to the right. So you would get negative 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

Now you know why people like to write large numbers in scientific notation form. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

i got 209025392...

using automated. i dont get it... 71.205.174.93 (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Let us remove the question about how many times the test has been edited

Knowing how many times the test has been edited is not a truly valid measure of Wikipediholism, for a true Wikipediholic would spend more time perusing the encyclopaedia in general than spend time reading how many times the test has been edited. Also, it is feasible that, in the future, the test might truly have been edited as many times as stated by the high number quoted there. I think that I shall just make one further point - the test fails to distinguish those who are addicted to READING Wikipedia from those addicted to EDITING Wikipedia (this is a fundamental distinction). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at this test last night (March 2 2011) and saw that it is talk about wikistalking - I think that is a reference to those addicted to reading, as opposed to editing, Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A question about web browsers

This questionnaire mentions the web browsers Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer but does not mention Apple Safari or opera (web browser). Perhaps it should so that people who those browsers do not feel left out. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about web browsers

This questionnaire mentions Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer, but it does not mention Opera (web browser) or Apple Safari. I have not used the latter two myself,but until it does, people who read this questionnaire and who use those browsers may feel left out. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I have used Apple Safari for the first time tonight (March 15 2011) - in fact, I used Safari to get on to Wikipedia for this edit. This still makes me think that we need refer to Safari in this. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Further fuel to my plea to remove the question on how frequently the questionnaire has been edited is that the number of edits is now given as the head of the questionnaire. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Broken

This edit and the ones after it by that IP kinda broke the test (see Wikipedia:Wikipediholism_test#Images). Dunno how to fix that without reverting everyone's subsequent edits. --Closedmouth (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

Wouldn't realised be realized?--Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Icon on desktop

Perhaps this test should ask whether people have saved an icon on their PC which enables them to click and then log in to Wikipedia. I have done this - does this make me the ultimate Wikipediholic? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia books

What about Wikipedia books? Accelerometer (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice

I'm cutting the score down to something reasonable tomorrow so if there any objections, state them now or forever hold your peace. I have already done this before an the fact that we're now getting into scientific notation to calculate scores means that it is worse than last time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

For God's sake THANK YOU. Please do that. The magnitude of the scores currently is quite ridiculous. I fully support you in all of your endeavours to realisticize the scores, and for that reason we may assume that realisticize is a word. --Nat682 (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Will it still be possible to get that 40,000K score? It should be possible to get 40M and impossible to get 100,000M James1011R (tal k, contribs, log, boxes) 05:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to try to bring it down to a million. I would create an edit notice for the page though telling others that they shouldn't inflate the scores but for some reason I can't. If any administrator can, please do! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Awww, but that ruins all the fun.--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Success! Below is the before and after of the points thing:

• Before:
  • If you check all the boxes, you will receive 9.90394854958787e+42 points.
  • The highest score possible from checking boxes is 9.90394854958787e+42.
  • The lowest score possible from checking boxes is -1.01920039989697e+23.
• After:
  • If you check all the boxes, you will receive 6044079 points.
  • The highest score possible from checking boxes is 6584566.
  • The lowest score possible from checking boxes is -540487.

I guess I definitely fixed this issue. If people could be less crazy with zeroes and nines, I think this page would be a whole heck of a lot nicer. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you've ignored my objection(even though it was sorta vague), to tell you the truth, i'm not really liking this because:

1. I have to take the test all over again.
2. The currently impossible thing looks a bit sloppy and the scores really arent needed if there currently impossible.
3. It's suppose to be Wikipedia humor, so they don't need to be realistic, just understandable.

I'm not asking you to change them back ,just that it's going to be hard getting used to. --GoldenGlory84 (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• lawl now it's ridiculous again:
  • There are 1371 questions in the test.
  • If you check all the boxes, you will receive -1.01010101010101e+31 points.
  • The highest score possible from checking boxes is 7491890277202.26.
  • The lowest score possible from checking boxes is -1.01010101010101e+31.
  • Depending on your browser, browsing away from the automated test page may cause you to lose all of your progress. But real Wikipediholics don't do that anyway. Come to think of it, actually they might, if they want to edit this article.