Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Userbox for legendary scores.

I have an idea of the Wikipeholic userbox that should be used for legendary scores.

This user scored {{{1}}} on the Wikipediholic test and is legendary.

It is a darker version of the regular userbox. James1011R (talk, contribs, log, boxes) 05:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Automated Version

The automated version doesn't have check boxes for all of the questions and a few of the check-boxes give the wrong number of points when you check them, but I don't know how to fix it.pluma (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Question on non-Wikipedia webpages

Why does the question "Have you ever thought about editing a non-Wikipedia webpage" get four points if answered in the affirmative? Surely Wikipediholism is only about addiction to Wikipedia, not to other websites? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Heaven and Hell

As the questionnaire exists in late September 2011, it asks whether one has edited Wikipedia in Heaven. Should it not also ask whether one has edited Wikipedia in Hell or purgatory, or is the questionnaire making the point that only saintly people become addicted to Wikipedia? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies about this, but when I added some questions to the "Where to use Wikipedia" section recently, I seemed to get the question numeration and tabulation wrong. I have tried to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedia about this, and may contact the help desk if I do not manage to rectify what I have done. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

See Help:List for the syntax of these lists; the question numbers are generated automatically. Note that you have two questions about editing Wikipedia in the bath. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Automated version edits needed

I just found out these errors in the automated version of this test hoping someone will fix this (since I can't for now). These are the following:

• Vanguard disambiguation on Line 373 under Editing
• Missing check-box on Line 915 under Social Life
• Missing check-box on Line 1,246 under Meta

—Allenjambalaya (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Question on starting this test

This questionnaire has a question which says "Did you start this test?" and if a person answers affirmatively, there is the response "Liar"! Well, since one Wikipedian had to begin this test at some time, this comment should be removed, because one day, the person who DID begin this test might answer this question. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why the anti-Google bias?

This questionnaire has some questions which ask whether a person looked up something on Google, and then says "Traitor!" Why ever is there this anti-Google bias? Wikipedia has a high Google search, and I expect that what gets many people on to Wikipedia in the first place is the fact that most Wikipedia pages have a high Google search. Unlike Google, Wikipedia is a not a search engine, so I am sure that Wikipedia and Google should be seen as allies, albeit ones that serve different purposes. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bandwidth Section and Yottabyte

I dont know if this has been covered yet, but i dont understand why if you said you used a Yottabyte of bandwidth, you gained a million points but only lost a thousand. I think that should really be reversed or something... Akihironihongo (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about a question

Why does this questionnaire have a question that asks "Did you create this test?" and then implies that if you answer this affirmatively, you get the response "- 100 - liar". All right, ninety nine point nine per cent of the people who read this test did not create the test, but what if the Wikipedian who DID create this were to read this? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Then they would click the "...Really?" option underneath, awarding them 1000 points. 87.34.21.171 (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User Wikipediholic and Eliteness

The User Wikipediholic userbox does not support Eliteness as of 3/20/2012. Maybe reformat it to use {{User Wikipediholic|score|revision|eliteness}} as parameters (all unnamed) and use something like {{#if: {{{3|}}} | (and {{{3}}} Eliteness) |}} to make eliteness not appear on older boxes, and to not reformat old boxes.

Eliteness is a seperate sub-score and is not related in any way to score. James1011R (talk, contribs) 15:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the automated version

This user scored -67899 on the Wikipediholic test (revision 2).

Some quiestions do NOT have any button to answer them. BOMBINI (messages) 18:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Can some one explain something?

Can some one please explain what "The aliens are looking for you" meant? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Adjkasi

I scored 2125 in the test — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjkasi (talk • contribs) 09:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Scientific notation

-9.99999999999e+99 is in scientific notation, so the result is: -9999999999990000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Adjkasi (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Self-scoring

0 - I love wikipedia but honestly this is not very humorous, just down right irrelevant toliet humour —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.52.137 (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Share your scores here and come back in a few months to see how much your Wikipediholism has grown.

• Not saying here. I don't come on often but is still a high number. Automated version. Walk200 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC).
• 3038- well its not that bad! Sushant gupta (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Hmmm just 2299. At least my health has not suffered...that much!--Insane-Contrast 23:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• 2283.8860485606933 (automated). Ooer. That...technically puts me on the top twenty. And to think I edited anonymously for two years before getting an account... Moose 03:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• 1193. There's something wrong with me! --Prong 19:27, 14 August 2006
• 7507. ZOMG!! my score has gone up by about 5000 points! I might need a break soon! Imthegreatest (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• 1094.809621131719 (automated) ... and I answered with complete honesty. Now I'm not only addicted, but depressed as well.--WilliamThweatt 19:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• 1281.7055905505931 (automated)... Less than a month registered, occasionally edited + constantly read before joining. What's really sad though is that I was very honest with my answers...Tal 12:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• 92 --Uncle Ed 18:17, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• 140, now that I'm a sysop..... - UtherSRG 20:50, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• 97. It was 70s last summer. I don't feel that I'm more obsessed, but where did the extra 20 points come from? Insidious WP.... --Menchi 23:47, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• 130. I'll do something about it sometime... LUDRAMAN | T 00:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Eleventy quadratrillion and fourty-five. Is that bad, for someone who's only been wiking for a couple months?.... - 52736941
  • Um... Yes. Insanephantom 08:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• 132 (Grah! I just came back! Score... too... high) --Teria (aka 54098) 22:40, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
• 114. My first attempt on the "Wikipediholic Test". --*drew 09:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• 75. All good in the Wonderfool house--Thewayforward 14:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• 106, and I've only been here a couple months. Muwahaha. Hermione1980 21:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Now it's 161. Start prayin' for me, y'all. :-) Hermione1980 23:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• 111. Hedley 22:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• 251.14. I don't have a problem. Honestly. I can quit whenever I want to (I'm weak?!) Druminor
• 143 from the automated test Plugwash 18:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• 626 User:Rustalot42684
• 64 from automated --Dangherous 21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• 312.27456789+6.67 E-34, and I've only been here for FIVE DAYS!!! Evan Robidoux 23:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (Note: 312.27456789+6.67 E-34 = 312.274567890000000000000000000000000667)
    • It's now 317.232179021719 + 6.67 E-34 21:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Now it's a little over 348. Am I OK? Should I stop? 00:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • ACK! It is now a little over 388! AND IT HAS BEEN ONLY A MATTER OF MINUTES SINCE I GOT THE 348!!! (Disclaimer: I edited the test. I mean, I can if I want, right?) 01:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• That's not very impressive. In two months I went from a moderatly high 458 to over a thousand. I'm now on the top 20 list. Yay! Freddie 15:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Jeez, I answered 100% honest and just got 1492.3286716360346 HK51 16:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• I got 576.628244 I got 576.628244 nya nya na nya nya, wait a sec, thats only moderately high *increases wikipedia-obsessiveness a trillian times* :) Pulveriser 17:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• I had a score of 920.3 and this is my first attempt.-152.15.101.33 17:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• 681.8338439082531 Account is less than a month old I think? Danl 06:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• 1220.somethinorother-I've been a member for (counts on finger...) about a month. Bandgeek100 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• 2805.8496685191817 - Been a member for 3-4 months DemosDemon ^{(Talk - contrib)} 01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• 1762 - I rounded this, as the original number had way too many decimal places. Been a member for nearly three months. -- TheGreatLlama ^{(speak to the Llama!)} 00:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• On my VERY FIRST EVER ATTEMPT with the ""automated"" version, I have officially received a score of 1696.010115. I answered them all EXTREMELY honestly (except one -- guess) and am about to edit the test myself. MY ACCOUNT is about... about what, less than a month old? Can someone find out?!? HELP!!!!!! --DrZeus 02:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• 1047.94 - I rounded this to the nearest hundredth. I've been a member for less than a week. This is my first attempt on this test AFTER I signed up. I did try to squeeze a lot of questions from the test, and answered every question that is true on lists. Just to be fair, I checked almost every question that asks if you have cheated, are unhappy with your score, etc. Even though i didn't really cheat all that much. You could actually say that I answered the questions quite honestly. I used the manual version. Before I signed up, my last attempt at the test left me with about 700 points. Where did the extra points come from? How come got so many more points even though I've made less than 50 edits (a lot less)? Maybe it's because I edited this test so much. Yes, I prefer using the manual version. Yes, I did answer the test quite honestly. I will post this score on my User Page.

AstroHurricane001 18:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Around 1957...i can't remember the actual score, it had SO MANY decimal places...and I'm not even sure it's 1957...i just know it was in the 1950s, because it was 1955 at first, then I went back into the test and tried to squeeze more points from it like squeezing a lemon, but I remember I did not hit my target of 2000...LOL :-) I've been here for abt a year. 218.186.8.12 09:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• 1094 - Again, I answered it quite honestly. AstroHurricane001 15:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• 1671.83 - Eeek! I just took the test less than a week ago, and again, I took the manual version. This is what my calculator said. I rounded the number, just like last time. I didn't realize my score would be that high. I did answer the questions quite honestly. Since I used a calculator again, and there are more questions, the result probably isn't as reliable as the automated version. Now I have just over 100 edits. AstroHurricane001 22:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• 1031.44 - Phew! My score went down, because I wanted it to. AstroHurricane001 23:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oh come on, when I first come to Wikipedia, I only have a score 250 but now I have 1416.010115. I need serious help on my addiction!--PrestonH 21:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• I just retook it... 2063.645212776534, and I've been on Wikipedia nearly five months. I need professional help. --The Great Llama ^talk 22:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• 1232.62 - My score rose again, and I answered it honestly. AstroHurricane001 19:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• 2961.492758204182 (auto) - Really rose, hmmmm, maybe I'll do something about it "after a few edits"..... Go Futurama! Sp3000 10:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Btw, it's real (not any more)- question me as much as you want
  • Wait....now it's 3204.1197582041823 (auto) Go Futurama! Sp3000 11:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Still truthful (Disclaimer: I added a question which caused by score to go up by 49.99.) and I realised that in questions which says X-Y, i pressed everything lower than that. Any...I wonder where that 200 came from?
    • Thanks to a few questions, now this score has REALLY gone up to 3512.754047072463 (auto)- Go Futurama! Sp3000 11:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Still Real, question all you want
      • After 1 hour of adding in my head, going back to check my adding and adding again (SOLELY IN MY HEAD!) my score is 3847.3697563953230232384726433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679......
        • 4425.290758204183 (auto) (this time I'm adding the awards so that'll be a barnstar and a boredom award)...I must be going insane after being here for almost 2 months. Then again...all the "reverting vandalism" questions score high....Go Futurama! User:Sp3000 06:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

1939.06 - Aaaaaaaaaaaahh!!! How did it get that high? I blame the amount of questions. Someone should fix the interperating scores table so that higher scores are interperated as not so wikipediholic. The test has "grown" too much. Maybe the length of my test caused my calculator to interpret numbers incorrectly. Maybe it's because I interrupted taking the test (partially because it was so long). Maybe I'll try to lower my score sometime soon. AstroHurricane001 23:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

1990.14 - I tried using a different calculator, and I think that was my score. I got a lower score, and I think I'm going to take Wikibreak. AstroHurricane001 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• 1102, to the nearest number. Insanephantom 08:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

3441.74 - Oh my gosh! I can not believe the score I just got. I was barely even expecting 2000. I think the lengthiness of this test is responsible. Also, I think I pressed the wrong numbers into the calculator several times, but then again, I did answer yes to "have you cheated on this test", etc. After all, the test has grown, and it is now possible to get really high scores. Maybe I should "STOP" taking this test for a while. I guess I won't edit it for a while either. However, there is the short auto version, and hopefully it will give me fewer points. Should I take another Wikibreak? Maybe, I don't know. Since this page does say "come back in a few months to sahre your score", maybe I will do so. AstroHurricane001 00:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

2628 on my 2nd try (my 1st was 2551) i think im going well. :) Imthegreatest (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• 2146.5 - I can't believe! I was to be surprised to get 1000 but 2146.5! Man! I am way too addicted to Wikipedia(as it says scores in this range are sometimes fatal). And you know what? I'm proud of it! I can't wait to become an even bigger Wikipediholic and take the test again. I just can't believe it! GeneralIroh 02:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• 1989.3000000000002, automated test. :D Collard 14:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you check my user page, I've gone up drastically to 3167 (to the nearest number). Wow, didn't know I became that addicted! Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 22:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• 2632.111 - Aerobird 01:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• 9378.206441506932 (automated) - Wow! I could be in the top 20 ( ~^_^)~! But it will probably get reverted (>_<). Ah well. Who cares? I can just take the test again and again and again and again... Already have taken it more than 20 times and it just gets more enjoyable! Happy Editing! Yuanchosaan 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Just because someone has a pathetic edit count doesn't mean they can't get a high score without cheating. Cheers! Yuanchosaan 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• 7611 + a bunch of decimimals- man i need a life, that is really quite sad, and all the answers were answered truthfully, of course i don't think anybody really made a special internal caether to edit on wikipedia but i didn't do any of that stuff ether

peace-Three ways round 21:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• (From Wikipedia:Confessed Wikipediholics) H-hell-lo, I-I'm An-donic-c-O. I - am - add-icte-d. (collapses). (crowd starts murmuring). (AndonicO jumps up, and starts saying "muhhahaw, MORE WIKIPEDIA, hahahaha"). (kids start crying). (AndonicO calms down, and sits down). Sorry, I have wikispasms. First time on the test: 850. Kept incresing every week by 1000 for the next few weeks, and I'm now at about 23000. Everyone I know is starting to call me "Wiki, Mr. Wikipedia, AndonicO," or just "Wikipedia". I shouldn't be on right now, I'm breaking all the rules. Can't leave, my watchlist is calling... Maybe I should go somewhere else *starts typing <http://en.wik>*. Oops, I forget. My life is ruined, what should I do, WHAT SHOULD I DO? Dear me, everytime I do something on Google (which is rare), I get a link to Wikipedia! I can't resist! I AM A WIKIPEDIHOLIC, HAHAHAHAHAHA! WIKIPEDIA! JIMBO! WATCHLIST! WIKIPEDIA! Sorry, one of my neighbors came to knock on my door (I wonder why they complain?). Wait! Someone's coming! I have to leave, but I can't! Help! SAVE ME WIKIPEDIA! (starts shaking the computer violently, kids start crying again, adults start crying too, ambulance arrives to take AndonicO to asylum, curtain drops). | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 21:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• 4073.12 - AAH! OMG! OMG! How did it get that high? Maybe it's because it's February and I took the manual version! Suprizingly, it only took about an hour. I think It's going to be another month before I take this test again. It says Come back in a few months, and I obeyed. Sort of. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 17:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• 5629.07 - OMG! AGAIN?!? Ok, I took the test again in only 2 weeks! I NEVER want to end up in the top 20! I could hold off editing the test again! Well, I guess I could still leave wiki if I had to. I can also imagine myself without wikipedia, it was like that only a year ago! I guess I could say Wikipedia sucks and, well, maybe not. These scores are getting ugly, so I could say "UGLY!!!", well, maybe not. Anyway, I'll get back to editing. I think. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 18:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• VERY VERY HIGH, no I'm not telling you what it was. Dixonsej

• 15169.742005273849 - I'm laughing, grinning, yelling manically as I type this, hands shaking so badly they can hardly type. Hyperventilating. Yuanchosaan. You. Must. Breathe. Can't. Stop. Editing. My score's gone up about 6000 points since last time. Must complete some of those goals to get more points. But I've got to go and create more userboxes. Happy Editing! Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 09:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • AndonicO I loved you little story. Happy Editing again! Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 09:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Am I allowed to add myself to the 20 Top-Scoring Users? Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 09:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• 5592.82 - Phew, my score dropped. This is probably because further edits were slow to develop, becauseof its length. Looks like I'm not going to end up in the top 20, which is a great relief. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 18:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• 5666 to the nearest number. First time taking the test, too! Auto is fun... Mausy 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• 9723.676296418181 (automated) Only 200 off the top twenty. Oh dear. What has hapened to me? Im not even 14. Themcman1 15:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That is a high score, is it not. Themcman1 15:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• 7635.82 - OMG! I am NOT faking this! This is a GIGANTIC jump, and it's been only TWO weeks! I have been on wikipedia for less than half a year! Anyway, it's time to edit. I'm finding there's not much to do on wiki. Wikipedia is not eternal, it's main servers could be flooded by global warming within decades, even with a large budget of over a million dollars US. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 16:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG this is my FIRST day and i scored (2088.7515926635897) i bet you scored less than that on your FIRST day HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.AM I OKAY I seem to be contracting Wikipediaholicism (or whatever) severly i quick i think.

• 9511.25 - Yikes! That's another huge jump! I didn't actually cheat that much, but just to be fair, and because I didn't want so many points, I answered yes to the "did you cheat" questions. In fact, I nearly got enough points to get over 10000! If I hadn't answered those questions, I could have gotten an extra 2000-5000 points or so! Incrediblly, I still strongly deny being a true wikipediaholic, I could probably leave any time I want ... I hope. Anyway, it'sreally weired when my score jumps an extra 2000 points or so in just less than half a month, I hope I don't end up on the top 20! Someone should remove that ~3000 score. Anyway, bye, I have to go, and ... make a few more edits. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 16:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, I remember when 53 was a high score.... æ² ✆ 2007‑06‑22t03:50z
• 8973. ~Doggitydogs
• Just had 3463!Princereyn 06:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• 7430 - Yay! It went down! I'm so busy! ~AH1^(TCU) 01:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• 9066 - Wow. I need to get off the computer. After a few more minutes of course. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• 9006 - It went down, yay! PS I memorised the pronounciation, spelling, and meaning of "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcano-coniosis" just for Wikipedia. I have to get off the computer...sometime before sunset, I hope. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• 10453 - WTF??? Impossible! Ok, so maybe I added a few points that I shouldn't have, but I still took away, like, more than a thousand points to compensate. Anyway, this can't be the right score. I might edit the test sometime soon. Anyway, I'm not a wikiholic. Really, I'm not! Okay, so what if I plan to make like a hundred more edits on an editting spree? Had it still exsisted, would I be on the top 20? I hope not! Anyway, I'll leave the computer soon enough ... after a few more edits. I know, the test must be driving me crazy, I added points whenever possibly true. I know, this can't be accurate. I'm still taking the manual version, and no, I don't think the test should be longer than before the MfD. Ttyl. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• 12754 - Yeah, yeah, right. Obviously incorrect. There's still much to edit, of course. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• 11916 - Ok, so it dropped. Maybe I was a bit more conservative with my score-adding. C'mon, that's not that high. I should be able to retire sometime soon. I have a life too, you know. Now, back to editting. Or not. Also, is it just me, or has wikipedia changed from purplish-white to bluish-white? Anyway, bye for now. ~AH1^(TCU) 15:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• 209375 as of now. I can't wait til I get some more edits in, and maybe a barnstar not issued to me by the Wikipediholic test.--Shroopliss ^T/_C 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• 90,006,017. :) -Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 22:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• 8476 - That's weird, it fell. Well, when I have the time, I will edit this test. I'm even considering buying a new telescope partially in order to improve Wikipedia. I think I've been on Wikipedia enough for today: about four hours already. Let's hope I don't get a brain tumour. I might be able to remember the methionyl...serine word someday, but I don't have time right now. I don't think I'll ever be able to remember the methinyltherionyltherionyl...isoleucine word though. How can I even think of doing that when I can barely remember pi to the nearest 5 digits! I just borrowed so many books from the library I had to be very careful not to crash into the Santa Claus Parade...maybe those books will help me edit Wikipedia. Let's get off the computer soon so my eyes don't deteriorate. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• 9318 - Hmm, it rose again. Maybe it got so high at one point it's now stabilising? Gee, I remember a time when I barely got above 100 on my first try! Is this turing into a blog? Why do I seem to be the only one here sometimes? There so much I could do on WP, but also so little too. The thing is, I don't have the time! Even when I go to a party these days, I talk nonstop about Wikipedia. I use countless things on WP I see, including comments made by users, as jokes. Good thing I found my calculator. Good thing the scores are now in whole numbers. I also find myself on other sites too. Oops, I forgot to do my homework! Bye for now! ~AH1^(TCU) 01:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• 8735 - Hmm, maybe it is stabilising. Well, I gotta go now, I forgot to do my homework (again). Well, I removed a red link, so bye for now. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• 1998... now, anyway (automated) ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 20:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 1755 (inconcievably it's gone down...) 70.187.155.89 (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Only 2588??? :( The last time I took the test someone added a question that said "Do you want 100000 points? (100000)" I said yes, so I got a super high score :) Chenhsi (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• 10720 - OMG!!! It rose again? Maybe because of my editting sprees, increased activity, and uploaded images? I might actually join many other sister projects come the new year. I can even recite some of our ancient wiki history, for example did you know that we used to use red for speedy delete votes for a period of time? Now that it's the winter holidays, I don't have much homework. I searched desperately for the calculator for the past week or so, and I found it...in the depths of my couch. I've borrowed so many library books, that I'm beginning to have trouble keeping track of everything. Remember my mile-long Andromeda-Milky Way post? Anyway, I'm not that wikiholic, as I just overhyped on the answering, as always. Is it OCD, Wikiholism is it? Maybe, perhaps. Too much time me spend, on Wikipedia is. Don't tell anyone, but I might be giving out barnstars as Christmas presents...just maybe. Unfourtunately my telescope is not very suitable for most types of astrophotography. Is it the size? The non-motorisedness? The eyepieces? Well, anyway, I'd better go soon. Woah, is this turning into a blog post? Ack! I could write some more songs on Wikipedia:Song, I could edit this test, I could create my talkpage archives...but I keep procrastinating. Maybe I should update my ancient MSN blog? Most people I know use the Internet for games and other stuff, mostly I just use it for research, and Wikipedia. What if the power goes out? I'll go stargazing at night and build my ginormous snowball during the day, but that's overspeculative overtimedanative arghyapforthetestustinuss ejjjgomedulus peforumeleetesness nonsensualmorphicalaframontelaniustessiness. Blah. Anyway, I'd better finish typing before I log off. Jar bake spoon! What was that? Ok, bye for now. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• 10789 - Woah, it rose again. You know, if this was two years ago I probably could have fainted if I got a score like this. Well, the second Wikipedia Day has passed since I joined, and I'm becoming even more involved, I guess. I signed up for Commons, Wikispecies, and Wikibooks, and hope to edit them soon. Also, I'm now a rollbacker, which came as a surprise when I first got it, but then again, surprises happen on wiki almost daliy. When I have more time, I'll edit more. If I keep editting like this, hopefully I won't get sick? *Cough!* Anyway, when I get hold of my camera again several weeks from now, I should be able to take more images. Looks like I'm spending too much wikitime on wikikends - I mean weekends - whoops, did I forget to do my homework again? D'oh! Ok, enough talking, this is turning into a blog, not that I've editted my blog for the past year or so anyway. Ok, bye for now. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• 5575, according to the automated version...--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• 10252 - Ok, so it went down a little. Besides, the explainations for the scores are cruded. Hmm, maybe Wikipedia can cure headaches as well as cause them. I feel much better and not better at the same time. I really should log off soon. Now I have accounts on like a dozen wiki-related sites. My passwords are all quite long, so hopefully I'll remember them. Oh, and if you thought I deleted your image you uploaded, I didn't, and it violates copyright. I'm so close to 3000 edits now! Well, all my wiki-edits together probably total more than 3000. Editcountits? Maybe. Editcountits? Lol. Is Wikipedia a personality disorder? Defineately. Is the world going insane? Yes. Has it been cloudy way too often? Yes. It's hard to believe I keep getting these scores. G2g bye. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• On the automated test I got -82 (You are a vandal or you have no intention of helping Wikipedia). Just one problem: I am not a vandal and I do intend to help Wikipedia! Should the scores for some questions be changed? Smartguy777 (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC).
• 10457 - Wow. Should I graph these scores? Someone should edit the test to make it more interesting! I will probably never be able to create articles on the 300 or so astronomical edits needed to make a huge difference, though. Hey, did I forget to edit - I mean do - my homework again?!? D'oh! Better get to it. Better finish my snowman and upload it before it melts and gets top-heavy. Do I need a break? Never! Forcing me from Wikipedia for even half an hour when I am busily editing will result in half an hour of weeping. Wikipedia has given me headaches and neckaches. Should I request adminship? Not right now, but maybe sometime in the near future. I'm also editing WP:EUI too often, lol, as a byproduct of my non-Wikiholicanism. Say what? Right, I'm not addicted to Wikipedia, as it is impossible to do so. Ok, bye for now. After I check my watchlist, of course. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• WOW! I got a 17489! (I used the automated version.) This is my first time. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 17:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• 10385 - Hmm, it dropped again. Huh? Did I forget to do my homework again? D'oh!!! Better get to it. After I check my watchlist again, of course. Who knows, maybe this month will become the one where I make the most edits! Yay! I can't believe there wasn't an article for yay until I created the redirect, lol. Seriously, I laughed for like, 5 minutes, when I noticed there was no redirect for yay, not to mention I should have been in bed at the time. Well, despite this, I will still participate in Earth hour, and not edit Wikipedia for an entire hour! OMG! So, anyway, I do a lot of things and Wikipedia at the same time, and the is of. Waa? Is Wikipedia insanity? No, of course not!!! Considering I have over 1000 pages on my watchlist, I'd better check it sooner than later. Bye, y'all! ~AH1^(TCU) 16:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• 837, not including the 1000 for the last question...but am now about to get yelled at for being on wikipedia too long...see ya!Enviropearson (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• 13103 - AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ok, I admit, this is partially due to the new qeustions I added. However, adding questions wasn't so that I could get more points, but I deserve more points for adding questions and editing the test, and there were some questions I really wanted to add (but I forgot the score for 2 of them, so I added the points from the above questions). I was on the computer for 7 hours yesterday, and if I stay much longer I'll get a brain tumour. Grr I have to go. I'll have to check my watchlist and update my userboxes. OMG! ~AH1^(TCU) 20:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• This time I got 882. That's more like it! Smartguy777 (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC).
• 12953 - OMG. So it fell. Oh no, my cordless mouse and keyboard are running out of batteries! Anyway, have I told you I can now memorise pi to the nearest 30 or so digits: 3.1415926535897932384626433832... . I still have to add and fix about a dozen questions that would be really good for the test. Whoops, I have to go outside, then do my homework. Guess what? I've been taking the manual version all this time. Oh, and no, I'm not addicted, never will be. If the top 20 were still here today I would probably be on it. YIKES! At least I'm not doing this in my head. I just recently took the geek test, I got 21 and a bunch of decimals (geek), but those tests might not work anyway. I take this test with no difficulty. Not even the manual version. If I get too busy, I might eventually have to make less and less edits. F***, I have to go *grr*. Ok bye. ~AH1^(TCU) 15:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• 17336 - AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA x infinity!!! Is this bad? Should I stop? Ok, so this is partially a result of more questions, and no, I'm not addicted. Is there any doubt that I would have been on the top 20 had it still existed? *Gulp*. This is incredible. Faulty calculator, maybe? Is this test even longer than before? Oh dear. Well, then again, I have seen people get like 20,000 or 30,000, so at least I'm not there yet. Oops, I have to clear out unnesecary items from my watchlist. I made over 500 edits last month and now have over 4000 edits! I have the StatusChanger now! Again, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA x infinity!!! ~AH1^(TCU) 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• 16656 - Hmm, so it fell. It's still pretty high, though. Well, I have to get off Wikipedia soon, but I still have to check my watchlist and stuff. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• 21688 - Woah,I cannot be cured. So don't try unless you want to become one of me... I'm Intelligent! 13:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• 16982 - Hmm, still higher than last time. OMG I have to get off the computer. Well, I've made about 4500 edits already! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroHurricane001 (talk • contribs)
• 18969 - OH NO!!! This is too high! Someone vandalised the test, and I don't have time to fix/update it. Oops, I forgot to sign last time. Oh no, the last time I spent less than three hours on Wikipedia was over two weeks ago! AAA! I still have to improve articles, ref tags and all that. I'm still taking the manual version! Oh, and don't worry, I haven't reached the event horizon of the black hole of eternal Wikipediholism, but I am only 50,000–km from it. Notice the ndash? Anyway, I must check watchlist. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• 17395 - Hmm, it dropped. Probably because of the question removal. I actually corrected some stuff and did some of it from memory! Oh my, this is still my second-highest score ever. Eek. Well, better get back to checking my watchlist. Yay! I have over 5000 edits now (!), and that might be partially a result of my statuschanger. I have so many wiki-tasks to do. Ah well, bye for now. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• 16550 - Yay it fell. I blame those question-deleters! Be more careful in deleting questions! Don't delete the original question and leave the subquestions hanging! I'm watching! I've memorised 60% of the test! Anyway, I have several hundred items in my partially existant Wikipedia to-do list (not the one on my userpage). I might have to go now. Time for pen-and-paper global warming models based on OR? Yay! Lol, ok bye. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• 22255 (automated r225264071 with manual correction for 'add n for each') --tonsofpcs _(Talk) 02:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• 1889 Wow that's a lot more than I expected i'd get... Zsaberslash (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• 14243 - It's lower, but only because there were less questions. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• 13,485 - Oh my... Hi878 (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• 2904 - and added a few questions, and only after taking it. Shannon1^{talk contribs} 23:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• The first time I took this test (in July 2008), I either got 4,033 or 4,533. The numeral scores may have represented some other stages of wikipediholism, but it told me something that I already knew but liked being told from a different source; I am a wikipediholic. I took the wikipediholism test today, and I got the score of 6,051, I think. I am definitely a chronic wikipediholc. Sweeeeeeeeet. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 04:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• 8695, not bad Specs112 (Talk!) 23:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • 20406, retake Specs112 t c 19:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• 1623, not very horrible, considering I have been here for four days. Buggie111 (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• 310467 for the latest attempt. Oy, vey... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• 825149, wow, I'm impressed --MisterWiki talk contribs 16:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

10850—GAH I can't believe it was so high! DX —Onore Baka Sama^{(speak | stalk)} 03:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• 5200. A good amount of Wikipediholism in me...~Wimpy Fanboy ^{t g} 16:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• 5354, although I thought I wasn't that addicted to Wikipedia. I guess I was wrong, and that is a good thing! >:~D --Letsy2 ♦ Talk 15:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• 14178 - Point inflation. --70.41.70.6 (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• 510,438-getting 999,999,999,999 is possible though, if you have convinced enough aliens to join and some of the other 'for each one' stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobmcbob1144 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• You're Crazy!! but I realise you and I love you!!! I have 9989 points, so I'm not far of an Wikiholic. It's an excellent way to progress and bypass yourself, but also an amazing hobby against the Consumerism. Excuse me for my English, because I came from other country, where this page and others are deturned from translation (but I PREFER THE ORIGINAL !!!!!!) --92.82.250.131 (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Question that likely needs to be removed/points adjusted.

"Are you sick and tired of news that isn't updated? (7777777777777777, we feel the same.)"

Far too many points for a question that more or less anyone can answer honestly, it sort of breaks the scale. I jumped from about 6,000 to off the charts with it, ruining my score.

38.126.15.130 (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC) (Too lazy to sign into my account just for this...)

Changed to 7 points. Double sharp (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

English error

on this line "... 25 hours a day? (-1000, yeah right! There're only 24 hours in a day!) I'm not on Earth now, so possiply to have more than 24 hours in one day. (9001, a3fh89h3pfe89hdf89af89h8casdfiohaiof English: I pay the points back to you)"

if my spellchecker is right it should be possibly but my english spelling is crap so i cant be sure so best get someone else to check this oneAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Top ten?

Just wondering, why isn't there a top ten or twenty or 100 page? Or maybe a page with wikipedians with the worst scores? Cookies are tasty! (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Questions about the closure of Wikipedia on January 18 2012

There just had to be some questions here asking people whether they were going to get very upset about the closure of Wikipedia on January 18 2012, so I have added a couple of questions here. I have put them in the Wikipedia Knowledge section - but I have not actually given them numbers, but people are welcome to do so if they know how to do so. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Toolserver account associated with automated version expired

Is there any way to bring it back? - Purplewowies (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Trying to migrate this over to Tool Labs but having technical difficulties. Check back in a couple weeks. Merphant 2014-01-16

scores

I feel like the scores (section Interpreting your score) should be updated; they have pretty much been the same since 2008, and lots of new questions have been added ever since then. It just feels like you get a much higher score than you're supposed to. (If you know what I mean) 123957a (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you take the test?

??? --Yashowardhani (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

yah--J73364 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

scores

how do you find out your score????????????????????????????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J73364 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

:)

Whoever wrote this just made my day :) PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Levels of WP/wikiverse addiction

Anyone who does the first few questions and then hops, skips and jumps through the rest does not have a problem. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me add something

-) 108.65.81.4 (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Portilex

What's a Portilex 360? 108.65.81.4 (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• It's a cell phone.

Pretty

Do you think this test looks more pretty? 108.71.120.176 (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Funny vs. unfunny

(copied from user talk page):

Thank you for taking some care of [[Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test. Of course, this is a humorous page, but part of the joke is you can really take the test. As I see, some IPs think it is funny to make the page unfunny. As a result, potential wikiholics will be turned away from the last help available for them. As a 'wikiholic dormant', I dislike the idea of turning this page into a pile of garbage. Would you like to continue keeping your eye on the page? For some time I toyed with the idea to request semiprotection for it, but I am afraid admins will not see to it seriously. Of course we may disagree on what is funny, but I feel we have a reasonably close understanding of what is idiotic. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It is difficult to judge what is funny and unfunny for the test since everyone has a different sense of humour. I do feel some of the IP edits are missing the point of the test such as by adding questions that have little or nothing to do with Wikipedia (or - in the case of 108.65.83.176 - repeating questions and extending the test's size to over a million bytes making it impossible for anyone to actually take like). I agree that the page could benefit from protection, although that discussion would be better located on the test's talk page. In the meantime, yes, I can continue watching the page. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree we cannot judge humour. However we can have an agreement of what is unfunny. For example, repeating the same joke with minor variation ("Joe comes into a bar". "Fred comes into a bar". "Bill comes into a bar") does not make people laugh, although some think it is funny to annoy people. I agree we have to judge relevance and common sense, just as everywhere in wikipedia. I am copying this chat into the article talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipediholism

I reverted all those edits 108.71.121.197 (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

:3

I got Pi. :3. Trajing (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 4 August 2013

Question

Is this not advertising Red Bull? Why not have something more generic - involving caffeine, very hot peppers etc?

This seems like a childish accumulation of memes and randomness. I understand this is a humor article, but please try to rework this to make people laugh. I'd suggest removing excess memes and unnecessary caps locks... -- May 4th 2015 –– ConcernedWikipedian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.164.236.203 (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions for adults.

• Do you use WP daily/more than once a week/more than once a month/more than once a year/you are allergic to it.
• Do you use it for research/fun/playing six degrees of WP separation/to confirm your sense of superiority/in a Red Room/instead of TV.
• You use it while having )hot drink of choice)/whenever necessary/whenever unnecessary/as a point of first resort/a point of last resort/to read the plot summary of any film or TV program you cannot be bothered to watch.
• You contribute error correcting and updating/daily docudump/things which are too good to waste but you have no actual use for/as part of a project/trying to get more edits or MP contributions than (someone else)
• You wish to be remembered for a million minor improvements/being banned/creating 100 useful stubs/1000 promptly deleted articles/correcting one blatant error.
• Do you ever edit other than under your WPname 'odd correction on IP/idiot computer signed you out/your name blocked/to look at things out of your ordinary fields/so you can argue with yourself. In the last case - who won?

Any more? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Automated version and upcoming revamp

Hey everyone! I'll be doing an overhaul and redo for this page in the up-coming weeks in an effort to fix the formatting flaws and improve the automated version of the page. If you skim through and see anything that doesn't look quite right, please do let me know. My plan is to create a template to use for the page that will improve the automated versions ability to read each line improve the result. Make sure you give yourself +5 eliteness and OVER 9000 points for any bugs reported! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

If you can get it to read Eliteness, you'd be unfreakingbelieveable, and earn 11 Eliteness which is ridiculous and not even funny. James1011R (talk, contribs) 06:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you prefer the post-RC test?

Apparently the test got reverted back to the Eliteness version (without the 10k scores). Do you prefer the current pre-RC version or the Post-RC version?

I'm for the post-RC version, though the scores clearly need cleaning up. James1011R (talk, contribs) 06:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Current, and the "automated" version will never support the RC version. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with the RC version? (hopefully not RC itself). James1011R (talk, contribs) 09:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• My updated opinion: I'm perfectly fine without RC (it was redundant anyway, RC could mean Redundant Coins instead of Rare Coins), but please keep the Eliteness Expansion, okay? (I'm the one who made the first edit involving RC - the original Eliteness Extras). James1011R (talk, contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the page is too long and redundant as it is. Because of that I oppose making it any longer or bigger until it is redone and trimmed. While it is on my list of things to do, if anyone wants to redo the whole page, I'm fine with that as long as the byte count is less than or about equal to what it is now. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Quixotic plea

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please consider reverting to the version from 10 years ago: [1]. No one can look at that version, look at the current version, and tell me the current version is better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• I oppose that idea, though we can keep a legacy version of the test for safe keeping possibly at WP:Wikipediholism test/legacy. James1011R (talk, contribs) 23:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• I second the idea to restore a usable version. Since this one is hijacked by people who have a... er... specific sense of humor, and serious wikipedians DGAF about this page, I suggest to create a new page, Wikipedia:Quick wikipediholism test. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support reasonable reversion, possibly with a little revision to bring it up to date. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support, right now it's stupid nonsense. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support, what I am going to say is what User:AmaryllisGardener exactly said. Angelo6397 (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, In all honestly the legacy version shouldn't replace the current version (really, what are you guys thinking?!). (only advantages are a non-inflated point system (infinities still exist there) and a early secondary point system determining likelihood of needing therapy (the secondary point system in the current test is Eliteness).). Don't revert, just keep for safe-keeping. James1011R (talk, contribs) 05:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, Staszek Lem had the best idea thus far: branch off the old revision as a "lite" or "demo" version of the test, with a hard limit of 200 questions on it, tops. --Koveras ^☭ 06:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for no particular reason, at least not other than that the two are so radically different that they can safely coexist. I do like the current one better. Also, wondering why I was "invited" to join the discussion. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 06:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support, the present test is rather off-putting and completely unfunny. Staszek Lem's suggestion also seems a good compromise solution. Constantine ✍ 06:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support, the present test is a complete mess with zero usefulness and in completely bad taste, apparently created or ruined by vandals. I mean most of the questions are insults in disguise. ("Get the hell out!!", "Go to bed already!", "Liar! you would have to use at least 14 computers a day!", etc.). I came across this debacle a couple years ago but could not understand what the hell I was supposed to do with it (most of the answers have negative scoring, which doesn't make sense on a test with no software to compute the final score). PLEASE restore the original 10 yr. old version. Its really much more usable and somewhat "wikified" .. to use that word liberally. Wonderfl ^(reply) 07:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose but only if both are offered for people to choose. To me there is no fun in the newest version, which surely was part of the old. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support, the present test can move to another page called Wikipediholism test/Humorous version or Wikipediholism test/Funny version or something. Let the 10 yr. old test be restored into this page because it makes a large degree of sense, while the present test is absolute nonsense with its eliteness score and astral/supernova/galaxy stuff. Wonderfl ^(reply) 07:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Wonderfl: you already supported the idea... Epic Genius (talk) ± 12:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support, current version just looks silly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support followed by a bit of minor updating like removing the reference to "your expensive CD-ROM encyclopedia". What we have now is stupid. Stupid as a stone that the other stones make fun of. So stupid that it has traveled far beyond stupid as we know it and into a new dimension of stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid cubed. Trans-stupid stupid. Stupid collapsed to a singularity where even the stupons have collapsed into stuponium. Stupid so dense that no intelligence can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot summer day on Mercury stupid. The current page emits more stupid in one minute than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. It cannot be possible that anything in our universe can really be this stupid. This is a primordial fragment from the original big stupid bang. A pure extract of stupid with absolute stupid purity. Stupid beyond the laws of nature. I must apologize. I can't go on. This page is my epiphany of stupid. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support I think the old revision is better, because it was much MUCH more clearer than the current revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crab rangoons (talk • contribs) 20:41, 23 May 2015

I went ahead and restored the old page, and a couple of editors have fixed some of the obvious problems. I still think it could do with some serious cutting down. 200 questions are a bit much. I say shoot for roughly 100 total, keeping the best ones. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I was looking up carbonate and found a message on my talk page directing me here. I seem to have arrived too late to make any difference, but I agree that lots and lots of questions aren't a good idea; experience elsewhere has taught me that humorous lists lose their appeal when they get too long. ekips39 (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I also heeded the message on my talk page too late, and would just like to add my support for Guy Macon's proposal to keep it around 100 questions or 15 minutes. APerson (talk!) 18:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, I think it should be about 100 questions. If you need the old version, it should be archived or placed in a sandbox of the page so that it can be accessed. – Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support whatever version gets me the most points. FWIW, I've been indef banned more times than I can count (yet I'm Still Alive!), and I once received a 24hr 3RR block because otherwise completely different revisions shared a single comma. And I was polled to come here! That should get me points too!! :p – Kendrick7^talk 23:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose i personally think this old version is AWFUL compared to the current one, and should be changed back. BJohnsonJ1 (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Bring back WP:Wikipediholism test/The ridiculous version here. The fact that people want to strip the legacy version even further is evidence that this no longer qualifies as a humor page. James1011R (talk, contribs) 01:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – As mentioned above, there should be the opportunity to be able to take the legacy tast, and the modern one. To me, the point of this test is to check wikipediholism, which has evolved over time. As such, the questions will change. I'm not vouching for all the questions on the current test to remain, but the humor on the legacy test can get stale, and the page inherently encourages change and evolution. On the main page, discuss the topic and provide links to /legacy and /modern. Ramos Can't hear you, TYPE LOUDER!! 16:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: As someone who was not even a Wikipedian ten years ago, I don't really care for the differences. BTW, I liked the old version better than the older version, but I guess we can go with what is practical. Epic Genius (talk) ± 12:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Well, if you ask me I think the older one was simpler. And that's all. DtwipzBchat 14:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: The L2 test would be better, one edit of it is here: L2 Test The bonus questions (an L1 thing) can be added if you want. However, my position is that the L3 test (Eliteness) is the best, and that the L4 test (RC) got out of hand. James1011R (talk, contribs) 02:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support: This version of the Wikipediholism test is too complicated and very difficult to follow. Some people might not like to do the current one because tl;dr. The old version makes it easier to follow because you can write down the question number that he last finished. Gcjdavid (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Split make two separate pages, the 10yo version called the simple version, or calling the current version the complete or in-depth version, that way both types can be used. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Question

I think that their should be a question that states, "Have you ever been late to work because you found something on Wikipedia that needed immediate fixing?".

Daylen (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder if there's A relevant xkcd...

Horst.Burkhardt (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

accusations of wikipediholism-denial , plus suggestion about a possible fork major rewrite

Ping User:APerson about this.[2] There is no such thing as 'current' wikipediholism, see step one. While it is true that editicountitis is a clinically-distinct condition from wikipediholism, they are tightly intertwined. The removed questions are strongly indicative symptoms of wikipediholism (hence their large score-values), and ought to be retained. While it is theoretically plausible that someone with only five edits might be a wikipediholic, under the born-not-made-a-wikipedian school of thought, in practice actual evidence of wikipediholism is tightly tied to high edit-counts, and barring intervention wikipediholism leads directly to high edit-counts. Removing the questions related to these high-correlation symptoms seems like denial to my wiki-eyes.

  Hmmmm... on second thought, leave them out. It's funnier to pretend that wikipediholism is only defined by recent actions. Suggest revising the rest of the questions, so that all have-you-ever-done-X questions are changed to be have-you-done-X-in-the-last-month, instead. Example-revisions of the first ten questions, along these lines:

classic-wikipediholic test (status quo)	points	current-wikipediholic test (proposed major rewrite)	points
#1. Do you typically use Wikipedia at least once a week?	(1)	During the past 40 days and 40 nights, have you... ...used Wikipedia at least once a week?	(1)
#2. Do you typically use Wikipedia at least once a day?	(2)	...used Wikipedia at least once a day?	(2)
#3. Do you typically use Wikipedia for more than an hour a day?	(4)	...used Wikipedia for more than an hour per day?	(4)
#4. Is more than 60% of your time online spent at Wikipedia?	(10)	...spent more than 60% of your time online at Wikipedia?	(10)
#5. Did you stop using your printed encyclopedia and used this one instead?	(2)	...used another encyclopedia? for a purpose other than improving Wikipedia?	(-5) or (-10)
#6. Did you throw away that encyclopedia?	(2)	...personally possessed, or via someone in your household, another encyclopedia?	(-20)
#7. Do you start new articles?	(2)	...started a new article?	(2)
#8. Do you hook up to Wikipedia over a public wireless Internet connection?	(2)	...used Wikipedia over wifi/wireless in public?	(2)
#9. Do you edit Wikipedia articles while over such a connection?	(4)	...edited?	(4)
#10. Is that connection in a restaurant?	(6)	...in a restaurant?	(6)

Most of the changes to the prose are minor, but questions #5 and #6 are significantly modified: instead of asking whether you, at any point in your life, threw away your printed encyclopedia(s) in deference to wikipedia, the question becomes an in-the-now question: if you have possessed, within the past thirty days, a print encyclopedia of any description, you are not 'currently' a wikipediholic, unless your other scores outstrip the associated negative-score.

  Now, although the prose might not change significantly, I do note that the *scores* on the classic indef-wikipediholic test will be dramatically different from the scores on the proposed in-the-now-wikipediholic test. In particular, the questions removed by User:APerson become very different: "Have you made more than 1,000 edits on wikipedia? (15 points) ...5,000? (35 points) ...10,000? (50 points)" Which would become: "During the past 40 days and 40 nights, have you... made 1000+ edits on Wikipedia? (15 points) ...5,000? (35 points) ...10,000? (50 points)" Since very few people consistently average 25 edits per day, we will probably have to add some questions that give you five points for making 100 edits in the past 40 days aka an average of 2 or 3 edits per day, and 10 points for making 500 edits in the past 40 days aka an average of around a dozen edits per day.

  So maybe, to preserve the validity of scores on the classic-test, the best option is a WP:POVFORK into a separate in-the-now-test? But a single unified article, wherein we collaboratively work out the differences between the there-is-no-such-thing-as-current-wikipediholism faction, and the wikipediholism-is-defined-by-recent-actions faction, into an NPOV set of questions which best reflect the sources, is prolly more copacetic to The Mission hereabouts. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. You raise a lot of great points. While editing this test, I certainly never intended for the test's primary purpose to be, well, an actual test. I feel like the test works much better as a sort of joke "You know you're addicted to Wikipedia when..." page, where people put things that they feel define Wikipediholism, and as a repository for Wikipedia in-jokes. If, in the process, we make a test that measures something, that's just a bonus. For instance, I never had a good feeling about questions that are much more quantitative than qualitative, such as those that are based on total edit count.

With that in mind, I don't think the fork is a good idea because in my opinion, we can just have one test that measures how many in-jokes you get. APerson (talk!) 21:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Am embarrassed to admit that *I* use it as a test.  ;-)     For instance, I've never edited while in a restaurant, because I knew that would bump up my score!   But I can quit any time I want. Agree that a fork isn't super-useful. User:APerson, if we keep all the in-jokes on one page, though, should we segment some of the questions off into a subgroup, which are all prefaced with "In the last N days have you..."? Or instead, just add that preface to various specific questions, without re-ordering, where the time-related-point-valuation is most amusing? p.s. Having thought about it further, I now suggest we leave the edit-count-related questions out... and insert a new question, something like this: "Are you unhappy that your 10k+ edit-count no longer gives you 50 points, in this revised version of the test? Bazinga!"  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I added a two-part question under the questions about watchlist-size.[3] Could also have put something along those lines under the existing "Or are you so proud of it that you retake the test every month to see how more addicted you've become? (10)" question, something like "Do you have issues with losing 50 points due to the removal of editicountitis questions, and thus no longer retake the test periodically?". 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Tiered quizzes?

I know this is a repost from the legacy talk page, but this is a proposal to tier the quiz into 4 or 5 quizzes.

First tier is "standard", the serious quiz on the main test page right now. Second tier is "legacy", the funny but not crazy quiz when it had Eliteness (the legacy page right now is awful and I plan to revert it to something funny). Third tier is "modern", the crazy quiz when it had RC (it actually did stand for Rare Coins, btw). Fourth tier is "beta", which will start as modern, but is where the controversial edits (Like Squid Points) should go. The optional fifth tier is "vintage", which is the quiz from like 2008 or 2009 or something.

That way you can select your own quiz. Standard is not necessarily the default quiz tier. James1011R (talk, contribs) 02:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether to give bonus questions point values

My opinion on this is that the nature of bonus questions is to not have attached point values, so I think point values don't belong on the bonus questions. Anyone else want to weigh in? (Pinging James1011R.) Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 03:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we probably need to rename "bonus points" into something else (e.g. Insanity) to prevent confusion, but this might turn into the next Eliteness. If the relative values need to be removed, the scoring board need not be removed (but need be redefined). James1011R (talk, contribs) 04:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Bonus points and other things

101.182.124.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I noticed that you recently reverted three of my edits with the edit summary "Reverted vandalism :)". It's my opinion that bonus points don't belong in that section because the entire point of that section is to not have point values. Would you mind clarifying your side of the argument? Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 04:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved; not a serious proposal. wbm1058 (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test → Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test/vintage – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. 108.65.81.121 (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Strong oppose Can someone block this guy already? S/he's been creating a great deal of disruption all over pages, such as Talk:Extended periodic table, Talk:Island of stability, Mediawiki talk:Bad image list, and the list goes on – not least through these fatuous move requests. Double sharp (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

---

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

What to do with L2

Should we level up to L2, keeping the bonus questions? Or should L2 shunt out the redirect to this test for Vintage?

Here is one revision of L2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipediholism_test&oldid=307851555

Currently the test is following L1 style, Legacy L3, and Modern L4. James1011R (talk, contribs)

I think you're proposing that we replace the current main version of the test (as it appears at WP:WHT) with the revision you linked to, but correct me if I'm wrong. Really, I don't feel strongly about it either way, but I still think keeping the test as simple as possible is a good idea, even though I do see the value (better organization, etc) in such an upgrade. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, or we could just put it as Vintage, I have no strong feelings one way or another James1011R (talk, contribs) 06:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Question 19~22

How should I answer questions 19~22 if I have never flown on aircraft? WeNeedWikipedia^{Leave a message on my talk page} 11:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

They should all be answered as "No". James1011R (talk, contribs) 22:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Get on an aircraft without internet (specifically with no access to Wikipedia), and if you experience withdrawal symptoms answer yes, otherwise answer no. Morphdog (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Updating to match current contexts

The questions revolving around editing using WiFi in a public setting are out of date IMO considering how common WiFi networks have become. Granted, this might not reflect a 100% world-wide view. Is this question still relevant? Myoglobin (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I only just read the Bonus questions and realized that this would score some extra points :) However, who updates the automated test whenever a change is made here? Myoglobin (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed new questions

• "Do you click on 'Random Page' to find an article to edit?" (2)
• "Do you click on 'Random Page' at least once a day to find an article to edit?" (3)

—DocWatson42 (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Losing a job

 I thought of a new question  - "Have you ever lost a job because you are spending too much time on Wikipedia?" and I would thought it would probably go best immediately after Question 59. I am not sure how many points an affirmative response to this question should get, though. Vorbee (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Negative Scores

What should we do with negative scores?

The lowest possible score currently is -40. The scoreboard bottoms out at 0, and the automated test couldn't grab the negative results when I had them up. James1011R (talk, contribs) 23:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Last row of results table, recently added

Couldn't decide whether to revert the most recent edit (adding a row to the end of the results table). Should it stay or not? AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Eh, it's fine. —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (^talk
_contribs) 21:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It would be good if somewhere in this article, we had explanations of what terms in the results analysis table mean, such as "You are a pro" or "You are a candidate for rollback rights". Vorbee (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test/Results

Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test/Results has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test/Results. Interested editors may wish to participate if they have not already done so. Thank you, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2019

Hello. I have an issue with this page, section “Interpreting your score”. Can you remove the bottom category and turn “1001-5000” into “1001-2605” in the category above that? 183.192.60.94 (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC) P.S. Add the following questions: “Do you wear glasses because of short-sightedness(5)”

“Only because of Wikipedia?(100)”

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Minus sign and automated test

The "true minus" (−) prevents the questions from showing up in the automated test, unlike the "Hyphen-minus" (-) which works properly. James1011R (talk, contribs) 20:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Only eight points for 1000 items in the watchlist?

Appears a bit too low to me. --Handroid7 (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out to me, and i recalculated the points for those questions based on the number of items (10 for 100, 100 for 1000 etc). welcome to the fam (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Restructuring of the page

I feel like this page needs to be restructured. The modern and the legacy version split the entire quiz into sections (music, technology and so on.) But the proper version of the quiz doesn't. So to bring it in line with what I think is a proper quiz, we should take the entire quiz, and then sub-divide it into sections like I described earlier. Would people be happy, and would it be a good change made in good will to the page? welcome to the fam (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've made a draft of the new design, and it is very simple (with only 2 sections and 1 subsection with the latter section) with questions being split into Offline (questions that don't require you to be online to do them (e.g: "Have you ever thought about the social impact of Wikipedia?")) and Online (questions that do require you to be online to do them (e.g: "Have you ever edited an article on Wikipedia while paying long distance charges to connect to the Internet?" with the sections being divided further into things you can do Wikipedia, and things that require you to be online, but not on Wikipedia)). This is a very early draft of the project, so questions will be juggling around the two sections. The link is this snazzy line of blue text. welcome to the fam (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Automating the test

Somebody with the ability to do so could prove themselves an irredeemable wikiholic by writing a challenge/response function, so that the user can just answer the qvestions without having to keep a running total off-screen. Even more clever would be to scan the users edit history and pre-complete some answers. --Red King (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

See question 157 in the test. Happy Festivities! // J947 ^(c) 19:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@J947: So obviously I failed the test (as if!) by giving up long before getting that far. :-) My compliments of the season to you too. --Red King (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, they thought of this

Yes, I freaking am. I noticed that, and thought that it's a bit odd for the test, then saw this question, scrolled halfway up, and then remembered the prior. Yikes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAKinsey (talk • contribs) 19:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I request a reconsideration in "score interpretation"

Due to quarantine, It is well expected to have a significant rise in users average score, soon to have many users promised to be candidates for adminship! I hereby request a reconsideration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matingholami (talk • contribs) 18:58, April 15, 2020 (UTC)

This quiz is labelled at the top as a joke so you probably shouldn’t take your score too seriously. Also, if you’re looking to increase your score, I suggest increasing your mainspace edit count or signing your posts with ~~~~. And it looks like this comment was your second edit, so welcome! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Joke

True Wikipedians won't take this test because editing Wikipedia is addictive while taking this test is such a bore. :)-- Enjoyer of World (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Uhhhh

When I took this test myself, there were three more sections; interpreting your score, see also and bonus questions. Now they can only be viewed in the editor, and Users taking the test won't be able to add up their score. I tried a couple different things, but it's not working. Heeeeeelp! Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

And even though I don't actually speak French or Spanish, it seems fine in those versions. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)