In mid Febuary, one of the Spongebob-adders struck again, and, as usual, one of the Spongebob deleters quickly retaliated, this time, escalating the fight by adding note on the edit page (visible to editors, but not on the page itself.)
!--DO NOT ADD SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS!!! THIS PAGE IS DEVOTED TO THE ORIENTATION AND NOT ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION--
Not to be beaten, the Spongebob-adder changed "Famous Asexuals" to "Notable Asexuals" and created a subsection for "Fictional characters and persons," in which to add Spongebob. So far, he has been permitted to stay.
This incident highlights the ignorance of many Spongebob-delters: There is a very good reason not to include Spongebob (He's a cartoon character!) but the Spongebob-delter, rather than citing this, cited the completely wrong justification for spongebob-deleting: Spongebob is asexuals in the sense that he reproduces by himself. (Um...what?)
I have a confession to make: I once engaged in a bit of Spongebob adding myself, just as a bit of fun. There is a note to editors of "Famous/Notable Asexuals":
!--DO NOT ADD ANYONE UNDER THIS SECTION UNLESS A RELIABLE SOURCE IS GIVEN, OTHERWISE IT WILL BE DELETED--
I had a source, so I added Spongebob, curious how long he would survive in the asexuality article. About one minute according the the article's history, when some ignorant spongebob-deleter came along, justifying the reversion of my edits by saying, "Mr. Squarepants is male, I think." WTF? Did that guy even read the article before making that change? I guess I was hoping that at least he would get deleted for a good reason. Since then, I have given up that fight altogether. Now, I am merely a commentator.
There was a recent wikipedia fight, however, that I did get involved in. The opening of the article has been a casualty. A Wikipedia-editing member of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health (formerly the Clark Institute of Psychiatry) decided to screw the article. (It's about asexuality; didn't he realize it's not into that?) He changed the opening to
Asexuality is the lack of any sexual orientation, according to researchers. There are asexual individuals, however, who have claimed that asexuality is itself a sexual orientation.. He gave three sources, so I had to out-cite him. One of his sources is a paper that's not yet published, but he seems to be on the editorial board to the journal it's in press for. One of the articles simply didn't say what he said it said, and the third did say what he says is said, but that author took a different perspective in a subsequent paper. Changes were made; emails were sent. If anyone wants to clean up the introduction, feel free to do so.