Talk:Vandalism
rewrite
I rewrote a bit what was there, because it had become a mess. Spuriousmonkey 15:51, 22 March 2007 (EST)
- well...many small mistakes still (ashamed of myself). I managed to find some. Spuriousmonkey 16:56, 22 March 2007 (EST)
vandal discussion
Obviously, my appeal hadn't any effect on you lixluke. I will do it again and then, if you disobey, block you permanently from the Wiki.
Last warning: Do not remove content that several other people put back again. This part of this page doesn't refer to you directly. Therefore, you could add your contribution, but you cannot remove entire paragraph. Do it again, and I will consider that as a vandalism. I was patient enough! Wikiadmin 19:57, 22 March 2007 (EST)
- Check out this discussion page. I NOT ONCE ever said that it refers to me. There are logical reasons why it does not belong there. Logical reasons I have stated. There has been no logical reason within this discussion page what that last paragraph has anything to do with the article.
- Your logic is idiotic and you'd best chill out. You're going to lose. Invert nexus 19:24, 22 March 2007 (EST)
- Cool Skill. You are just so fucking stupid. You're about to be banned from the wikipedia because you just can't fucking stop. Hope you're happy. Get ready for it. Invert nexus 08:05, 23 March 2007 (EST)
You're a moron. Deleting incorrect content, and explaining reasons why in the discussion section is not "arbitraily deleting". Go find yourself a brain loser. You have added false content without showing within this discussion page how it applies to the article. --Lixluke 14:00, 22 March 2007 (EST)
- It applies, and several people have agreed. Too bad for you.Nickelodeon 14:01, 22 March 2007 (EST)
- This is not logical proof. Too bad for you. --Lixluke 14:07, 22 March 2007 (EST)
- You wouldnt know logical if it bit you in the ass. Nickelodeon 14:10, 22 March 2007 (EST)
- Get lost troll. It is not my fault you are a troll.
- Quit vandalising the article. Nickelodeon 14:30, 22 March 2007 (EST)
- Now you are talking to yourself. Yes quit vandalizing the article. You have not entered proper information about why your line is correct. Get lost troll.
- Have already done so. I cant help it if you're too thick to understand it Nickelodeon 14:44, 22 March 2007 (EST)
- This is not logical proof. Too bad for you. --Lixluke 14:07, 22 March 2007 (EST)
Like it or not luke, the last paragraph is valid. And there is no reference to you so fuck off. Nickelodeon 08:50, 17 March 2007 (EST)
I adjusted the previous paragraph to include the relevant information about producing false information or true information. Your line is redundant. --Lixluke 09:18, 17 March 2007 (EST)
- Nope, and you know full well that you havent. Deleting entire articles that contain truth is also vandalism. Nickelodeon
- Irrelevant. The last paragraph is applicable to this article. Therefore it stands. Nickelodeon 09:32, 17 March 2007 (EST)
I adjusted the previous paragraph to include the relevant information about producing false information or true information. Your line is redundant. --Lixluke 09:18, 17 March 2007 (EST)
- No it isnt. A vandal deleting true information is not in your paragraph. Therefore it is NOT redundant. Nickelodeon 09:49, 17 March 2007 (EST)
The following is the line that is in question written by Nickelodon:
"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."
The wording of Nickelodeon's line brings about multiple problems.
1. He does not describe any malicious intent. Anybody can wipe out or rewrite anything they find to be false information. As long as there is no malicious intent, this is not vandalism. Editing and revising material in good faith is not vandalism. Rewriting or wiping content in good faith for the sake of truth and accuracy within the encyclopedia is not vandalism. If you disagree with the validity and accuracy of any content, revising it in good faith is antithetic to being considered vandalism. Nickelodeon's line about vandalism is basically a description of the opposite of vandalism.
2. Members simply rewriting history about themselves is not vandalism. Vandalism involves malicious intent. Information about a member within the wiki affects that particular member more than anybody. Members adjusting any information that pertains to them is not malicious. Especially when they consider the content to be false and offensive. In terms of an entire article written about a member that is teeming with clear offensive material about the member, that member rewriting the article with what he feels is legitimate information about him is not a malicious act. After a member revises an article to remove any offensive content, reverting the article to include offensive conent about that member is a malicious act. It is vandalism. Producing malicious content about Sciforums members is vandalism.
Summary.
There is nothing malicious about re-writing history about yourself that you disagree with. There is nothing malicious about revising (in good faith) any content pertaining to you. If you disagree with the validity or accuracy of any information within the wiki, rewriting it or wiping it in good faith is in no way a malicious act. Nothing within Nickelodeon's addition accurately describes vandalism. However, falsifying information with malicious intent is vandalism.
Revision
Therefore, I rewrote Nickelodeon's line for the sake of accuracy, and moved the line into a more apprioriate place within the article:
"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."
Nickelodeon revert.
Nickelodeon in turn replaced his line at the bottom of the article. His line is now not only redundant, but inaccurate content regarding the article. --Lixluke 11:27, 17 March 2007 (EST)
WARNING: Do not inject lines into my statements. You may post all of your comments seperately as part of a legitimate discussion.
- Once again you are ignoring the plain simple fact: deleteing true statments from the wiki is vandalism, pure and simple. Your re-write is therefore irrelevant, because you only talk about changing "false" information, NOT deleting true information. Therefore the paragraph is NOT redundant, becasue deleting true statements is vandalism. Malicious intent is covered by your section, I do not need to include it in my paragraph. Nickelodeon 11:36, 17 March 2007 (EST)
The validity of all information is disputable. There is no such thing as claiming that information is indisputabley true and not up for debate, and then claiming that anybody deleting said "true indisputable information" is a vandal. Claiming that a statement is true period, and nobody can disagree with it, dispute it, or delete it is not logical. If somebody disagrees with the validity of a statement Nickelodeon considers to be true, revising or deleting it is in no way vandalism. What I personally consider vandalism is the act of deleting information for the sake of intentionally falsifying content. Nickelodeon wants to proclaim information to be true and indisputable. Then claim that a vandal is anybody deleting what Nickelodeon proclaims to be true and indisputable information. All information is disputable regardless of citations, and especially if citations are misleading. Backing information up with any form of evidence does not make the information or evidence indisputable.
Deleting statements with no malicious intent is not vandalism. Any act within the wiki that is done in good faith with no malicious intent, cannot be considered vandalism. If any member feels that the information (or the evidence about the information) is not valid or accurate, there is nothing malicious about revising it or editing it. There is no vandalism involved vandalsim.
Nickelodeon's statement is not a valid point about vandalism.
--Lixluke 12:11, 17 March 2007 (EST)
- Get a grip, this isnt just about your pathetic article. Deleting statements that have been backed up with evidence IS vandalism. If you went into wikipedia and started mass deleting referenced articles becasue you didnt agree with them you would be a vandal. Nickelodeon 12:22, 17 March 2007 (EST)
- I cosndier it part of participating in good faith to revise or delete information that you do not agree to be valid or accurate. It is not malicious, and therefore, not vandalism. It is an important part of keeping information accurate. All the wikis contain information, mistakes, or innaccuracies that are revised by participants in good faith. There is nothing malicious about this. You cannot consider deleting "true" information in good faith to be valid when there is no such thing as "true" information that cannot be disputed. Disputing information, revising it, and deleting it in good faith it in no way vandalism no matter how true and backed up with evidence Nickelodeon deems it to be. All participants may disagree with anything within the wiki, and revise it accordingly for the sake of validity and accuracy. Nickelodeon's statement is not a valid point about vandalism.--Lixluke 12:38, 17 March 2007 (EST)
- Yes it is, and I have made my point. Now quit throwing your toys out the pram. Nickelodeon 14:39, 17 March 2007 (EST)
- I cosndier it part of participating in good faith to revise or delete information that you do not agree to be valid or accurate. It is not malicious, and therefore, not vandalism. It is an important part of keeping information accurate. All the wikis contain information, mistakes, or innaccuracies that are revised by participants in good faith. There is nothing malicious about this. You cannot consider deleting "true" information in good faith to be valid when there is no such thing as "true" information that cannot be disputed. Disputing information, revising it, and deleting it in good faith it in no way vandalism no matter how true and backed up with evidence Nickelodeon deems it to be. All participants may disagree with anything within the wiki, and revise it accordingly for the sake of validity and accuracy. Nickelodeon's statement is not a valid point about vandalism.--Lixluke 12:38, 17 March 2007 (EST)
- You are claiming that it is vandalism to delete information that is true as if there is such thing as information that cannot be disputed or revised. That is not vandalism around here.--Lixluke 14:56, 17 March 2007 (EST)
- Yes it is. Nickelodeon 14:57, 17 March 2007 (EST)
- You are claiming that it is vandalism to delete information that is true as if there is such thing as information that cannot be disputed or revised. That is not vandalism around here.--Lixluke 14:56, 17 March 2007 (EST)
seconded. the removal of true and referenced information is vandalism. -vslayer
Because there is no such thing as informatin that is indesputably true, it is illogical to say the removal of true information is vandalism. It is impossible for you to deem information as true, and cannot be deleted. You have no authority over truth. You cannot claim something to be true, and call anybody a vandal who believes it is false, and deletes it. --Lixluke 10:48, 21 March 2007 (EST)
actually, i can claim something to be true, by referencing it, i believe your 'irrelevent, troll' section had almost 20 references. unfortunately i dont have power over the wiki, therefore true things are occasionally deleted by vandals. -vslayer
Irrelevant. This discussion is about the definition of vandalism. You cannot claim "true things" as indisputable. If you consider it to be true, and somebody else considers it to be false, deleting it is not vandalism. You cannot claim that something is true, and anybody claiming it is false is a vandalism. It has nothing to do with the definition of vandalism. Vandalism is deleting information that you know is true for the sake of falsifying an article. --Lixluke 12:00, 21 March 2007 (EST)
- No its not irelevant. Paragraph stays. Nickelodeon 12:26, 21 March 2007 (EST)
Paragraph deleted for being false. There is no such thing as being ture without dispute.
- Sorry, but you're wrong. You have not made a convincing case for deletion.Nickelodeon 16:40, 21 March 2007 (EST)
Yes I have. It is not that difficult. Your paragraph does not conform to logic, and therefore does not belong. You cannot state that deleting something that is true is vandalism as if you decide what is true and what is not true. You are basically claiming that vandalism is deleting anything that Nickelodeon states is true. You cannot use this in the definition for vandalism because it is illogical and completely false according to the definition. --Lixluke 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EST)
- Blimey. It's handbags at dawn over here, isn't it. We Love Our Soap.
- Quiet you. Nickelodeon 04:24, 20 March 2007 (EST)
Get over it lixluke you act like an asshat on the forum and other members have the right to say it, besides your name isn't even mentioned.
