Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test

This page was nominated for deletion on April 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Archive 1 (2006)
Archive 2 (2007)

Self-scoring

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

3038- well its not that bad! Sushant gupta (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm just 2299. At least my health has not suffered...that much!--Insane-Contrast 23:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
1193. There's something wrong with me! --Prong 19:27, 14 August 2006
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Now it's 161. Start prayin' for me, y'all. :-) Hermione1980 23:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
626 User:Rustalot42684
64 from automated --Dangherous 21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
312.27456789+6.67 E-34, and I've only been here for FIVE DAYS!!! Evan Robidoux 23:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (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)[reply]
- Jeez, I answered 100% honest and just got 1492.3286716360346 HK51 16:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I had a score of 920.3 and this is my first attempt.-152.15.101.33 17:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
681.8338439082531 Account is less than a month old I think? Danl 06:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
1094 - Again, I answered it quite honestly. AstroHurricane001 15:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
1031.44 - Phew! My score went down, because I wanted it to. AstroHurricane001 23:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I just retook it... 2063.645212776534, and I've been on Wikipedia nearly five months. I need professional help. --The Gr e at Llama ^talk 22:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1232.62 - My score rose again, and I answered it honestly. AstroHurricane001 19:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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[reply]
- 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?[reply]
  - 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[reply]
    - 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! Us e r:Sp3000 06:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
1989.3000000000002, automated test. :D Collard 14:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

2632.111 - Aerobird 01:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
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. A stroHur ricane 00 1^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 17:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. A stroHur ricane 00 1^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 18:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- AndonicO I loved you little story. Happy Editing again! Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 09:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Am I allowed to add myself to the 20 Top-Scoring Users? Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 09:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. A stroHur ricane 00 1^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 18:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
- That is a high score, is it not. Themcman1 15:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. A stroHur ricane 00 1^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 16:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. A stroHur ricane 00 1^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 16:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I remember when 53 was a high score.... æ ² ✆ 2007‑06‑22t03:50z
8973. ~Doggitydogs
Just had 3463!Princereyn 06:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7430 - Yay! It went down! I'm so busy! ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9066 - Wow. I need to get off the computer. After a few more minutes of course. ~A H 1^(TCU) 18:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~A H 1^(TCU) 23:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~A H 1^(TCU) 00:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12754 - Yeah, yeah, right. Obviously incorrect. There's still much to edit, of course. ~A H 1^(TCU) 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
90,006,017. :) -Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 22:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~A H 1^(TCU) 00:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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! ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~A H 1^(TCU) 19:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1998... now, anyway (automated) ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 20:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~A H 1^(TCU) 23:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5575, according to the automated version...--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~A H 1^(TCU) 21:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
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. ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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! ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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! ~A H 1^(TCU) 20:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This time I got 882. That's more like it! Smartguy777 (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
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. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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!!! ~A H 1^(TCU) 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~A H 1^(TCU) 18:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~A H 1^(TCU) 00:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22255 (automated r225264071 with manual correction for 'add n for each') --tonsofpcs _(Talk) 02:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1889 Wow that's a lot more than I expected i'd get... Zsaberslash (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for the test

It was here a question:

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:

- ... 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Too long

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

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 Hitc hh ik er 06:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Hitc hh ik er 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

semi=protect

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

Lu na ke et 14:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 shold be 100. :) -- WonRyong (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Willy on wheels

So what did he do and why is he banned? Is it because he has a weird user name? Seriously, get me out of my misery. SholeemGriffin (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grawp is funnier. 12.20.35.99 (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]