Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

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)

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

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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....

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. —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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Agreed. I looked at the talk page and article history. Hilarious indeed. PrimeHunter 19:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Hi

Hi

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

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

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)

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)
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)

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))

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)

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)

Rorschach inkblot test

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
here's are some, better resources as the lame edits weren't that recent. --Philip Laurence 14:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Damn, they haven't used the wheels yet. Circeus 23:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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

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)

The spiritual value of this page

I'm sure this point has been made during the RFD discussions of this page, but I found this page enormously funny and cathartic, and a great collection of cautionary tales. My thanks to all the "amateur comedians". IMO, Wikipedia would be a better place if more occasional editors found their way here. Jbening 01:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Voßstraße as a very lame edit war indeed

Did not want to add it to the project page directly, but could someone who monitors these things decide how lame the edit war over Voßstraße has become? The main problem seems to be the use of the ß character in the article, and whether the name of the street in question should be Voßstraße (which is in the original german) Vossstrasse (which is the proper transliteration of the original german where the esszet character is replaced by ss) or Voss Strasse (which is sometimes used in English to avoid the cumbersome sss construction above). The edit war has resulted in AFDs, accusations of bad faith, and silly name calling. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can scoop up a few chocie quotes, I'll be delighted to add a write up. We need more "article name" wars. Circeus 20:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your right - it's a ripper. Something very similar and equally hilarious was previously going at Myanmar. The discussion page makes great reading if you have a spare couple of hours. Far Canal 06:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Vossstrasse added. I'm not sure whether to keep of trim some of the older wars. Any thoughts? Circeus 15:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The "great" thing about Wikipedia is that every lame edit war will pale in comparison to the next one. If we want to keep this truly about the lamest, we need to replace items as lamer items arise and maintain the high standard of "lamest". If people wish, we can always archive stuff just like the way the "bad jokes" article is. My opinion is that is not necessary (although I'm fine with that), because the value in this page is to show the truly darkest depths of depravity even well-respected editors can sink to. Who wants to look at a page of less lame edit wars? --C S 09:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Continuing my comment above, we really should do something about the unofficial archiving already happening on this talk page. Either move that stuff to an archive, or delete it, I say. --C S 09:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

One more: P.G. Wodehouse

Consider adding P. G. Wodehouse to the ethnic disputes. The entire controvery in the article is over a single line in the lead. The question is: Is he an English writer OR is he a British writer of English origin? Can we add American in there somewhere because he moved to America at age 74? Well over 50% of the talk page is dedicated to this one issue. The two editors warring over it filed simultaneous 3RR reports against each other see [145], and an RFC. The edit war made liberal use of the minor button to "conceal" changes, accusations of weasel wording appear in the talk page. This debate, over a single word in the article, consumed most of the month of September, and it doesn't appear to be over yet. The best part of the debate is over whether reverting to prevent a revert war contitutes a real revert. Also, does it count as a revert if you call it vandalism, even if it is a content dispute? Also, is it bad faith to remove HTML comments from the page if only editors will see them, or do such invisible comments constitute a vandalism of their own? More to come, on this one I am sure. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You know something? You should add it, and it should be almost word-for-word what you just posted above. Grandmasterka 23:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Did it, with only minor adjustments. Indeed Jayron, you have a way wit describing the lame. Circeus 00:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

American

I'm adding the edit war over "American"; not the one over whether to make it a redirect, but the one that followed, over which definition should be on top. Twin Bird 14:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Film noir, films noirs, film noirs, films noir

There's been an on-again-off-again lame-ish edit war over the plural of "film noir" that has cropped up at intervals both on the film noir page and the list of film noir page, with a fair number of talk page entries. In the list of film noir page, it has led to the article title being changed repeatedly. Francophones favor "films noirs" and anglophones one of the others. Google searches and Websters entries have been cited in support of various options. It doesn't come close to the epochal Voßstraße war, but it may be worth adding--in "spelling" perhaps. Jbening 19:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cleanup"

Are we going to have a lame edit war on the lame edit war page? heh...

It wasn't a wholesale blanking of the page, as a recent edit summary stated, but a reorg into separate sections. All of the content is still there, but it different places.

That said, I sort of like the old format better, even though it was a little unwieldy. Anyway, let's, you know, discuss this instead of getting into a revert war, eh? --Jaysweet 16:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit war, if it devolves into one, should never appear on WP:LAME per WP:DNFT. This cleanup seems to be WP:POINT-making at its worst, and should not be encouraged. Such massive changes should be discussed on the talk page before enacting. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, if you like the old format transclude the page by using {{Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Each section here}}. I've spent three hours archiving this stupidly long page and now I'm having to justify my actions. Grrr... Centy – reply• contribs – 16:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

UMMMMM, while I have reservations about such a drastic change being made without prior discussion, it is clear in my mind that Centurion is neither trolling nor WP:POINTing.
Oy. I can tell already this is going to get ugly... --Jaysweet 16:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It's only to get ugly if Jayron carries on being opaque and not listening to a word I have to say.

Basically

You know how Wikipedia:Featured article candidates has a separate page for each article nominated and then the main page is basically just the whole lot of them transcluded? I'm planning on doing that with WP:LAME only with sections.

Only problem is, some people don't quite understand I AM NOT BLANKING THE PAGE! I don't have a point to push except that the previous version of this page is unmanagable. Centy – reply• contribs – 17:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize completely for making that accusation. I was wrong to do so. I appreciate your good-faith efforts at being WP:BOLD, however please be aware that when you make such huge changes without explanation, it becomes hard to interpret your actions. Cleanup of this page may be a valid goal, however such moves should only be done after establishing consensus on the talk page. The changes you made did not make the page more manageable, in my opinion, as they hid all of the relevent parts in sub-pages, obfuscating them. I personally believe that the prior page was fine, though I would be willing to concede consensus to change it if more people agree with your version. Let us see what others think. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
If we discussed every single change done on Wikipedia before boldly implementing it, nothing would get done in a thousand years. This is a wiki, for cripes sake! Миша13 17:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Centurion's solution will have to be implemented here sooner or later. Let's face it, the bigger Wikipedia gets, the more lameness there will be. This page has massive potential for expansion. At the moment it only deals with talk pages, while ignoring clear evidence of lameness like this. --Folantin 17:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

While I initially didn't like it, the new format is growing on me. Regarding WP:BOLD, I just sorta wish Centurion had put a notice on the talk page that he was about to do this. Then again, the {inuse} tag got ignored too, so... heh, probably wouldn't have made a difference. :D Ah well.. --Jaysweet 17:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
So is this new set up OK with everyone. The sections are far more manageable, plus the individual edit wars can be wikilinked. I hope this is a lesson to people who reverted me to be a little less quick to jump the gun. Not everyone is out to vandalise Wikipedia. Centy – reply• contribs – 17:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain why transclusion makes this page more manageable? Personally, I'm not sure how moving the sections into separate transclusions represents a cleanup or an effective re-organization. The page is still going to be huge, just now it will be spread out over tens of sub-articles that will take longer to load as the system will have to call up and parse each of the transclusions to display them. The reasons for using transclusions on pages like WP:RFA, WP:FAC, WP:FARC, etc. is that they are used for discussions and each subsection gets quite a bit of edits per day and will spam the snot out of anyone that is only interested in a subset of the discussions. It also makes it easier to reference previous discussions if they make a return to the page (and in all the above examples, they return quite frequently). None of these reasons are the case with this page. The main page only gets a few edits per day at most and any changes made are of interest to anyone that monitors the page, not a specific subgroup. All in all, is there a specific reason why you feel the sub-sections should be transcluded? As for the lesson, I'm thinking you are misinterpreting who should be learning something here, as it really should be a lesson for you to discuss major reformats on the talk page before you undertake them and if you do undertake the reformat prior to discussion, if it is reverted, you should immediately go to the talk page and explain yourself rather than misuse tools such as popups to revert the other user's reversion. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to the "final product" that Centy is proposing.[146] --Bobblehead (rants) 18:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the link to the old revision doesn't show too well what Centurion is proposing as it doesn't have all the edit buttons. I've put a copy of the cleaned up version in my user space instead at User:Iain99/Lame transcluded so people can see the full effect. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Bobblehead - yes, because
  1. I don't want to have wade through 131kb of text to make a small edit.
  2. I want to be able to link to exact section of the page when refering to how the page has made WP:LAME on a talk page.
  3. No one is going to be able to casually read the whole page in one sitting so I don't see any merit in the only interested in a subset of the discussions.
  4. Because like Misza13 says, if everyone decided to discuss things first nothing would get done. Just like how you've reverted my edit just because you disagree with the minor consensus there appears to have gathered on this talk page. If you are chiding me for making my format changes, I turn to you to ask why you didn't leave the page as it was but just simply add your opinions to this talk page. Centy – reply• contribs – 19:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, pray tell Bobblehead what you disagree over. The transclusion or the mere fact I've changed something? Because if it's the transclusion why didn't just use subst? Centy – reply• contribs – 19:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Now that I can compare the two, FWIW I have a slight preference for the old version, as I find that having edit buttons every couple of lines down the right hand side makes the page look cluttered. It's a fairly minor complaint though, if other people think that the cleaned up one really is more practical. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The use of sub-headers within the existing article would allow sectional editing and direct linking to the lameness, while the use of {{TOClimit}} with the limit set to 2 would prevent the TOC from getting too large. I personally do not have a problem with having each lameness be a subheader because, as you noted, it would make direct links and maintenance easier, there just isn't a benefit that I can see for doing that formating through transclusion. Readability certainly isn't benefited by how the subpages are set up and transcluded into the article as anyone coming to this page would still have to read through the page in its entirety. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Fine, so I'm going to subst: in the pages and we'll carry on the discussion over whether we want them transcluded or substituted. Centy – reply• contribs – 20:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be in an odd rush to get your changes in. Perhaps you should wait for consensus to be determined before you rush off to implement your changes. Being bold is one thing, but it doesn't overrule consensus and the determination of this. There is nothing wrong with keeping the previous version for a few days. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Even the transcluded pages don't really work; since as mentioned they merely slowdown the load time, while being even harder to navigate, as the plethora of extra edit buttons makes it hard to pick the right one to edit. This seems like fixing something that wasn't broken. This page gets MAYBE a half-dozen edits a day; the solution that CenturionZ_1 is trying to implement is designed for one purpose; avoiding edit conflicts on heavily edited pages. It really isn't about organization (compare WP:AFD to a similarly structured page, like WP:GAR, which receives FAR fewer edits per day). If loading a 131k page is putting a drag on your particular internet connection, then that is a client problem not a server problem. We shouldn't have to build Wikipedia so that it can be useful on the slowest possible connection. I am open to changing the way the page is organized, or even setting a reasonable cap on the number of lame edit wars we cover (so that if one is added, another must be archived) however, the solution that CenturionZ_1 implemented is inelegant and unneeded. See Bad and Wrong for more info... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

plethora of extra edit buttons makes it hard to pick the right one to edit - That is just false.

  1. You can change that in your preferences.
  2. And it was so much easier to edit before? When you had to wade through 130kb of text to find the section you want to edit on the main article page and then do the same thing in the code when you click edit page. My way, you can single out a section to edit.
  3. If you can't match up the edit box, to the heading then you must have eyesight/hand-eye co-ordination problems.

The fact is there's too many people on Wikipedia with your attitude, "it's not totally defunct, let's not do anything major to fix it". If we all took your attitude, months down the line, this would reach 200kb and be utterly manageable and probably be deleted. I would like to hear your suggestions. So you basically want to us to go back to the situation where to edit and entry you have to sift through raw code rather editing a subheading.

You know what, you win. I've had it with contributing. Do whatever you like. I spent 3 hours trying to sort of this monstrosity of a page and all get are thinly veiled insults (apparentally my work is badly executed - at least I got of my lazy ass and tried to do something). I'll let you deal with the inevitable problems but I can't see you fixing it if you keep this attitude. You better start thinking of some sort of archiving process yourself. Centy – reply• contribs – 00:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So perhaps when I proposed the solution of limiting the maximum size of the page so that when a new entry was added another had to be removed. You thought that was wrong? Look, I am sorry you spent all this time on this work, I really am. I mean really, if spending hours reorganizing a pointless page is the most important thing you can do at Wikipedia, I feel very sorry that you don't feel you can contribute to articles more. Working hard on something does not mean it was worthwhile work. Let's put this into perspective. This is a silly humour page that is about a hairsbredth away from MfD. Getting bent out of shape for what it looks like or how long it is or whether or not people appreciate your work on it seems like misplaced anger. How about getting pissed at the state of some of the articles on Wikipedia that need work. Channel that anger and fix an article or something. Really... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
How bout we do turn this page into the style that BJAODN had? And their could be two sets of archives, one by month and one by type of edit war. How does that sound? Also why does it say at the top of the page that this page is humourous and shouldn't be used for any serious purpose? The Placebo Effect 00:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
My FAC: Violin Concerto (Mendelssohn). In all of 3 weeks of being at WP:FAC, I've got two comments, and one was criticising the lead page.
My two days spent writing Neapolitan War gets rated Start class which is basically the same class as someone spending 2 minutes copying and pasting out of a website.
I've just had enough of all my work never getting appreciated. And the reason you may notice I don't go to talk pages more often is I get ignored. I brought up the point that category traversal forwards and backwards gives you a different count of articles when the category contains >400 articles. Brought this up at Village Pump - nothing. Bring up the fact the bots are miscounting the number of featured and good articles (trust me, try listing all the articles at Wikipedia:Featured articles and compare it to the number listed) and I not only get ignored, I get rubbished even after I list them all.
Now you see why this little episode, which I intended to be just a nice jesture to WP:LAME, because I like this page, has pushed me over the edge. I've had enough. Centy – reply• contribs – 00:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For submission: Talk:The Smashing Pumpkins#Delinking Virgin Records Girolamo Savonarola 00:49, 20 October 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)

o_O --Luigifan 02:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Update: now it's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sonic_the_Hedgehog_%28character%29/Archive_5#article_name ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 18:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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)
I also believe that this article should be removed from the lame edit war as well due to the fact that it's giving an impression of unseriousness, when it's actually a very controversial matter. L46kok 09:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
As has been stated over and over again ON THIS VERY TALK PAGE, there can and have been lame edit wars over serious matters. The dispute may be deadly serious, but everyone fighting over it has been acting in a spectacularly lame fashion. --Jfruh (talk) 16:44, 24 October 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?
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)
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)
I don't think he's funny. That was the point. --GunnarRene 16:11, 4 October 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. — Amcaja (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)

The Lizt summary is really, really funny. For what it's worth. Which is nothing. But it's really funny. This whole page has me lolling. Which never happens. Not lame. Good job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.202.239 (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Cornelius Vanderbilt edit skirmish

Found it.

Twelve days and six reverts. --Stratadrake 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed this since it didn't seem at like an edit war, let alone a lamest one. These links show this just to be a series of vandalisms and a mistaken revert of "vandalism". I realize this may not be so clear, but common usage of the term "edit war" is not meant to include clear cases of vandalism fighting. Perhaps in some specified technical sense it may, but certainly reverting vandalism is never lame, no matter how unimportant the topic may seem. --C S 09:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just in case

If anybody tried to send this to WP:AFD again, it is interesting that this article might be considered notable enough to be the subject of an an article on itself (hope all those subphrases and clauses are coherent after a lot of beer). No more bongos 03:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I submit for your review...

Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. Enjoy. —Viriditas | Talk 15:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh... entertaining, though since it's a Talk page argument, it doesn't qualify as an "edit war." But amusing nonetheless. Funny, because just the other day I was adding a ref, and I was like, "Wait, do I put it before or after the period?" I decided to put it after the period and figured if anyone had a problem with it, they'd fix it :) --Jaysweet 15:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for not providing context. The edit war concerns the trivial issue of whether to place footnotes before or after punctuation and is taking place on Wikipedia:Footnotes, in the section "Where to place ref tags". The thread(s) on the talk page document the corresponding edit war on the article, which as you can see by the history, while waning as editors come and go, is still active.[147] From what I can tell, this has been going on for almost six months, possibly longer. —Viriditas | Talk 15:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The argument is over whether to mandate where reference tags are placed at a project wide level, or if it should be decided at the article level. It is not a question of before or after punctuation as no one wishes to prohibit tags after punctuation. The argument is part of an ongoing wider debate about how prescriptive Wikipedia should be at the Wikipedia project level. Some think that detailed rules should be implemented so that all Wikipedia pages use the same style and format, others think that in such a large project with thousands of stake holders, that although some things have to be centralised, much of the detail can be left at a more local level, (However as the WP:ATT debate showed those most active in editing the content policy pages and guidelines do not necessary represent the broader constituency of editors, so it is anyones guess over which view represents that held by a majority of editors or if the majority of editors care one way or another). One major side issue of this debate is the use of bots, some think that using bots to homogenised page format and layout is a good thing others get upset when a page they have worked on with other editors in harmony is suddenly reformatted by a bot, (particularly as sometimes these changes although quite small can show up as massive differences in the edit history (eg removing blank lines immediately after a section heading)). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits on Liancourt Rocks entry

User:Jjok insists on adding a citation needed tag to the joke that "Serious Wikipedians (of Korean or Japanese citizenship) may even choose to make these rocks their place of residence (living there not required!) to bolster their case". Jjok likes to put the tag near "Japanese citizenship", as his or her view is that there is no evidence that any Japanese list their place of residence there. I pointed out just recently on Talk: Liancourt Rocks (after Jjok's insistence on editing WP:LAME) that:

... it seems the claim of hundreds or thousands of Koreans or Japanese listing it as a residence is unsubstantiated, so should be removed. As a joke, it is still funny, so I expect it will remain on WP:LAME. It's clear at some point that both governments were making claims of permanent residence, even when no citizen was living there. So the point of the joke holds: "serious" edit warriors should register a residence there to make their point! --C S (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees here that bringing a POV here to continue an edit war is disagreeable, so people should watch out for further attempts by Jjok to do so. --C S (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality.

This article is highly judgmental and is from only one POV. It does not attempt to show these edit wars from the partaker's point of view at all. How do you think they'd feel about their efforts being marginalized to this degree? Zazaban 06:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as somebody who asked for an edit war he was involved in to be included, I'd say this is a valid distancing tool, allowing the people involved in the lame edit wars some perspective. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 06:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree actually, I just thought it would be funny if this article itself ended up on the list. I'm not stupid enough to get block though, so, cheers. Zazaban 07:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
But seriously, please don't block me. Zazaban 07:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is on the list already, under "Circular wars". --Jfruh (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This article feels more like a newspaper column than a encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.204.210 (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that's the point. This article is just for fun, and if it does have real value, it should be to remind us of how easy it is to become embroiled in a dispute of the silliest, most minute concepts (a human trait, it seems). This article is intended to look at things in a humorous, even editorial manner, so I wouldn't expect too much from it.--C.Logan 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It's also in the "Wikipedia" namespace, so it's not actually part of the encyclopedia, but rather part of the community process. --Jfruh (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The namespace distinction is important and obviously confusing to newcomers. It doesn't help that the "addition" section mentions that normal policies applies. Obviously, the article namespace policies do not apply here. I will make the necessary change to that section to clarify this. Also, that section really needs to be at the top where more people will see it. --C S (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If you ask me, we should have an edit war over this article. You know, make teams, and really go at each other. In all seriousness, wow, I CANNOT BELEIVE that anybody is actually disputing the neutrality of this article. I LOVE this article. Good stuff, people, good stuff. --The F50 Man 20:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The numerous Diacritics wars at Hockey pages

I wunder if these disputes (since resolved) would be a candidate for Lamest wars inclusion? GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I say disputes as it covererd numerous articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
could you give some example links so someone could look through these disputes? It sounds very interesting! --C S (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Check up the archives of the following: Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey, Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format & related European NHL player articles -examples Peter Stastny, Jaromir Jagr and the all-time favourite Teemu Selanne. Also once infected all 30 NHL team articles (see their archives). PS- the dispute at Royal Burial Ground has been renewed, with a slightly new twist. GoodDay 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you have not provided page diffs, it is hard to check for edit wars. Check again, and be sure that these are honest to god edit wars (lots of reversions and rewrites back and forth) and not just heated discussions. Talk page discussions, no matter how silly and pointless they are, do not qualify for this page. If the edit histories of articles are filled with back-and-forth reversions over a single character, thats WP:LAME. If the talk page is filled with pages of pointless discussion over that issue, as silly as it is, its not edit warring, so is not lame. The talk page is indeed where we WANT such battles to be fought.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Howabout the archives at Jaromir Jagr, Teemu Selanne, Marian Gaborik etc. The edit wars kind spilled over alot of European NHL player pages. GoodDay 01:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Does Page movement wars count? GoodDay 01:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
There's a lengthy debate here Talk:Jaromír Jágr#Diacritics IrisKawling 23:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

From WT:HOCKEY's archives: debate #1, debate #2, debate #3. Teemu Selanne had his article moved several times, as one noted example. I'm sure there are lots more. Resolute 04:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing edit war

We've had other edit wars about dates of birth here, so why not add this one for Collin Raye? This one started out real slow but has gained steam recently. And I think it's especially lame since my Wikipedia-editing otters and I (inside joke) got duped at least once.

  • When the article was first created back in August 2004, Raye's birthdate was listed as 22 August 1960 (diff).
  • Then it was changed to 1959 (diff).
  • It stayed the same for nearly two years until one good faith edit wiped out some of the page, demanding that the date be changed to 1960 (diff). This edit was quickly rolled back, and the date changed back to 1959.
  • The fight died down until August 2007, when the same editor as above changed the date again to 1960 (diff). (It should also be noted that changing the DoB is also this user's only edit to date.) I then wikified the 1960 date, using the {{birth date and age}} template.
  • In November 2007, my otters and I rewrote the page from scratch. In our rewrite, the DoB was changed back to 1959 (diff), seeing as every source that I was finding listed 1959. This includes All Music Guide, MusicianGuide.com, and CMT.com.
  • ...Every source but one, that is. This article, dated August 24, 2004, claimed that Raye turned 44 at a concert two days previous, which would mean that he was born in 1960. Since almost every other source listed 1959, I kept it as 1959 in the article, figuring that the one source may have made a typo.
  • Immediately afterward, an IP changed it back to 1960 again (diff). Another user fixed this edit to use the {{birth date and age}} template. I let this edit slide for over a month (!), apparently because I was so busy copy editing the rest of the article.
  • What I didn't realize though, is that even though the infobox and intro said 1960, he was still in the category Category:1959 births; that eventually got fixed (diff).
  • I then, finally, changed it back to 1959 (diff) after double-checking all my other sources.
  • You guessed it -- the date got changed again today (diff). Probably the same user, seeing as he/she didn't use the {{birth date and age}} template again.
  • Just a few minutes ago, I rolled back those edits (diff) again. We'll have to see what happens next...

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be much of an edit war (even including events from two years prior), and it has not gone to the extremes required for the tag of "lamest". Essentially you feel like you've been putting up with a lot, but this is common place. It's hardly comparable to the depths of depravity witnessed in the truly lamest edit wars. --C S (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
That's run-of-the-mill unsourced nonsense, like the regular IP addition of shipping stuff in ome fictional character articles (lots of fanwankery going on in some digimon articles, but not much edit warring). Circeus (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nomination: Nintendo GameCube

There's a couple of users on Nintendo GameCube arguing over onetwo words. One side says that the GameCube has failed to regain market share lost by the N64, while the other says the 'Cube is failing, arguing that the only 6th gen console that has been discontinued is the Xbox. Those two words resulted in at least an SSP report (closed as inconclusive) and full protection. Is this lame enough for this page? NF24(welcome, 2008!) 21:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

NF24, you should be ashamed of yourself for completely mischaracterizing this dispute. I'm not saying that you don't have the right to your opinion, but you do not have the right to your own facts. You state this this edit war is (and I quote): "a couple of users . . . arguing over one word" [emphasis added]. Well, the fact of the matter is, if one side wants "has failed", and the other side wants "is failing", then the disagreement is over two words. I certainly hope you will retract your slanderous accusation.74.234.5.65 (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologise for the mistake and have changed the statement. It was a simple error. NF24(welcome, 2008!) 21:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

MfD

The page is WORTHY of WP:CSD but appearntly the WP:ADMIN insist I do this otherwise.This article exhibits multiple violations in WP:NOT it is a collection of WP:OR and violates WP:NPOV it is a "Mere collections of internal links" it "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". Further violations are in WP:STYLE, although these do not appear to be WP:POLICY, they are sever enough to further consideration against the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.219.74 (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As shown at the top of this talk page, the page has survived seven nominations for deletion without problems. Most of your arguments only apply to articles in the mainspace. This is a project page in Wikipedia space which means it is not part of the encyclopedia. If you really want to go through with the eigth nomination four months after the seventh ended with speedy keep then follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. You need an account to create the MfD subpage. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Repeated tagging of a page (an established one in the Wikipedia namespace, no less) as "patent nonsense" when it is not patent nonsense is disruption. I have blocked this IP temporarily, as disruption appears to be this user's motive. For someone apparently so well versed in policy, I am surprised this user is not aware that MfD is designed specifically for this. --Kinu t/c 17:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The link to the WP in the Ann Coulter age dispute is broken.

160.81.61.186 (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

rollback additions

I noticed several people have been editing a newly created section on the rollback controversy. I removed it. I see no signs of any edit warring. There is a link to the Request for Rollback page but its history shows no sign of warring. Let's remember that discussion does not count as edit warring, and neither do polls, creations of extra proposed policy pages, etc. In addition, since this is the lamest edit wars page, anyone wanting to add the rollback controversy should demonstrate not only edit warring (as typified by back and forth reverting), but an extent of warring that exceeds the importance of the topic. In other words, please demonstrate there is a massive back and forth reverting. --C S (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The ridiculously lame edit warring was conducted on Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Vote. Browse through the last several edits before the protection was enacted. Mike R (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I took a look and I do see some edit warring after all. For less than two hours, there was about 6 reverts total. This doesn't seem like much of an edit war. --C S (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Either way, what's happening with the new rollback rights is one of the lamest Wikipedia things ever, and very much deserves to be included, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 21:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't make the edit war itself lame, nor the lamest, just because there's a lot of other activity you could consider truly lame. I repeat, this is not the "lamest activities on Wikipedia" page. --C S (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw objections. The current summary (with links) is much more convincing. --C S (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed an entry

Another editor added it back asking me not to delete my own lamest edit war. Is this appropriate? The article was Mountain Meadows massacre. Thanks, --Tom 18:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone not associated with the "Friday" edit war doesn't think it is worth including here, I won't revert them. But it is unseemly for an editor involved in a specific edit war to delist that war from WP:LAME while leaving all the others. Personally, I think the "Friday" business was pretty lame and deserving of recognition here.Mike R (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
But I was on the right side of the edit war :) Seriously, is there any policy ect regarding this? Consensus was reached with howthe article reads now. Anyways --Tom 20:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Myanmar/Burma

I nominate this discussion for a lameness award. It changed names 20 years ago. —BradV 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed getting lame. But there's not much edit warring. Perhaps there ought to be a page on lame discussions. While some people got involved in some reverting over redirecting one name to the other (on Jan 20), it was short lived. Much of the "action" seems to be in this incredibly long, repetitious discussion (involving Googling this or that just so). I suppose they ought to be commended for "taking it to the talk page", but I wish they would spend that time doing something else. --C S (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

...

Why does this page exist? Because it is.... humorous. I've seen people get banned for trying to add valid info to this website, but this page stays because it's humourous? Thats not even this websites function! Also, does wikipedia have an article on itself? - 209.244.16.213 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The top of this talk page has links to deletion discussions with arguments to keep. Note that Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars starts with "Wikipedia:" so it's not an article and not part of the encyclopedia. It's a project page in the Wikipedia namespace. Wikipedia does have an encyclopedic article about itself at Wikipedia, and there are also other articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have a confession to make!

I was the bonehead responsible for the edit war at Krystal (Star Fox). Really. If you look in the history, you'll notice that I was the "text advocate" mentioned. Yep. Not one of the smartest things I've ever done. Looking back on it now, I just have to admit that what went down there was nothing short of lame, lame, LAME. You may now throw stuff at me. --Luigifan (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you a dose of WP:TROUT, not for confessing, but for having already confessed (on /Archive 3#I have a confession to make...). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Adding to ConMan's comment, it's a bit disheartening to see that you seem a bit proud of this. Next, I expect we'll see userboxes saying "I caused an edit war that appeared on WP:LAME". Sigh. --C S (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think he's proud of it. What I read from it was that it made him realize it was lame after reading the page here. So relax. :) Mike H. Fierce! 10:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
FINALLY, someone gets it!!! --Luigifan (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sade

Does the war over the 'correct' pronunciation of her name make the cut as lame enough? [148] and [149] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That does indeed seem very lame. Zazaban (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

2008 WTA Tour

I'd like to nominate this article. An IP and a user are warring over whether to use initials for player names. LeaveSleaves (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Categorisation of New antisemitism

There is currently an argument on whether it is insulting to place New antisemitism in Category:Political neologisms where it will, shame of it, share a place with Freedom fries. They have been reverting each other for what seems like years and are still arguing with each pm the talk page despite my suggestion that the edit war deserves a mention here.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

Lions and all that...

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

Altrincham

At the risk of sounding very lame indeed: Altrincham is still in Cheshire. The lame debate appears to have been about how the address was written, not the actual location of the town. 78.144.115.60 (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why these wars happen

I think what probably happens in many cases, is that even though the particular case is not very important, people want to fight over it because there's a deeper principle involved (e.g. a dispute over how to apply policy). Nonetheless, they should of course have taken it to the talk page rather than edit warring. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

AE vs BE.

Why is it that every single AE/BE dispute here was resolved to AE? It seems that if the process is even slightly fair, it wouldn't be AE everytime. Jetekus (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you somehow miss the war over "aluminium"? --Carnildo (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Liopleurodon

This is more of a talk-page dispute, but there's some intermittent edit-sparring, if not full-blown war. The pressing issue: Should this page refer to the memetic video "Charlie the Unicorn", in which the Liopleurodon makes a three-second non-sequitur appearance? 68.123.238.140 (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Irony

I understand the irony of a petty talk page point connected to an article about petty edit wars, but... This feels a tad belittling. I can see how people could get worked up over these things, sometimes their placeholders or flags in the sand for other feelings we have about nationality or ethnicity etc... I don't know. Take the Sea of Japan article, for example, couldn't the naming of this be just a flashpoint for a wider feelings of annoyance between some Korean and Japanese wikipedians? They seem petty to us, but Freddie Mercury is a big part of some people's lives. I'm really disappointed with wikipedia to discover something like this. It's quite sad, and quite surprising. But I suppose quite in keeping with the dichotomy of this place. Jamestown Easy Slider (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I take some of it back Jamestown Easy Slider (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone repeat after me

WP:LAME does not take sides. Even if you are right. --Random832 (contribs) 13:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Odorheiu Secuiesc

How about this one? The edit war itself isn't that lame, but he's edit warring with himself. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 23:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Anna Quist

Now that I'm fairly certain that the whole mess is over, I'd like to nominate most of the actions of Anna Quist [150] and her sockpuppet [151] as one of the lamest edit wars of all time, quite possibly the lamest. The whole war was based around this user's crusade to promote an organization that does not exist. It started on the now deleted article Anarchist International and then spilled over to a number of anarchism related articles and a number of talk pages. Anyone disagreeing with this user was deemed an 'Ochlarchist' (Not a typo) and threatened to be given a 'brown card.' A number of consensus decisions were declared invalid by her with reasoning more or less being because she said so. You can only really comprehend the lameness of it all by going through her edit history. Be warned, this one is a doozy. Zazaban (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This page is solid gold!

Haven't laughed this hard in ages. Great work guys! --.:Alex:. 18:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Love it!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.65.79 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I hear ya, my brutha. Hell yeah!--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Found my way here via User:Peeky44 labelling the Talk:St_Pancras_railway_station conversation WP:LAME. This has to be one of the best pages on Wikipedia!! Superb!! --Ormers (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha, this happnd 2 me 2

First one in this section. It happened to me, and it got real crazy after that. Took ages to get people off my back, 'You are immature' and that!--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 21:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

New entry:Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron

I added: 

====[[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron]]====
Put up for deletion 3 times. Can anyone See the irony and futility in such a gesture?

If this does not qualify for entry on this page, we should create a Wikipedia:Lamest deletion wars page, which will immediately be put up for deletion by deletionist. LOL.

I want to create Wikipedia:Lamest deletion wars right now, but I know it would immediately go up for AfD. Inclusionist (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia This website, which chronicles wikipedia deletions, is put up for deletion. Inclusionist (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Miscellameness"

Hello all! I have been maligned for "reverting over discussion" by User:Verdatum because, um, I reverted instead of discussing. In my defense, the edit I reverted -- User:Looneyman's changing the heading "Miscellameness" to "Miscellaneous" -- was specifically marked in the edit summary as being the correction of a typo, so I thought that s/he honestly thought that this was a misspelling rather than an intended joke. That struck me as an outright erroneous edit (i.e., correcting a perceived error that wasn't actually an error) and not really worthy of discussion.

I'm not fervently attached the "miscellameness" joke, though I do think it fits the silly tone of the article rather than the bland "miscellaneous" header, for what it's worth. --Jfruh (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't intend to malign you, Jfruh, I was commenting on my own revert without discussing. In all honesty, I have no strong opinion on the matter one way or another. It's just hard to pass up the chance to edit war on a page about edit warring, especially when the original editor commented in fear of it :) -Verdatum (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if I was stuffing beans up my nose when I said that. Either way, if we start edit-warring over this on a page about lame edit wars (especially after discussing it here), we may end up being slapped by people with trouts.
I honestly thought that it was a typo, and not a delibrate pun. But yeah, I do agree with the edit summary that said that it wasn't a good joke. Even so, it's possible people won't see this discussion and edit war over it anyway. Looneyman (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Surely the lameness of the joke is part of the joke itself? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Aww! But I love "miscellameness!" Taking it out causes the article to lose a little of its flippancy and character. --Karen | Talk | contribs 08:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Adding my vote in favor of "miscellameness." Propaniac (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I also like "miscellameness", it is one of those excellent pseudo-words like automagical. Martin451 (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a clear consensus in favor of Miscellameness. Oh well, it's been actioned already. Looneyman (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Gasoline / Petrol Can

While gasoline is commonly called Petrol in England (or Britain or UK), in other parts of the world, the word translated as Petrol may refer to almost any petroleum product. Reading the Haynes auto maintenance manual I wondered why I should clean my auto parts with canning wax, then the glossary informed me that "parafin" is a Britishism for kerosene. I certainly hope that UKers following American food canning guides are not sealing their jams and preserves with parafin (UK kerosene) instead of parafin (US canning wax). Now, I hope I have not started an edit war over parafin. That would be lame.Naaman Brown (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe the (Adjective) Plumber

Per suggestion of User:Oren0 ... I nominate the long and bloody editwar (resulting in a locked page) on what "Joe the Plumber's" occupation is! Even went to WP:BLP/N with it, and the same warriors followed it there. Reverted entries included "illegal plumber", "plumber's helper" and "unlicensed plumber" as an "occupation." Anyone beat this? (I found "plumber's helper" to be the funniest, of course.) (Other than the "occupation wars" in Sarah Palin where some called her a "fisherwoman" and the like.) Collect (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually a "Daily Double" since it also has a "nickname" v. "sobriquet" war going on! Collect (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but who started the war? •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The occupation was "plumber" for more than a month. Then it was "improved" to "illegal plumber" and the like. I would suggest that the war was initiated by the folks who made the "improvement" indeed. Collect (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just came across this while wading through the murk of Joe's talk page and I heartily agree with listing this here - but the entry here hardly did it justice! I added a bit to it. Narco (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also should be on "Most Ironic Change of Position" lists -- one editor who insisted Joe was "the most famous plumber" now insists he is not a plumber at all <g>. Collect (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
ROFL. Good thing WP isn't about truth. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone's seriously proposing describing him as a plumber's helper? --Carnildo (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Other choices proposed were "illegal plumber" and "unlicensed plumber." What I really like is the person who insisted "plumber's helper" does not mean "plunger" <g>. Collect (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Diamond & Pearl

Oddly, no wars have occured on the pages for the Generation I games, Generation II games, Generation III games or Generation I remakes.

Because no-one had any reason to argue: this was just Dash and his attempts at trolling, and the DP article was his chosen target. It's less a war than a trolling escapade, and unfortunately, you took the bait. I guarantee you that none of this would've happened if he never bothered to edit. Blue Mirage (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can guarantee that I didn't take the bait - if you look at my contributions, you'll see that I haven't added anything to any Pokemon article: I was just saying that D&P was the first one to see an edit war over the game's genre. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:section

If the template section is used (e.g. {{section|Liancourt Rocks}}) then the TOC can be allowed to be generated automatically. (Section is more useful than Anchor as it works with many more than 10 entries) --PBS (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Top Gear

An extremely lame edit war over the inclusion/exclusion of Top Gear Dog into the main article. In my opinion it should be added. Thanks. --CF1V8 (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Pruning

Looks like it's time for another periodic pruning of this page. There seem to be a number of just random edit "battles" (not big drawn out epic wars). For example, the supposed lamest edit war over Death by Stereo's founding date seems to be localized to just a day or two. Also, some of the descriptions need to be rewritten. I find that some of the rewritten descriptions are much less humorous than they used to be. --C S (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Short" doesn't always mean "not lame". For example, 100+ reverts in a day over something trivial strikes me as suitable for this page. --Carnildo (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Good point. The example I named, though, is at best a couple dozen reverts drawn out over several days. There's a tendency for people to add things like that to this page. As a kind of LAME trivia, do you have any examples in mind of 100+ reverts in one day over something silly? --C S (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This page should be deleted

So sneering at other editors is "considered humorous", is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.247.190 (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't calling it sneering so much as realising just how easy it is to get worked up over tiny things. Anyway, you're welcome to nominate it for deletion, but you'd better make sure you can make a more convincing argument than any of the previous ones (see list at top of this page). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This page seriously reminds me of Uncyclopedia....j@5h+u15y@nClick Here for a random page... 15:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashtulsyan (talk • contribs)

Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)

Has I said I would in the edit summary:

I went throughout all of December 2007's revisions to this page (well, the ones before Christmas Day, anyway), and I am unable to see any edit warring over whether David Tennant is cited or not anywhere. If anyone can find any edits which have a cite over DT's appearance, then please be my guest and re-add this section. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The removed comment in your edit [152] said "added: 11 July 2007" so it couldn't have been in December 2007. There is discussion at Talk:Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)/Archive 1#Cast list and I found edits on 1 July 2007, for example [153] and [154]. I have readded the section. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion is reasonable and one participants even reverted himself. The only one causing any edit warring is an anon, who was subsequently reverted by everyone else. Yawn. As I mentioned above, this page is turning into Wikipedia: Business as Usual. Don't keep re-adding incidents like the ones that happen several times every hour on Wikipedia. --C S (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and it's not really funny! -Verdatum (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not objecting to the new reasons for the removal. I only readded it earlier because the stated reason for removal was invalid. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for addition

I think I will let this one speak for itself. --Russavia Dialogue 04:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a stupid idea, but remember that this page is for edit wars about lame things, since all edit wars are by their very nature lame. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Too much rushing for Obama

There went a massive Obama hysteria on the pages Barack Obama, United States, President of the United States and other related pages. I saw, I came but they fought and never conquered the perfect moment. That full-blown edit war that included several lockdowns and technical problems on some revisions was simply lame. Alexius08 (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure people had their fingers on the "Save page" button to edit the Obama-related articles as soon as the inaugural words were spoken... it really is lame that there's a circus trying to be the first to update a wikipedia page. --Triadian (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It could've been worst. Had McCain been elected, the Sarah Palin article, would've been a landmine for edit wars. PS: I miss the clowns butting heads image. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not just candy

... but Stick candy. Could this possibly make the list? — Ched (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Arguing over candy. I took a look. Sadly, it seems par for the course. Otherwise we'd have to put almost everything that goes to an article RFC on here. I see some bad editing behavior but nothing to warrant it being "lamest". I suspect some of the items here at WP:LAME are not any worse, but those additions are mistakes and we certainly shouldn't add to them. As a kind of random thought, you know, people above comment how this page is good for learning to chill and laugh at ourselves. But another thing the page is good for is to see that no matter how bad an edit warrior you think you've been, there are worse (probably...as long as you aren't involved in the naming/ownership disputes of things between Korea and Japan....). --C S (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I hear that. You couldn't get me near a political article with the edit button if you had a ten foot pole, a whip, a chair, and the lion. — Ched (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Pretty lame, but not lamest by any means. One side is following WP:DR, pointing out specific policies and guidelines of concern. The other side is fighting to retain the article the way they created it, without regard to policies or guidelines. Lame, no. WP:OWN, yes. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Entries - I think unless some supporting links are added, those that have no links to actual edit wars should be removed

I noticed that there'a lot of entries here that don't link to anything but the article/page where the edit wars was claimed to have taken place. No links to RFCs, talk pages, ArbCom cases, AN/I etc. All we're left with is someone's description of what happened. I think unless some supporting links are added, those that have no links to actual edit wars should be removed. RxS (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I started culling some, some of them didn't even reference a edit war here but just disagreements off-Wiki. RxS (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I do agree links would be really useful. Even a couple links to get you to the right page in the article history would be great. Perhaps it's time to make some changes to the rules for adding.

As for removing the entries with no link, at this point most of them don't, so I think we would lose a lot if we just removed them. I suggest just going through the ones we have listed, adding the links when possible and removing the entry if not, and putting up a new rule to keep more additions without the links. --C S (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree there are way too many. It is hard to sort through it all; people will lose interest before seeing any good ones. There should be about 20 in the list to make it optimally interesting, in my opinion. Habanero-tan (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
If you find the page uninteresting, then don't read it. Material with diffs was removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree entirely with the removal (after all, the Sea of Japan/East Sea thing reached epic proportions with a number of SPAs and 'alternate' accounts). But it's clear there needs to be a severe pruning of the page. The page has gotten substantially less interesting over time. It used to be you could click on any item listed here and find a massive war. Now you're just as likely to find a few reverts followed by a polite discussion on a talk page. --C S (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I counted about 300 items in the list; it's crazy. Habanero-tan (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Carnildo is reverting me for removing even just a couple of the worst items. I remember a time when it was actually readable, and not a matter of searching for 10 minutes to find one mildly interesting entry. It is 'Lamest edit wars' not 'An exhaustive database of every edit war'. Habanero-tan (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Carnildo hasn't reverted you, only some vandalism. --C S (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out this one

Talk:List_of_Pokémon_(241–260)/Mudkip_Meme_Inclusion_Debate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habanero-tan (talk • contribs) 04:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This just looks like a debate, not an edit war. --C S (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Trust me, there are at least 1,000 reverts and 100 page protections over that one sentence. If it's not in the history, it's because Jeske periodically wipes the history of things whenever there are 100+ reverts in an hour or two; he says they are doing it for attention so if there's no record of it they will lose interest. Habanero-tan (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds gruesome. I'll take your word for it then. :-) --C S (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW on meta lame

WP:FICT has pretty much been om s 4 year edit war without ever being resolved —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) 09:11, 11 March 2009 66.167.67.98

Or this one

Editing of Obama's page by Aron Klein is on news [155]

Yesterday, Fox News claimed that President Obama's Wikipedia entry was being edited to take out all the important "facts" of his controversial past and mysterious birth. The source of this story? WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein, so you know it was douple-dipped in truthiness.

Wired then looked into exactly what was being edited in the entry and made a interesting discovery.

Klein found it particularly alarming that a Wikipedia user called "Jerusalem21" was recently hit with a three-day wiki-suspension after twice posting the neutral and encyclopedic fact that there are "some doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S. "

So who is this poor mistreated seeker after the truth, "Jerusalem21?"

Curiously, it turns out that Jerusalem21, whoever he or she might be, has only worked on one other Wikipedia entry since the account was created, notes ConWebWatch. That's Aaron Klein's entry, which Jerusalem21 created in 2006, and has edited 37 times. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.67.98 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 11 March 2009

That's not so much lame as plain stupid. Or to be more precise, the edit war itself isn't particularly lame (arguing over whether to include a significant chunk of information in an article compared with, for example, arguing over whether to use an Oxford comma or not), although the editor could use a lesson in avoiding Plaxico syndrome. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nascent edit war: Voynich Manuscript

Currently on the Voynich Manuscript page, there's some controversy brewing(including plenty of reverts and a lengthy talk page debate) over whether to include a reference to the mysterious document in a recent xkcd. Might be worth including here if it continues long. 69.224.113.202 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thylacoleonidae

I'm surprised that the edit war on Thylacoleonidae in early June 2008 over whether to include a hatnote or not didn't make this list. Rlendog (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You could probably add it yourself in the appropriate section if you wanted to; I don't think any particular user or WikiProject maintains this List, and I had no problems when I added U2 to it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

addition of Article Rescue Squadron

Benjiboi insists on adding:

===[[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron]]===
This WikiProject dedicated to rescuing articles on notable subjects tagged for deletion was itself put up for deletion three times. The associated {{Rescue}} tag another three times and when the tag itself was tagged for rescue? The tag was removed eight times. Can anyone see the irony and futility in such gestures?

First, putting up stuff for deletion is not edit warring. Secondly, yes the rescue tag had some edit warring over it. But it wasn't a big edit war. Just a minor one resulting from contentious deletion discussions. Lastly, this page is definitely not the place for people involved in edit warring to come and make their points. That last sentence in Benjiboi's addition makes it clear that is what s/he intends with his/her edits to this page, and indeed Benjiboi was a main participant in the edit warring over the rescue tag. So stop it already. Let those without axes to grind on this matter determine whether it's ok for inclusion here. --C S (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've poisoned the well a bit but I invite others to comment if the various battles to delete the project, the tag and whether the tag should be tagged was indeed lame. I've been told that the TfD is one of the biggest but others are welcome to behold it's lameness for themselves. -- Banjeboi 00:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you're still misunderstanding something. Whether the TfD is lame is irrelevant. This is called "Lamest edit wars". Discussions, no matter how lame, are not edit wars. This is clearly explained at the beginning of this page, as it is a common misconception. --C S (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I might not be explaining it very well. Within or the heart of those discussions were actual edit wars. I called for the 2nd TfD myself to end one of them. During the third TfD there was an edit war just to have the rescue tag ... on the rescue tag. There were others as well and at the certer of it was ultimately should the rescue project be allowed to exist. -- Banjeboi 02:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, there is an irony there, but it doesn't fit the pattern of stupidity enshrined in this particular page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

American Beaver, Canadian Beaver, or North American Beaver

Check out Talk:North American Beaver (in its most current name) Would this qualify for the list? The edit war is mostly over how to phrase the lead but the huge discussion on the talkpage on what to name the title of the article is what I find exasperating. -- Ϫ 19:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Ryan

Ugly ugly edit war leading to an even uglier article. Read the history and learn folks, this is what happens to articles when the editwarring gets out of hand. -- Ϫ 02:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Meena Durairaj

Nobody knows her actual year of birth. Years added to the article range from 1964 to 1999. In the four years that the article has been in existence, the date has been changed at least 120 times, or once every 11 days. Fences&Windows 00:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought Mary Murphy held the record for uncited changes. --CliffC (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A revert war about alphabetical order

Does "Eastern Europe" comes before "South Asia"[156], or does "Asia" come before "Europe"[157]? And where do you go to get a ruling on this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested removals

  • The cat entry, linking to a very long argument in the talk page archives. But as mentioned on that page, there was in fact no associated edit war; the discussed change was made, reverted, then discussed. For a month. It may be rather silly, but it's not an edit war.
  • Secondly, the entry for Gerard Piqué seems a bit of a non-event really, and the inclusion of a diff to where the offenders received a ban makes it seem like it's here simply to embarrass the one registered editor involved...

Any objections to removing these? Miremare 07:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I would object to cat being removed from the list. It has been included here for several years now, and does describe an incredibly ridiculous edit war.RWR8189 (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
But that's the point; there was no edit warring involved, it was just an argument rather than an edit war. To quote someone on the page itself when the subject of its inclusion on this page came up: "the term "Edit war" does not seem correct, since on the main page there was only one edit and one reversion; actually, the disagreement was simply discussed". Which of course is the correct way to do things. Miremare 03:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I wholly agree with the first point on this page under "Guidelines", which says that talk page discussions should never be added here. Staecker (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment on historical accuracy

In the section Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars#Spelling ending the entry about the Eastern gray(sic) squirrel is the humorous comment "The British are coming! The British are coming! To arms!" however in Paul_Revere#The_Midnight_Ride_of_Paul_Revere it is made clear that Revere did not shout the famous phrase later attributed to him ("The British are coming!"), largely because the mission depended on secrecy and the countryside was filled with British army patrols; also, most colonial residents at the time considered themselves British as they were all legally British subjects. Revere's warning, according to eyewitness accounts of the ride and Revere's own descriptions, was "The Regulars are coming out."

Should the corruption of history be removed? --Drappel (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In context I can't be sure if you're joking or not, but at the cost of seeming challenged in my sense of humour, I'd have to say that as a joke it doesn't need to be accurate to what Paul Revere really said. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Lamest deletion wars

Someone asked what the most deletion debates ever were for an article. I think these are the winners:

Fences&Windows 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:CENT

There's an edit war happening at WP:CENT over if/how WP:FRP should be listed. One line of text, and 13 changes so far. Way to go guys. Flagged revisions is shaping up to be the next Non-Admin Rollback. I await the wiki-drama with dread. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to moof for pointing out that I was kind of confused about this entry, and it really belonged here. Oh, for those of you keeping score at home, they're up to 16 changes now. It's been at least a couple days since the last edit, but I still think this is a portent of doom. Drama leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to... suffering. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

ALARM: Lame citation war here too?

About the Stephen Ányos Jedlik section: why are there myriads of citations in this essay, including one [dubious – discuss] and one [verification needed]. Hasn't the insight of lameness befelt the editors yet? Maybe Stephen Ányos Jedlik was in fact Austrian? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Lamest_edit_wars/Archive_3&oldid=1145851541"