Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test

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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)