This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

WP:EPD

This page in a nutshell: If your EPD is lower than 50, then you are a failure at Wikipedia. Despair!

EPD, or edits per day, is the most important number for Wikipedia editors, more than what MPH and MPG are for a car. Take an average of your EPD over a 3-day, 5-day, 7-day, or 14-day period. If this number falls below 50 per day, consider taking a wikibreak. Or leave, because you are a failure!

If you edit too much, you might purposely stop editing for a day to prove that you are not a geek, even if it means editing with an IP. But if you do it with an IP, stay clear of controversial articles because people may mistake hiding your addiction as sockpuppetry.^[1]

Importance[edit]

This section in a nutshell: Your EPD is more valuable than you.

You gain weight if you don't revert enough daily.

Admins, pay attention. Your EPD should remain relatively high—over 9000. This rule also applies to wannabe admins. A total edit-count of at least 572,017 is recommended before putting in an RfA.^{[citation needed]} New editors, take note: If you want the community's trust and respect, don't make good constructive edits. Instead, increase your total edit count and EPD with useless edits, and one day you may be an admin, possibly even a bureaucrat.

EPD may one day rank alongside total edit counts as a key determiner of an editor's dedication to Wikipedia, but it's already the most important number for evaluating your and other editor's worth.

Once you become an administrator, you must stop editing and just congregate at ANI. Say controversial things, block people, and joke that you are a rouge administrator.

If you want to be in the ArbCom, being an administrator is not a joking matter as jokers will not become Arbitrators unless they are tricky.

Illness[edit]

This section in a nutshell: Don't believe them.

Some cabal members will want to put these ideas into your head. They don't want more admins on Wikipedia because they would have to share their dread powers, initiating you into the dark secrets of their order. Among other brainwashing techniques, they'll try to convince you that you are a victim of a serious illness known as editcountitis. Ignore their ill advice; their lies are meant to weaken your resolve and hinder your ascendancy into wiki-godhood. Keep hitting that "Save page" button as often as you can. Don't forget the rollback and undo buttons!

Community goals[edit]

This section in a nutshell: Encyclopedias are boring and Wikipedia is not, further irrefutable and logically-sound proof that Wikipedia isn't one.

The goal of Wikipedia is building an article-editing community where the editor with the greatest number of edits gets all the girls (Oh yeah!). Editors may then be crowned as royalty, and eventually ascend to divinity. Any rumours you have heard about creating the best encyclopedia ever are lies disseminated by the foolish enemies of Wikipedia. If the great Jimbo had wanted to make this website an encyclopedia, then he would have stated very clearly the purpose of this and created a few basic principles guiding us to do so. Just keep in mind what Jimbo Wales's primary occupation was prior to Wikipedia.

Twinkle[edit]

This section in a nutshell: Twinkle rules.

Remember, Twinkle is not a tool to help editors fight vandalism. It's actually a tool designed to effortlessly increase your EPD by making inadequate reversals on newcomers that try to help to improve Wikipedia. Never stop to check if the user's edits could have been improved and added to the article. Steamrolling for no reason all contributions by a well intentioned user and blanket-warning them will not cause them unnecessary stress, or to leave Wikipedia. Helping new editors to become valuable contributors to Wikipedia is an unnecessary waste of time on your road to bureaucracy and to sitting to the right of Jimbo.

You can find more EPD-increasing tools on Category:Wikipedia EPD-increasing tools.

Huggle[edit]

This section in a nutshell: Huggle is the ultimate EPD increasing tool!!!

If your EPD is falling and you can't find anything to revert, then get Huggle! Now you have several hundred recent edits you can look through and revert at bot-like speeds! Don't forget: for the new users (who must be bitten to death!!! Remember: warn, warn, warn, warn, report, block!), you can even nominate for speedy deletion newly created pages that haven't had a chance to grow! Remember, EPD above all else! That seat to the right of Jimbo ain't coming by itself. It's attracted by very high EPD!!! Note that this requires Rollback.

Rollback[edit]

This section in a nutshell: Rollback is better than Twinkle or Huggle, but not both combined!

In the early days of Wikipedia, only admins were trusted with this tool.^{[citation needed]} Why? Because it's like a chaingun in terms of EPD!!! Good-faith edits can be annihilated in seconds with this tool! But here's the thing: Admins can grant this tool to other users with a high EPD. Now get out there and get to unnecessarily reverting!!!

Editcount fairy[edit]

This section in a nutshell: Mythological creatures eat edit summaries.

The Editcount Fairy is a mythical creature that lives on Wikipedia servers and eats edit summaries for a living. The more edits you do, the more the fairy can eat. Think of the fairies!

Previous employments: Tooth fairy, Photography modeling, Maleficent.

Edit summaries and preview buttons[edit]

This section in a nutshell: Never use them. Ever.

The edit summary boxes are just a bureaucratic device intended to reduce your EPD. Ignore them! (Certainly where there are default messages, entering additional information would be an implied slight to the folks who went to all the trouble of programming them.) (And yes, we know that this is in immediate contradiction to the Editcount Fairy section above. We will also not elaborate on this contradiction or attempt to fix it.)

The so-called "preview buttons" beneath the edit summary box are evil! They lower your EPD by showing you your spelling typos and mistakes that tempt you into fixing them in 1 edit! Don't! If you do not use them, you will have to fix your typos again and again and again (etc.) in an endless number of edits! Your EPD will soar to possibly over a googolplex! So basically, don't even look at them.

All is well with the server[edit]

This section in a nutshell: Pigeons have a higher EPD than you.

The Wikipedia developer's opinion is that the editors shouldn't worry about causing too much server load:

“

As a technical matter, it's (the developer's responsibility) to keep the system running well enough for what the sites require. (...) If and when we need to restrict certain things, we'll do so with technical measures.

”

So, if excessive edits ever become a problem, then the developers will wave their magic wand and they will solve it with a technical measure. See? There's nothing to be worried about. Now get back to artificially inflating your EPD, I can already hear it dropping below unacceptable levels while you are reading this instead of editing more!

Also, Wikipedia runs partially on hardware donated by Google, and everybody knows that Google has infinite amounts of hardware and bandwidth and runs on renewable resources.^[2]

Wikipedia developers, controlling the EPD at the servers
Your edit count is stored on the third chip from the top left
You are not a true Wikipedia editor until you destroy one of the servers with your edits!

References[edit]

^ If you do this, you are really just a geek in denial. You will become even more of a geek when you realize you have to make up for the lost day of editing.
^ "The technology behind Google's great results".

Wikipedia essays (?)

Essays on building, editing, and deleting content

Philosophy	Article content Articles must be written All Five Pillars are equally important Avoid vague introductions Be a reliable source Civil POV pushing Cohesion Competence is required Concede lost arguments Dissent is not disloyalty Don't lie Don't search for objections Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country Editors will sometimes be wrong Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia Explanationism External criticism of Wikipedia Here to build an encyclopedia Leave it to the experienced Levels of competence Most ideas are bad Need Neutrality of sources Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction The one question Oversimplification Paradoxes Paraphrasing POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Process is important Product, process, policy Purpose Reasonability rule Systemic bias There is no seniority Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia Tendentious editing The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The rules are principles Trifecta Wikipedia in brief Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikipedia is a community Wikipedia is not RationalWiki
Article construction	100K featured articles Abandoned stubs Acronym overkill Adding images improves the encyclopedia Advanced article editing Advanced text formatting Akin's Laws of Article Writing Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test A navbox on every page An unfinished house is a real problem Articles have a half-life Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Be neutral in form Beef up that first revision Blind men and an elephant BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Build content to endure Cherrypicking Chesterton's fence Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books Citation overkill Citation underkill Common-style fallacy Concept cloud Creating controversial content Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability Deprecated sources Dictionaries as sources Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't get hung up on minor details Don't hope the house will build itself Don't panic Don't "teach the controversy" Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Encourage the newcomers Endorsements (commercial) Featured articles may have problems Formatting bilateral relations articles Formatting bilateral relations templates Fruit of the poisonous tree Give an article a chance How to write a featured article Identifying and using independent sources History sources Law sources Primary sources Science sources Style guides Tertiary sources Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Inaccuracy Introduction to structurism Mine a source Merge Test Minors and persons judged incompetent "Murder of" articles Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a navbox Not everything needs a template Nothing is in stone Obtain peer review comments Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area Permastub Potential, not just current state Presentism Principle of Some Astonishment The problem with elegant variation Pro and con lists Printability Pruning article revisions Publicists Put a little effort into it Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Sham consensus Source your plot summaries Specialized-style fallacy Stub Makers Run an edit-a-thon Temporary versions of articles Tertiary-source fallacy There are no shortcuts to neutrality There is no deadline There is a deadline The deadline is now Try not to leave it a stub Understanding Wikipedia's content standards Walled garden What an article should not include Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia is not a reliable source Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion The world will not end tomorrow Write the article first Writing better articles
Writing article content	Avoid thread mode Copyediting reception sections Coup Don't throw more litter onto the pile Gender-neutral language Myth vs fiction Proseline Use our own words We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions Write the article first Writing about women Writing better articles
Removing or deleting content	Adjectives in your recommendations AfD is not a war zone Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Avoid repeated arguments Before commenting in a deletion discussion But there must be sources! Confusing arguments mean nothing Content removal Counting and sorting are not original research Delete or merge Delete the junk Deletion is not cleanup Does deletion help? Don't attack the nominator Don't confuse stub status with non-notability Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Follow the leader How to save an article proposed for deletion I just don't like it Identifying blatant advertising Identifying test edits Immunity Keep it concise Liar liar pants on fire Nothing Nothing is clear Overzealous deletion Relisting can be abusive Relist bias The Heymann Standard Unopposed AFD discussion Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole Why was the page I created deleted? What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork No Encyclopedic Use

Essays on civility

The basics	Accepting other users Apology Contributing to complicated discussions Divisiveness Edit at your own pace Encouraging the newcomers Enjoy yourself Expect no thanks High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors How to be civil Maintaining a friendly space Negotiation Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors Please say please Relationships with academic editors Thank you Too long; didn't read Truce Unblock perspectives We are all Wikipedians here You have a right to remain silent
Philosophy	A weak personal attack is still wrong Advice for hotheads An uncivil environment is a poor environment Be the glue Beware of the tigers! Civility warnings Deletion as revenge Failure Forgive and forget It's not the end of the world Nobody cares Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Old-fashioned Wikipedian values Profanity, civility, and discussions Revert notification opt-out Shadowless Fists of Death! Staying cool when the editing gets hot The grey zone The last word There is no Divine Right of Editors Most ideas are bad Nothing is clear Reader The rules of polite discourse There is no common sense Two wrongs don't make a right Wikipedia clichés Wikipedia is not about winning Wikipedia should not be a monopoly Writing for the opponent
Dos	Assume good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Assume no clue Avoid personal remarks Avoid the word "vandal" Be excellent to one another Beyond civility Call a spade a spade Candor Deny recognition Desist Discussing cruft Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Encourage full discussions Get over it How to lose Imagine others complexly Just drop it Keep it concise Keep it down to earth Mind your own business Say "MOBY" Mutual withdrawal Read before commenting Settle the process first
Don'ts	ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI Civil POV pushing Cyberbullying Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't be a fanatic Don't be a jerk Don't be an ostrich Don't be ashamed Don't be a WikiBigot Don't be high-maintenance Don't be inconsiderate Don't be obnoxious Don't be prejudiced Don't be rude Don't be the Fun Police Don't bludgeon the process Don't call a spade a spade Don't call people by their real name Don't call the kettle black Don't call things cruft Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't cry COI Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid Don't eat the troll's food Don't fight fire with fire Don't give a fuck Don't help too much Don't ignore community consensus Don't knit beside the guillotine Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't shout Don't spite your face Don't take the bait Don't template the regulars Don't throw your toys out of the pram Do not insult the vandals Griefing Nationalist editing No angry mastodons just madmen No Nazis No racists No Confederates No, you can't have a pony Passive aggression Please don't bite the newcomers POV railroad Superhatting There are no oracles There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns You can't squeeze blood from a turnip UPPERCASE
WikiRelations	WikiBullying WikiCrime WikiHarassment WikiHate WikiLawyering WikiLove WikiPeace

Essays on notability

Humorous essays

About essays

About essays	Essay guide Value of essays Difference between policies, guidelines and essays Don't cite essays as if they were policy Avoid writing redundant essays Finding an essay Quote your own essay
Policies and guidelines	About policies and guidelines Policies Guidelines How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance Policy writing is hard