Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars/Archive 1

message: Anthony DiPierro has removed this entry:
* Bill Clinton - edit war over which picture of him to use, when the photos are virtually identical except one is slightly darker and the other is 5 times as big.
citing the reason this page is dedicated to whimsy, and not to document real, contentious edit wars. Now, I'm hardly going to war over this, but I wonder about that guideline. Every single edit war listed here was a real, contentious edit war to someone. I, personally, found the Clinton one to be simply amusing when I looked it up in the article's history. How are we to settle these issues? Bryan 15:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Clinton war and whimsy

message: I've removed the comment
:Note that that edit was made anonymously. Guanaco 21:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, the date was changed by an anon a minute before Jimbo edited.  Jimbo has forgotten to log in, and had to claim his edits, before.  His own edit was the one mentioning that one link is to an outdated list.  Pakaran. 17:11, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: <whimsical> Jimbo was the one who named it a revert war, and how much more lame can you get? <Nigel Tufnel> none more lame! </Nigel Tufnel></whimsical>--Phil | Talk 07:25, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Yay! The one revert war I've been in is on this, assuming it didn't happen before without me knowing...
Kiand 17:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo Wales 

message: #The great The Great Game vs. Great Game naming controversy is probably another good candidate. 4.232.141.203 09:22, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A candidates in the making 

message: :"Though, to be fair, the Agatha Christie novel would be even less interesting."
I removed the sentence from the section on "Charles Darwin", since it appears to be a personal opinion and as such violates NPOV.  If someone can provide a reference for it and re-write from a neutral point of view, though, I would be open to having it put back. --Carnildo 22:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is NPOV applicable on a non-articel WP: namespace humor page? 68.39.174.238 01:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing from a neutral point of view

message: "was she born in 1921? Or 1923? After days of editing, does anyone really care THAT much? Woman is old."
It seems that this is supposed to be trivial...I thought accuracy was important on Wikipedia. Brianjd 11:14, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
:It should be a trivial matter of looking up the facts -- this isn't the sort of thing it should be possible to dispute.  That's what makes it a lame edit war. --Carnildo 20:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nancy Reagan 

message: Actually, both are wrong. He's Harry S Truman. The S didn't stand for anything. :) Luigi30 17:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are also right.  Techincally, it should be "Harry S" rather than "Harry S.", but even Harry himself frequently included the dot when writing his name. --Carnildo 20:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Neustadt 

message: I think once it's settled, Gasoline/Petrol has to go on here. Nickptar 23:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Don't hold your breath!  Looks like it's going to be filibustered.  Time to bring out the Nuclear option! ℬastique▼talk 23:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fossil fuel for reciprocating piston engines equipped with spark plugs 

message: I think we should have a template to place in the talk page where the lame edit war occured, sort of  like "this page has undergone one of the lamest edit wars in wikipedia. Visit WP:LAME for the full list."Borisblue 12:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Great idea! :D  -asx- 02:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:LAME template?

message: Whoever thought to put that clown picture on this article is a freaking genius. I'll be laughing at that for days... :D -asx- 02:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bring In the Clowns 

message: Has any version of the "List of numbers that are always odd" article that's mentioned here been preserved anywhere online?  I am incredibly curious about it. 68.226.239.73 3:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or is there any archive of the debate surrounding it? I want to see grown people getting worked up about the dumbest list ever. ~~ N (t/c) 05:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: If you're in luck archive.org will have a copy. Thryduulf 07:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could use Google and find: User:ConMan/List_of_numbers_that_are_always_odd ;-) --DragonHawk 04:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers that are always odd

message: Francis Schonken submitted a war from Swedish WP. Ethnic feuds:
;Collaboration of the week on June 2005 over the Sweden-Norway article  on Swedish Wikipedia  : ...turned into the revert war of the month between adherents of the Swedish and the Norwegian point of view. Since it is unthinkable that any of the warring camps were in wrong in their contentions, it must have been the NPOV policy that is faulty.
I understand that many readers here are not in command of Swedish language, to read by themselves about the battling. However, this article is nowhere explicitly limited to being that of wars in English WP. (Perhaps such explicit definition should be made somewhere.) The warring reviewed above was actually very foreseeable - I am not sure whether anyone wants actually to read all of it, as "one seen, all seen" is rather true. It was highly funny, from outsider's perspective. Actually, Sw WP being apparently a small place, there was only one full nationalist (Swedish) warring on one side, and a small handful of editors trying to make the artice NPOV (the other side). Of course they got accused of being Norwegian sympathizers and worse... As far as I can determine, there were actually no (full and obvious) Norwegian anywhere in that battle. One of problems in that battling was that the said "extreme nationalist" was one of the longest-resided Wikipedians of Sw.WP - having received adminship a long time ago. Accusations flew of improper blocks and suchlike. Later, one of those who were, at least by their own opinion, doing NPOV in this case, left WP totally frustrated in the behavior (also in other issues) of the said "lone warrior". 217.140.193.123 07:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its on the English Wikipedia, so it is of course limited to edit wars on the English Wikipedia. If it was on Meta, then it could be for all. But its not. --Kiand 13:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  wars in other Wikipedias 

message: A few hours ago, an apparent participant of a move war (William of Orange) where also I was, had attempted to remove the item from this page. As several times stated, there is no reason to let the participants decide if their war was lame or not. "Advice to the people who keep reverting it off this list:  Keeping your own edit war off this list looks really petty.  How about clicking "Unwatch" instead?". Of course, warriors trying to remove their war from here are usually in that way providing ample evidence why it ought to be listed here. And, of course, if an edit war erupts about the item remaining or being removed from here, it provides a nice additional mention of the lameness. OK, of course it is always between Right and Wrong party, and I fully support the Right party I belong to - but there is an instructive purpose of listing petty causes and questionable behavior here (including mine, if I ever behave questionably or have petty causes :))). Arrigo 12:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By the same token, shouldn't it be bad form for a participant in an edit war to add it to this article?  Perhaps it would be best if both additions and deletions were done by "objective" nonparticipants. *Dan* 13:44, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Afaik, the username who added it here, was (at least then) not a participant in the revert war which was the war in question. Besides, everyone is entitled to comment, isn't it so? Arrigo 14:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: As an additional comment, I'd say that if a participant wants to point out that his own "side" in a lame edit war is lame, then let him - it's healthy to admit that. The thing we only have to look for is whether the write up is biased towards one side, i.e. if there's a NPOV problem. It's akin to self-incriminating statements; they're generally better evidence than exculpatory ones. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:23, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Well, a good prediction ("edit war erupting over items in this article"), though the edit war a couple of hours ago was not William of Orange, but of Meta Lameness (see below:) 217.140.193.123 08:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again, possibility of edit war erupting over items in this article 

message: ;Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever :Edit war over what edit wars should be on this page (oh, the irony). - see Recursion; see also tail recursion. Most recent warring: William of Orange (see below).
What is the point of this ridiculous edit and who the heck keeps adding it in. It is one thing to list edit wars once, but adding in listings a second time with a see below tag is just taking the piss on the page. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it's quite pertinent, as it refers not to the William of Orange edit war but someone who is edit warring to keep the listing off this page. Hence, irony. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to inform that User:Jtdirl has nominated the redirect  for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion 217.140.193.123 07:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations. The page has survived the delete nomination by receiving Speedy Keep [] - further details available at the Wikipedia:Non-main_namespace_pages_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever. Arrigo 11:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meta Lameness 

message: Anybody been following the edit wars regarding Macedonia?  Seems the major bone of contention arises from whether or not the word "Macedonia" should be immediately followed with the Greek etymology of the word at the beginning of the article, or whether that information is redunant given the "Etymology" section further along in the article.  It strikes me as very, very lame.  Extreme Unction 18:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Macedonia

message: Jtdirl attempted to add:
;Elizabeth of Bohemia: "A user unilaterally moved the page with raising it with anyone. An admin reinstated it and asked him to go through the usual channels in proposing the controversial naming. Instead he then went to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to report her, against whom he had been making increasingly wild allegations for weeks, for supposedly abusing her powers in having restored the page to the least controversial location and having asked him to move propose its move the normal process everyone else uses."
another explanation: "The quarrel is somehow documented (unintentionally)..(at) thread: "User:Deb abused admin powers, by deleting a page without AfD" where imo Deb's "protectors" attempted to create some diversion imo to cover her wrongdoing. The "warring" was more of the sort to have a deleted page returned, finding some admin intervention to correct Deb's doings."
and: "an old disambiguation page.... Deb decided to delete it - according to Deletion log, by doing "21:12, 31 August 2005 Deb deleted "Elisabeth of Bohemia" (Deleted to make way for move)". No AfD. She obviously wanted to move another article to that placement, leading in that case also to POV (see current Talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia) endorsing a royal pretension from era of religious warring in Germany. I think Deb has sort of proprietary attitude to certain articles and names, including this one. I cannot remember all contents of the old page, and anyway its GDFL history should be preserved, so it is incorrect to write a new similar page which does not credit earlier contributors. Request the deleted page to be brought back."
It's a bit sad that you're having the lamest edit war ever on a page called lamest edit wars ever. If you have to do this, take it somewhere else. Please. Guanaco 02:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Jtdirl]]'s attempted contribution 

message: I didn't think it was possible. But I guess I was wrong... I thought wikipedia was all 'enthusiastic' and 'intelligent', but this page.... I honestly really don't see a need for it. 'Lamest edit wars ever'... more like 'Lamest page ever'
:Uh, you OBVIOUSLY havn't seen the tasteless humor section on my userpage, LOL! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh.My.God

message: I wrote a pargraph on the edit war currently raging at Ubeda, trying to imitate the style of some other entries here. I'm not sure if it's just lame enough, though. It doesn't reach Gdańsk proportions yet. But the fight is lamer than that one in the sense that Gdańsk, at least, is a much better known city.
:Úbeda/Ubeda : A six months long move/revert war with no end in sight on the most appropriate title in English Wikipedia for a Spanish geography stub. According to the article the town "is best known for its association with Antonio Muñoz Molina and Joaquín Sabina". Neither of those, it seems, is well known enough to have an article here yet. Is the fact that diacritics are sometimes omitted  from capital letters in Spanish relevant? Or is the fact that the Spanish Royal Academy does not condone such usage? And how about the fact that the initial vote for moving the page took place during Semana Santa, "when half the Spanish-speaking population of the world is either in Church or at the beach"?
(Feel free to edit/rewrite mercilessly of course.)
Maybe some of the regulars here can check this out and measure the lameness. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the debate between Danzig and Gdansk is hardly lame? It was a complicated topic with strong opinions, Consider the advanced solution at Talk:Gdańsk. // Fred-Chess 03:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Úbeda/Ubeda 

message: Despite the mind-boggling length of the discussion in the talk page, I would like to note that there were no edit wars during the course of the debate. You can check the history of the article dated July 27, 2005 (pretty long ago, isn't it?).
Therefore I request that the entry for the article be removed. Thank you. Andylkl (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think it deserves to keep its place on account of its extraordinary lameness, even though it never actually became an edit war. If cosensus is to remove, I'm fine with that. Borisblue 14:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for the removal. :) I'm sorry to say this but I'm going to have to disappoint you for not stirring up any more lame edit wars or disputes in the near future. :P --Andylkl (talk) (contrib) 19:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Malaysia

message: I was debating an anon a few weeks ago about whether or not Criss Angel's real name and birthday should have been included in his article.  It seems to fit right there as a lame edit war, but I'm not sure if it went on long enough (about 2 weeks and several cycles of reverts) to be included here.  Any thoughts? --Idont Havaname 15:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, especially if it's especially entertaining or enlightening. Deco 01:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long does an edit war need to go on to be included here? 

message: Moldovan language almost everyone agrees as to the facts (that Romanian and Moldovan are for all pratical purposes the same language) but cannot agree at all about if it should be called its own language or not in the article.  Personal and nationalistic attacks are not uncommon on the talk page and at least one RfC has been related to the dispute.  The present discussion is largly happening under the heading What is the purpose of an encyclopedic article? Dalf | Talk 01:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure if it is lame enough for this page YET but you might want to keep an eye on 

message: Isn't articles like this the reason why we have Uncyclopedia?
:No.  No, it isn't.  Uncyclopedia is a different kettle of fish entirely.  One might stretch so far as to claim Encyclopaedia Dramatica as the perfect place for articles like this, but I think we're better off having it here.  It's good to be able to laugh at ourselves at times. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seriously, why is this here?

message: Can we please add the Joan of Arccontroversy over why she wore pants.  It isn't over what she wore or what happened to her when she wore them.  But what motivation did she have in wearing pants.  In my opinion that is a VERY silly edit war.  It is still ongoing on her talk page.  Hdstubbs
:While that debate has been over for a long time, it was actually substantive because it concerned the law that put her to death: that law recognized a few exceptions based on motivation.  The matter also relates to modern arguments about whether she was gay or transsexual. Durova 16:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Joan of Arc

message: See Template:User aspie.  Minor formatting issues, including font size changes between 10pt and 14pt and line breaks in code that's never even visible lead to accusations of vandalism.  This has got to be the dumbest edit war ever. Night Gyr 12:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this edit war has been over for about a month. --causa sui talk 19:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the edit wars on this page are much older, but that doesn't detract from their lameness. Indeed, the older ones have stood the test of time. :) Bryan 19:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy crap I may have a new champion. 

message: With recent events in mind, I am beginning to think that we should consider Wikipedia:Lamest wheel wars ever. The Pedophilia userbox wheel war tops the list, IMO, but it wouldn't exactly be appropriate to include it here. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 04:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or if not, the war over userboxes in general clearly belongs here under Templates.  I'd put it there now, but emotions are probably still too raw, and I'd be accused of insensitively fanning flames. Steve Summit (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: 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.
To label this type of dispute as 'lame' seems insensitive. An awful lot of people in Hong Kong don't want to be part of China. Hong Kong is constitutionally entitled to a high degree of autonomy. Only national defence and diplomatic relations are responsibilities of Beijing. The people of Hong Kong are fiercely independant. The Chinese are fiercely nationalistic. There's bound to be conflict. If Category:Hong Kong literature is subcategorized under Category:Chinese literature, that implies Hong Kong is merely an area of China trather than a country. To call this issue lame indicates that those who run this page lack empathy for it's Chinese & Hong Kong editors. Does labelling this lame have any positive impact on wikipedia? Veej 00:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think edit wars are always lame regardless of what the conflict is.  I really don't like seeing pages locked because an editor refuses to cooperate.  I don't believe labeling the Wikipedia edit war is insensitive, just the conflict itself. - Hbdragon88 22:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Hong Kong literature 

message: New candidate: the NPOV tag on Russian architecture first appeared in October, about 160 edits ago.  Its presence and the precise wording of the explanation appear have dominated the edit history ever since, and things are working their way up to a crescendo.  —Michael Z. 2006-03-31 00:34 Z
:Is there anything that makes this edit war stand out as being particularly lame?  Edit wars over NPOV tags happen all the time. --Carnildo 06:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian architecture 

message: Xeni Jardin and Talk:Xeni Jardin: should xenisucks.com, a critical site, be included in external links? Edit warring, possible violations of 3RR, name-calling, etc. Discussion was messy. --Christopherlin 18:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xeni Jardin 

message: Just in case the sole remaining mirror disappears, I have copied the list of numbers that are always odd to a page in my user space. I'd also like to point out that Googling for "list of numbers that are always odd" gives a few interesting results in the form of mirrors of WP: space. Confusing Manifestation 14:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of numbers ... 

message: What about changing the example name in the speedy deletion page to Jeff K.?--69.196.212.30 18:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example insulting article name 

message: "People who would never use the ‘N’ word to refer to an African American think nothing of calling some one a ‘retard’ or ‘cripple.’ If one student trips, another is quick to laugh about the person being “a spaz,” perhaps not even aware of the derivation of the insult from “spastic”
(a type of hypertonicity associated most often with cerebral palsy). 
Someone who is not doing anything productive is said to be “vegging out” extending the
association of “vegetable” and mental retardation. Even our everyday expressions
and phrases are full of unexamined stereotypes about the capacities of
people with various categories of disabilities: “blind leading the blind,” “falling
on deaf ears,” “crippled by defeat,” “making a lame excuse.” How can we
expect the full acceptance of children with disabilities into our classrooms if we
allow such stereotypes in our thoughts and language to go unexamined?"
source:
http://www.urbanschools.org/publications/on_point.html
scroll down the right hand side to:
On Infusing Disability Studies into the General Curriculum 
and search for "lame"
this is just one source on the topic of "lame"
Skipper53 20:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do make a point. I suggest we can rename this article to Wikipedia:Unnecessary edit wars or something else that one may suggest. I can change the title immediately if no one objects. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 21:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object. Lame is a fine adjective and the reference to the "n" word is completely irrelevant. --Yath 21:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I also object. All edit wars are "unnecessary." It's only the ones that are also lame that are funny. Bryan 06:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Political correctness rears its ugly head... --Carnildo 22:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And here I always thought the term was referring to "a thin metal plate, especially one of the overlapping steel plates in medieval armor." Bryan 06:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL.  This discussion reminds me of the bash.org April Fools 2004 where they deemed that "bash" was too violent and were going to rename it "funny-in-a-friendly-way.org" as a result. Hbdragon88 04:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If "lame" really is considered as offensive to disabled people as "nigger" is to black people — and I couldn't say whether that's the case or not — then this page could be retitled "silliest edit wars ever". "Silly" is more apt than "unnecessary". TacoDeposit 16:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of "lame" 

message: I nearly had an edit war with Kelisi concerning Helmuth Hübener's adoptive father.  Luckily, I pointed out the evidence to Kelisi before one began. Starhood` 22:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Star, you later turned out to be a somewhat less than sincere contributor. I took your word for it that you had read about Hübener's father in a book, but then you went too far and wrote a ridiculous stub article about him, which I then speedied. I also undid all your edits as I had been given cause to view them with suspicion. Kelisi 01:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near edit war 

message: In case anyone doesn't know, a vandal started an edit war on Cornelius Vanderbilt.  People afterwards were arguing over whether Cornelius was nicknamed "The Ass" or not.  The edit war was partially my fault because I missed that vandalism from the vandal.  Luckily, a good contributor without a user name put in a comment that stopped the edit war. Starhood` 14:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed it when looking @ the history of that page. About when was the vandalism? 68.39.174.238 02:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The Vandalism was made by 67.1.85.14 on January 18, 2006 at 17:44 (UTC). Starhood` 14:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal edit war 

message: This page is, to say the least, "Dizzying". Makes me wonder whether "i is the square root of negative unity" or "i am the square root of negative unity". -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dizzying 

message: Two parallel edit wars have taken place over the article Wii, over both whether it is the "Wii" or the "Nintendo Wii", and whether references should be made to urine. Should either of these go in and where (under names, misc or both)?
:Sounds pretty appropriate to me.  I'd say put it under names, and a note on the parallel urine-related edit war to the entry there. --Jfruh 18:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wii 

message: Have a look at the Anarchism discussion page. I'm unable to definitively categorise it as lame, given that not a single sentence of it makes any sense to this humble reader, but it does run to thousands of impressively vitriolic lines. Far Canal 08:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchy Rules 

message: Linking to the subject only isn't very helpful - the edit war could have been thousands of diffs ago. Could we try and provide links to the rough start and end of the edit war, or edit wars? Stevage 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I know that the software can list certain blocks of dates - I use Kate's editcounter to see the edits I made on a month-by-month basis.  But I don't know how the damned system works so I can't actually block off certain dates for some of these edit wars. Hbdragon88 05:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: provide links to the actual edit war 

message: Talk:2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Archive_1#Zeta_and_the_Timeline, Talk:2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Archive_3#Zeta_revisited, Talk:2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Archive_4#Zeta_and_Timeline, Talk:2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Vote_to_delete_Hurricane_Zeta and most of the talk page below that... A recurring argument over whether or not Tropical Storm Zeta, which formed in late December 2005 and dissipated Jan 6th 2006, should even be included on the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season page. "As it formed in 2005, is it actually part of the 2006 hurricane season? As it lasted into 2006, and spanned both years (only the second time this has ever happened) does it deserve a mention on both anyway?" Regardless of the outcome, it is quite minor really and has been on and off for over 6 months now. Quite lame... - JVG 09:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that's a lame one, its mainly only a talk page argument but it has had some edit warring in the article. However it is a massive talk page argument, bad enough it got its own archive.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second opinion please... 

message: This sequence of edits over at Rory Gallagher made me laugh, and there is no sign of it ending. Gimmetrow 13:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rory Gallagher 

message: I don't know about the rest of you but I like the first archive of Skanderbeg's talk page... 69.17.67.11 14:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skanderbeg 

message: Currently the organization of the entries is very messy, anyone have a better idea for the categorizations? 68.39.174.238 01:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: Is there a template for this category?  If not, I will create one for all of the articles' talk pages. Travb (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there isn't, and for good reason - it isn't comprehensive, and the criteria seems rather subjective.  It's also more of a warning than an actual attempt to document edit wars with lame causes.  I think this would encourage more people to try to edit war to get their entries up into this list. Better to keep it as low-key as possible. Hbdragon88 08:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there a template for this category?