Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Repeated questions

Is it really necessary to have 27 friggin questions asking "have you or do you want to edit this quiz for personal gain?" No, it's not, and it was quite annoyingly retarded. It would be nice if someone would go through and remove the other 26. After the 15th one I was ready to just stop. Search4Lancer 23:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Why can't you do it yourself? User:Crocker 17:33, 7 January 2006

Maybe he was afraid his Wikipediholic score would go down ;-) llywrch 23:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Qwertysoup

Qwertysoup (talk · contribs · count) recently put his name at the top of the Top 20 Scores list with 1,595.37 points with the comment "I used a calculator on manual test. Hang on - 1529? I'm off to the Wikiclinic. (Re-checked and had to add 66.37 more points!)". I am a bit concerned about this score. The user has 79 edits and has been here since the start of December 2005. Sure, the user may have edited under IP address before, but I certainly find this strange. I didn't want to remove his "score" from the list just yet, as I would to find a general feeling about this first. Additionally, he created this RfA which for the benefit of non-admins included the following text:

{[subst:RfA|User=Qwertysoup|Ending=14:11, 13th January 2005 (BST)|Description=Nominated myself because I feel I wuld know exactly what to do as admin - I have had three sites and been admin on 5 forums. Qwertysoup 14:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)}}

with spelling mistakes, Wiki-markup errors... What does everyone else think? →FireFox 17:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you asked me to comment here FireFox, I will. I personally think that he just thinks it's a discussion forum used to self-promote himself. Most contributions are edits to the Wikipedia:Hangman and Wikipedia:Sandbox. One case of vandalism to a user page is recorded inside his contributions. I think his message at The Confessed Wikipediaholics talk page saying that "I am the Champion" is a dead give away that he did this to advertise himself. — Moe ε 20:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks fake. I've got 3300 edits across namespaces, around for some time, and I sturggled to get into the 600s. I wouldn't be on the list if it weren't for the CNN question, so someone with <100 edits and user for 6 weeks surely cannot get more than about 300. Sceptre ^(Talk) 21:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of the decimal values add up to exactly .37. æle ✆ 22:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I say remove it from the top 20 list and let it be. It really isn't important who has what score. -- — Essjay · Talk 03:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I didn't cheat or edit the test, there is nothing to stop somebody, and he very well may have cheated and/or edited the test just to get that score. --tonsofpcs _(Talk) 05:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt very much that a person with these kind of numbers can actually have such a high score. Furthermore, it looks very suspect that fact that Qwertysoup does not provide any information about any possible previous edits, maybe with just an IP number or anything else. Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 15:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well Cool Cat removed his name from the list anyway. Thanks for all your opinions. →FireFox 17:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did he remove his score..? -MegamanZero|Talk 17:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It was pretty obvious that the score was put there to make himself look good... read the discussion above. →FireFox 17:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh...my mistake. I thought you referring to Cool Cat taking his own score off the list. -MegamanZero|Talk 17:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, my fault, I didn't make myself very clear. →FireFox 17:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Has anybody asked this user whether he had a previous account or that he had edited as an IP before? I think such a score is plausible even if unlikely for such an inexperienced(?) user. I would rather be sure before taking such drastic action. I have asked him. Let's see what he says.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You might be right, but the very fact that the user never showed up in the discussion is a clear evedence that he/she does not follow actively Wikipedia. I personally watch all the pages I edit, especially the important/interesting ones. Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 16:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he didn't know of this discussion because he hadn't watchlisted this page. I myself don't watchlist all the articles I edit because I like to keep my watchlist clean (I only add the articles which I have created/heaviliy edited or some very interesting articles like this on and WP:MIND)--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering his comment "I am the Champion" after he "took the test" I had to assume the worst, that he was just promoting himself. The only other edits he has are edits to the sandbox and to Wikipedia:Hangman, and one case of vandalism. — Moe ε 18:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Fake or real?

Hi everyone, even though I merely have 800 edits I can tell you my test was not a fake, it surely is incredible, though. Second thing: among the things I ticked almost none of them were done just to raise the test's score. Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake, I'll report the discussion I had with SWD316 to make it clear

Qwertysoup

Hi there Pain, Im Moe Epsilon. I would like for you to join in of the conversation about the above user at Wikipedia talk:Are You a Wikipediholic Test about his possible fake score on the test. I contacted you because you were one of the top scorers on the test, so you could probably tell if the score is fake or not. We would appriciate your input. — Moe ε 21:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I think you might have misunderstood me. I don't think your score was fake at all. It was Qwertysoup's score I was talking about. — Moe ε 23:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, my bad. I read too fast and not concertated. Everything cleared, I'll check that out now and answer in the relative page. Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 15:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My goodness. Has any one seen his userpage..? Its saturated with userboxes. Ms. Martin would faint. -Zero^Talk 17:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that his userpage has lots of userpages may strengthen the fact that he is familiar with Wikipedia (since he knows how to use templates). This should in no way be considered vandalism (incredulous look at MegamanZero) because, in case you didn't know, a user can do anything he/she likes with his/her userpage.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Now don't put words in my mouth. I never insinuated it being vandalism, I am just flabbergasted at the ammount of userboxes on his page.. And just because he has a expodential number of userboxes, does not mean he is familiar with wikiepdia. And, yes, I do know you can do what you please with your userpage (to an extent), and I don't know what the "incredulous look" was for; my userpage has userboxes that actually devulge useful information about me, whereas some of his border on ridiculous : "Just because I think everyone is trying to kill me doesn't mean they aren't. You know what I mean?" is one of his many crazy userboxes. Also, I noticed he still has that fake wikipediaholic scorebox on his userpage, but I suppose its up to him if he doesn't want to be honest. -Zero^Talk 15:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, maybe you didn't say that it's vandalism over here, but your edit summary while leaving the message certainly led me to believe so. The incredulous look was because of that edit summary. Moreover, a person can do anything they want on their userpage, and I don't think there are any extents as to what a person can do on their page. However, I still do not approve of his keeping the fake wikipediholic score on the page, and maybe you're right: knowledge of templates doesn't necessarily mean knowledge of wikipedia (since he may have copied them from another user's page).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My edit summary was a tongue-in-cheek mentallity, so to speak. Anywho, regarding userpages, when I say "to an extent", I mean we can customize them, plaster them and pretty much just be more liberal than with an article. But in the end, its still not "ours", its property of the wikipedia foundation and if they don't like something on there or if it clashes with policy, etc. then they have say so to remove it or edit it. See this for a example situation: [1] -Zero^Talk 16:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. However, please refrain from making such comments about unproven vandals, lest some user take it literally.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm rewriting the Wikipediholic test by dividing it into sections to make it easier to take it and keep track of your score. Anyone wanna help me think of the sections? —Ilyanep (Talk) 17:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• When and where you use Wikipedia
• What you do on Wikipedia
  • Page creation
  • Home page
  • User status
• How Wikipedia affects your life
  • Sleep patterns
  • Social problems
• Test meta-questions

Just some general ideas. æle ✆ 20:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good...I'll work on it tomorrow :) —Ilyanep (Talk) 22:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Reformatted top 20

I've reformatted the top 20 scores section, so that the markup isn't as cumbersome and numbering is automatic. æle ✆ 21:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It is okay, but I think the oringinal version looks neater and more appealing. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

.....So I changed it back to the infobox. :) -MegamanZero|Talk 18:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Concern

I added a couple questions to the test; I was telling a story in IRC and they said "You should add that to the test." Anyhow, having not taken the text version before, I totaled my score up, twice, and I get 1317.50. I'm not adding it to the matrix at the moment, because, well, I'm a bit concerned that it may be a sign of a need for therapy. Why is it that there is such a divergence between the two tests (my automated score was 675)? Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The automated is very out-of-date right now. æle ✆ 14:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah ha. So, should I consider that score to be correct? And if so, do I perhaps need to increase my medication? :-) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 14:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you wish. I will be the first to welcome you to the upper echelon of Wikipediholics with a score of over 1,000. æle ✆ 17:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who really needs help. *See Top 20 scores* — Moe ε 02:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewritten

Alright, I'm done. Feel free to remove really stupid questions, and move questions around in sections if you feel they should be elsewhere. Beware that some are follow-up questions that ought to remain with their parents. Now it should be easier to calculate questions because they're in sections though. — Ilyanep (Talk) 04:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone wanna make a new automated version now? (Beware, the automated pl script may not work, because one of the questions says "How many machines have you edited Wikipedia from...?" — Ilyanep (Talk) 04:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Since I now have some web hosting space, I turned the script into a CGI that downloads the current version of the test from Wikipedia evert time you view it, which means that the test should never be out of date. I updated the links on the page to reflect the autotest's new home.

There are still some drawbacks to the automated test:

• It only reads integers, so those fractional values get rounded.
• No open ended questions, e.g. "2 points for every Recent Changes you have bookmarked"
• Some weird numbers mess up the calculator; I got a score of over 20,000 because one question has 643534E10 or something for a point value.

I may address these issues at some point in the future, especially the first two, but for now, well, here it is.

Merphant 09:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You are now officially a wikipedia semidemigod :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Automated Inaccuracies

I do believe something is wrong with the automated test as it reads me having a score of 28876, and i do believe i stopped shooting up wikipedia a few weeks ago... SlimXero 07:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at Merphant's comments above. æle ✆ 21:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mistake with automated version

The automated version gives 25 points for questions worth .25 points. Can someone fix this? Evan Robidoux 15:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, "someone" has fixed it. :) The automated test now handles fractional values like 1.15, 0.3, and .25 Merphant 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

High Score

I just scored 1125.61 on the test. Is that bad thing? --TD 12:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. :) æle ✆ 23:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

oh yes...all very humorous

especially the trivialisation of OCD at the bottom. ha! ha! crippling psychological conditions are 'musing! it has to go.{{subst:Unsigned|

Please sign your messages. Thank You! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Fake score?

I think that Prin's recent post in the Top 20 scores section may be fake for the following reasons:

• He changed 1st to winner, maybe he's trying to promote himself.
• He has just a 0.01 difference from the user who previously was 1st
• He seems to think it as a prize: I'm so cool and I'm so special! Wow! as he says

--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 09:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. -Zero^Talk 09:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Again

Is User:sabertiger's score fake?--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Very Old Version

That links to a very old version of the test. The modern version has changed so much. AstroHurricane001 17:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Leidiot

I believed Leidiot scored 877 fore the test and his name was removed. Could someone clarify the ranking table. Thanks. --Terence Ong 11:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization II

I've shuffled around, deleted, and added a lot of questions; introduced new categories; added sub-questions (with bullets); and brought the bonus questions back to no point value. I might have missed some stuff; feel free to fix it. æle ✆ 2006-04-28t22:14z

I'll go over it. You can see my version at my user page. Freddie 01:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You can make sub-questions work with the automated test generator by replacing

\s*<\/li>$

on line 32 with

\s*(<\/li>)?(<ul><li>)?$

Here's a patched version to test with. Don't hammer my poor server too hard. Note that it uses a different page so that Merphant's automated version doesn't get messed up. æle ✆ 2006-04-30t13:31z

I've applied your patch to the toolserver version, but haven't tested it, since it seemed to work fine on your server. Let me know of any problems. Merphant 03:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not logical

I had, for instance, a lot of ones and twos, and a twenty five and a eighty, but it only added up to sixtyfour. Shouldn't it have added up to at least over 105? MorwenofLossarnarch 17:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the test was playing tricks on you... Porphyric Hemophiliac § 16:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Here's what happened to me:

The page cannot be displayed The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.

---

Please try the following:

Click the Refresh button, or try again later.

If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.

To check your connection settings, click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options. On the Connections tab, click Settings. The settings should match those provided by your local area network (LAN) administrator or Internet service provider (ISP). See if your Internet connection settings are being detected. You can set Microsoft Windows to examine your network and automatically discover network connection settings (if your network administrator has enabled this setting). Click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options. On the Connections tab, click LAN Settings. Select Automatically detect settings, and then click OK. Some sites require 128-bit connection security. Click the Help menu and then click About Internet Explorer to determine what strength security you have installed. If you are trying to reach a secure site, make sure your Security settings can support it. Click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options. On the Advanced tab, scroll to the Security section and check settings for SSL 2.0, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0, PCT 1.0. Click the Back button to try another link.

Cannot find server or DNS Error Internet Explorer F. Yupigo 20:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's good now. Maybe it was because I opened it in a new window... F. Yupigo 01:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you two both talking about my version? I haven't changed the scoring logic a bit from Merphant's version... the DNS errors are not good, however. Can you try again, Fredil, and see if you get the same error? æle ✆ 2006-04-30t23:19z

Wait, that wasn't the automated version. That was what I got with the normal version. When I tried the automated one, It wouldn't work when I pushed the the 'add score' or whatever it said. Bye! MorwenofLossarnarch 17:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Automated test on toolserver

Anyone interested in getting the automated test on the toolserver? :) æle ✆ 2006-05-04t23:05z

I just applied for an account; watch this space for updates :) Merphant 01:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: I got an account on toolserver and the test should be up and running there. I just updated the links on the article page. Merphant 03:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fake score?

Unisouth - is that a real score?

Given his record and my dealings with him recently, I would say it's a fake.

I agree. That has to be fake. That's about the max score, and wouldn't we have seen him in the list earlier with a lower score? You don't become THAT addicted THAT quickly. Kris18 19:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Calculated, his score is not possible. I removed it and replaced it with my own score, which actually happened to be the highest on the list. By the way, after seeing this score, I think I'll take a break from Wikipedia. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 01:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Unisouth's score is definately fake, but he's displaying the userbox on his userpage. Is he allowed to do that? --sonicKAI 15:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he can...it's his user page, so he can do basically anything. Oh well...we all know better. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 16:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, PHDrillSeargant's score seems pretty unbelievable for a person with less than 500 edits, and who has just recently become (semi-)active.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Blame the spoon. I answered honestly. Seriously, All I ever think about is, "I should make an article on Wikipedia!" or "i wonder if that's already on Wikipedia!" or "When I get home, I'm going to revise some articles!!" Porphyric Hemophiliac § 20:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Toolbar markup, and bonus question point values

I don't think the toolbar markup questions belong, since any self-respecting Wikipediholic would already know them. The questions are therefore a little redundant. Bonus questions were intended to not have point values in the first place, since they might be repetitions or not really Wikipediholic questions at all. æle ✆ 2006-05-27t14:00z

Help with Updating Top 20

Hello, my name is Acelor, and I just scored a 1599.3909439082531 on the Wikiholic Test. I'm not very advanced in the wiki markup language, and hence I do not want to edit the Top 20 Scores for fear of deleting someone of the list. Would anyone be kind enough to put me on the list, and then leave the comment box blank so that I am able to edit that? Thanks, --Acelor 12:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

wait... you scored in the top 20 of Wikipedians, and you don't know any Wiki markup? hmm... LOL - Adolphus79 13:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I do know wiki markup, I'm just not a computer programmer in it. What I meant is that I was wondering if there was an easier way to putting someone in the Top 20 without having to manually move everyone down a space that scores below me. ;) --Acelor 13:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

just copy and paste aonther user's section, then replace your name and score, then change the ranks of everyone below you and delete #21... that's what I did... - Adolphus79 14:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

you're in... just add your comment... - Adolphus79 14:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

-Thanks Adolphus, it is appreciated. --Acelor 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, have fun and happy editing... - Adolphus79 01:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You know yer a Wikipediaholic if...

You know your a Wikipediaholic if...

• you take the test within 2 weeks of registering a user name, and scored in the top 20...
• then you added a question, and realized if you took the test again you'd get an extra 50 points...
• then while taking the Wikipediaholic test again, your neighborhood has a blackout, and that 50 point question saves yer arse...

imma geek... LOL - Adolphus79 06:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If you couldn't complete the test since you were too busy fixing articles and watching your watchlist. :P Yanksox 04:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a trick

This wasnt actually a nonexistant article. =({{subst:Unsigned|

Of course not. I already mentioned that on the test. Please sign your posts on talk pages. AstroHurricane001 23:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you cacluate your score

I don't understand how you caclutate your score. Do you need download somthing?--Scott3 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My script

It appears to cause more confusion, so, in the interest of simplifying things, it's now here:

Calculating your score

Digitalme has written a Ruby script to calculate your score based on a text file containing the points of your answers.

To use this script, create a text file like the following, consisting of the points from your answers, each on its own line.

1.43
34
5

Save it under any name and run the script:

ruby addiction.rb filename

On the file above, this would output

Total number of answers: 3
Score: 40.43

Source code for addiction.rb

file = IO.readlines($*[0])

total = 0.0

file.each do |item|
	total += item
end

puts "Total number of answers: #{file.length}"
puts "Score: #{total}"

Help Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My score!

I did the automated version of the wikipediholic test.My wikipediholic score is 1002206.505.I'm telling the truth. Should that mean I should be on the "Top 20"?-- Cute 1 4 u 21:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please Answer!-- Cute 1 4 u 08:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're not Jimbo Wales ;-) --PokeOnic  EMAIL  TALK  PKN  UNCY 00:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding it a little hard to believe "Cute 1 4 u" scored this high with less than 2000 edits (Kate's Tool provides no stats for this user & Interiot's editcount provides an outdated total of 113 edits, most of which are to user pages). As of this writing, this user is also banned for abusive sockpuppetting. I know the Wikipediholic Test is not meant to be a serious measure of a user's importance to this project, yet does this claim bother anyone? Should we remove "Cute 1 4 u"'s score? -- llywrch 18:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a lot of difficulty believing Cute 1 4 u also, Llywrch, especially as she's recently been blocked for wanting to vandalize other Wikis. I think it should be removed ASAP; it's not fair to others who are more obsessed (I guess... it's not exactly something to be excessively proud of). Srose (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And I got a score of 1010394.4411445194 (checked the I cheated on this test), so shouldn't I be on the top 20? Adam Bryzak 06:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's why I use the manual version. Someone should put a larger negative score for cheating on larger point questions. Maybe I'll do that (add a large negative score for cheating on larger point questions). By the way, the next time I take the test, I'll probably get a pretty high score. You should check the box for cheating on the Jimbo Wales question if you did. AstroHurricane001 23:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed StudentWarz's score...

I have removed the top 20 score of StudentWarz (talk · contribs · count), as he has 6 edits, 4 of which are to his userpage, and 2 of which are to this test and its related userbox.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 22:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonexistent?

This article is so nonexistent that it has caused universal laws to break down, resulting in the creation of itself, a nonexistent article that exists. superscienceman 15:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going crazy!!!! -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 22:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is because in the old version, it linked to a different link, one that really is nonexistent. AstroHurricane001 17:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid

I am really afraid to take the Test, as I am not sure of what it would reveal. --Bhadani 15:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Then by all means, take it! | AndonicO Talk 10:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Same questions

This test has many very similar questions or same questions just written in an other form, such as knowing a language better for Wikipedia or if you tried to provide edit summaries on non-Wiki websites. Should I just remove them? Well I can also mention it as a part of the test like the vandal nightmares question. Michaelas10 17:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

very funny

This is very funny.... --ajdlinux 23:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• I only scored 124.5, but I assure you I am most certainly Not "an IP address user or a sock puppet" ... I know, it's funny, shouldn't take humor so seriously (until I start Wikifying it ... muhuhuhuhuhahahahahaaaa!!!! --Bwefler 00:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding completely pointless questions!

No one has a million articles on their watchlist! Doing something before a certain age, protesting the above question, and getting in trouble are not wikipediholism!!! You cannot be kicked off the planet, and having wikigrandkids is impossible due to the age of wikipedia! I realize that this isn't really for real, but still, so many of the new questions are completely pointless!! Some questions no one can answer, others everyone can answer. So please, only add questions to the test if they will truly make it better!!! Thank you, Reywas92^Talk 21:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at your reversions, and I must agree, you do have a point. However, I still discovered mistakes in your reversions, and instead of reverting them, I posted the explanation in your talk page. Some of your reversions were pointless, like mispelling 'you' and removing dollar signs when they are needed. Please consider checking the mentioned mistakes in your reversions, and try to fix them if possible. Thank you. AstroHurricane001 23:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I must say, I don't exactly agree. The question about having a million articles on your watchlist was intended to be humorous instead of actually realistic, doing something before a certain age may be considered wikipediholism in light of the fact that most people that age do not engage in such pastimes (I realise I'm stereotyping here, but it's true that most of them don't) protesting the above question is wikipediholism because the protest is due to wanting to get more points, showing how seriously the person takes Wikipedia, and getting into trouble for the sake of going to Wikipedia (if I understand correctly, this was the context of the question) is wikipediholism because most people would recognise that the costs outweigh the benefits because of their differing sense of priorities. The question about being kicked off the planet was also humorous instead of realistic. The only part I agree with you about is the question about having wikigrandkids, as it is not likely that your Wikipedian children will break the Guinness World Record for the youngest mother/father. 218.186.8.12 10:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I recently added the dollar sign when it was needed. AstroHurricane001 21:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does having Wikigrand kids not make sense? Couldn't you have been a grandfather/mother before Wikipedia was started, and the kids start using Wikipedia as soon as it began? | AndonicO Talk 12:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

True. Littleghostboo[ talk ] 08:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Idea For A Question

This could be in the Social Life catagory...

• Do you think the song White & Nerdy is a biography of you? (10)

• ...And all the people you know? (20)

• Did you think these questions were biased toward nerds? (5)

I think it's good, how about you? --ASDFGHJKL 13:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I like them except the last one.. I'm not sure why I don't like the last one though. -- Zalethon (Talk) 17:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a nerd. I'm a dweeb, and a geek. incidentally, i got 4137 on the auto- doesn't make sense? im not that addicted, i dont even have that many edits...Gilgamesh Rex 10:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

New impossibly high score?

How did a non-Jimbo Person get a score of more than 1 million? I noticed the are you Jimbo Wales question was worth 1 million points, but there seemed to be no other questions worth more points. It also says if you lied to the Jimbo Wales question you had to take off 1 million and 3 points off your score. That is, unless if you skipped questions, including that one, so you only have to take off 20 points. I'd say, there are too many glitches in the test, in which it is possible to get an apparently very high fake score without much cheating. Maybe someone should check if this score is actually fake or real. AstroHurricane001 17:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. Perhaps more points should be removed for skipping questions, to prevent that? -- Zalethon (Talk) 20:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the "skipping questions" question, and agree that its negative score should be increased (or do you say decreased). | AndonicO Talk 12:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so I think the have you cheated and have you skipped questions questions' scores should have a higher negative score, especially if you cheated on a lot of questions. I tried to add more questions to give a larger negative score for those who cheated more, but my edits were reverted. By the way, how did you get such a high score? AstroHurricane001 18:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what if someone skips the "did you skip questions" question? Should we just assume good faith, removing impossibly high scores (like that new one I see there)? And, to answer your other question, let's just say I rarely spend less that 3 hours on Wikipedia, and sometimes more than 5. | AndonicO Talk 00:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If they skipped that question, they only save 20 points. Or maybe 40. Or maybe 90. Or maybe 190. Or maybe 5190. The thing is, they should provide a higher negative score for cheating, and provide even larger negative scores for cheating more. I tried to make higher negative scores for cheating more, but someone didn't like them and they were removed. They were not completely pointless questions, because it is neccesary to ensure real scores, even though the test is just a humour page. AstroHurricane001 13:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

But if someone is cheating, he would just cheat on the "are you cheating" questions anyways. | AndonicO Talk 14:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have some news. I took the test and cheated heavily, clicking on every positive question (exept the I am Jimbo) and skipping all the negative ones. My score? 18185.16114451915. Now that we know that Anthony either cheated, or was lucky to have taken a revision with vandalism, should we not delete his score? | AndonicO Talk 14:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think his real score is 8283.6762685193, because he probably cheated by adding 1 million points. If you take off the 1 million points, that is the score you get, and it makes more sense. AstroHurricane001 14:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

But if he cheated on one, how do we know he didn't cheat on more? 8000+ would take the top spot you know. | AndonicO Talk 17:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

automated test

Is it just me, or did I try 5 different computers and the automated test dosen't work. Why did the automated verson of this test dosen't work anymore?

PrestonH 22:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it links to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~merphant/cgi-bin/wikiholic.cgi. Is this supposed to be that way, or is it the V word. ;-) | AndonicO Talk 00:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Happened to me too. Littleghostboo[ talk ] 08:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll be checking the history on this test to see if the link of the automated test is the same as before. If it isn't, I'm going to change the links. Thanks for noticing.--PrestonH 01:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the link was the same before as of October 4th. I just don't understand why the link dosen't work anymore. Should we delete that link in the test?--PrestonH 01:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Maybe calling an administrator would be better. Is there any who works on the test? | AndonicO Talk 10:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that solution, but which administrator should we call to help with the link?--PrestonH 15:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I found one in the previous discussions: User:Llywrch. I'll leave him a message. | AndonicO Talk 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. | AndonicO Talk 21:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help AndonicO.--PrestonH 21:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I answered AndonicO's request on his Talk page here. How long has the script been broken? I haven't used it in over a year. -- llywrch 22:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well the link has been broken for a few weeks. I read your message and maybe we should call a person who knows how to program links. Thanks for your reply--PrestonH 00:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote the automated test. It should be working again now. If there are any further problems please let me know. Merphant 06:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I took the test Saturday, so it (obviously) was working then. Thanks to both Merphant and Llywrch for helping fix the link. | AndonicO Talk 10:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a new problem with the test. When I click on a link in the contents, it directs me to the Main Page. Alex460 03:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It works for me; it's probably been fixed. | AndonicO Talk 09:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

New High Score (9th)

How is it that a newbie (Infectious Trama) can get the 9th highest score? Doesn't that seem a little suspicious? Cbrown1023 19:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to this edit counter [2], he only has 69 edits (as of 20:40 UTC). It's very unlikely that he didn't cheat. And, now that we're talking about cheating, what about the other guy, Anthony, who claims to have both ODC and more than 1000000 points. I think a couple of people have been cheating. | AndonicO Talk 20:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Even though it is very unlikely that these people didn't cheat, it's still not out of the question. Although I don't think you can get more than 1 million points if you're not Jimbo, it's still possible to get a high score if you don't have so many edits. Your edit count doesn't take much effect on you score until you have more than 1000 edits. For example, my score rose over 700 when I had no edits, it rose over 1000 when I had a few edits, and it rose over 1600 when I had more than 100 edits. I'm not trying to increase my score anymore. Anyways, even though your score increases with your number of edits, your edit count doesn't affect your score that much. Maybe someone should check if the scores are possible, depending on what version they took. If the scores are found to be fake, maybe someone should put a picture of an elephant on their talk page and indicate it is the elephant award, for being so large on their score before getting removed/lowered (lol). AstroHurricane001 13:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How do we know what version they took? | AndonicO Talk 13:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have some news. I took the test and cheated heavily, clicking on every positive question (exept the I am Jimbo) and skipping all the negative ones. My score? 18185.16114451915. Now that we know that Anthony either cheated, or was lucky to have taken a revision with vandalism, should we not delete his score? _{I copied this message from above.} | AndonicO Talk 14:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed Anthony's ridiculously high score, as well as Darkness lord and Huntherd's lower scores. (They each had two spots in the top 20). | AndonicO Talk 17:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

What's the userbox for posting your test score if you aren't in the Top 20? Littleghostboo[ talk ] 08:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You have to write {{User Wikipediholic|4641}}. 4641 is my score; you have to write in yours instead of mine (unless they're the same). | AndonicO Talk 10:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Link

BTW why does the Top 20 link in the table of contents link to the Main Page? Littleghostboo[ talk ] 08:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I saw it too. | AndonicO Talk 11:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's only on the automated page where it jumps to the main page. Odd. Mkdw 02:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the address that appears in the bar at the bottom of my Internet Explorer window (don't know what it's called) is http://en.wikipedia.org/#Top_20 instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Are_You_a_Wikipediholic_Test#Top_20. Even so, though, it shouldn't link to the Main Page. Littleghostboo[ talk ] 08:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, clicking on the first link in my message above also takes you to the Main Page. Littleghostboo[ talk ] 08:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This problem was caused by a bug in the wikiholic.cgi script (or a bug in web browsers :); the HTML <base href="..."> tag prepends that URL to all links in the page, including internal links that start with a # sign, like in the table of contents. It should be fixed now; if there are any problems please leave me a message. Merphant 03:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

7th Place

I just took the automated test and it scored me quite high. I don't have that many edits, but I do read a considerable amount of articles and have only recently started becoming more involved in vandalism control, and contributing. I am wondering though why the high score list only goes up to 18? Technically couldn't someone with a score of 10 be on there somewhere or have you implemented a minimum. I have this page on watch. Mkdw 02:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I also thought adding a question about, if you hate the look of some userbox templates or other templates, do you create your own, would be a good question to included.

It only went up to 18 because I removed three scores. One was impossibly high for a non-Jimbo person(~1008000), and the other two were users who had two scores on the top 20, so I removed their lower ones. Since I didn't have any way of knowing who is 21, 22, and 23, I left them blank. Yes, someone with 10 points could have been #19, but they would have been quickly overshadowed. | AndonicO Talk 12:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's possible to find out the lower scores that used to be below 20. However it will probably still be difficult and time consuming, especially since the test is so frequently edited. To look for the previous top scores, look at the edit history for the previous edits. You'll then find it, unless it changed too much in about a week. AstroHurricane001 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Protesting questions

I think that protesting questions should have at least the same point values as the question it is referring to as otherwise it is not fair to Wikipedians who cannot honestly check the previous question and thus have to settle for fewer points by checking the protesting question. Littleghostboo[ talk ] 09:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, because not everyone can answer the question, but everyone can protest it. | AndonicO Talk 12:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

But the points gained from protesting the question do not compensate for the "missing" points not gained because the person cannot answer the question. For example, if a person has 10 points and moves on to the next question, which has a point value of, say, 2, if he/she checks the question he/she will have 12 points, but if he/she cannot answer the question and checks the protesting question instead, which has a point value of 1, he/she will only have 11 points, which is 1 point less than he/she would have gotten if he/she had been able to answer the previous question instead of protesting it. Littleghostboo[ talk ] 07:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me use the same example, only a bit different. Let's say most questions have protests, and they are worth just the same as the original question. There are 2 people taking the test. The first one cannot answer anything, but protests every question. The second answers everything, but gets the same score as the other person. Of course, if you can answer a question, you can still protest, such as in the felinic nature protest. You might have scared away your cat, but dissagre with the question and think that it should be for scaring away any pet. Another example, in case you need it. In tennis tournaments (in America at least), if you lose in the first round, you have a chance to go to "consolation", which is basically another tournament with all the first round losers. Do you think it would be fair if the winner of the consolation draw recieved as many points for the ranking system as the winner of the main draw? Therefore, I think that the protest questions are mainly for those who could not answer the main question; it would not be fair to give them equal points as those who could answer the question, and are truly Wikipediholics (not protestiholics). | AndonicO Talk 11:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, there are four possible scenarios: the person who answers the question, but doesn't protest; the person who doesn't answer the question, but protests; the person who does both; and the person who does neither. My original suggestion was mainly directed at the second scenario. I think that your second example does not accurately reflect the situation as all the first round losers did not lose because of circumstances, which is what happens to Wikipedians who protest a question without answering it (e.g. the person who is too young to have Wikipedian children). Littleghostboo[ talk ] 02:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Annoying thing at bottom

There is a little box at the bottom of this page that is about twice as far down as the bottom comment, and it is really annoying. I believe it is coming from the above Wikipedia talk:Are You a Wikipediholic Test#My script. Can someone please fix that so it doesn't sit way down at the bottom anymore? Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 22:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the box at the bottom right corner, just click show and it will be temporarily gone. AstroHurricane001 00:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but only temporarily. Reywas92^Talk 15:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone add me to the list?

I got a score of 1384.9409239082533. --Monkey 13!!! 02:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. --Monkey 13!!! 02:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is Monkey13 in the list? He got a score of 1384.9409239082533. Three other users called ken20008 (should be 20th), IAMTHEEGGMAN (should be 19th) and Mac Davis, (who should be 18th) had a score higher than 3000. I think someone should remove his score from the top 20. Thank you and sorry if I misused the language. Acs4b 04:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I got a 4137, but i don't feel that i deserve it? i didn't lie or cheat, but it just isn't logical... it's three in the morning here, so perhaps my brain is reverting to jelly.Gilgamesh Rex 10:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

actually a 4137.1022052041835 to be anal.Gilgamesh Rex 10:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A new high score

The No. 1 position has just recently been taken by User:Nsoltani, who joined November 2. Here is his/her edit count [3], which I find too low for the #1 spot. I'll remove the score, as it is obvious cheating. | AndonicO Talk 11:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

New 8th Place

User:MaraNeo127 scored a 6423.444021559283, but only has an edit count of 59 since September 2006, and only 8 edits on a mainspace. His entire profile was created on Oct 31, and 32 of 59 edits are to his userpage. I believe his score to be fake. 142.35.144.2 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales as a vandal!

Did anyone notice that if Jimbo Wales edited Wikipedia only to vandalize, the +1000000 and -1000000 would cancel out? Of course this would never happen, but still... Pyrospirit 02:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

So that's why he doesn't have the top score... ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposition

I was wondering if there's any way to check how many users have taken this test. If not, I think we should create a sub-page where everyone who does take it signs their name. If you think it's a good idea, please let me know. I wanted to ask first, because it might seem a bit contreversial if I just went ahead and added it. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There already is a self-scoring section at the top, although I don't think everyone who takes the test places their score there. However, if you do create a subpage, some users might decide to skip putting their name there after taking it. Since this probably won't be very accurate, if you're trying to take total, it's best to round the estimate up. BTW I have no idea how two peoplw got scores over 10000, so I guess it is possible. If everyone does sign, the list could get too long to read. Also, if someone with no edits and no account takes the test, and only visits wikipedia to look up information and not to edit, they might not put up their name either. AstroHurricane001 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that not everyone would sign (I didn't know about the section above). It would still be interesting to know how many people take the test though. Maybe there's a better way... | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fake Scores

Is anyone monitoring the top 20 scores? Two of the top 10 have an edit count under 140. Mkdw^talk 08:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

They should be removed, as it is unprobable that they are actually doing it right. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion? Ask them HOW they got their score. Go Futurama! Sp3000 10:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Option 1. = cheating

Option 2. = lucky that someone had vadalized the test

That is about it. If they really scored that high, let them do it again (to prevent against somone having vandalized). | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit count isn't a good measure of your how wikipediholic you are (if there's such a thing). If you have a low edit count, it doesn't really affect your score all that much. However, I find it hard to believe that those two could be real scores, since They have an edit count under 140. Even I have a higher edit count, and my score after registration was only about 1000-1700. Some people even wrote that they are going to be kicked off soon. There are two people on the list that scored higher than 10000, and it's quite possible because they slowly worked their way up the list. If the scores are fake, they should be removed. AstroHurricane001 22:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know the top 4 scores "slowly made their way up the list". This includes myself by the way. I entered the top 20 when I had about 200 edits, but I only needed about 1200 points. ~5000 points with the same amount of edits is unlikely. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 22:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It is unlikely that someone scored that high with only 100-200 edits. However, the test has changed a lot since then, and with the new questions, it's easier and more possible to score that high. Just several months ago, it was very hard to score higher than about 2000-7000. Now the test has "grown", and is quickly chaging. Scores that were once on the list are very quickly being dragged down the list. Even scores that were once truly 1st are now gone from the list. Despite what the test says, there is no "top 20 below" as far as I can see. I guess the only thing preventing this from being a featured or good article is because it's not encyclopedic and because it's so often edited, and that includes the supposedly "nonexistant" talk page. If the scores are not possible, they should be removed. AstroHurricane001 23:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Back to square one. Are they possible? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

An edit count is not that bad of an indicator of fake scores as many of the questions sometimes relate editing: Do you feel guilty about not having time to edit, Do you edit Wikipedia on a laptop, Do you edit over a wireless connection, etc. etc. Another indictation is how many messages they have on their discussion page. Someone with no messages on their discussion page or edit counts usually means its an empty account. Of course you can't prove that they're cheating, but I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all the legitimate entries usually have a high edit count, are involved in WikiProjects, archived discussion pages, elaborate signatures and userpages. Mkdw^talk 00:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The 1st spot has just been taken by User:DarkNova, who just suddenly appeared on the list and only has about 100 edits to date[4]. I find it hard to believe, and if this user did buy a Wikipedia t-shirt and did answer the question that was supposed to give him/her a spot on CNN, etc, that would only have added an extra 300 or so points, which is very far from the score on the list (~15000). Someone should check to see if this score is fake or not. AstroHurricane001 13:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Using Mkdw's method above, DarkNova would should not be able to get that high. I'll check his/her edit count later and then post here. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This user's editing seems to be mainly to userspace and talk. Here is the edit count.[5]. One thing that caught my eye, and convinced me of foul play, was that he/she has never had more than 50 edits in one month. Also, he/she keeps updating the wikiholic score. I removed this obviously fake attempt. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here}; 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

I created some new userboxes; they are in the Top 20 section. Tell me what you think. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I like them, but I must say that they are somewhat redundant, and that for the top20 template, over 50 users have it, making it quite untrue sometimes and outdated. Reywas92^Talk 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

But they are all former top 20s, which makes them elegible for the userbox. After putting it on their page, as long as they earned it, they don't have to take it off (IMHO). As for the redundancy, I know, but I thought it would be nice anyways. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

More question ideas

• Do you use wiki code in your edit summaries?
• ... in most of your edit summaries?
• ... in all of your edit summaries?!
• Do you write edit summaries that only consist of wiki code?
• ... and are more than one word?
• Do you tell people off-wiki to be "WP:CIVIL" stop making "WP:NPA"s?
• Do you consider any Wikipedia policy "Words to live by"?
• ... because you wrote the policy?
• ... or did you say no because you ignore all rules?
• Do you tell people jokes from Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense?

Does anyone else think the test should have these questions? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, they seem good; just go ahead and add them into the appropriate section. Remember, BE BOLD! :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking about more along the lines of vandalism and adminship. Go Futurama! User:Sp3000 10:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Infectious Trauma

Has anyone checked him/her lately? He/She has an edit count of 70-ish and has only edited 6 different articles. First edit was 30th July, has little over 20 UBX but then again...he/she is claimed to be dyslexic and has ADHD... Go Futurama! User:Sp3000 10:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, he/she got knocked off. Go Futurama! User:Sp3000 10:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

top 20

I got a score of 5715.97914898875.Paidgenius 18:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in!

For those who are skeptical about my 5808.747047072463 score, feel free to ask me all you want. Go Futurama! User:Sp3000 06:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking you anthing; you're fine. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding questions and making Top 20

I have noticed many times users adding questions and then adding themself to the top 20. Most of the time, it is okay, but the latest was outrageous. See these edits: [6], [7], [8], and [9]. The scores on the added questions are huge! Notice the difference between his the adder, Chrislk02's, scores: [10]. I changed the scores to something more reasonable. What should we do in the future about 'adding and winning'? Reywas92^Talk 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Reywas, I would first like to mention, I posted a message regarding this to your talk page. I also would like to note that all of the questions I added did not enhance my score. therefore, a better wikipediaholic, taking the test would have enhanced their score more than I would have! And, again, this test is for fun! If it would make you happier, I will take my score back down to 9th place or whever it was was before I added the questions. I however, feel that they were appropriate and the point levels were related to the level of wikipediaholicism. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded a little mean. You can keep your score up. Thanks for changing some of them down, but 79 for givng a reason in RFA is still a little too high. Reywas92^Talk 00:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever gone to an rfa and seen the number of support per or oppose per? I think it is perfectly valid for giving a good reason for the support or oppose. I will \change the question to reflect it a little better. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably have to check/edit the test sometime soon, but I don't have the time right now! I'm supposed to be on a partially nonexistant wikibreak! Anyways, I have other things to do on Wikipedia. AstroHurricane001 00:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Reywas that the scores Chris put in are way too high. I think that the questions should be brought down a bit (meaning a lot). I do admire Chris, as he had ~5000 edits one or two months ago. I do think he is one of the most addicted Wikipedians around. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And, I will not dispute, I may have got a little trigger happy throwing in the scores. However, I feel that the currently adjusted scores are more realistic. Maybye we should all have a look over the test and find any we think that are too high and start a discussion on appropriate point values etc. (hahaha, gotta make everything about consensus) -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, Why did User:Insanephantom just make about ten edits changing the scores to many, many questions that were mostly all minor point changes? Reywas92^Talk 20:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

To increase his/her edit count maybe? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Not to increase my edit count. I felt that some questions need an update because they gave out too many or too little points. I guess I should have updated it in one or two goes, but it's much easier to update each section individually because I often lose progress if something happens (eg. my computer crashes). Insanephantom 09:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, as I've seen people update outrageous no. of point questions, there were still some at the time. I don't really like those say, -50000 questions, even though that means a vandal because it's too excessive. Insanephantom 09:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm quite glad about what you're doing; I added a question for about forty points (something that I do), and you increased it to about 60. Usually, I edit the test while I'm taking it, that way, I can spot more errors. By the way, that question that reads "Do you pay a pastatute to suitly emphazi you?", does it mean "Do you pay a prostitute to simply (?) you"? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

How on earth is being a wikipediholic considered a win? :-P If people add stuff and get into the top 20 (of biggest losers ;-) ) , well, that's just wikiality for you. They deserve it! Kim Bruning 14:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC) <disclaimer> <- this user made it into the top 20 once too</disclaimer>

It gives you bragging rights. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 14:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiprojects or Wikipedia?

I'm having concerns with the question in "Who you are" 'Do you have a user account on several Wikiprojects? (3)' Is it supposed to be Wikiprojects or Wikipedias? Go Futurama! User:Sp3000 10:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to assume it would mean wiipedias. It would at least be clearer if stated that way. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 11:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedias. I thought it was already that way; perhaps it was changed. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

For this sort of question:

1. Do you typically use Wikipedia for more than an hour a day? (2)
   • ... more than two hours? (5)
   • ... more than four hours? (10)
   • ... more than six hours? (15)
   • ... more than nine hours? (25)

If say, someone uses Wikipedia for more than 4 hours a day but less than 6 hours, would they only tick the 'more than four hours' box or the first three? Insanephantom 09:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Good question. I'd say, if you edited closer to four, then four; if the time was more like six hours, then click six. I think we should add a 3, 5, 7, and 8, however redundant it may seem; it would clarify things. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant if I edited for 5 hours a day (not that I do), do I ONLY tick 'more than four hours', or do I tick ALL of them up to and including 'more than four hours'. So in other words, would I tick one box or three boxes? But I think adding 3, 5, 7 and 8 would be too redundant, and I would just leave it. Insanephantom 11:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about you, but I would probably click the 2, the 5, and the 10, IF I EDITED THAT MUCH, which I don't. This is because if they are all true, they would be checked. If you don't want that many points, then only click the 10. AstroHurricane001 13:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. That's what I done when I tried again today, getting a score of just over 2000 because of that... lol. Insanephantom 13:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to explain this on the top of the test page, to provide guidance for people taking the test and people editing the test. I thought it might be a good thing to take into consideration, since some questions might give you say, 50+100+150+200+250+300...etc points because you checked 6 boxes because all of them apply. Insanephantom 13:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a feature, not a bug! Encyclopedia editors need to be both pragmatic and pedantic. Those who are true wikipediholics will therefore gain a much higher score than those who are merely visiting. ;-) Kim Bruning 14:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think however it is done, it should be universal. I think that the best way for it to be resolved is to click all that apply. That way, for us extreme competitors (heh heh) no one can "cheat" and get a higher score because they click all that apply, whist the rest of us click the addition of our hours (I clicked the 1hr, 2hr, and 4hr, and I get on about 4hrs a day. I guess that's how I got a 2,221. Then again, I have had an account for half a year.) Chrishyman 01:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

DarknessLord

I know it might seem bad that I removed DarknessLord's score to claim first, but he quit. See message on my talk page. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's in an archive now. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This test is long

Lol, this/these test/edits/questions/jokes/scores are hillarious! Looks like I will probably have to edit the test to make it even longer/ somewhat more hillarious when I get the chance/have more time/am off my semi-nonexistant wikibreak. This test used to not be very funny, but now it is because of its lengthiness. If this wasn't a joke, it would have a "this article is getting very long" tag. AstroHurricane001 00:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I have since included as question 1 whether you have actually completed the test. Managing to complete it all should be a measure of your level of addictiveness more than anything! LOL!--ToyotaPanasonic 11:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Who cares! The longer the merrier. :-D | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats what shehe/she said. lol. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

She?? Ok, bye, I have to go now. No, really, I'm not avoiding Wikipedia, I just need to take a break until tomorrow. AstroHurricane001 00:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Lol, that was fast. Ok, now I have to go. AstroHurricane001 00:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure you need to. lol. (...5 hours later, still editing). the irony, it is the talk page for the wikipediaholic test. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It will be really horrible when the test takes about 5 hours on the automated because it has thousands of question. (...groan... I'm the slowest test taker ever!! not kidding) Why1991 04:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the automated test already takes about four hours. :-( I did it the other day, trying to do something different; I'm cured now. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A little heavy on the /'s? But I do like the "have you already completed this test" question. Ha! Chrishyman 01:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Automated Script

Does anyone know where I might be able to find the script fot the automated version? I'm interested in using it for User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 02:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You can get the source here: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~merphant/wikiholic/ Merphant 08:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Size

Left question\statement on the Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholic page under same title. Simply south 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear!

Well, turns out I am a terrible Wikipediholic. I took the automated quiz for the first time and got a score of either 9226 or 9236, I believe, but unfortunately, I accidentally closed my browser and have lost my score. Since it took me a terribly long time to complete this, perhaps there is a way I can find that answer again?

Oh, and apparently, getting such a high score qualifies my position in the Top Twenty. Do I simply just write my name in its appropriate place, or are there more official channels which I should follow? Thanks! ~ Maximilli, 20:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't a way. You look like an addicted Wikipedian though (from your contributions :), so you can add what you think it was. No, there are no official channels, just add it in (use the preview button before saving, it gets confusing!). Also, just for the record, wikipediholism is not "terrible". :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 22:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, thanks! I suppose I'll put 9226, since that seems to ring a louder bell. :) And sorry that I gave that impression of my opinion on wikipediholism; I meant terrible in that, it's terrible I'm such a heavy wikipediholic when I have so much homework to do all the time instead. :D ~ Maximilli, 04:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you're forgiven. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 10:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)