| Revision as of 20:20, 21 September 2004 editAhoerstemeier (talk | contribs)110,683 editsm Reverted edits by 62.172.24.46 to last version by Rage1750← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:36, 27 December 2004 edit undoVioletriga (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users37,361 edits Was this vandalism?Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| A vandal is a person who deliberately damages property, information etc. Vandalism is the act of damaging the property, information etc. | A vandal is a person who deliberately damages property, information etc. Vandalism is the act of damaging the property, information etc. | ||
| == Was this vandalism? == | |||
| ], 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) | |||
Revision as of 14:36, 27 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)