[ENC]Revert wars[/ENC] on the encyclopedia are a negative form of a [ENC]flamewar[/ENC]. Positive flamewars are good for our encyclopedia. They construct rather than constrict. The essence of sciforums. See for instance this: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:Flamewar_Guidelines
I guess a positive flamewar could be started by stating: Smoking Cannabis is more than likely to screw your mind up over prolonged high dosage uses and likely to contribute to schizophrenic tendencies. To pot smokers out there, adamant that "...their weed can do no harm", this is potentially a catalysing statement, kind of an Anti-drug somatic Jihad towards their favourite pass-time. It could more than likely result in a few unfavourable responses, however all would reflect the "schizophrenic tendencies" along with additional comments in regards to "attitude", "respect" and of course "addict status". I guess such a flamewar through it's unpopularity due to subject matter wouldn't be seen as constructive by people that smoke pot, however should they one day go completely "tea-total" and detox over a few months, they might come back to their "Flamed responses" and realise just how much a whack-job they sounded. [This is the only instance of a Positive flamewar I can think of]
The logic behind it is simple A flamewar can be positive because it contributes content. A revert war destroys content. Or rather: Revert wars just switch back and forth between two states. Similar to an on and off switch. Hence it is always negative. A wiki thrives on content. You cannot edit what is not there. Editing in the sense of adding and fine tuning. A wiki is in fact an evolving system. analogy The revert war would be the same as making a clone of your grandfather instead of having children yourself. end lesson.
So the monkey is now strewing his coconuts all over the jungle floor with his newly found and probably "scientific" endeavor: snap, crackle & pop morality.
Or, if you prefer, I could have expressed myself thus: I'm wondering if it is discerning of Spuriousmonkey, Moderator PhD—however distinguished he is in his noble field—to introduce to the community rather oblique but simple, presumptuous but highly adaptable, values? I fully understand the practicality involved and the need for a moderator to categorize posters during a hasty inspection-read, but to do so will also forfeit important aspects to human nature, such as the agencies involved in persuasion, stimulation, gaining or loosing wit, etc, inotherwords, the nuances of the spirit to the will to power. By bypassing the need to further appreciate the validity of a poster's effectiveness against their own cause and effect—not Spuriousmonkey's—but to determine the validity and pertinence of a poster's own personality and especially to their will to power in context to their merit—for, afterall, the will to power is the end result: to convince, to uphold, to defend, to stand—but to introduce values that will encourage an intolerance towards these certain agencies of spirit and motivation at Sciforums.com will liable to flush SciF's own spirit into the septic tank and not into a think tank.
And if you are not a moderator, then you are no longer a moderator? Surely, I would not know—I don't read every post here. Regardless, I think I had something valid to say since there are so many questions about "flamewars" here, no?
I don't think I saw the requirement when i signed up that I should say something valid. I think you will be forced to mentally masturbate yourself. anyway. I don't talk to sock puppets.
So... are you now engaged in a revert flamewar? Or an anus one? Couldn't say for sure, since these are your grand ideas, doc.
There is no such thing as a positive flamewar. You cannot call somebody a vandal for deleting material they found offensive that real vandals put on there about them.
