Talk:Vandalism

message: The article was in shambles, rambling back and forth with no real direction and including maybe the worst possible picture I have yet seen in a Wikipedia article.  I agree that it was slanted toward the point of view that vandalism isn't wrong and I suppose that was me just trying to be objective and going too far.  The article should not have been reverted to its originial form, however, without taking into account the work and research I have done on this page, but reshaped with your own attempt to bring objectivity to the process.  As for the subsections, I do not believe that they constitute their own article because, sans Graffiti, they do not have enough information that is unique to their existence e.g. an article on vandalism in the form of "stenciling" would appear to be a stub with all reasonable information included.  These other POV on vandalism should be recognized by those who may find your comparison to rape to be not only insulting, but biased and extreme, with no real connection to the work itself.  As for the suppression of material, it doesn't seem to make sense in the context of this article.  There was information that was taken verbatim from another webpage (NOT a mirror) and I deleted it and rewrote the information into the story in a non-plagiarized way. The only material in any way "suppressed" was the article I wrote being tossed to the winds for no other reason then the lack of willingness of Wikipedians to contribute pieces to articles rather than revert them to their former embarassing selves. -- 10:34, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
But, wait!  There's more...
The idea that because there has been large scale and important historical vandalism is important, and the idea of vandalism being, as you described it, "Cultural Violence" is another important idea that I agree should be in the article.  My only point is that the article was nothing more than incomplete and by its incompletion biased, a regrettable situation.  The article should be rewritten but with NPOV, taking into account the different types of vandalism, not just your "cultural violence".
--TheGrza 22:03, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
::My point is simply that all entrries must begin with the historic and central meaning, in this case of vandalism' --then it may move on to modern extensions of the term.  But to argue whether vandalism is cultural violence (as rape is) or not-- well, I haven't the inclination... But, as I said, it always has justifications— Wetman 08:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to the rewrite

message: What do you mean the Sayville link is "Spam" That is an interesting article. In addition, there are no other links. The page that links to vandalism is appropriate relevant. It is NOT spam. (Posted by User:Closeinch2)
:That link, like the others you've been adding to various pages (such as Prostitution), is utterly worthless. Aside from being short, there are no references, no attempt at context or coherence, and contains some pretty strong allegations. It calls Teddy Roosevelt and Melissa Joan Hart vandals, the latter simply because (as a child) she "broke a thermometer and didn't tell the teacher". The images have all been ripped from other places, also unsourced, and the page (you) even state the images are not of the actual events. All of your links look to be complete bunk: I challenge anyone (other than yourself) to point out something useful in any of them. We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not a joke rag.
:As for the link not being spam, it certainly qualifies as spam once one considers the edits under your current username, the edits under your previous username, and the edits under one of your IPs, and the edits under another one of your IPs. There's at least one other IP you've been editing under, your sole contributions being the addition of  your "Sayville hisotry" links, and the insertion of questionable references: I'm also not the one reverting these (e.g., see ). Please understand that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion, nor is it a repository of external links. If there's something of value in the links you're trying to insert, why not integrate that information into Wikipedia rather than link to it externally? -- Hadal 04:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closeinch's link(s) 

message: Does the first sentence violate wikipedia's policy of self-reference?
: Presumably, yes... but for some reason my mod to add the selfref template was reverted. Stoive 23:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ok... the rfd has now been removed from the selfref template, so I'll stick it back in. Stoive 01:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self reference 

message: Please dont vandalise this poll. You may add as poll option your favorite version of the vandalism article and vote for it. Please do not erase votes. 
=== Current Version ===
# Faethon387 14:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an ex-Faethon account. This account is no longer public Faethon40 13:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, because somebody has gone in and changed the password to the account. --Michael Snow 18:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll: What version of "Vandalism" article do you prefer? 

message: # Faethon387 14:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vandalism|Current Version]] 

message: An Article Version in the spirit of the Vandals; Cruel and hostile to any artistic jpegs pictures, a version willful of destruction and defacement.
#Acusilaus 11:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an ex-Faethon account. This account is no longer public Faethon40 13:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, because somebody has gone in and changed the password to the account. --Michael Snow 18:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&oldid=293710 Initial version] 

message: Effaced is not the correct term for what happened in Afghanistan because they didn't fully destroy the statues.  The picture that you have now changed twice shows two statues that continue to exist.  The definition, taken from ol' dictionary.com, is this.
#To rub or wipe out; erase.
#To make indistinct as if by rubbing.
#To conduct (oneself) inconspicuously.
The statues still stand, thus not "wiped" or "rubbed" out, they are not indistinct, they were an attack specifically on religious statues to warn others that various religions would not be tolerated, making them incredibly distinct, and they were hardly inconspicuous.  Therefore, defaced is the proper word to use for this picture.--TheGrza 11:22, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
: You seem to be referring to the Buddhas of Bamyan — I edited the caption of :Image:Abou Simbel.jpg on the Vandalism page (see also: Abu Simbel). And I only edited it once; the change by an anon to 'defaced' was only made yesterday. If you are referring to :Image:Abou Simbel.jpg, please note that the middle statue has been completely destroyed from the waist up and is the one the caption is referring to. — Davenbelle 12:01, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
The point stands; They were smashed up to be a warning, a vandalism tactic, to other groups.  Blowing up the middle statue from the waist up does not constitute "erasing", or "conducting oneself inconspicuously" and have been defaced, not effaced.--TheGrza 20:48, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
EDIT WAR FTW  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.103.174 (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effaced 

message: "The term refers to the Germanic Vandals, who since the 17th century were incorrectly thought to have ruthlessly sacked the city of Rome in 455."
So the Vandals did NOT sack Rome in 455?  Because their article seems to indicate otherwise, as does the main page...
: That claim seems to have been added in a more detailed form in this edit, but the explanation has been lost in subsequent copyediting. This page backs up the claim that they didn't actually sack the city, they just took everything of value (big difference). I guess both pages need some editing, and references. sjorford →•← 12:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrectly? 

message: The intro explains modern-day vandalism came from someone saying vandalisme is the 1700s, but it doesn't explain where that usage came from.  The origin of the word is actually from the tribe known as the Vandals.  The man calling it vandalisme in the 1700s was making a reference to how the Vandal invaders would pillage and destroy during their conquests.  This needs to be in the article.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 22:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of the word 

message: In my opinion, this article gets into the philosophic notions of vandism before covering enough introductory material.  I won't try to change this myself, because I've noticed some of you are treating this article like you own it.  So, I will just encourage you to work on this aspect - I think it could be are real improvement. ike9898 12:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  too philosophical too early 

message: The self-ref at the top of the article should go in my opinion. We could mention wiki vandalism in the article at some point (perhaps we already do) but I don't think we should go further than that. We have enough  templates slapped around to make a link here entirely redundant. Lupin|talk|popups 14:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - it is pretty silly. People who find vandalism will likely click "Help" or "Contact us", and I doubt this page has ever helped. --unforgettableid | talk to me 23:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly self-ref 

message: People, please. Shepard Fairey is NOT a graffiti artist. He is a sticker bomber & wheatpaster. He has NEVER used spray paint as the main medium of his so-called phenomenology acts. Stop adding him to the WIKIPEDIA LIST of GRAFFITI artists. It is an insult to anyone on that list who has ever risked their life or freedom in the name of GRAFFITI. "Wildstyles", anyone ?
Instead of continuously overlooking the facts, one of you should research the company FUCT™ & its creator Erik Brunetti. If anyone on this website wants to uncover the "truth", it will be well worth your time. I would even say that it would be a great contribution to the world of information. For starters, you can log on to this website: []. Good luck.
-Brighton58Brighton58 03:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the TRUTH about OBEY & Shepard Fairey 

message: I don't know if there will ever be a place for these in the main article, but here are some article from my local newspaper about vandalism.  These are examples of the impact of vandalism, including cost to taxpayers.
*Sign of the Times
*Sign vandals cost county $90,000
*Battlefield vandals prove racial hatred still exists in Walker
*Tombstone vandals strike
*Reward offered for arrest of vandals
*Vandals strike Rossville cemetery
*Hate symbols, profanity mar battlefield monuments
*Veteran's Day vandals strike Chickamauga Battlefield
PrometheusX303 14:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local Vandalism 

message: I've removed the section on pornographic vandalism. It appears that none of the examples cited are clear cases of intentional vandalism, and I've never seen the term "Pornographic vandalism" used to describe this dubious 'phenomenon'. Ziggurat 03:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pornographic vandalism 

message: I am requesting a block on this article beacause I look at all the edits of this article, and people keep vandalising this article very frequently.--67.34.217.188 21:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting this article to be protected from unregistered users 

message: This article blurrs the line between Graffiti and Vandalism in a lot of places. The article fails to give a good definition of what Graffiti really is.
:try here Graffiti :) (Cloud02 20:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graffiti vs. Vandalism 

message: I removed phrase " and the staged and well-known toppling of a Saddam Hussein statue by the multinational force in Iraq" as the section refers to jubilant crowds throwing off the chains of their oppressors. This was a U.S. tank pulling down a statue with a couple of Iraqis on the tank and two dozen in view of the cameras. BCorr|Брайен 20:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I approve this removal. If we kept this, we might as well add the Berlin Wall! - Kookykman|(t)e 11:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam Hussein statue 

message: There's a quote saying: "Like other similar terms (Barbarian/barbary, and Philistine), the term Vandal was originally an ethnic slur referring to the Vandals, who sacked Rome in 455, but unlike the Berbers, the Vandals, like the Philistines, no longer exist as an identifiable ethnic group." in this article, and it seems to tell that the word Barbarian/barbary came from the Berbers nation? Doesn't "Barbar" means "foreign" in ancient greek or something?
Yep. See Barbarian under 'origin of the term'. Someone change it? Wilston 18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a thought 

message: I mean I don't want to run fowl of vandalism things and be banned. That would be horrible. 216.67.5.44 22:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you blank a talk page? Maybe edit what people have said (look up User:White Cat) Kausill 03:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it possible to vandalize a talk page? 

message: Under the headline "Vandalism as Crime", 'wilfully' is misspelled through the whole article. It's supposed to be willfully. Other misspelled words are: 
#'behavoir' (behavior), 
#'endeavour, to be graffitied' (endeavor, to be graffitied),
(seeming as I can't edit the article I decided to let you know here.)
--NitemareDragon 01:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sign your posts, and don't make personal attacks. That's just courtesy.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling ERROR 

message: How many times has this page been vandalized? :) — 82.208.10.16 12:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counting 

message: there are bad words used in the sandbox
: There often are. As the Sandbox page is used for testing, nobody really pays any attention to what is on it, and it's pretty much the only page in Wikipedia where vandalism isn't fixed, since there's no point. As a result, there may well be objectionable content of some description there from time to time. Feel free to edit the page and erase it yourself, or just don't view it – Qxz 12:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: vandalised

message: During the Iraq war, "the courtyard of the 10th-century caravanserai of Khan al-Raba was used by the Americans for exploding captured insurgent weapons. One blast demolished the ancient roofs and felled many of the walls. The place is now a ruin". --Ghirla-трёп- 07:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How the hell is that an example of vandalism?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent example 

message: The description of the vandalised bust contains the word supposedly which IMHO has a touch of ironic negativity that seems POV to me:
"A bust of Germanicus Caesar, vandalized (supposedly) by Christians."
I think it should be changed to:
"A bust of Germanicus Caesar, rummored to have been vandalized by Christians."
which seems more neutral to me
Im gonna do it when im 4 days old
ThereAreNoFreeUsernames 13:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The note with the photo of the bust says it is "rumored" to have been vandalized by Christians.  I don't think unattributed rumors constitute reliable sources even by Wikipedia standards.  If a Wikipedia article reported that some crime was rumored to have been committed "by Jews," it would be promptly (and properly) reverted as inappropriate.  If that allegation of "rumored to have been" was strengthened to "supposedly," still being supported only by unattributed rumors, it would be considered even more outrageous.  Perhaps the reason for the rumor is the cross chiseled on Germanicus' forehead, but that seems an inadequate justification for the attribution.  If it were defaced with a Star of David, that surely would not justify blaming the crime on "Jews."  Neither does defacing a statute with a Cross justify blaming the crime on "Christians."  If the culprits were known, they could be named, but since they are not the caption should be simply, "A vandalized bust of Germanicus Ceasar." NCdave 11:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: -- Zsero (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noticed a possible vandalism 

message: User David Eppstein deleted a link and wrote that big article printed in well-known scientific journal by Springer is "non-notable paper" - is it vandalism? See: Talk:Graph isomorphism#The_absurd_reason_that_looks_like_vandalism_against_NPOV--Tim32 (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not only mistaken about what vandalism constitutes, but in the wrong place. As it clearly states at the top of this talk page, this is for discussion of the content of the Wikipedia article on vandalism. The pages you should be looking at are Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia talk:Vandalism. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Conservatism, whether in science or elsewhere, is a point of view, not vandalism. Bwrs (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  is it vandalism? 

message: Per the existence of its second section. As there are equally prominent sections on 'Vandalism as Crime' and 'Vandalism as Art', it warrants being in both Category:Crime and Category:Art. All Art vandalises Nature, and that also is why vandalism is Naturally Art.ClassGroup2 (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be included into Category:Art 

message: The text beneath it says "probably vandalized...". Wikipedia isn't in the business of original research and unsourced statements. While the cross does make the case, the fact is its coming from wikipedia and not a credible source. For all we know, someone could have photoshopped that image. So I've added the "  " tag to it. Hopefully someone can find a source for it or its going in the trash. Preferably the original person who edited it in, because he/she would most likely know the webpage/museum it was taken from, IF it was taken from one. Paladin Hammer (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's as plain as the nose that isn't on the face.  "Probably" is there because there are no witnesses to the deed.  That doesn't make it OR.  Lots of articles on history contain statements that are only probable, because we can never know for sure.  Same with scientific articles, especially on things like evolution, geology, etc.  As for your claim that someone could have photoshopped the image, AGF requires us to assume otherwise.  As for the origin of the photo, why don't you look at it, that information is right there; it didn't come from any web site.  -- Zsero (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its says it was found in a "British Museum", which "British Museum"? Also, for all we know the artist could have done that to the bust! It wouldn't be the first time an artist defaced his own work and then sold it. This also is not a history article, and even then wikipedia doesn't allow us to use original research on the main article page. I'm looking for that museum (hopefully it will have a gallery online), so far I've ruled out http://www.britishmuseum.org/ , couldn't find a gallery with it there. I think  http://www.bl.uk/ is out too, I haven't found anything in almost two hours. It's also notable that this is in the "Vandalism as Art" section. I fail to see how this classifies. It seems more like a bunch of angry Christians defacing a statue than art (they snubbed out the nose). If they had left the nose and just added the cross, then yeah, I guess I could see it being iconoclasm. But total defacement? Seems like its failing more than two areas here. Just help me out, how hard can t be to find a source in this day and age?Paladin Hammer (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  Something I've found kind of funny, currently it says it was "probably vandalized by christians", where as in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&diff=164740988&oldid=164740857 , it says it was "supposedly". Seems no one is really sure if this was an original art-work or vandalism. Paladin Hammer (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't say it was taken at a British Museum, it says it was taken at The British Museum.  Yes, that would be http://www.britishmuseum.org.  I don't know what you think you've proven by not finding it on the web site. The uploader says he took the photo himself, so there's no reason to expect to find it there.  Surely you don't imagine the museum's entire holdings are on its web site!  As for "supposedly", I suppose we can ask the uploader exactly what he meant, but I suppose it simply means that that's what the plaque at the museum said was supposed to have happened.  Nobody can say with absolute certainty; perhaps the nose just broke off by accident, and the cross was added by someone tripping while holding a phillips-head chisel!  -- Zsero (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Completely ignoring me trying to find a source for the image. And ignoring that I'm not trying to take it down, I'm trying to improve it. Look, notice that the cross is carefully placed in the center of the forehead, yes? Now, form that, we've gathered that whoever put it there wanted to have a cross, obviously. The cross is well-inlaid, clearly the work of someone taking care not to ruin the entire head. However, the nose just seems to be ripped off the face. Why would the same artist who took such care to add the cross then just smear off the nose, and defacing his own art (vandalism)? All I'm trying to do is improve the thing. Your just being an ass. Paladin Hammer (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, I've found what I was looking for thanks to the original uploader. Here's the site: http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/b/basalt_bust_of_germanicus.aspx (looking at it, I wonder how the heck I missed it? Must have mis-spelled Germanicus or something). Anyway, now I just have to figure out where to put it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paladin Hammer (talk • contribs) 02:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look, you're the one who can't seem to read simple English.  The image page said the uploader had taken the photo at the British Museum, and you seemed incapable of understanding that, going on about "which museum?", and looking for "a source for the image".  I'm not your research assistant, and I don't have to stand for your insults. -- Zsero (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Germanicus Caesar. 

message: In which jurisdictions is it considered vandalism to destroy one’s own property in anger?
Bwrs (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  is it vandalism? 

message: The reason that I raise this question is that very often, my writting on this site is mopped off by people by who accuses of me as a vandalism.  If there is a standardized def/or criteria, this kind of accusation could be avoided.--222.67.216.10 (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardised definition/or criteria of Vandalism ???? 

message: At the moment this seems like a Today Tonight article. It describes vandalism as EVIL! Kausill (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: IMO online vandalism should be covered either here or in its' own article. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It is a encyclopedia article, and vandalizing it because it's about vandalism is no more defensible than replacing the whole French language page with a translation of it into French because it's about French.--Thnidu (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online vandalism 

message: This article is one of a  number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes"  would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pending changes

message: Defecating in public and smearing poop all over public property  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.89.131 (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: one more example of vandalism

message: An image used in this article, File:Banksy graffiti removal.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Banksy graffiti removal.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: If it's my opinion, I do not like how the article uses "commons." I think "community" would be better. But for all I know, the use of that word is simply cultural.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of "commons"

message: I would like to add the picture "20101229 Gates of the nations Persepolis Iran.jpg" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis, as an example of vandalism motivated by religion. In the picture, human faces of Persepolis engravings are disfigured by Muslim forces occupying Iran in AD 670 and their followers. The same is still practiced in Iran. 
Echopapa echoromeo (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: - Disfigured? No, I don't see that. There either wasn't any vandalism or it is not obvious. Arctic Kangaroo 14:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 30 April 2013 

message: so am not going to leap right in and do things right away.  I came here because I recently visited a vandalized art site in the USA and wanted to see if this article was a place for some pictures (maybe) and perhaps write a few things and I have been sidetracked by a discussion here years ago about this article including vandalism on wikipedia.  I think that this is an appropriate topic to include, particularly if we look at internet vandalism in general.  It is obvious to me ("obvious" being one of the 27 words and phrases that mean "in my opinion") that such entries begin with a good reference or two and since this idea just struck me 12 minutes ago I am not very far into it, but also important is, what do the folks who have been shepherding this article for the last decade feel about this?  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am new here 

message: How do I revert vandalism?
Joydebbei (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit.   Mlpearc (open channel) 18:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2014 

message: Please expand my new added section "cybervandalism". Yes, there is such thing. There was some news here. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cybervandalism 

message: Where is the Wikipedia:Village dump (technical) as you said? Link? Ask the technical experts? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Village Dump 

message: On number seven to capitalize owners as it is the first word in a sentence
73.25.11.213 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 00:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015 

message: Could the definition be modified to use the word "intentional" instead of 'ruthless"?
The use of the word "ruthless" in the definition seems to not indicate there are levels of vandalism
from minor(graffitti put on a sign) to major (the "ruthless" Vandals damage Ancient Rome).  The examples later in the article indicate levels of Vandalism minor to major.  
Sources:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vandalism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vandalism
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vandalism
Jcardazzi (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Whatever happened to visigothism, ostrogothism, gothism, hunnism, avarism, frankism, saxonism, jutism, and angleism? 69.142.223.83 (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know that certain editors only vandalize Wikipedia but don't visigothize Wikipedia? 69.142.223.83 (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How come the Vandals get the only barbarian reference to inappropriate artwork? 

message: There should be a mention that this term is racist towards Germanic people and should not be used in common speech. Similar to the archaic and racist "barbarian". I do not know why wikipedia uses this insensitive term so much! 119.92.93.84 (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, you make an interesting point. But I'm afraid that the word 'vandal' has become a too common word in the English (and similar words in other languages) to stop using it now. Using a different, less common, term may be confusing. Reliable dictionaries define the term, and reliable sources use it. Wikipedia is just following them. Gap9551 (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism 

message: All requests involve the "Cybervandalism" section of this article.
Please edit the sentence "Cybervandalism is vandalism in the internet" to "Cybervandalism is vandalism on the internet", because it is grammatically incorrect. 
Additionally, I would suggest editing "For example, vandalism on Wikipedia is editing for harming an article by adding, removing or changing information to make Wikipedia seem "unreliable".", to "For example, vandalism on Wikipedia involves adding questionable content, removing content, or changing content in order to make it questionable, generally with the objective of harming Wikipedia's reputation."
Thank you.
MrSherlockHolmes123 (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2016 

message: The Defacement (vandalism) article says in the title and in the first sentence that defacement is a type of vandalism. Spinning out sections into their own articles is fine when there is sufficient information to justify it but that does not appear to be the case here. After a short list of uncited examples, all of the prose (with poor grammar) appears to describe art that was mistaken for vandalism. Along with the graffiti page, I am proposing a merge. Connor Behan (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Support merge to Vandalism; I don't think that we also need to move material to graffiti as the relevant material fits well in Vandalism#As art section. Klbrain (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging defacement 

message: Please change 'marijuana' to 'cannabis' in this part of the article under WP:COMMONNAME. 31.53.237.179 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done DRAGON BOOSTER  ★ 18:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2017 

message: I would like to expand the cyber vandalism section by giving more examples, and where to report it. 24.209.198.81 (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 01:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2017 

message: in the first definition, add "an" to the very beginning. Gpiepkorn (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done The linked source doesn't include "an" in the definition, so I placed the word outside the quotation marks. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2018 

message: 103.99.43.12 (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 01:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2019 

message: it says it needs to be sited Trentl504 (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2019 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Spamdalism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Spamdalism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Not a very active user (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Spamdalism" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Ongoing vandalism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Ongoing vandalism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Not a very active user (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ongoing vandalism" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Simple vandalism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Simple vandalism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Not a very active user (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Simple vandalism" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Wine vandalism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Wine vandalism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Not a very active user (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wine vandalism" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: "Vandalism is the action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property." -- Breaking a window to rob a house is also deliberate damage to private property, and is a criminal act for sure, but I wouldn't call it vandalism. I think the definition needs to be reworded to exclude such "incidental damage"; part of the definition of vandalism should be that it is destruction that is committed without immediately obvious beneficial effects on the one who does it. However, I'm not sure how to word it and also I'm not allowed to edit the article as it is protected (to prevent vandalism I assume :-) So if you agree, please change this. Thanks! -- 194.39.218.10 (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclude incidental damage/destruction from definition? 

message: hola can i edit please please i will make better dgjdfgkjhdfskj Froggyy68 (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You can edit this and other semi-protected pages when your account is at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits. RudolfRed (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2023 

message: Vandalism is the action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property.[1] 
Public and private property is deliberately destroyed and/or damaged all the time in acts that are authorized by the owner(s) of the the property - ie. a sanctioned destruction of a building (demolition) or the authorized cutting of a lock when the key is lost.
I would suggest this definition --
Vandalism is the action involving unauthorized destruction of or damage to public or private property.  57.135.233.22 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition too broad 

message: — Assignment last updated by JackFisher3503 (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: The Destruction of Images

message: Explained in title. Share your opinion here below. All comments are welcome! 2001:EE0:4BCA:90E0:DC97:2FF6:583C:A2A0 (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea what you are trying to say, but the image should not be in that section so I have removed it. Meters (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The second image of vandalizing on a tree is in the See also, but not in the lead to conform Wikipedia's guidelines