Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Images
|This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously.|
PLEASE include two or three edit history links about the lame edit war. It would be also useful to list the date the edit war was added.
- 1 Images
- 1.1 Anal sex
- 1.2 Arachnophobia
- 1.3 Asian (people)
- 1.4 Banhammer
- 1.5 Beelzebub
- 1.6 Black people
- 1.7 Cat
- 1.8 Celestial (comics)
- 1.9 Cow tipping
- 1.10 Dental floss
- 1.11 Diplomatic missions of Australia
- 1.12 Feces
- 1.13 Finger (gesture)
- 1.14 Invisible Pink Unicorn
- 1.15 JSTOR
- 1.16 Mackenzie Rosman
- 1.17 Missionary position
- 1.18 PlayStation 3
- 1.19 Red hair
- 1.20 Semen
- 1.21 Sonic the Hedgehog
- 1.22 Utopia (Doctor Who)
Since Wikipedia is not censored, is it appropriate to include a huge picture of a tarantula for illustrative purposes on a page discussing the fear of spiders? Although this question can be pondered as far back as June 2005, this issue enjoyed nearly total dominion over the talk page, and accounted for virtually all edits to the article between November 2006 and February 2007. The picture has since been changed to a cartoon of Little Miss Muffet.
Edit war over which Asian pictures should be the representative pictures on the article.
Edit war in June 2007 over the inclusion of a screenshot from Second Life in which the character pictured is holding a hammer. This led to the page being protected, and a straw poll  on whether or not the image should be included, along with accusations of sockpuppetry, single purpose accounts, and meatpuppetry.
Edit war in December 2005 over whether the picture at the top should be on the left and face left, or be on the right and face left, or be on the left and face right, or be on the right and face right. Image was eventually replaced with a higher quality version.
Edit war over which pictures should be used to represent black people, and how to caption those pictures. Be sure to practice your absurd captions on the pics on the talk page. Then, ramble on ad nauseam on said talk page justifying your edits. Don't forget to continue your diatribe in your edit summary.
34 reverts in just over an hour. The pressing issues: Should one unremarkable photo be included? Is the cat depicted really smiling? Both users were blocked for 30 seconds — "a suitably lame block for a remarkably lame edit war" — after protection of the page had halted the reverts. One user resumed after protection was lifted the next day, leading to further 12 reverts over the same photograph. Another page protection put a stop to the lameness. As it turned out, the photo was deleted for not having any copyright status.
Is it appropriate to include a picture of a cow with the caption An unsuspecting potential victim? People disputed this caption, largely because a couple people considered it humor and no evidence could be found that it was. Many different variations were put forth from plain "A cow" to humorous "Mooo?" Consensus was to delete the image, but the article ended up with the picture of "A cow in its natural upright state." There were attempts to add a cow lying down to dispute that cows can lie down and get up, but the edit warriors refused it. Perhaps cow tipping is just an urban legend and the implication that this cow could be tipped violates WP:NPOV. Can any reliable source verify that the cow is unsuspecting? Does it matter that the cow is looking at the camera? How does this segue into links to flatulence humor and the dozens? Learn the answers to these burning questions and others at Talk:Cow tipping.
Truly, an edit war over dental floss! Apparently a photograph and innocuous description have somehow offended someone's sense of fair trade. For those who take their dental hygiene seriously, this became quite a crusade. Page protection was applied in December 2006 to help heal the bleeding gums.
The crux of an argument concerned a photograph of a building in Warsaw that houses the Australian Embassy; because other tenants also occupied the same building, should the caption state that the building was the Australian Embassy in Poland? The photo was removed and argy-bargy followed, with the photographer complaining the rule was inconsistently being applied.
Revert wars, alleged sock-puppetry, and page protection: should the article on feces include this picture of a large human turd? As of early July 2005, the discussion on this issue alone had reached 12,900 words. Someone commented "Seriously, guys. You're arguing about poo."
The edit war was sparked over an image of the "one finger highway salute" should have been included. Several different pictures were added, the debate even included the lighting of the picture. Eventually it was settled. At least no one went out on the highway and rammed somebody to get a good shot...
Should the logo go on the left of the article or on the right? Straw poll results claims that the right side image is "better".
Edit war by multiple users and anonymous IP editors in October 2005 regarding whether to put a picture of the 7th Heaven actress on the left side of the page or the right. In the end, the picture was deleted anyway.
Should this drawing of the sexual position include a teddy bear? No, it's creepy and suggests paedophilia! Yes, it's incongruous, amusing, and adds atmosphere! Low-level edit war reverting between the two versions has been going on for over two years, with 46 reverts in 2006 alone.
A revert war over the top image. Some users felt that because the free image depicted an outdated model, it should be replaced by a promo image. Others cited the WP:FU policy that states that a free alternative should always be used. Heated debate commences on the talk page after it gets page protected. The issue still comes up time to time about why the free image is on the page. Since then, the PS3 has been released, a free image has been created, and the war has ended.
"Should we have animals?" "Should we have a picture of this girl or another one?" "Should we have a picture of someone's principal?" "Should we exclude dye jobs?"
A user who "contributed" several photographs of his own penis to articles takes an actual photo of his own semen and puts it on the page. Cue an ongoing several-months-long revert war over the image on whether a badly taken picture of some exhibitionist nerd's spunk should be included as a "necessary" visual aid.