Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 351: Line 351:


:I'd say either Miscellamenous (first preference), or Ethnic feuds (second preference). [[User:ConMan|Confusing Manifestation]] 02:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
:I'd say either Miscellamenous (first preference), or Ethnic feuds (second preference). [[User:ConMan|Confusing Manifestation]] 02:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

== Administrator vs bot revert war over redirect ==

This man versus machine battle was suggested at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=159284185#Admin_repetitively_reverting_double_redirect_fixes].
Should [[patern-avoiding permutation]] and [[patern-avoiding permutations]] redirect to the correctly spelled [[pattern-avoiding permutation]] or directly to [[Stanley-Wilf conjecture]]? [[Pattern-avoiding permutation]] itself (which might some day get its own article) redirects to the latter. An administrator revert warred [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patern-avoiding_permutation&action=history][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patern-avoiding_permutations&action=history] with a bot called [[User:Computer|Computer]] which fixes [[Wikipedia:Double redirects|double redirects]]. He eventually blocked the bot for [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] violation and "malfunctioning" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Computer] but others supported and unblocked the bot. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] 00:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:25, 21 September 2007

Template:Multidel

Shortcut

The Memory hole

As of December 28, 2006, the following lame edit wars have been removed from the page, some of the edit wars here are as lame and as funny as the entries themselves:

25 February 2004 (creation of this page/first edit) to 3 April 2006

  • Atheism - edit war continued for several days to consider exactly which God or gods Atheists prefer not to believe in. Specifically, do they not believe in all gods, including God, or merely disbelieve in all gods with no specific inclusions?[1] Removed [2]
  • Gdanzisk - edit wars have been occuring for most of a year as regards the exact name of this Polish German Prussian Eastern Central European city. [3]
    • Edit war spills over onto this page [4]
    • "The correct name is Gdanzisk - you must be a communist nazi terrorist edit warrior! I should list you on VFDA or maybe just on here!"[5]
    • Parkan gets into an edit war with himself: "rv, someone ban pakaran for being a nazi and reverting my edits, i'm taking this to the mailing list!"[6]
    • This page is (faux) protected. [7] Reason: "Protected due to Pakaran edit warring with hymself."[8] (See protection log which does not include this page.)[9]
    • User:Andre Engels temporarily buys into the page protection.[10] Removes protected page template.[11]
    • Several months later, editors still changing spelling of city here.[12]
    • More tweaks to entry [13]
    • Revert war [14]
  • Bill Clinton - edit war over which picture of him to use, when the photos are virtually identical except one is slightly darker.[15] Removed: [16] Restored by next editor:[17] Deleted again:[18]
  • User:Bird (personal attack) [19] Edit war ensues with anon, this page is protected [20]
  • Spokane, Washington - (personal attack) [21]
  • Circumcision, Foreskin, Smegma, Ridged band, Glans penis, Genital Integrity, Intactivism, Foreskin fetish, Male circumcision, Penis, Circumcision in the Bible, et all (personal attack)[22] Removed [23] Edit war ensues [24]
  • User talk:66.167.235.16 (personal attack) [25] Removed: [26] Edit war ensues [27][28][29]
  • My favorite Jimmy_Wales : Jimbo is reverted for possibly being incorrect about his own birthday by a sysop who believes it is "sneaky vandalism." [30] Editor explains [31] Removed for not being an edit war [32]
  • George W. Bush [33] Removed: [34]
  • Clitoris :An edit war over a protected page, whether it should have been protected with the {{vprotected}} or {{protected}} message.[35] Overwritten by Template:Wikipedialang [36]
  • Open gaming: Does a minor, defunct example of a subtopic of the Open Source movement deserve months of edit, revert, repeat? Is responding to a comment "hijacking" it? What makes this edit war truly lame is that the article itself concerns a niche-within-a-niche subject, and the edit war itself concerns a topic that is at best only tangentially related to the ostensible topic of the article, yet people have spent months fighting over it.[37] Immediately removed [38]
  • Template:Cookbook: Constant reverting between Itai and Netoholic etc...[39] Removed [40] Edit war [41] Edit war begins[42] after sockpuppet accusations, subtle jab when editor redefines purpose of WP:LAME [43] New revert war [44][45] Removed yet again: [46]
  • SomethingAwful.com :After continuous trolling by vandals and reversing edits by SA goons, the page was finally locked in order to prevent further vandalism.[47] Removed: [48]
  • Funny Animal : long edit war over whether funny animal means the same thing as furry. Both sides shouting at each other for being POV. [49] Changed to Furry [50]
  • Victoria, the flatulent auld bitch: The battle royal continues, with a question as to whether the statue of Queen Victoria outside Leinster House in Dublin was called "The Auld Bitch", as James Joyce famously called her in Dubliners. The cream of the joke is that the statue hasn't been in Dublin for years - she was moved to Sydney.[51] Revert war starts: [52]
  • Collaboration of the week over the Sweden-Norway article on Swedish wikipedia : ...turned into the revert war of the month between the adherents of the Sweden and the Norway point of view. Since it was unthinkable that any of the camps did anything out of order, it must have been the NPOV policy that was faulty all the time.[53] Removed: [54]
  • University of San Diego High School : Is convicted murderer Scott Peterson really a notable alumni? [55] Removed [56]
  • Elizabeth of Bohemia: (personal attack) [57] removed [58] Another edit war begins with the Her Late Majesty, VfD/AfD user.[59] "grow a skin, will you? First you try to delete this page,then you try to use it as a club to hit someone over the head. That's, well, LAME" [60] User who added entry removes it.[61] This doesn't stop this user from continuing the edit war.[62] "rv - You've had three reverts, ...and if you revert again -- no matter what justification you try to gin up -- you'll be in violation of the 3RR, period, full-stop.)"[63]
  • Malaysia : Is Malaysia a 'middle income country' or an 'upper middle income country'? Heated argument spills over to WP:RFC and WP:WQA [64] Removed: [65]
  • Hypnotize :Recurring information removal vandalism, with a request for a source to be added and a user (Mike Garcia) has been causing problems about it.
  • Jim Duffy (author) : Can someone who has written no books be truly described as an author? A http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJim_Duffy_%28author%29&diff=24684054&oldid=24522502 request] to rename the page to something that can be attempted to be believed meets with stout resistance and a list of published books equalling zero.[68] Removed [69] Edit war begins [70]
  • Homosexuality in Singapore: Probably the first instance of revert-warring on an article talkpage, where one editor accused another of using the talkpage as an alternative soapbox for his(her? its?) POV agendas. The accused editor first tried to insert a list of unpredictable predictions, then when that didn't work, transferred it to the talkpage, ostensibly for "discussion" when in fact none took place. That section was reverted back and forth numerous times, since no statute seems to govern behaviour in talkpages. [71]
  • Bob Beauprez : Campaign staffers frantically remove negative information posted by Democrats, Republicans, and anti-immigration activists who don't like Bob Beauprez.[72] Removed [73]
  • David Quinn (Actor) : Over 100 reverts, among a handful of users. Over half appear to belong to the same person/group of persons.[74]
  • BZPower : Tons of edits have been made in this article and many have been vandalism. [75] Removed [76]
  • Template:Infobox Scotland place: Should the Counties of Scotland be described as former or traditional/historic? 3RR violations, POV pushing allegations, were editors acting on the orders Association of British Counties? [77] Removed [78]
  • Falkland Islands: This chilly little real estate was uninhabited when the British discovered it near Antarctica. Argentina asserts a territorial claim. The two countries went to war in 1982 and 1000 people died over a patch of land where penguins outnumber humans. The place is called Islas Malvinas in Latin America, but the islanders speak English and don't like that name. Battles rage on talk. [79]

Signed, Travb (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are really just examples of precisely why WP:LAME is listed as an entry on its own page. Yes, this article is about the "lamest edit wars ever", not "List of all lame edit wars in Wikipedia" (which could -- no, probably would go on forever). Occasional pruning follows naturally, as the LEQ (lame-edit quotient) of certain entries becomes a disputed matter. It's almost BJAODN worthy. --Stratadrake 02:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Edit wars spill over to WP:LAME

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work compiling that list Travb. I laughed my ass off. Quadzilla99 05:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing WP:LAME entries to talk

As per User:Radiant I am moving some of these entries to the talk page because they maybe LAME, but they are not very funny and/or don't seem LAME enough.

Furry
Huge edit war over whether or not the article should be re-directed to furry fandom with multiple reverts and multiple-paragraph arguments on the talk page.
Hypnotize/Mezmerize
Was Hypnotize supposed to be called Mesmerize? Since the two are supposed to be a double album, does it really matter? Much to-ing and fro-ing over an assertion that the names of the two albums were switched around, with sources asked for but none provided. In addition, recurring edit wars over such trivialities as the release date of Mezmerize and the chart positions of songs.
Hong Kong literature (category)
Edit war over whether the category should be subcategorized under or merely linked to Category:Chinese literature. Resulted in repeated multiple reverts that led to violation of the three-revert rule.
Speedy deletion criteria
While not really an ongoing edit war, an interesting point of lameness is the fact that a significant number of edits to WP:CSD consist of changing the name used to provide an example of attack pages, e.g. this edit.
Jeremy Clarkson and Talk:Jeremy Clarkson
An ongoing edit war over whether or not a {{npov-section}} tag should be placed in the Controversy section. Is the section controversial, or is it Clarkson, or is it both? And does one matter more than the other? Repeated calls to specify exactly what is POV have gone unheeded, with one side going, "'tis!" and the other going, "'tisn't!" with equal vagueness. Meanwhile, the cleanup of the rest soldiers on...
Augusto Pinochet
On September 7, 2005, three anonymous and two Wikipedia editors contend in a 20 revert war, sometimes reverting each other in less than a minute, over the course of a half-hour.

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the Land making up Tsushima subprefecture war seems particularly hilariously lame, from the point of view of this nonparticipant. The key question -- is it an island or group of islands? -- is the sort of incredibly basic thing that makes the warring all the more absurd. It helps that the entry is well written. --Jfruh (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kewl, welcome to add it back. I added it back. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, maybe we should allocate one section on this Talk page exclusively for editwars of questionable lameness. --Stratadrake 19:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the Hong Kong literature edit war was hilarious. No real content was in dispute, just whether an article would be subcategorized or linked to a category! 138.237.165.140 05:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page is getting Lame

The irrelevant pictures and little captions and the "this page in a nutshell jokes" is making this page Lame. This page should just list a page description and and list the edit wars, not be a sandbox for amateur comedians to exhibit all their attempts at comedy. Go to Uncyclopedia for that. Quadzilla99 17:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some editors are spending waaay too much time putting silly little comments in the entries. Many of the brief descriptions are making the actual edit wars seem lamer than they really are. While the occassional laugh is nice, don't overdo it. --TinMan 19:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone of the pics should go as they're stellar examples of why truly talented people like George Carlin and Jim Carrey get paid so much to do comedy and generally don't relate to the articles at all. If they actually related to the edit war that would be interesting. Quadzilla99 23:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the page is about "Wikipedia humor" and "Wikipedia culture", so pictures are potentially helpful at illustrating that. If it were just a (90 KB long) list of edit wars, it would get a bit boring; and images can give a (humorous) description of the disagreements "at a glance". I do agree that some of the descriptions were overdone, but as to some of the captions bordering on being "uncyclopdic", that is mainly because they were written in am informal, interrogative style ("Who knew?", et al.), and the italics didn't help. Some of the pictures were a bit pointless (I don't get the "real third best page" joke), so I have removed those. The rest have had there captions changed to a more formal and informative style, while still retaining subtle humour. --Grimhelm 16:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry and I hate to hurt your feelings, so I apologize in advance if I do, but it's still the obvious stylings of amateur comedians. In all seriousness (this is not a joke) all it does is make me want to pop in Liar, Liar (Carrey) or You're All Diseased (Carlin) and see some actual professional level comedy. I didn't come to this page for open mic night. This page was started for comedic purposes but I don't think it was started to present an amateur hour type of forum for amateur comedians. It also leaves me trying to figure out what's lamer when I look at the page: the edit wars or the attempts at comedic one-liners, particularly in reference ot the pics and their captions. Quadzilla99 00:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the pictures make the article seem more complete and less like a list. They don't really bother me. --TinMan 01:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn’t you notice the box at the top of the page?
Note! Open mic night 24/7—please contribute in alphabetic order. Shortcut:
WP:LAME
WP:LEW
Anyway, feel free to make the descriptions shorter and funnier. Many of them do need some attention. (Actually, I’d really prefer prose instead of the lists, but have no ideas for a good story.) —xyzzyn 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to quote "Who writes Wikipedia", "Unlike with other encyclopedias, the volunteer authors of Wikipedia articles don't have to be experts or scholars…" No doubt this extends to comedy on pages outside of articles. As you have said, professional comedians like Carrey and Carlin get paid for what they do, but on a Free Encyclopedia we have the work of unpaid volunteers. If you want to watch professional comedy you need to pay for it (and it appears you already have), but what we have here is free, GDFL material, with a uniquely Wikipedian humour. No one is going to come here looking for top-class comedy, but those that do come here should at least find a page with some humour and pictures, rather than a bland list. Again, if this article is to show Wikipedia culture, then the work of amateurs in true Wikipedia tradition merely shows that all the better. --Grimhelm 14:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got more laughs out of this page than out of the entire life work of Chevy Chase.--GunnarRene 16:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Quadzilla99 might find a soulmate in Noboru Yamaguchi. At least those people are paid to be funny. --GunnarRene 16:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's telling that Jim Carrey is someone you feel is representative of quality comedy. By my estimation, the only figure you could have chosen who is less funny is Adam Sandler. On the other hand, I think this page is pretty funny and that you're why the state of American comedy is so pitiful. I exaggerate a little, but really just a little. 69.138.104.214 00:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page joke is a pun on webpage/page who serves nobility in medieval Europe. *Shrug*. Remove it again if you still don't like it. As for the allegations of amatuer mic night, this is a humorous page. There should be no reason to try to keep things all stodgy and boring. Bring on the comedy. — Brian (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying the comedy should be in the ridiculousness of the edit wars, not in the way the editors elaborately describe them using pics, captions, and hokey one-liners. One of the funniest things on these two pages to me is Travb's history of the edit wars spilling over to these pages right above here, notice how he didn't try to throw in a bunch of lame one-liners. Besides I don't really care that much I was just commenting, I don't want to get in a long discussion over this. Quadzilla99 05:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See comment directly above. I couldn't have said it better myself. --TinMan 06:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's telling that Jim Carrey is someone you feel is representative of quality comedy. By my estimation, the only figure you could have chosen who is less funny is Adam Sandler. On the other hand, I think this page is pretty funny and that you're why the state of American comedy is so pitiful. I exaggerate a little, but really just a little. 69.138.104.214 00:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one is Lame enough... right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glitches_found_in_the_Pok%C3%A9mon_video_games

The part about the cloning glitch...

I need to stop participating on this one myself.... Name here 05:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it especially lame, honestly. No side has acted poorly (such as amusing edit summaries) nor was the content in question too trivial (such as over puctuation, like other wars). hbdragon88 00:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That article is a constant state of fancruft edit wars anyway, the key cause for reversion being WP:NOT and WP:RS. So it is a legitimate edit war more than a lame one. --Stratadrake 01:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog has outdone himself. Or should that be The Hedgehog?

More of a talk page discussion rather than a real edit/move war, but there's still much amusement to be found.

(Also, didn't this page used to --Nick RTalk 13:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

o_O --Luigifan 02:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another Case of Lame Edit Warring

I'm no expert on these things, but I think that the page (and its discussion) Technocratic_movement is a nice little candidate for Supreme Lameness, and should be included on "ze list". CatBoris 13:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't worry, just another day in the park."

Either this sentence is not an improvement of the picture at all, or there is some humor I don't understand... can somebody help me? --KnightMove 03:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. The image lost a bit when it was shrunk. --Carnildo 06:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for the info, but I still do not understand the comment. --KnightMove 14:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander Hamilton was shot dead in that duel (legend has it that he fired in the air,) so it was clearly not "just another day in the park". I think that the editor in question was seeking to create a bit of ironic humor. --Luigifan 02:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More lame edit warring, possibly the lamest ever!

Talk:The_White_Stripes#Marriage. Includes the treating of PRINTED divorce papers between Jack and Meg White as POV, and considering that they actually ARE brother and sister, even though both say that was to keep the press out of their personal lives (like that worked) and the writing of a song "It's True We Love One Another" as false, and claiming proof that they are not brother and sister (even out of the horses' mouths) is false. Textbook case of a lame, lame, lame, lame edit war Doc Strange 13:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other languages?

Has there been discussed yet whether lame edit wars in other wikipedias could possibly be included? --KnightMove 14:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Nah, edit wars rarely spill across interlanguage borders. And some of the other-language wikis have their own lame edit wars as well....[reply]

Daniel Brandt

I'm not quite seeing the lameness of this "war." On the contrary, the existence of Brandt's article opened up a number of real and important issues – private vs. public figure, comprehensiveness of a biography, what to do when a subject requests deletion, ideas of "courtesy BLP deletion," etc. The debate may have dragged long (huge CSN disucssion, two DRV discussions, Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war ArbCom case, 14 AFDs), but unlike GNAA (comparable at 18 AFDs) it was over a legitimate issue. I propose that this should be removed, unless there is something that I have gravely missed in my evaluation of the Brandt "war". hbdragon88 04:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being neither a participant nor an observer, I can't say anything specific about this edit war, but I think in general a "lameness" designation is more about conduct than content. After all, you can make a reasonable argument that the issues of ethnicity are deadly serious matters in 20th and 21st century Eastern Europe, but the debates over the names of Danzig/Gdansk and Keiv/Kyiv are still lame because everyone involved was so angry and unwilling to compromise. --Jfruh (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sense of humour

Amongst Wikipedians?

Now that is a joke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.89.168 (talk • contribs) 02:45, June 18, 2007 (UTC)

More like an in-joke, actually, it's 3 times funnier once you've been a Wikipedian for some time. --Stratadrake 03:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debates and edit wars

Many of the entries seem to refer to lame talk page debates rather than edit wars. Therefore, I propose renaming this page to "Lamest debates and edit wars." Mike R 17:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the concept of linking examples of edit-warring (e.g. diff revisions) is relatively new compared to the lifespan of this article, and most of the existing entries don't show any proof. --Stratadrake 01:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate: Kimchi

See Talk:Kimchi, a heated dispute (including a straw poll) and edit war resulting in the page being protected, about whether the primary ingredient in the most common/popular type of Kimchi, known in its native language as Baechu, should be called Chinese cabbage, Chinese White cabbage or Napa cabbage (which redirects to Chinese cabbage). Two other editors find this edit war hilarious and I concur. -- Nahum 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just add it. No need to bring it here first, especially if multiple people concur on its lameness. Grandmasterka 18:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I looked at the talk page and article history. Hilarious indeed. PrimeHunter 19:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate:Scandinavia

I've been watching the debate is Finland in Scandinavia? for about a year now and am amazed how stubborn people can be. I admit I originally took a pro-Finland stance (considering that I'm Finnish and that's what I had always known to be true), but now I see how silly it all is. All because of a "sometimes"... Anyway, I'm wondering if it's noteworthy enough, lame enough, or even if it counts as an edit war rather than a debate. --Hansh 12:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi

Looks good! Very useful, good stuff. Good resources here. Thanks much!

Bye – 87.118.108.232 20:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dokdo

This is not lame edit war. Korea was oppressed generations at hand of japanese. Japan invaded Korea hundreds of times and is again trying take territory that is rightfully korea's. Plwease don't mock Korean, please remove from article.

The underlying dispute may not be lame, but the edit warring over it certainly is. --Carnildo 07:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a confession to make...

I was the one responsible for the edit war at Krystal (Star Fox)... Seriously, though, I don't see why the Star Fox supporting cast got relegated to a list article. Krystal was only one example of a character who probably deserves her own article back. Apparently, the edit war was lame enough that the redirect is still protected months after the actual edit war! Wow, people just won't let these things die, eh? --Luigifan 11:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You kept adding your wanted article text below the redirect code (e.g. in [132]) which makes no sense. A page can have a redirect or an article but not both (it's technically possible to place text below the redirect code but that doesn't make it an article). Protecting a redirect is a small thing because there is rarely reason to edit it. PrimeHunter 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that, by confessing, I'm not a troll seeking attention. I'm simply admitting to my own silliness over editing a page that, in retrospect, wasn't really going to be readily visible anyway. See Talk: Krystal (Star Fox)#Partial restoration for more details. (What was I thinking...) --Luigifan 11:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so i herd u liek mudkipz

I think that the edit war regarding the Mudkip article, and whether or not Mudkip, as an internet meme, should be mentioned in the article, should be mentioned here as it occured during the course of over a year. - (Llxwarbirdxll 09:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ha ha ha! I see that statement a lot on GameFAQs! It definitely makes sense to call it an "internet meme"... --Luigifan 11:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation mark edit war for Berwick-upon-Tweed does not surprise...

...given the history of Berwick-upon-Tweed, a small town geographically in Scotland but politically in England that may or may not have been officially at war with Russia since 1853. Respectfully, SamBlob 10:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rorschach inkblot test

edit war over which of 2 pictures to use. The Placebo Effect 02:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mojo Jojo

How lame does an edit war have to be to qualify as one of the lamest. The Talk:Mojo Jojo edit war is short but so utterly stupid that it must surely qualify for some kind of award --Careless hx 16:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to add it anyway, having re-read it just now I can confirm that it is utterly lame --Careless hx 16:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction

Reading the page, it lists a pointless conflict as the War of the Oaken Bucket. I would like to suggest to people that perhaps the link be changed to the Pig War. It took place in the Pacific Northwest, and involved the shooting of a pig. The war got so heated between the British and Americans that Kaiser Wilhelm I was asked to mediate between the two nations in order to find peace. The article is a lot more descriptive of the pointless conflict than the Oaken Bucket, and shows more consequences of the war. Kaiser matias 03:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly interesting, but IMO the War of the Oaken Bucket is the better analogy for a lame-edit war because that war led to actual fighting and bloodshed, not just military occupation. --Stratadrake 13:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great page

Oh man, this page made me laugh my lungs out. Was wondering if theres any nice template showing just how much I love this page that I can put on my user page. --Sachaztan 05:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you make one... do you not know how to make userboxes? (I'm in the same boat, I've forgotten. I ought to ask UnDeRsCoRe about it again.) --Luigifan 11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Favre

If the banned editor was disruptive in other ways, surely it wasn't "all" over the one passing attempt? Surely the Favre thing was really only a minor aspect of a larger edit war, and thus less deserving of belonging here? Morgan Wick 06:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd n Eddy

A brief skim-through of the article's history reveals a number of trivial and superfluous edits made by anonymous. When these edits are reverted by users, anonymous tries to either sneak his edit back in somewhere or add something else totally minor about the series. Therefore, i'm nominating Ed, Edd n Eddy as one of the lamest edit wars. --Philip Laurence 16:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When was this? I don't see a single anon contribution to the article within the past 3 months... --Stratadrake 12:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
here's are some, better resources as the lame edits weren't that recent. --Philip Laurence 14:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Realmz

Here's one the ArbCom is looking into. Should the article be Commonwealth Realms or Commonwealth realms? This is about as L/lame as they come, I think. --Pete 19:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it just won't stop but gets bizarrer with every day... if only I myself could write those sarcastic little one-liners that sum up those arguments so well here. Blur4760 14:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guinea pig edit war

This took a bit of sleuthing, but there were (at least) two skirmishes over the guinea pigs' lack of running and jumping in their natural environment....

If that's all there is (feel free to list more), then this doesn't seem to be a "lame" edit war but more of a "silly" one. And as both terms are deliberately nondefined, this is just IMO. --Stratadrake 01:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Budding slow war

Something has started over at Stegosaurus in popular culture, and if keeps on, it will have to be added, and I should know, as I was involved. Basically, the bone of contention is whether a paragraph mentioning a couple of Stegosaurus characters should be kept: "It's a list! It's trivia! No it's not! Yes it is!". 8 reverts so far, and probably going to continue. The best part? All three users involved so far are administrators. Circeus 02:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's continuing. The two remaining revert warring admins have stopped writing edit summaries and have each made 3 reverts in a few hours, the latest 3 minutes ago. Will they go for the 3RR violation? PrimeHunter 04:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole day ahead for them to break it, but even if they don't, one can add it as the lamest edit war purely for the fact that they both continue it over different days to avoid 3RR violation. :D KTC 04:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're back. 2 reverts each in 5 hours. Considering they are both admins and this is just a popular culture spin-off article, it may be lame enough now. PrimeHunter 22:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, they haven't used the wheels yet. Circeus 23:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could have a section where reverts are the main focus (or instrument) of said war? --Stratadrake 00:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did so. It just... I still can't figure it out. Circeus 20:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Points

This looks quite lame. All this beacause of the inclusion of a link to Microsoft Points. Looks worthy to me. 208.138.31.76 18:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

I'm annoyed at several editors of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, including myself. It is a very lame edit war, but one I cannot draw myself away from (I'm trying to make sure that IAR is not going to be able to be used as an excuse for bad behavior). Anyway, could somebody with a bit more distance on this give the IAR wording wars a writeup? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 11:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"fan stuff" section?

A section dedicated to fanwankery could take a reasonable load off the "miscellameness" section. Any thoughts? Circeus 09:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. There are plenty of fancruftwars out there.... --Stratadrake 03:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate: Flag-warring (Northern Ireland)

Edit war over the flag of Northern Ireland being placed next to the flag of Ireland for the FAI League of Ireland's entry. Basically the argument is happening because a team from NI is in the FAI League, so the NI flag should be placed in the article. Except that some people are ignoring facts and saying that "the NI has its own football league so only the Irish flag should be displayed" and "that isn't the real flag of NI anyway, so don't put it in the article" (which is not true). Ongoing for almost a month and resulted in the page being fully protected. Will most likely continue on 12 September today (10 September) to when the protection expires. See:FIFA 08 and Talk:FIFA 08. 72.196.226.14 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been huge warring over the use of that particular flag so it's probably better to list the wider war if at all. Timrollpickering 21:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who came up with that double flag idea? That's ridiculous. So the Championship is Welsh because of Cardiff City? Sorry guys, but this is retarded.  Grue  14:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly why the edit war is happening. The two flags are included for factual accuracy. If the flag of Wales were not included, then there would be another group of people mad because their flag isn't next to a league that has a Welsh team. So the double-flag is a way to please the majority, but it's the minority causing the edit war. 72.196.226.14 23:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats very true. I've close connections to Toronto, and its almost offensive to take the Canadian flag away from MLS!Traditional unionist 23:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. So it would offend Northern Irishmen if their flag was removed from the entry for the FAI League. And that's basically what this whole edit war is about, with Irish supporters removing the NI flag and NI supporters (and others who want to return things to status quo ante) putting it back. 72.196.226.14 23:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so is this one a good candidate to go on the page? I mean in general, not just the FIFA 08 example. 72.196.226.14 00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to say yes - certainly it's up there with some of the real world disputes that are mirrored here and the way that all it's actually achieved so far are huge talk pages, endless reverts, protections, and has now gone into mediation (and could well end up going all the way beyond Jimbo) does strike me as slightly lame. Timrollpickering 01:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination: List of Konoha ninja/Naruto Uzumaki

This (still ongoing) dispute is over an interpretation of a somewhat vague dialogue between characters; furthermore, that dialogue was in Japanese, adding to the confusion in the English Wikipedia. The dispute occured when one particular character casually notes that Naruto Uzumaki is just like his father immediately after commenting that Naruto was also just like another prominent character. Sure enough, debate ensued over whether that prominent character was indeed Naruto's father. The reason I brought this here is because it resulted in not one, but two articles that were fully protected. You Can't Review Me!!! 07:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your removal, as it was a perfectly valid lame edit war. As long as your summary keeps to the basic guidelines (no mentioning people by name, avoid making using the talk pages look bad, and try to be as flippant as possible about all sides involved in the edit war, including your own), you don't need to nominate; feel free to be WP:BOLD. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 08:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's pretty lame. Revert summaries like "I hope they DAMN WELL ban you!", both users ("I" and "you") blocked for 3RR violation, and one complaining about the other getting a shorter block (because it was that users first block). PrimeHunter 15:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Royal Anthem

I wanted to insert a link to the ongoing argument over the placement of the Royal Anthem in te info box on the Australia page, but I didn't see the right category... help? :) Qaanaaq 01:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say either Miscellamenous (first preference), or Ethnic feuds (second preference). Confusing Manifestation 02:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator vs bot revert war over redirect

This man versus machine battle was suggested at [141]. Should patern-avoiding permutation and patern-avoiding permutations redirect to the correctly spelled pattern-avoiding permutation or directly to Stanley-Wilf conjecture? Pattern-avoiding permutation itself (which might some day get its own article) redirects to the latter. An administrator revert warred [142][143] with a bot called Computer which fixes double redirects. He eventually blocked the bot for three-revert rule violation and "malfunctioning" [144] but others supported and unblocked the bot. PrimeHunter 00:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Lamest_edit_wars&oldid=159287124"