![]() | This page 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. |
Because the Wiki Prayer is genius and almighty, use this: {{
User wikiprayer}}
![]() This Wikipedian recites the Wiki Prayer regularly. | God, grant me the
serenity to accept the pages I cannot edit, The courage to edit the pages I can, And the wisdom to know the difference. |
Why not post "neutrality disputed" disclaimer in article
Thanks for making the page, I'm loving the humour!-- Daftism ( talk) 05:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Just some ramblings -- not sure we need another silly page, so I'm hijacking this empty talk page.
I have a complaint. I do NOT like that prayer. You don't for things like that in Christianity. -- User:Thebigfan ( talk) 20:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
A new Wikipedian recently wrote "I'm having a great time." This struck me. "You're in phase 2" I thought. So here are the phases of descent into Wikipediholism. They're more relevant than the 12-step programme out of Wikipediholism, because, let's face it, who has ever made it out willingly?
Perhaps we can cure Wikipediholicism by remembering that you should contribute what you know? Martin
I'm going to move this to meta. Objections? Martin 23:51 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Real funny.I know its serious,but its funny at parts nonetheless.(The "you know you have a problem when") New Babylon.
This page and others like it are mostly humourous and give no help, respect or recognition to those people who have a serious problem with Wikipedia. There is no system to help such people, that I know of. A small number of Wikipedians who are particularly close to me have confided in me regarding their feelings towards Wikipedia. No doubt the problem is fairly common.
If anyone would like to talk privately and confidentially about how Wikipedia is affecting your life, please email me and we'll see if we can set something up. At the moment we don't have much of a support network, but we'll see what we can do. -- Tim Starling 15:20, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
wikipediholic (n) - one who is addicted to wikipedia - why not to Wikibooks or Wikiquote or Wikisource or Meta-Wiki? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My addiction to wikipedia seems to increase when I have an essay to do, and become stronger and stronger as the deadline approches (and the work remains undone)-- JK the unwise 14:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else agree that the His (or Her) reference throughout is sexist, and should be changed to His/Her, or indeed Her/His?-- Cormaggio 20:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why does light bulb link to god in "The Subterranean Wiki Prayer Revisited, Nos. 5 and 36"?
I want to translate this page to hebrew, how can i do it?
... when you spend all night wondering if "anal-retentive" has a hyphen.
Hi, I just took the test; avoided taking it for the last one month but thought I shd chk it out today. The score is in the range given as fatal. I'm a wee bit (probably more) worried. Pl. reply on my talk page, else I'd be adding his to my watchlist and refreshing it :-( -- Gurubrahma 11:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Damn me! I got 2000+ altough more active in id.wikipedia than in en. Aditthegrat 19:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the dictionary definition from the top of the article. That kind of thing belongs in Wiktionary, and the first paragraph does a fine enough job explaining what a Wikipediholic is.
Does opening tab after tab of wikipedia articles (I think I have 11 up right now D:) count as wikipediholicism?
What's with moving the whole page to meta without discussion? I think this page serves a great purpose here; it's on many watchlists; it links to many pages which should show this page in ther "what links here" list. CoolCat, please explain what's on your mind... 140.247.73.254 03:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm a Wikipediholic, but not in the sense this page describes it - I start browsing wikipedia and simply CANNOT help but visit a ton of links from a page, then visit MORE links from each of this page, until I've got about fifty windows open and have to force myself to not open any more. I've talked to a few people who are like this as well - maybe we should add it to this article. - Jetman123 01:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't gamble, I don't play games or read other websites much more than other people I know, but I log in and out of Wikipedia for hours on end, saying I'm going to stop and coming back thirty seconds later to check my watchlist (which is large enough that there is a decent chance that something has happened in thirty seconds) and then rearrange some more categories, or fix all the incoming links to the first dab page I can find, or just hit alt-x over and over looking for violations of my idiotic pet peeves. I can't even remember how many accounts I have. I'm in my thirties; I have a cool job; I hold advanced degrees; I have a black belt; I've slept with beautiful women; I've traveled the world; I'm fluent in several languages. Life could be good, but I am throwing it all away spending fifty hours a week on Wikipedia. I've lost my wife already, and will likely soon lose my job. Why can't I control this? Lowest 04:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I began the questionnaire, but I found it rather too long and tedious (perhaps the acid test of being a wikipediholic is whether one has staying power to complete it!) I really feel that if this page is to feature a test, it should be a psychometrically valid and reliable one, so that one can check its validity and Cronbach's alpha. Can we have a briefer instrument, one that has less amusing questions, and one which is less transparent, please? I would be interesting to read of validation data on this test, for example evidence that people who have used Wikipedia just about every day really do score higher than those who score seldom use it. I use Wikipedia with just about every internet visit, at least from my home PC, but felt somewhat happy doing the questionnaire that there are evidently people who would score higher than me. I am not meaning to offend Wikipedia there, just believe that one should combine use of Wikipedia with other internet resources. ACEO 19:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is offended. You may use Wikipedia and other resources...BUT...if you are a wikipediholic, "other resources" may mean wikipedia in other languages and automatic translators. Nobody can claim this is a healty attitude, but it is an effective shortcut for a yes/no answer, instead of taking the whole questionnaire.-- FocalPoint 21:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I really don't quite understand the reference to 'coconut mokeys', and the "and good memories" part of the same sentence. Can someone explain that further?
If this article is supposed to be funny instead of being true information, then I don't think this article should exist. Wikiholism is NOT real. I cannot talk to myself online. I think the creators somehow are BREAKING THEIR OWN RULES. ( Plainnym 14:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC))
I don't think it's a joke! My GPA must have been at least half a point lower last year because of all the hours I spent on Wikipedia every day. Then again, it probably also was boosted half a point by the random knowledge I gained. Could we have some doctor look at this so we can get rid of the joke tag!? - newkai | talk | contribs 22:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a page where vandals, like wikiholics, can recover? 63.23.7.233 04:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
...lists a user because he has contributions in five digits. Um, I'm not impressed. On Wiktionary, I'm about halfway to six digits (not including my 'bot accounts.) Surely some here have passed the six digit milestone already, right? -- Connel MacKenzie - wikt 14:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Since this is mainly a humour page, shouldn't it get the notice at the top (like the Wikipediholic Test)? I've actually seen some people point to this page as "evidence" that Wikipedia editors (and therefore articles) cannot be trusted (I'm sure everyone will spot the irony in that).
-- RMN 20:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You people need to get a life/get laid. -- Stukov 17:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
If this is a joke then it should have the {{humor}} thing at the top.-- Scott3 15:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Can people one down and stop adding to this? It takes me ages to get through this as it is. And i am refering to the quiz. Simply south 17:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
1) Wikihole 2) Wikinesia feel free to edit the definitions....
thanks!
,.maw —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Mattitya93 (
talk •
contribs)
18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
Being addicted to alchohol is known as alchoholism. So wouldn't a being addicted to Wikipedia be Wikipediaism (or Wikiism)? There is no such thing as Wikipediahol (or Wikihol)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SillyHeads ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
So it would be workaholicism and wikiism? Noobeditor ( talk) 00:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I started at 8.-- RoryReloaded 08:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It made me laugh!!! Ya Boi Krakerz
You say that as if it were a Bad Thing. :-) Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 ( talk · contribs) 14:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
'Talking to yourself is not a problem - it is when you start losing the argument with yourself that you have a problem.' 82.44.143.26 ( talk) 17:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
An addition by User:Weasel Fetlocks included the term "wikipedophile". I am going to remove this as I think it is not appropriate. Sagaci ( talk) 07:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is a cure that I found worked for me. Dying. 23:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
AFD this article and its sub pages because THIS PAGE AND THE SUB PAGES IS VANDALISAlUM-- Rabbit67890 ( talk) 03:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it might be wikiholic to patrol "My contributions" daily to see if one still has the top edit on all the pages one has recently edited, to check if the cumulative edits since are agreeable, and to act if they are not. Perhaps I am wrong. Either way, "My contributions" is not listed in this article. Please say something if you agree that such actions are wikiholic.
Warmest Regards, :)-- thecurran let it off your chest 03:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a complaint. I do not (underline not) like that prayer. You don't pray for things like that in Christianity. -- User:Thebigfan ( talk) 20:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I have created a page called Wikipedia:Userboxitis and I would like to move it into the Wikipediholism series of articles and category. Mainly, I want my article to appear with editcountitis and adminitis in the Template:Wikipediholism template. Can someone help? -- Imadeausername! ( talk| contribs) 05:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Bearcat does not have the most edits, Koavf and a placeholder have more.-- GoldenGlory84 ( talk) 16:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I know that this whole test is a joke, but I am at a loss to understand why the fourth question asks how many times the test has been edited. This is something which could change, and is therefore against Wikipedia style ( it is feasible that one day, it will have been edited by the extreme figures quoted). Added to which,surely true Wikipediholics would spend more time reading Wikipedia articles than count how many times a joke test has been edited. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 00:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Many apologies - that last comment was meant for the separate article on the Official Wikipediholism Test! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 00:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
You can no longer distinguish between bots and real editors (see [1]). Daniel Case ( talk) 14:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps Q4-11 could ask whether one has downloaded the icon to help one log in on one's desktop. I have done that - does that make me an official Wikipediholic? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 23:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Dr Wikipedia. A method of approximating the time spent on WP could be made from user contributions. If time between edits less than a few minutes )for arguments sake) is measured for all edits then an indication of the minimum time spent editing could be calculated. Has anyone done this? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 02:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is exactly why Uncyclopedia was created. Why not move it there? 175.176.202.9 ( talk) 10:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I am just joking (obviously), what if wikipedians had their own religion, called wikireligion. Fits with the prayer.--Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
It means a Wikipedia author. He/she deserve(s) a wikipage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.220.197 ( talk) 14:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I know this isn't a serious page, but should there be so many external links embedded in the text?
I think this proves I'm a Wikipediholic.
220
of
Borg
05:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
You take personal umbrage when someone says, "I would never look in Wikipedia because it's unreliable... ." or some such. Not sure where that belongs, but I know it fits somewhere. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
No idea under which RfC category to put this under, sorry if it's wrong.
The phrase "You still live in your mother's basement at the age of 30+." was recently removed from Level V by @ Usernamekiran:, calling it "neither logical, relevant, nor funny". I reverted it because I thought it was a good, long-standing entry and a common stereotype for too-online nerds. I'd like some opinions on whether to keep it or not. QoopyQoopy ( talk) 07:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
|soc
is for discussions about articles, and
Wikipedia:Wikipediholic isn't an article. RfC categories available for non-article pages are: |style
|policy
|proj
|tech
|prop
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Can i die? Where cure?
Just thought I'd pop in to say before I edit, but - I'm going to take this reference to OCD out.
As someone who's suffered OCD, part of its definition is that it causes significant distress to the individual, who feels they have no choice but to engage in compulsions (the 'C') in order to temporarily assuage their obsession/s (the 'O').
It was, and is, a horrifying condition. Wrecked most of last year for me. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that this is deeply incomparable to the genuinely enjoyable and fulfilling act of editing and contributing to Wikipedia at all.-- Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) 17:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Wikiholic. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 20#Wikiholic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
04:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Because the Wiki Prayer is genius and almighty, use this: {{
User wikiprayer}}
![]() This Wikipedian recites the Wiki Prayer regularly. | God, grant me the
serenity to accept the pages I cannot edit, The courage to edit the pages I can, And the wisdom to know the difference. |
Why not post "neutrality disputed" disclaimer in article
Thanks for making the page, I'm loving the humour!-- Daftism ( talk) 05:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Just some ramblings -- not sure we need another silly page, so I'm hijacking this empty talk page.
I have a complaint. I do NOT like that prayer. You don't for things like that in Christianity. -- User:Thebigfan ( talk) 20:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
A new Wikipedian recently wrote "I'm having a great time." This struck me. "You're in phase 2" I thought. So here are the phases of descent into Wikipediholism. They're more relevant than the 12-step programme out of Wikipediholism, because, let's face it, who has ever made it out willingly?
Perhaps we can cure Wikipediholicism by remembering that you should contribute what you know? Martin
I'm going to move this to meta. Objections? Martin 23:51 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Real funny.I know its serious,but its funny at parts nonetheless.(The "you know you have a problem when") New Babylon.
This page and others like it are mostly humourous and give no help, respect or recognition to those people who have a serious problem with Wikipedia. There is no system to help such people, that I know of. A small number of Wikipedians who are particularly close to me have confided in me regarding their feelings towards Wikipedia. No doubt the problem is fairly common.
If anyone would like to talk privately and confidentially about how Wikipedia is affecting your life, please email me and we'll see if we can set something up. At the moment we don't have much of a support network, but we'll see what we can do. -- Tim Starling 15:20, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
wikipediholic (n) - one who is addicted to wikipedia - why not to Wikibooks or Wikiquote or Wikisource or Meta-Wiki? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My addiction to wikipedia seems to increase when I have an essay to do, and become stronger and stronger as the deadline approches (and the work remains undone)-- JK the unwise 14:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else agree that the His (or Her) reference throughout is sexist, and should be changed to His/Her, or indeed Her/His?-- Cormaggio 20:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why does light bulb link to god in "The Subterranean Wiki Prayer Revisited, Nos. 5 and 36"?
I want to translate this page to hebrew, how can i do it?
... when you spend all night wondering if "anal-retentive" has a hyphen.
Hi, I just took the test; avoided taking it for the last one month but thought I shd chk it out today. The score is in the range given as fatal. I'm a wee bit (probably more) worried. Pl. reply on my talk page, else I'd be adding his to my watchlist and refreshing it :-( -- Gurubrahma 11:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Damn me! I got 2000+ altough more active in id.wikipedia than in en. Aditthegrat 19:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the dictionary definition from the top of the article. That kind of thing belongs in Wiktionary, and the first paragraph does a fine enough job explaining what a Wikipediholic is.
Does opening tab after tab of wikipedia articles (I think I have 11 up right now D:) count as wikipediholicism?
What's with moving the whole page to meta without discussion? I think this page serves a great purpose here; it's on many watchlists; it links to many pages which should show this page in ther "what links here" list. CoolCat, please explain what's on your mind... 140.247.73.254 03:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm a Wikipediholic, but not in the sense this page describes it - I start browsing wikipedia and simply CANNOT help but visit a ton of links from a page, then visit MORE links from each of this page, until I've got about fifty windows open and have to force myself to not open any more. I've talked to a few people who are like this as well - maybe we should add it to this article. - Jetman123 01:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't gamble, I don't play games or read other websites much more than other people I know, but I log in and out of Wikipedia for hours on end, saying I'm going to stop and coming back thirty seconds later to check my watchlist (which is large enough that there is a decent chance that something has happened in thirty seconds) and then rearrange some more categories, or fix all the incoming links to the first dab page I can find, or just hit alt-x over and over looking for violations of my idiotic pet peeves. I can't even remember how many accounts I have. I'm in my thirties; I have a cool job; I hold advanced degrees; I have a black belt; I've slept with beautiful women; I've traveled the world; I'm fluent in several languages. Life could be good, but I am throwing it all away spending fifty hours a week on Wikipedia. I've lost my wife already, and will likely soon lose my job. Why can't I control this? Lowest 04:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I began the questionnaire, but I found it rather too long and tedious (perhaps the acid test of being a wikipediholic is whether one has staying power to complete it!) I really feel that if this page is to feature a test, it should be a psychometrically valid and reliable one, so that one can check its validity and Cronbach's alpha. Can we have a briefer instrument, one that has less amusing questions, and one which is less transparent, please? I would be interesting to read of validation data on this test, for example evidence that people who have used Wikipedia just about every day really do score higher than those who score seldom use it. I use Wikipedia with just about every internet visit, at least from my home PC, but felt somewhat happy doing the questionnaire that there are evidently people who would score higher than me. I am not meaning to offend Wikipedia there, just believe that one should combine use of Wikipedia with other internet resources. ACEO 19:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is offended. You may use Wikipedia and other resources...BUT...if you are a wikipediholic, "other resources" may mean wikipedia in other languages and automatic translators. Nobody can claim this is a healty attitude, but it is an effective shortcut for a yes/no answer, instead of taking the whole questionnaire.-- FocalPoint 21:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I really don't quite understand the reference to 'coconut mokeys', and the "and good memories" part of the same sentence. Can someone explain that further?
If this article is supposed to be funny instead of being true information, then I don't think this article should exist. Wikiholism is NOT real. I cannot talk to myself online. I think the creators somehow are BREAKING THEIR OWN RULES. ( Plainnym 14:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC))
I don't think it's a joke! My GPA must have been at least half a point lower last year because of all the hours I spent on Wikipedia every day. Then again, it probably also was boosted half a point by the random knowledge I gained. Could we have some doctor look at this so we can get rid of the joke tag!? - newkai | talk | contribs 22:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a page where vandals, like wikiholics, can recover? 63.23.7.233 04:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
...lists a user because he has contributions in five digits. Um, I'm not impressed. On Wiktionary, I'm about halfway to six digits (not including my 'bot accounts.) Surely some here have passed the six digit milestone already, right? -- Connel MacKenzie - wikt 14:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Since this is mainly a humour page, shouldn't it get the notice at the top (like the Wikipediholic Test)? I've actually seen some people point to this page as "evidence" that Wikipedia editors (and therefore articles) cannot be trusted (I'm sure everyone will spot the irony in that).
-- RMN 20:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You people need to get a life/get laid. -- Stukov 17:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
If this is a joke then it should have the {{humor}} thing at the top.-- Scott3 15:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Can people one down and stop adding to this? It takes me ages to get through this as it is. And i am refering to the quiz. Simply south 17:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
1) Wikihole 2) Wikinesia feel free to edit the definitions....
thanks!
,.maw —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Mattitya93 (
talk •
contribs)
18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
Being addicted to alchohol is known as alchoholism. So wouldn't a being addicted to Wikipedia be Wikipediaism (or Wikiism)? There is no such thing as Wikipediahol (or Wikihol)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SillyHeads ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
So it would be workaholicism and wikiism? Noobeditor ( talk) 00:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I started at 8.-- RoryReloaded 08:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It made me laugh!!! Ya Boi Krakerz
You say that as if it were a Bad Thing. :-) Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 ( talk · contribs) 14:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
'Talking to yourself is not a problem - it is when you start losing the argument with yourself that you have a problem.' 82.44.143.26 ( talk) 17:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
An addition by User:Weasel Fetlocks included the term "wikipedophile". I am going to remove this as I think it is not appropriate. Sagaci ( talk) 07:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is a cure that I found worked for me. Dying. 23:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
AFD this article and its sub pages because THIS PAGE AND THE SUB PAGES IS VANDALISAlUM-- Rabbit67890 ( talk) 03:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it might be wikiholic to patrol "My contributions" daily to see if one still has the top edit on all the pages one has recently edited, to check if the cumulative edits since are agreeable, and to act if they are not. Perhaps I am wrong. Either way, "My contributions" is not listed in this article. Please say something if you agree that such actions are wikiholic.
Warmest Regards, :)-- thecurran let it off your chest 03:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a complaint. I do not (underline not) like that prayer. You don't pray for things like that in Christianity. -- User:Thebigfan ( talk) 20:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I have created a page called Wikipedia:Userboxitis and I would like to move it into the Wikipediholism series of articles and category. Mainly, I want my article to appear with editcountitis and adminitis in the Template:Wikipediholism template. Can someone help? -- Imadeausername! ( talk| contribs) 05:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Bearcat does not have the most edits, Koavf and a placeholder have more.-- GoldenGlory84 ( talk) 16:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I know that this whole test is a joke, but I am at a loss to understand why the fourth question asks how many times the test has been edited. This is something which could change, and is therefore against Wikipedia style ( it is feasible that one day, it will have been edited by the extreme figures quoted). Added to which,surely true Wikipediholics would spend more time reading Wikipedia articles than count how many times a joke test has been edited. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 00:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Many apologies - that last comment was meant for the separate article on the Official Wikipediholism Test! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 00:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
You can no longer distinguish between bots and real editors (see [1]). Daniel Case ( talk) 14:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps Q4-11 could ask whether one has downloaded the icon to help one log in on one's desktop. I have done that - does that make me an official Wikipediholic? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 23:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Dr Wikipedia. A method of approximating the time spent on WP could be made from user contributions. If time between edits less than a few minutes )for arguments sake) is measured for all edits then an indication of the minimum time spent editing could be calculated. Has anyone done this? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 02:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is exactly why Uncyclopedia was created. Why not move it there? 175.176.202.9 ( talk) 10:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I am just joking (obviously), what if wikipedians had their own religion, called wikireligion. Fits with the prayer.--Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
It means a Wikipedia author. He/she deserve(s) a wikipage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.220.197 ( talk) 14:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I know this isn't a serious page, but should there be so many external links embedded in the text?
I think this proves I'm a Wikipediholic.
220
of
Borg
05:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
You take personal umbrage when someone says, "I would never look in Wikipedia because it's unreliable... ." or some such. Not sure where that belongs, but I know it fits somewhere. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
No idea under which RfC category to put this under, sorry if it's wrong.
The phrase "You still live in your mother's basement at the age of 30+." was recently removed from Level V by @ Usernamekiran:, calling it "neither logical, relevant, nor funny". I reverted it because I thought it was a good, long-standing entry and a common stereotype for too-online nerds. I'd like some opinions on whether to keep it or not. QoopyQoopy ( talk) 07:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
|soc
is for discussions about articles, and
Wikipedia:Wikipediholic isn't an article. RfC categories available for non-article pages are: |style
|policy
|proj
|tech
|prop
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Can i die? Where cure?
Just thought I'd pop in to say before I edit, but - I'm going to take this reference to OCD out.
As someone who's suffered OCD, part of its definition is that it causes significant distress to the individual, who feels they have no choice but to engage in compulsions (the 'C') in order to temporarily assuage their obsession/s (the 'O').
It was, and is, a horrifying condition. Wrecked most of last year for me. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that this is deeply incomparable to the genuinely enjoyable and fulfilling act of editing and contributing to Wikipedia at all.-- Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) 17:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Wikiholic. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 20#Wikiholic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
04:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)