Please edit the vandalism (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Vandalism) article as it is being vandalized.


1.
Vandals keep putting the following incorrect lines into the article:
"Vandalism can also be carried out by SciForums members to wipe out or "re-write" history of themselves that the vandal disagrees with. Some members obviously can't handle the truth about their behaviour on the forum."


2.
Here is the correct definition of vandalism:
"Intetnionally falsifying information within an article is also vandalism. This includes ''intentionally'' producing false information and/or deleting information for the sake of falsifying content."


Definition #1 is incorrect, and therefore, should be purged from the vandalism article (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Vandalism). It is not only an illogical statement. It is redundant. You cannot claim deleting something because you disagree with it is vandalism on the basis that it is true, and impossible for anybody to dispute. If any information in an article is found to be false, anybody may delete it in good faith. Vandalism is about malicious intent. Deleting something in good faith cannot be applied to the definition of vandalism.


Entire proper article without definition #1 included:
Within the Sciforums Encyclopedia, vandalism is any act with intent to produce malicious content. Malicious content is any content meant to disrupt or destroy Sciforums or the Encyclopedia. Vandalism also includes the use of the Sciforums Encyclopedia for spamming, harassment, or any production of malicious content about Sciforums members. Intetnionally falsifying information within an article is also vandalism. This includes intentionally producing false information and/or deleting information for the sake of falsifying content. Vandalism is the antithesis of producing content in good faith.


This is how the proper article looks. If anybody has suggestions, please post.

Don't worry. The article was shit and hence I rewrote it.

You can thank me later.

Don't worry. The article was shit and hence I rewrote it.

You can thank me later.
Vandal.

Don't worry. The article was shit and hence I rewrote it.

You can thank me later.
Your definition of legitimate content is incorrect.

Furthermore, vandalism is not the antithesis of producing new content. You are basically say the failure to produce new content is vandalism. This is false.

Vandalism is any act within the wiki done with malicious intent. And act done in good faith is not considered vandalism. Spamming is also vandalism.

Irrelevant. Because you are wrong.

Stop trolling lixluke.

Seriously though, the thread title is frikkin hilarious (if only you had meant it as such).

Is there going to be a poll for every article lixluke doesnt agree with? If so he may even outstrip sderenzi.

He also doesn't seem to get the notion of a rewrite of what is there to make it coherent.

The end goal of an article is after all coherence and quality. Well, maybe not on our encyclopedia.

What to do?

Get a job.

Get a job.

That conflicts with lixlukes principles, namely that he refuses to be a worker crab.

That conflicts with lixlukes principles, namely that he refuses to be a worker crab.
On the other hand he likes to have things, so he steals them.

He also doesn't seem to get the notion of a rewrite of what is there to make it coherent.

The end goal of an article is after all coherence and quality. Well, maybe not on our encyclopedia.
You have yet to point out any of the flaws of the definition I provided in the first post.

Your idea of vandalism is anybody that disagrees with what you believe to be true. I have yet to see any flaws about the definition I created.

Your english is crap lixluke you should leave writing articles in english to someone with a better grasp of the language. In this case it's a dutch monkey.

You have yet to point out....
I have yet to see any flaws.....

I dont think you can see anything unless its 100% in agreement with your world view.

You have no logical explanation. I have explained my points logically. Either explain any flaws in my points or get lost.

Your explanation is obsolete because the page has changed. Please read the current page and post again if needed.

It is not obsolte. It is right here:
Within the Sciforums Encyclopedia, vandalism is any act with intent to produce malicious content. Malicious content is any content meant to disrupt or destroy Sciforums or the Encyclopedia. Vandalism also includes the use of the Sciforums Encyclopedia for spamming, harassment, or any production of malicious content about Sciforums members. Intetnionally falsifying information within an article is also vandalism. This includes intentionally producing false information and/or deleting information for the sake of falsifying content. Vandalism is the antithesis of producing content in good faith.



Furthermore, I reverted your article with proper explanation. You reverted it back with no explanation.

We've given an explanation. You just ignored it becasue it disagrees with you.

You have yet to point out any of the flaws of the definition I provided in the first post.

Your idea of vandalism is anybody that disagrees with what you believe to be true. I have yet to see any flaws about the definition I created.

IRRELEVENT!!!

you seem to be the only person who has a problem with this article.

When you revert an article, you have to provide a proper explanation. I explained why your version was incorrect. Unless you can provide logical reason why your statements are correct, they remain invalid.

Irrelevant troll. I didn't revert the article. I rewrote what was there. To make it better.

Within the Sciforums Encyclopedia, vandalism is any act with intent to disintegrate or destroy legitimate content.
Falwed wording:
There is no basis for legitimate content other than user subjectivity.
Better wording: "vandalism is any act with intent to produce malicious content."


Legitimate content is any content that contributes meaningfully to the grand idea of Sciforums or the Encyclopedia, or is seen as a legitimate contribution by a substantial number of wiki editors.
This is not the definition of legitimate content. Substantial number has no relevance to the legitimacy of content. Furthermore, you cannot proclaim any grand idea of sciforums enclopedia other than members contributing content in good faith to the legitimacy of the information. You have no right to tell others what any "grand idea of sciforums encyclopedia" is.


Vandalism can in some cases be done by spamming. This is when an identical spam message, or a similar looking spam message is repeated on several pages. This could include vandalizing the member pages of people that the vandal dislikes or is engaged with in a revert war. Destroying member pages in an act of vandalism with spam often can lead to harassment. For instance when the spam message contains various insults often in capital letters.
This is superfluous. It is superfuous to use the vandalism article to define spamming. That definition belongs in the spamming article.

Your assertion "Vandalism can in some cases be done by spamming." is also badly worded. Simply stating "Spamming is a form of vandalism" is sufficient without going into any description of what is spamming.

For example, a succinct statement such as this will suffice: "Vandalism also includes the use of the Sciforums Encyclopedia for spamming, harassment, or any production of malicious content about Sciforums members."


Vandalism is the antithesis of producing new content.
This is incorrect. Failure to produce new content is not vandalism, and has nothing to do with vandalism.

Falwed wording:
There is no basis for legitimate content other than user subjectivity.
Better wording: "vandalism is any act with intent to produce malicious content."

Intention and maliciousness are not subjective?:rolleyes:

Falwed wording:
There is no basis for legitimate content other than user subjectivity.
Better wording: "vandalism is any act with intent to produce malicious content."

Look up vandal in the dictionary. Producing malicious content is not vandalism. Destroying content is.



This is not the definition of legitimate content. Substantial number has no relevance to the legitimacy of content. Furthermore, you cannot proclaim any grand idea of sciforums enclopedia other than members contributing content in good faith to the legitimacy of the information. You have no right to tell others what any "grand idea of sciforums encyclopedia" is.
And I don't. I completely left it undefined.



This is superfluous. It is superfuous to use the vandalism article to define spamming. That definition belongs in the spamming article.
It describes how spamming can be used to commit vandalism.


Your assertion "Vandalism can in some cases be done by spamming." is also badly worded. Simply stating "Spamming is a form of vandalism" is sufficient without going into any description of what is spamming.
Spamming is not a form of vandalism. Sometimes spamming is vandalism and sometimes it is not.


For example, a succinct statement such as this will suffice: "Vandalism also includes the use of the Sciforums Encyclopedia for spamming, harassment, or any production of malicious content about Sciforums members."
Irrelevant troll.



This is incorrect. Failure to produce new content is not vandalism, and has nothing to do with vandalism.

Vandalism is destroying content. hence it is the antithesis of producing content.

So. you are wrong. as usual.

Intention and maliciousness are not subjective?:rolleyes:
No they are not subjective.
Either an individual has malicious intent or not. With regards to the context of the definition for vandalism, it is any act with malicius intent.


you seem to be the only person who has a problem with this article.
Irrelevant.

Either an individual has malicious intent or not.

We don't. Hence you do.

Either an individual has malicious intent or not.
And who can possibly judge that other than the author?
Thus, the definition is subjective.

With regards to the context of the definition for vandalism, it is any act with malicius intent.
Simply stating the definition is not the same as supporting it.

Look up vandal in the dictionary. Producing malicious content is not vandalism. Destroying content is.


And I don't. I completely left it undefined.
You are proclaiming a grand idea of the wiki, and anything that does not abide by your grand idea is vandalism. This is why whenver somebody makes a change that is not part of your grand idea, you label them vandals.


It describes how spamming can be used to commit vandalism.
Who cares? This is irrelevant to my statement on the fact that describing how spamming can be used to commit vandalism is superfuous. Any spamming is vandlaism. When is spamming not vandalism?

For example, a succinct statement such as this will suffice: "Vandalism also includes the use of the Sciforums Encyclopedia for spamming, harassment, or any production of malicious content about Sciforums members."


Vandalism is destroying content. hence it is the antithesis of producing content.
Vandalism is not limited to destroying content. Vandalism is any use of the wiki for malicious purposes. This includes creating content or articles about how crappy the wiki is or articles about members. There are numerous ways anybody can create content all over the wiki to vandalize it without destroying any current content. What are you claiming?

why did you vandalize the property page in the encyclopedia lixluke?

Vandalism is not limited to destroying content.
So you admit it includes destroying content. Just what the statement says - the one you want to erase.

May I be an honourary vandal? I'm a bit too lethargic at present to actually vandalise.

Falwed wording:

Oh the irony.

:rolleyes:



And lixluke, destroying content is considered vandalism.

This is why whenver somebody makes a change that is not part of your grand idea, you label them vandals.

i had to read that 10 times over to be sure it was written by you, not about you. you do this more than any other user.

I can't wait till the trolls troll the troll article.

poll says you are alone, cool skill.

I have made logical points, and yet see no response providing any valid argument against them.

I have made logical points, and yet see no response providing any valid argument against them.

your poll proves you wrong.
no popular support in a poll means that you are alone.

Gee I wonder who voted yes.......

Well now that lixluke is banned from the wiki there won't likely be anymore vandalism.

I doubt that it will stop him.

I have made logical points, and yet see no response providing any valid argument against them.
like you never provided an answer to my question of your vandalism?

Well now that lixluke is banned from the wiki there won't likely be anymore vandalism.
i had to check to make sure.

We have a new vandal. James R is destroying content.

Did he deKim Jong Ilify the wiki?

He is trying, but he is up against the greatest poster of them all.

Namely spurious (spam master) monkey

Spamificate his posterior. N. Korea salutes you.