This "What vandalism is not" section is very interesting. While I'm sure that is the view on Wikipedia, I'm not sure this interpretation is common here on Wiktionary. This seems like a classic case of scope-creep. On the other hand, it does not seem harmful...just overly pedantic on a topic we normally are not at all pedantic about, here. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- I hadn't thought of it that way until now. I only saw them as labels for examples of what vandalism is not. Let me know what you think of the line that I added to that section: "Although sometimes referred to as such, the following things are not vandalism and are therefore treated differently. It should be made clear that the following are only examples. This list should not be viewed as all inclusive or doctrinal". Psy guy 12:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.
- I can see value in having some sort of page at this title, even if it merely points to the relevant pages. This is a straightforward page name of the sort we usually have for other topics. --EncycloPetey 02:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have protected the page as sysops-only, as there has been unproductive edit reversion and insertion of Wikipedia policies by a new user who doesn't understand the separation of the WM projects. --EncycloPetey 21:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I like this edition at least. The page has value. Keep.—msh210℠ 21:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: Wiktionary needs a page describing vandalism on it as well as Wikipedia does. -- IRP 18:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept --Jackofclubs 06:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)