Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:
  • 25 February 2004. The result was keep.
  • 7 March 2004. The result was keep.
  • 1 July 2005. The result was keep.
  • 29 August 2005. The result was speedy keep.
  • 20 November 2006. The result was nomination withdrawn.
  • 22 January 2007. The result was speedy keep.
  • 29 August 2007. The result was Speedy Keep.
Citation
This page was cited by Mother Jones magazine (January/February 2007 issue) in the piece "Articles of War".
Shortcut:
WT:LAME
Archive
Archives (Index)
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 90 days are automatically archived.
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] Muhammad

I nominate this article for Lamest Wars. The big dispute? Should the images of supposely Muhammad, be removed or not. PS- This one's a doozy. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not humorous. The editors who edit war should be blocked but this does not mean that it is humorous in anyway.--Be happy!! (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue is a serious issue and I don't think it's a doozy, but we do have consensus... but what makes this funny is that it's not an edit war at all, really. Just, the whole talk page is plastered with commentary by non-Wikipedians. If this were any other place they'd get a lot more RTFM. gren グレン 07:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Before the article was locked, there was edit warring over the images. My goodness, the issue has even drifted here, as this nomination is being contested. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Kinda proving it's lameness. Just look over the discussion, it is lame. The same debunked arguments are repeated over and over again by people who I doubt have ever used wikipedia before in their life. Apart from that, you just need to read it. It's nuts. Zazaban (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
And now even the Admins are being lame. Zazaban (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Definitely not lame - this is an important philosophical point for the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. While Wikipedia is built around a different philosophy, free access to knowledge, that does not make the perspective of conservative Islam any less valid. People's honestly held religious beliefs, whether or not they are well expressed, should be treated with respect. I am not saying we have to agree with them, but let's not refer to them on a humour page. Risker (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, now this has been caught up in some sort of admin scandal. Zazaban (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
And now it would be no exaggeration to call this the biggest controversy in wikipedia history. Zazaban (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a doozy - good thing the dude turned up before they invented photography. Far Canal (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aerith Gainsborough or Aeris Gainsborough?

This is not a current edit war, but it has been the root of reoccurring edit wars and long discussions on the article Aerith Gainsborough. All discussions have been archived at Talk:Aerith Gainsborough/Name debate archive (page size of the archive is 113kb). The first such debate began in October 2005 and the last debate ended in October 2007. One side argued that Aeris was the character's official name because that was how it was originally translated in Final Fantasy VII and it is the most common name because it was used the longest. The other side argued that Aerith was now the official name as that was how it was spelled in newer appearances and has been in common usage for several years. With every title in the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII using Aerith, the warring and discussions seem to have ended, though the scope, scale, and length of the continued disagreement seems appropriate for WP:LAME. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Flame-Baiting

I'm really sorry to see that this article derives much of its ostensible humor by willfully misrepresenting sides that this article's authors don't favor. —SlamDiego←T 02:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. I see it poking fun at either/all sides of the edit wars. IronCrow (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I see more than one entry where only one side was treated as foolish; and more than one in which, in order to poke fun at a side, their actual argument is omitted (while the other is presented) or misrepresented in order to make them look foolish. These fights evidently concern something about which people care; cheating here is not the proper response. That sort of thing is nasty regardless, and invites flaming and so forth. —SlamDiego←T 14:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that a clearly explained edit, which removed deliberate attempts to spin events to make one side look bad by misleading descriptions (eg: “supporters of the US Libertarian party (founded in 1971)", which leads the reader to believe that the term “libertarian” didn't come into vogue for classical liberal extremists until 1971) was quickly reverted to ensurer that the report is again an attack on one side.

Neutral editors need to keep this article from becoming itself a place for axe-grinding and edit-warring. —SlamDiego←T 03:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hint: if your argument is listed here, it means everyone else already thinks both sides of the dispute are pathetic and immature. Complaining that your views are being misrepresented on a page that exists for the sole purpose of mocking "serious business" edit wars just makes you look even WP:LAMEr. --erachima formerly tjstrf 07:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hint: I'm not complaining about any edit war in which I was involved. You have violated WP:AGF, and leapt thence to a false conclusion. Telling me now that I “look even WP:LAMEr” violates WP:NPA, especially since founded upon your ill-founded inference (so that WP:SPADE cannot be invoked). —SlamDiego←T 02:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LoL

Isn't a edit war happen in article LOL? I'm not 100% sure, but if is we need to insert on the article.--MCP9999 (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox wars?

Did an edit war ever occur at the sandbox? If such a thing ever happened, can we add an entry about it? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 22:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could pore over the edit history of the sandbox, and get back to us. —SlamDiego←T 11:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Just found this one. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 11:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Haha! A war with the 'bot!?! I'm not sure that it actually counts as an edit war, but it's certainly lame and I find it funny. —SlamDiego←T 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lions and all that...

This makes for interesting reading :D Alex Muller 18:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)