Jump to content

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Francs2000 (talk | contribs)
{{subst:vfd}}
No edit summary
Line 21: Line 21:


* [[Recursive|Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever]] - edit war over what edit wars should be on this page. - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever Recursive]
* [[Recursive|Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever]] - edit war over what edit wars should be on this page. - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever Recursive]

* [[User:Bird]] aka [[Face down a mob]] vs. almost everybody who has had said anything about it. The writer created a few dozen detailed and accurate articles and made several widely accepted revisions of other difficult articles related to physiology, culture and law, earning the trust and admiration of all watching. Then someone decided to change placement of an image Bird was preparing and working into a [[brain]] page, concluding that edit war was a better approach than responding to developing comments on the talk page. When Bird stated that the lack of trust had undermined the writer's confidense in articles written earlier, and began pruning unsourced statements or those that might not be sufficiently re-interpreted from source material, an angry throng quickly accused the seasoned writer of staging a hoax to test the credibility of Wikipedia, blocking the articles in question and encouraging the formerly admired writer to never return. Indeed a candidate for the lamest edit war ever, with the possible exception of odd numbers debate. This user would have been better off never adopting a user name. Now we have another very determined and articulate user with unusual skills in psychological warfare so alienated as to interact in only the most hostile manner. And we have another mob of administrators that has become more self-confident in their willingness to label anyone they disagree with as a vandal.

Revision as of 00:30, 11 March 2004

This page has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Please see that page for justifications and discussion.

Occasionally, Wikipedians lose their minds and get into edit wars over the most lame things. This is to document that phenomenon. See Wikipedia:pedantry dispute Please note, this page is dedicated to whimsy, and not to document real, contentious edit wars.

  • Cauliflower - Is cauliflower nutritious? Is specifying what parts are usable POV?
  • List of numbers that are always odd - the number 3 was being considered as possibly being not odd. Page protection was needed to halt the heated debate. User:Wik's correction of a misspelling of hypochondriacs was re-reverted no less than 3 times. Later in the edit war, no less than two thousand five hundred numbers of debated oddness were added and removed, four hundred ninety eight of them repeatedly before the edit war was solved by Meelar deleting the page.
  • Bill Clinton - edit war over which picture of him to use, when the photos are virtually identical except one is slightly darker and the other is 5 times as big.
  • Gdanzisk - edit wars have been occuring for most of a year as regards the exact name of this Polish German Prussian Eastern Central Northern European Baltic city.
  • Sarah Edmonds - Wik makes a correction, giving her middle name and month of birth. This gets lost through an edit conflict, and Danny and Alexandros add a paragraph worth of content. Wik reverts. Danny reverts. Etcetera. The only objection either had with the other's edits was that it reverted their own.
  • Richard Neustadt - Two months of edit war on whether the page should say "[[Harry S. Truman|President Truman]]" or "President [[Harry S. Truman]]" (plus the same with several other presidents.
    • Of course, this president's ACTUAL name was Harry S Truman, with no period after "S", his complete middle name.
  • User:Bird aka Face down a mob vs. almost everybody who has had said anything about it. The writer created a few dozen detailed and accurate articles and made several widely accepted revisions of other difficult articles related to physiology, culture and law, earning the trust and admiration of all watching. Then someone decided to change placement of an image Bird was preparing and working into a brain page, concluding that edit war was a better approach than responding to developing comments on the talk page. When Bird stated that the lack of trust had undermined the writer's confidense in articles written earlier, and began pruning unsourced statements or those that might not be sufficiently re-interpreted from source material, an angry throng quickly accused the seasoned writer of staging a hoax to test the credibility of Wikipedia, blocking the articles in question and encouraging the formerly admired writer to never return. Indeed a candidate for the lamest edit war ever, with the possible exception of odd numbers debate. This user would have been better off never adopting a user name. Now we have another very determined and articulate user with unusual skills in psychological warfare so alienated as to interact in only the most hostile manner. And we have another mob of administrators that has become more self-confident in their willingness to label anyone they disagree with as a vandal.