Misplaced Pages

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages!" or "i wonder if that's already on Misplaced Pages!" 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. =(— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

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

file = IO.readlines($*)
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 (talk)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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages, and getting into trouble for the sake of going to Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages was started, and the kids start using Misplaced Pages as soon as it began? | AndonicO Talk 12:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

True. Littleghostboo 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 , 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 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 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/Wikipedia:Are_You_a_Wikipediholic_Test#Top_20. Even so, though, it shouldn't link to the Main Page. Littleghostboo 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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[REDACTED] 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 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 08:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

They should be removed, as it is unprobable that they are actually doing it right. | AndonicO 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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. I find it hard to believe, and if this user did buy a Misplaced Pages 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 01:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This user's editing seems to be mainly to userspace and talk. Here is the edit count.. 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 ; 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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: , , , and . The scores on the added questions are huge! Notice the difference between his the adder, Chrislk02's, scores: . I changed the scores to something more reasonable. What should we do in the future about 'adding and winning'? Reywas92 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 20:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

To increase his/her edit count maybe? | AndonicO 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 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 14:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiprojects or Misplaced Pages?

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 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

For this sort of question:

1. Do you typically use Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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 16:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's in an archive now. | AndonicO 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 11:09, 5 January 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages? (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[REDACTED] (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 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 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 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 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)

"non"existent article

Can we change it into a coding trick like Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] (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

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Misplaced Pages:Are You a Wikipediholic Test → Misplaced Pages:Are you a Wikipediholic? — Strangely, it sounds before like "Are you a test?". Possibly disambig. Other options could be to Misplaced Pages:Are you a Wikipediholic? test, Misplaced Pages:Are you a Wikipediholic? Test, etc Simply south 17:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

I'm just going to suggest as a second option something like Misplaced Pages:Are you a wikipediholic? test. Simply south 23:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in support of the move

2. Weak support. That's true, it does sound like asking if you are a test, but it would be best if the new location had the word "test". However, I am worried that people who make moves may be too lazy to follow the instructions. Whoever moves it should check for any double redirects by actually following the instructions by going to the old "What links here" link. Other than that, I support the move, as long as the move doesn't cause any problems with the auto version. That concludes my answer. Also, if not moved, the title may be too long. Thanks. AstroHurricane001 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Weak Support. If it ain't broke don't fix it. I think someone broked it.--ROASTYTOAST 02:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Misplaced Pages:Wikipediholism test. · AO 13:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Weak Support. New title suggestion: Test: Are you a Wikipediholic? Dammit, now I hafta update my watch list. Or do bots take care of that? samwaltz 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
   • "Test" isn't a valid namespace, and yes, the article will still be on your watchlist (although it's not the bots that do it). · AO 14:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
     • However, you would have both the new page and the old page in your watchlist (I noticed it the rist time a page on my watchlist was moved and it caused the amount of articles there to increade). TJ Spyke 17:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • But it's easy to remove it. · AO 19:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Per nom. Greeves 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. weakly opposed not for any moral reason or anything like that. I just feel that it's a big waste of time, ya it kinda sounds like your asking if you are a test but people get the point. Also there is a big possibiblity of double redirects, and then you have to go through the whole changing the redirects and everything, and it just seems like a whole lot of effort wasted. But if your really really bent and obbsesive compulsive about it hey i don't mind that much. - Threewaysround 22:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose No reason to move it, and it would just create a lot of uneeded work (fixing redirects and double redirects). TJ Spyke 17:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose I guess it really depends on how you read it. But I would prefer it here. It would be a bit confusing to completely move such a large page after it has been rooted here for so long. Yuanchosaan 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose Only Wikipediholics would bother with such an unnecessary move. Any possible want for a misunderstanding should be dissipated by referring to WP:COMMON SENSE. –Pomte 08:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

I'm not a test. Those are serious accusations.--ROASTYTOAST 02:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I offer an alternative approach: Misplaced Pages:Wikipediholism test or Misplaced Pages:Test for Wikipediholism. By reducing it to a noun phrase, the ambiguities evaporate. --Stemonitis 10:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I like Wikipediholism test. · AO 13:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Same here. If it has to be moved then that would be my choice. I'm just wondering, where are all the wikiholics? There's more than just us. Can they please vote too? Hello? Oh, and when is the survey going to close? Yuanchosaan 06:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's a wikiholic to a degree. Off topic but still on this move, it has been relisted so possibly 24th. Simply south 10:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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 · 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 Misplaced Pages. I checked that IP address's contibutions, and I found that this IP address edits on Misplaced Pages only several times to Misplaced Pages. 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 21:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG!!! Being a cyborg and using it to improve[REDACTED] 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 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 Misplaced Pages? Because you consider anyone associated with Misplaced Pages to be a cyborg? Do you use these powers you gained to greatly assist Misplaced Pages? 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 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 06:51, 26 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)