Wikipedia talk:Vandalism

Semantics: Vandalism vs Harrassment distinction
Hi, why exactly does Wikipedia 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)

description of image vandalism
Should Vandalism perhaps be reworded so that it cannot be interpreted as claiming that it is okay to upload explicit images of minors? I can't imagine anyone would seriously read it that way, but I can't be the only one to have done a double-take when reading the description.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Done. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism? Promotion?
IP-addresses including posted in late February many television series releases (like ) on pages like 2024 in the Netherlands like they are notable events. It don’t seems notable?. But is it also vandalism or promotion? Or should it all be moved to pages like 2024 in Dutch television 82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * likely many more in the same range

should be protected
the page should be protected Truth protest (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not think that all humorous writing is vandalism, and this page could acknowledge that.
Considering that vandalism is done in bad faith, and does not need to be humorous. Vandals can attempt to destroy Wikipedia out of hate.

Examples of humorous writing that is in good faith, but still disruptive, is when adding constructive material in an excessively humorous style, or inserting jokes that are meant to improve the fun of reading the article (and therefore helping it), but the jokes are out of place. Wikipedia is a serious wiki, after all. Sites like TV Tropes are examples of sites with a lot of humorous writing in good faith, to the point where humor is featured in encyclopedic material.

There are templates to warn people who are adding inappropriate humor into pages, and where such writing is not proven to be vandalism (therefore not making those templates be redundant to those for warning about vandalism), and they are here, here, here, here and here.

How can this be acknowledged? Perhaps by mentioning something like this under "What is not vandalism" so that good-faith editors with too much humor can be seperated from those who want to damage this wiki, even if it can be hard to tell those two apart since humor happens to be common in vandalism. CarlFilip19 (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)