Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a02:cb80:4098:b37b:e4cb:8f62:ecee:aeb9 (talk) at 05:16, 1 December 2023 (تحسين). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

11تحسين

WP:VAN

Should we add WP:VAN as a shortcut? MusiBedrock (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I believe what is being asked is should the shortcut be added to list of shortcuts at the top of the project page, included in Template:Policy.

(i.e. change {{Policy|WP:VD|WP:VAND|WP:VANDAL|WP:VANDALIZE|WP:VNDL}} to {{Policy|WP:VD|WP:VAN|WP:VAND|WP:VANDAL|WP:VANDALIZE|WP:VNDL}} )

To produce this:

This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy.It describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow, though exceptions may apply. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcuts WP:VD WP:VAN WP:VAND WP:VANDAL WP:VANDALIZE

Is that right User:MusiBedrock? Template:Policy states To include up to five shortcuts, pass parameters... so it would need to replace one already on the list?

And I just now realized in my example it kicked off WP:VNDL:) --DB1729 17:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Not yet. Well, you need to increase the limit for the number of shortcuts, e.g. increasing the limit to include up to seven shortcuts, pass parameters, etc. MusiBedrock (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need to list that many shortcuts in the first place? The others are just as memorable, so adding "VAN" seems superfluous, especially since we have "VAND" already. BilCat (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

No, too similar shortcut. "VAND" is far more useful. MusiBedrock (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Can someone help report 49.183.30.114?

Hi,

can someone help me report 49.183.30.114, for the following vandalism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Snorlax&oldid=1089124024

Its, in my opinion, probo a lv.3-4

thanks,

={δ θ η μ τ π}= (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That was last May, so no. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Another type of vandalism: duplicating the article text?

In the few days of total time that I did recent changes patrolling for, another common way I see people vandalise articles now, is they copy-and-paste the article text, within the article, duplicating/repeating the information. At a first glance it looks constructive and good-faith, as the addition makes sense and sounds encyclopedic. You never realise it's unconstructive until you read through the entire article and find that the same paragraphs, sentences etc have been repeated twice or more.

Here is a good recent example of this. The vandal even copied the article text in the edit summaries to make it look less like vandalism.

So far I don't see anything on the "types of vandalism" section that goes over about this. Maybe it falls a little bit into subtle vandalism?

I feel like this is worth mentioning in the info page (the types section) as it is probably something people are less likely to notice due to the reasons mentioned in first sentence above. AP 499D25 (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem with this definition

According to this page, vandalism is defined as "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.

However, many/most editors on Misplaced Pages do not intent to present the sum of all human knowledge. If they did, there would be no need for notability guidelines and most deletion processes. Under the current definition, most editors who nominate an article for deletion are vandals, because they don't think Misplaced Pages should encompass "all human knowledge". But these editors are clearly not vandals, so the definition of vandalism should be restated. Kk.urban (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

This seems like trying to indirectly raise a point that would be better off raised on the pages for the notability and/or deletion-related policies you disagree with. It's tangential at best to the definition of vandalism. Gnomingstuff (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting that notability policies should be changed. I don't think that Misplaced Pages SHOULD present the sum of all human knowledge. I'm suggesting that the definition of vandalism should be changed to reflect how it is actually used. Kk.urban (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Kk.urban in that the language is too encompassing. I think it suffices to say, "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕". Because this is the English Misplaced Pages and adding articles or content in other languages is mostly not how things work.

In addition, not all human knowledge is contained in Misplaced Pages nor it is sought, just part of it. I mean saying we want all human knowledge sounds ideal and very lofty but it is not current practice. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Misplaced Pages article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Semantics: Vandalism vs Harrassment distinction

Hi, why exactly does Misplaced Pages draw a line between vandalism and user harassment, considering both offences are treated the same (as far as I know)? Simple record-keeping? I‘m not an experienced user (as apparent by the IP address), but I‘m still curious. - Epsilon 2A09:80C0:192:0:7841:1E51:2CF6:E039 (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)