Help talk:How to handle vandalism

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Edit request[edit]

Could someone change "pitied rather than censured" to "pitied rather than censored" as a spelling correction? Cheers. — Unsigned, by: CTB33391 / talk / contribs

censure="express severe disapproval of (someone or something), especially in a formal statement."[1] Which seems a reasonable sentiment. --Annanoon (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
It is correct. — Dysk (contribs) 13:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
It always amazes me how many people are ignorant of British spelling... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
TIL that censure is even a word. Also I AM a brit, so that's an even bigger oof on my part... Hang on, I need to order some WikitroutWikipedia for my own good. CTB33391 (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

regards Scream!! (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about it too much, it's an uncommon word outside of of professional/academic environments. — Dysk (contribs) 13:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The correct WP link is now [2] - and is there a version for the vegetarian/vegan/animal-friendly brigade (perhaps some sort of weird mushroom). Anna Livia (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


One person's funny vandalism/harmless joke may be considered unfunny by someone else; not all humour travels (and sometimes 'three months and more later' the context has been lost).

Some people will have a poor use of English (for whatever reasons) or will be newbies to RW/the Wikiverse in general.

Even 'stopped clocks' and 'pet weird theory-ists' can make positive contributions (sometimes by starting debates etc). Anna Livia (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

All good points, but sometimes we have to weigh the good vs the bad, are the few pros of an otherwise bad faith editor enough to warrant continued tolerance of their antics? I'd say no, but YMMV apparently. Wizard's hat.svgÜbermensch Pierce through the wonder of amazement at the ubermensch 14:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The nuisances can get constructive contributors to revise articles constructively (for all the obvious reasons); and those who fall somewhere along the line of 'my pet theory/obscure area of research' to 'X and their weird theory' can be gainfully employed in contributing to the Wikiverse
(finding obscure references and links etc). Anna Livia (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

We might need to update this too.[edit]

Per the discussion going on at Community Standards (on the 12th May 2020) we will probably need to update this one if that page gets updated.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, bloody hell! The entire help page is based on the premise that there's such a thing as funny vandalism. Which there isn't. Oh, sod me! Yeah. This is going to need to be heavily edited. Spud (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
This was created shortly after the initial group had been, shall we say, adding humour to Conservapedia. So the concept of funny vandalism was on many people's minds.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
There is vandalism proper, there is 'having an argument with wiki-formatting (and losing), writing in a secondary language/variant of English, multiple-edit-itis' etc, and then there is intended/actual humour (and the equivalents of [3] etc). Anna Livia (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

How do I easily find the right edit to revert and what constitutes vandalism??[edit]

I am a little confused, if I'm supposed to revert vandalism rather than just editing it out, doesn't that mean that I have to sift through the fossil record to hone in on the edit in which it was added, by checking different versions of the page via trial and error? Or is there some easier way to track down when the offending text was posted?

Also, I am confused as to what constitutes vandalism. If someone edits an article about say, homeopathy with stuff saying that it works wonders and can heal any malady, without any citations (or with citations to sites that endorse homeopathy), is that vandalism worthy of being reverted, or not? FairDinkum (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@FairDinkum If you find something that looks like vandalism that you feel was missed by our editors and happened before the most recent edit, just go ahead and edit it. There's no need to find the specific revision in the fossil record. The "revert" action is most useful for recent changes.
With respect to your question about a suspect edit on homeopathy, I would certainly consider that to be vandalism, and it should be removed. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
OK thanks, that clears things up for me. The reason I asked is because there is a page (Depopulation) which has some stuff I think needs to be removed, but I want to salvage as much as I can, and a revert would make that difficult. I've only done one other removal edit and I kind of screwed it up, I should have moved it to the talk page rather than deleting it entirely, so that's why I wanted to get some advice here. FairDinkum (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


As there is a clear break between 'Rewrite' and 'Edit request' of several years and the older entries refer to a much earlier phase of the policy, should the first 9 entries be archived? Anna Livia (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)