Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars: Difference between revisions
A sense of humour |
|||
Line 185: | Line 185: | ||
: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. --[[User:Jfruh|Jfruh]] ([[User talk:Jfruh|talk]]) 16:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC) |
: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. --[[User:Jfruh|Jfruh]] ([[User talk:Jfruh|talk]]) 16:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
== A sense of humour == |
|||
Amongst Wikipedians? |
|||
Now that is a joke. |
Revision as of 02:45, 18 June 2007
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lamest edit wars page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
![]() | This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Mother Jones magazine (January/February 2007 issue) in the piece "Articles of War". |
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
PolishGermanPrussianEasternCentral 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.
- User talk:Arwel Parry :Recurring vandalism by placing pictures of penises to harass Arwel. [66] Removed [67]
- 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)
- 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)
Edit wars spill over to WP:LAME
- Aluminum entry [80][81][82] [83][84][85][86][87] "Justifying lameness is lame" [88] More edit warring [89] "Justifying lameness is _still_ lame. Are we going to have a lame edit war here now? That would be lame" [90] "It is not lame to remove bias" [91] edit war begins...
- FOX News [92]
- Richard Neustadt and the S in Truman's name. [93][94][95][96][97][98]
- Susan Hawk, modified by contributor [99][100]
- Potato chips [101] [102]
- Gasoline [103]
- Her Late Majesty [104] "remove silly argument"[105] "remove ridiculously POV entry" [106] "Revert removal of lame edit war by participant in same. That entry is no more POV than any other here." [107] etc... revert war. Long 2nd explanation by Jtdirl [108], more revert warring... "rv. It's a particularly lame edit war and you are making it even lamer by arguing over it here!"[109][110] Month long plus edit war here on WP:LAME
- Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever :Edit war over what edit wars should be on this page (oh, the irony). - see Recursion; see also tail recursion. Most recent warring: Her Late Majesty (see above). Having lost edit war over Her Late Majesty, user begins to delete this entry, making fun of her earlier edit war here. [111] Edit war begins on this section.[112] User then adds the wrong AfD tag (old VfD) in an attempt to delete this page.[113] Gets it right in next edit. [114] Continues revert war [115]
- Nancy Reagan [116][117][118]
- William of Orange (disambiguation) "Removing "spread the lameness" attempts. Anonymous user has been warned User_talk:217.140.193.123#Track_record" [119] Returned "revert. User...apparentky has wanted to make here an edit war about an item he has personally been involved" [120]
- Edit war over the template {{edit war}} on this page. [121]
- Jennifer Lopez [122]
- Frequent date of birth to death punctuation [123][124]
- Daniel Brandt [125]
- Template:User admins ignoring policy not an edit war [126](semi revert) Until we have a "Lamest wheel wars ever" page, this belongs here. [127] no, it was within policy [128] More edit wars [129]
- Kyiv [130]
- List of virgins Edit war [131]
Best wishes, Travb (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Nice work compiling that list Travb. I laughed my ass off. Quadzilla99 05:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- Kewl,
welcome to add it back.I added it back. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Kewl,
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Didn’t you notice the box at the top of the page?
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- See comment directly above. I couldn't have said it better myself. --TinMan 06:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
"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)
- 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)
- Thx for the info, but I still do not understand the comment. --KnightMove 14:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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....
- fr:Wikipédia:Guerres d'édition les plus pitoyables
- ru:Википедия:Статьи,_о_которых_спорили
- sv:Wikipedia:De drygaste redigeringskrigen
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)
- 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)
A sense of humour
Amongst Wikipedians?
Now that is a joke.