Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test/modern

This page was nominated for deletion on March 31, 2020. The result of the discussion was Snowball keep (withdrawn).

Remember: If you would like to edit this talk page, make it as insane as you can!

Current revision: 1162224547

Modern version[edit]

This was a much better version. Remember: When editing this, make it as insane as you can! 108.71.122.148 (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done 108.71.123.124 (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done again! Wooooo! 46.132.191.12 (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About "Question Overload"[edit]

Inanity and insanity and even patent nonsense is fine here. Question overload is likely spam (not the advertising kind, the useless clutter kind), which I'd rather not have even in the modern test.

tl;dr having questions for every single year from 1800 - 2018 or having like 20 questions that just say "REALLY?" and link to the same question is just pointless, even on a test that is meant to be as inane and nonsensical as possible.

You can stop edit warring over whether question overload is acceptable. James1011R (talk, contribs) 11:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection[edit]

I know the edit warring is getting worse, but semi-protection is preemptive. James1011R (talk, contribs) 23:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning![edit]

I added an all-caps warning to this page, to let editors know that it will be protected if it is spammed enough. 108.71.122.17 (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If any page has spam added, the material will be removed. This page is no exception. There is no reason to add a warning here, let alone one that dominates the top of the page in all caps. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has frequent question spam, it might as well be added.108.71.122.17 (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have numerous pages that are frequently targets for spam, vandalism and edit warring. None ofthem have specific warnings because Wikipedia does not add such warnings.

Three editors have disagreed with you four times. You are now edit warring.

If you would like to overturn the wide consensus that Wikipedia does not use such warnings, you will need to build a consensus that this page is different from the rest of the project in some way that it merits special attention. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding some craziness in the test...[edit]

I noticed some questions have nothing to do with Wikipedia AT ALL (eg. your [male sex organ]'s size), and some questions that unnecessarily duplicated ("REALLY?" x10 without any changes to the question, score, or indentation level). I know it is meant to be crazy or something, but it should at least make the most basic logic sense (eg. a wikiholic test should be about wikiholism, not size of [male sex organ]). I don't know if I want to edit the test to normalize it... User670839245 (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary duplication is bad even for this test's standards. Other inanity is okay, but does need to be checked just in case it makes this test a dumpster fire. James1011R (talk, contribs) 05:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wondered what all the blank spots were. Then I scrolled right. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can be split?[edit]

Can this page be splited to pvement too long? 14.232.160.139 (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol[edit]

I can't take this test it's much too confusing BUT I read it whenever I need a laugh. This has brightened (and made) my day. Do NOT delete this page. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

420 Edits[edit]

nice MoonlightVector^{Talk page} 16:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May god save us all[edit]

dear lord. Notadolphin24 (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Version[edit]

Is there an automated version? i really do need one due to the stupidley long page. Editor123ALOP (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard but we can split this page? Thingofme (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

300kb, so we should split... automated version is not funny anymore. Thingofme (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JS Infinity and other things[edit]

INF>1.7976931348623E+308>1.5E+308, so 1.5E+308 is still in JavaScript finity, i. e., it isn't infinity.
Technically the founders of Wikipedia made all at least 1162224547 edits possible, so they're a contributor to that we have that many edits.
Do articles created on other Wikipedias count in (sub)questions about making articles?
n-ligers just converge to being lions, with the part of tiger genome decreasing exponentially. So no, "lilililililililililigers" won't be that large, they have .09765625% of their genome from the tiger ancestor and 99.90234375% from the lion ones.

Alfa-ketosav (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]