| Revision as of 14:36, 27 December 2004 editVioletriga (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users37,361 edits Was this vandalism?← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:11, 28 December 2004 edit undoDori (talk | contribs)9,615 edits →Was this vandalism?Next edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| ], including on the ], was recently editted to include a Christmas message/advert for a project. While the person that did it could claim the ] rule I think that the lack of discussion and repeated reversion could be seen as a kind of vandalism. Yes, it was quite appropriate but, at least in it's rather ugly form, it should not have been done. I can see both sides of the argument - anyone got any views? ] ] 14:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) | ], including on the ], was recently editted to include a Christmas message/advert for a project. While the person that did it could claim the ] rule I think that the lack of discussion and repeated reversion could be seen as a kind of vandalism. Yes, it was quite appropriate but, at least in it's rather ugly form, it should not have been done. I can see both sides of the argument - anyone got any views? ] ] 14:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) | ||
| :It's not vandalism IMO, but it is against the 3RR ] | ] 01:11, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:11, 28 December 2004
A vandal is a person who deliberately damages property, information etc. Vandalism is the act of damaging the property, information etc.
Was this vandalism?
Template:WikipediaSister, including on the Main Page, was recently editted to include a Christmas message/advert for a project. While the person that did it could claim the be bold rule I think that the lack of discussion and repeated reversion could be seen as a kind of vandalism. Yes, it was quite appropriate but, at least in it's rather ugly form, it should not have been done. I can see both sides of the argument - anyone got any views? violet/riga (t) 14:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)