Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 This test is long 2 Automated Script 3 Size 4 Oh dear! 5 Weird Questions 6 Score 7 Adding strange scores 8 Short automated version a con! 9 "non"existent article 10 Automated Version "per" 11 mechanics? 12 Score! 13 1grlrevolution 14 One giant leap (the only serious thing here) 14.1 Requested move 14.1.1 Survey 14.1.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 14.1.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 14.1.2 Discussion 15 Ellomate 16 folagi 17 Humor template? 18 N8Stauffer 19 More fake scores 20 About time to archive 21 Size 22 Am I addicted? 23 The Test 24 Scoring 25 Is the automated version messed up? 26 We shouldn't have shortened it 27 I scored 766--Harlequin12 01:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC) 28 Top X userboxes 29 Hide the scores??? 30 About Adding Questions 31 Where'd the Top 20 go? 32 Lowest score 33 My score... (And a thought) 34 -20 for a Barnstar 35 10-point test 36 vandalism question vandalism 37 sERIUS ISSUI 38 Was this just me? 39 Old Questions 40 Recent edit

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)

Weird Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Score

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

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

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

MacGuy 16:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding strange scores

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

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

Short automated version a con!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"non"existent article

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

Automated Version "per"

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

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

mechanics?

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

Cheers,

RelentlessRouge 05:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Score!

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

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

1grlrevolution

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

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

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

One giant leap (the only serious thing here)

Requested move

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

Ellomate

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

folagi

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

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

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

Humor template?

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

N8Stauffer

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

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

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

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

More fake scores

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

Are you Jimbo Wales? (1000000)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings Smcafirst!

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

About time to archive

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

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

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

Size

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

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

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

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

Am I addicted?

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

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

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

The Test

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

Scoring

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

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

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

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

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

Is the automated version messed up?

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

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

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

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

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

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

We shouldn't have shortened it

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

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

Huh? How many questions were there? ~Doggitydogs

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

I scored 766--Harlequin12 01:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Top X userboxes

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

Hide the scores???

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

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

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

About Adding Questions

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

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

Where'd the Top 20 go?

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

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

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

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

Lowest score

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

My score... (And a thought)

2790.

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

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

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

ZtObOr 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

-20 for a Barnstar

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

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

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

10-point test

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

vandalism question vandalism

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

sERIUS ISSUI

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

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

Was this just me?

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

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

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

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

Old Questions

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

Do you want 100000 points? (100000)

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

Did you lie during this test?

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

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

Recent edit

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