Fun talk:Wandalism

We made it up
Well, as a matter of fact... -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 15:26, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Think someone should make a rationalwiki definition at urban dictionary? ThunderkatzHo! 15:36, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
 * And then the next thing you know, Hollywood will make a Sword & Wandal movie. Teresita 17:24, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I didn't say we were the first to make it up. ;) How about a Words and Sandals movie? human be in 18:58, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

I initially thought it was wand-based vandalism. Arlo James Barnes (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Taken out
The following section:
 * "For example, an editor adding an original thought to Wikipedia would be committing vandalism as original research is against that wikis policies. In a similar fashion, an editor adding anything vaguely true to Uncyclopedia would be guilty of kitten huffing vandalism. Somewhat ironically, any editor adding thought or truth at Conservapedia will not only be adjudicated guilty of vandalism (and summarily hanged and banned), but probably sockpuppetry, trolling, being AmesG, cyber-terrorism, and being 95% liberal as well. Godspeed!"

These aren't vandalism, they are examples of breaking other site rules/policies/biases. I also moved a pic to the Conservapedia:parodist article, as it was parody rather than vandism. Arguably both, I guess, but more distinctly parody; I think of vandalism/wandalism as more pointlessly destructive things like blanking pages, or replacing them with "Get Stuffed!" We definitely need some content about wandalism at CP, and especially Schlafly's insistence that it can be a law enforcement issue.  w easeLOId ~ 19:20, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
 * It depends on how we define "wandalism" really. What you removed is certainly not "Vandalism" - but it could be considered "Wandalism".  Also, it's a shame to lose that stuff because it's funny :(  Oh well.  ħ uman  20:06, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Fun
Or delete, that works too. Evil fascist oh noez 22:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd nuke this or at least clean it up so it reads more informatively. Currently it looks really unprofessional and reads to me like someone got fed up with people counter-trolling RW and decided to write a whine piece on how RW is so great that we're wandal-proof. If we have an article on wandalism, it should be about how the ease of editing a wiki encourages people to step outside their 'safe idea zones' into the other half of the internet and try and destroy the ideas of others, because those ideas shouldn't exist according to that person. In addition, someone who edits outside the terms and conditions of a wiki is not always a wandal; it may be someone who just didn't pay attention to the rules, or someone who thinks their idea is legitimately vital to the topic regardless of source material. 'Vandalism' (and hence Wandalism) implies destruction for the purpose of destruction, not a goofball who doesn't know how to edit a wiki. Also this article reads really weirdly for how snark-superior it is poo-pooing wiki vandals meanwhile RW got its start vandalizing Conservapedia.±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR garrulous en guerre 21:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How about merging with wiki then? Sophie  Wilder  22:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree to either funspace or delete.  Sam   Tally-ho!  08:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not have funspace treated as a dumping ground for otherwise unacceptable pages, so I vote delete.  08:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion
Have a 'Wandalopedia' with, for starters, a number of the pages that are regularly mistreated, and any persistent wandals are automatically redirected there so they can play around and annoy each other to their hearts' content. (Whether or not the rest of us will indulge 'our occasional inner wandal tendencies'/say what we really think of politician or 'celebrity X' there is another matter) 86.146.100.119 (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Humour?
The wandalism page being vandalised? Anna Livia (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Question
Where is the fish reference? Anna Livia (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)