Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
vandalism was reverted. Shortcuts WP:NOTVANDALISMWP:NOTVANDALISM WP:NOTVANDWP:NOTVAND Although at times the following situations may be referred to colloquially...
Click to read more »in my opinion, {{subst:uw-notvand}}. If there is a cause to use this as the next level up (that is the user ignored uw-notvand) then I think a personalised...
Click to read more »kettle black (WP:KETTLE) Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars Template:Uw-notvand – A notification template for users who incorrectly label edits as vandalism...
Click to read more »deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg. Bahnfrend (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC) WP:NOTVAND explicitly states that "disruptive editing" (regardless of whether this...
Click to read more »between vandalism and bold editing. For more information on this, see WP:NOTVAND. Do not bite the newcomers! See WP:NEWCOMER for more details. All articles...
Click to read more »Bahnfrend (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Please see WP:AGF and WP:NOTVAND. Note that "disruptive editing" is expicitly stated as not being vandalism...
Click to read more »regulars Wikipedia:Witch hunt Wikipedia:Passive aggression Template:Uw-notvand - A warning template for users who misuse vandalism warning templates....
Click to read more »for Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings, some of which (uw-ewsoft, uw-notvand, uw-fringe1, uw-fringe2, uw-fringe3) are included with Twinkle. I am running...
Click to read more »that suggests "same person" and not just "same pov"? Also, please read WP:NOTVAND and don't call other editors' edits "vandalism". Thanks. asilvering (talk)...
Click to read more »be researched and added. -- pde (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC) WP:NOTVAND. Please do not make statements like "would be an act of vandalism". Also...
Click to read more »merely misrepresenting constructive edits as vandalism in violation of WP:NOTVAND. I think this should be enough per WP:BEANS. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:23, 30...
Click to read more »represents a form of vandalism. --Cvdr (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC) WP:NOTVAND. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Also there...
Click to read more »policy is to treat them differently from vandalism. There is a {{subst:uw-notvand}} template for explaining this. Wikipedia:Vandalism's policy says: 'On...
Click to read more »2024 (UTC) Some points of fact: This is not DRN nor AIV; please check WP:NOTVAND on what is vandalism and what is not vandalism. The user is not even attempting...
Click to read more »confused about the definition of "vandalism" as it applies to Wikipedia. WP:NOTVAND may be helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2015...
Click to read more »template to the end of your unsigned comment is not vandalism. Please see WP:NOTVAND; Wikipedia uses a stricter definition of the word vandalism, and none of...
Click to read more »revert my edits. This is despite the fact that I have linked him to WP:NOTVAND and have explained to him that twinkle is for reverting vandalism only...
Click to read more »other editors of vandalism because you disagree with their edits. Read WP:NOTVAND") 18:24, 28 August 2011 (edit summary: "restored reference") 18:40, 28...
Click to read more »but I could easily be missing some nuance. Abu reiss, please read WP:NOTVAND - Rameshnta909 is editing in good faith. Please work this out on the talkpage...
Click to read more »disagreements, even if exercised by a new editor, are not vandalism. Please read NOTVAND to understand more. Warmly, Lourdes 22:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Page:...
Click to read more »closer to blocking you for abuse of warning templates and WP:AIV. See WP:NOTVAND. --NeilN talk to me 15:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC) @NeilN: You have amused...
Click to read more »opposing editors. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC) See WP:NOTVAND. You are not allowed to violate WP:BLP in a discussion on your tendentious...
Click to read more »Wikipedia" --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC) See WP:NOTVAND. Alexbrn (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC) According to Wikipedia:Administrators'...
Click to read more »record of Cookshat's edits ([1], [2], [3]), they are not vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND because you clearly misunderstand what qualifies as vandalism here. If...
Click to read more »Filter worked properly, you were evading a block. Oh and please read WP:NOTVAND, WP:AGF, WP:ATWV and maybe WP:NPA and WP:HARASS as well. --TL22 (talk)...
Click to read more »vandal.Outliner73 (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC) @Outliner73: Read WP:NOTVAND. Adamgerber80's edits are not vandalism. I've left a summary of some site...
Click to read more »Kam (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC) No evidence of vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND. Drafting and AfC pior to publication, in principle, are optional. Editors...
Click to read more »3rr warning, just incorrectly applied vandalism warnings. Please read WP:NOTVAND. Also, while "Restored correct and accurate info" is not the most useful...
Click to read more »that this is neither accurate or helpful; if you haven't already, read WP:NOTVAND. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Apologies...
Click to read more »There is also a difference between POV-pushing and vandalism, see WP:NOTVAND. Neither of you has made any attempt to discuss things on talkpages, and...
Click to read more »Shovon76 has mischaracterized a content disagreeement as vandalism, see WP:NOTVAND. Sandstein 21:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Page: South China Sea (edit | talk...
Click to read more »interesting anymore. Nick Cooper is STRONGLY urged to acquaint himself with WP:NOTVAND and to edit accordingly, at the risk of a block. The IP is urged to stop...
Click to read more »(talk) 18:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC) @RunnyAmiga: What you're missing is WP:NOTVAND: "Disruptive editing or stubbornness", "Edit summary omission". Vandalism...
Click to read more »revert. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Please read WP:NOTVAND. What he did was a good faith edit - not vandalism. Hipocrite (talk) 19:11...
Click to read more »--Ghirla-трёп- 20:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I recommend that you read WP:NOTVAND; replacing original research and unverifiable cruft with a link to a well-written...
Click to read more »assertions, Winston, John Smith's actions were not vandalism. According to WP:NOTVAND, even disruptive editing and NPOV violations do not count as vandalism...
Click to read more »wrong thing by placing a vandalism message on the user's page (WP:DV, WP:NOTVAND), which made this much more difficult to decide for us, but I still think...
Click to read more »83 (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC) You are going to have to review WP:NOTVAND, then. Regardless of whether you are right or not, you may not edit war...
Click to read more »was vandalism. Disruptive editing and edit warring are described by WP:NOTVAND as actions which are not vandalism, and this case seems closer to those...
Click to read more »Vandalism policy).163.1.147.64 (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC) See WP:NOTVAND, as you've been told. Your continued accusations, despite discussion, that...
Click to read more »harsh--technically, what they were reverting wasn't vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND) but they were disruptive for various other reasons. And, at that point...
Click to read more »{{subst:uw-notga}} Incorrectly marking an edit as vandalism {{subst:uw-notvand}} Using voting instead of consensus {{subst:uw-notvote}} Creating talk...
Click to read more »it's up to them to decide if they want to re-revert you. [27] This is WP:NOTVAND, disruptive if anything. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC) 213...
Click to read more »2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)WP:Disruptive editing is not vandalism. Read WP:NOTVAND. He's being WP:tendentious, especially in trying to hide this report, but...
Click to read more »‑Scottywong| comment _ 18:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Ouch. Please read WP:NOTVAND. Those edits were misguided but there is no evidence of deliberate bad...
Click to read more »"revert"), try to get JDC808 blocked for vandalism (strike two - read WP:NOTVAND), and then file this report (strike three). Have I got this right? NeilN...
Click to read more »Blocked Both editors blocked. Fustos gets a little more time to read WP:NOTVAND NeilN talk to me 19:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Page Karna (edit | talk |...
Click to read more »3rr before now. As it is, I'd like to remind him to read WP:AGF and WP:NOTVAND. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC) I would have thought filing...
Click to read more »reverts without discussing will result in a block. But please read WP:NOTVAND. Editing against MOS and not providing cites may be disruptive and blockable...
Click to read more »Calling me a vandal is a personal attack. I think you need to revise WP:NOTVAND and WP:NPA. 146.90.39.236 (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC) What is "obviously...
Click to read more »WP:VANDTYPES does this fall under? The IP's edits seem to fall under WP:NOTVAND's definition of not being vandalism. Your edits do not appear to be reverting...
Click to read more »"removing sourced material" isn't (generally) considered vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND), unfortunately. Having said that, Number 57, I think it's pretty unhelpful...
Click to read more »resolve dispute on article talk page Comments: Edits appear to fall under WP:NOTVAND. That said, they were edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 24 November...
Click to read more »Talk 15:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC) "m" is not an explanation! Please read WP:NOTVAND and stop making personal attacks. I like how you are trying to paint the...
Click to read more »Liqunaei (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Certainly not. Please read WP:NOTVAND for starters. And then meta:The Wrong Version might be of interest. Suggest...
Click to read more »what their problem was there either. I think they need to read WP:3RR, WP:NOTVAND, WP:BEBOLD, and WP:REVEXP. 88.217.152.166 (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2019...
Click to read more »@Kavitha Swaminathan and Abesam: Both of you can use this time to read WP:NOTVAND NeilN talk to me 19:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Page Democratic Party (Italy) (edit...
Click to read more »(UTC) This appears to be a content dispute. Sliekid, Please remember WP:NOTVAND, vandalism is intentionally defacing a page. Since you are by now edit...
Click to read more »the remove content does not seem to be an issue either. One can read WP:NOTVAND to see how every part of that is false. 128.40.1.2 (talk) 09:54, 4 July...
Click to read more »edit summary "rv vandal" when removing 3RR warning and pointers to WP:NOTVAND and WP:BLP from Verbal. Verbal tries again to educate Urban XII about what...
Click to read more »exact same edit, and it was then reverted as "vandalism". I then left a uw-notvand template on User:Raeky's talk page, and tried to show Raeky that the edit...
Click to read more »12 May 2022 (UTC) CONTENT DISPUTE the OP is strongly advised to read WP:NOTVAND and to never use the word "vandalism" incorrectly again, nor to use the...
Click to read more »vandalism [96] The Banner replied "Because it was" I left the template {{uw-notvand}} on their talk page; they responded by saying "Hope you overcome your...
Click to read more »There are numerous examples of disruption that aren't vandalism, see WP:NOTVAND for examples. -- Atama頭 22:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Comment As I mentioned...
Click to read more »contribs) is consistantly calling things vandalism that are either WP:NOTVAND, content disputes, or just plain good edits. Here are some examples, dated...
Click to read more »relevant to this discussion, as it does not involve vandalism. Please read WP:NOTVAND. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Here's a recent...
Click to read more »--Sable232 (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC) I would suggest you read WP:NOTVAND, and if you still think the above diffs show vandalism, explain which of...
Click to read more »latter example and the other diffs in this thread are not vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND generally. Vandalism is actually more narrowly defined around here than...
Click to read more »opposed editors. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC) Read WP:NOTVAND. And technically, we could go and revert more since it falls under WP:BLP...
Click to read more »little light on this particular situation. The relevant policy here is WP:NOTVAND. Depending on the viewpoint you take, Tentontunic's actions could be counted...
Click to read more »not seeing vandalism. Disruption maybe, but you might want to read WP:NOTVAND.--v/r - TP 13:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC) This is not vandalism in your eyes...
Click to read more »Pentes's edits were WP:TEND and just plain wrong, they do fall under WP:NOTVAND since he did what he did because he earnestly believed that was somehow...
Click to read more »idealogical issues (relating to the choices of usernames). A quick review of WP:NOTVAND would not go amiss, either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2010...
Click to read more »TT me 19:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Bahnfriend: please remember that WP:NOTVAND explicitly states that "disruptive editing" is not vandalism. Even if there...
Click to read more »calling their edits to your talk page "vandalism" is also not cool: see WP:NOTVAND. Generally, the word "vandalism" shouldn't be slung around carelessly,...
Click to read more »revert to re-insert the same material, but it is not vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND for further info. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC) You're...
Click to read more »(talk) 15:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC) You should read up on what is WP:NOTVAND. LL, you've got two options here: (1) acknowledge your mistakes and tell...
Click to read more »WP:EW#WHATISNT 16:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, the problem is that WP:NOTVAND clearly says that personal attacks aren't vandalism. Confusing, isn't it...
Click to read more »disruptive editing, if done in good faith, is not considered vandalism per WP:NOTVAND. -- Atama頭 02:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC) From my experience, the articles...
Click to read more »recommend action here. All the rest of you, meanwhile, please go and read WP:NOTVAND. Calling people vandals when they aren't can get you blocked. Vanamonde...
Click to read more »error, he chose not to. I would ask that an uninvolved admin explain WP:NOTVAND to him, and possibly remove rollbacktwinkle. See: false accusation of vandalism...
Click to read more »Content dispute. Use his talk page or article talk page. Also read WP:NOTVAND to know what is not vandalism. Capitals00 (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2023...
Click to read more »finally, considering such actions as "indecent vandalism" (bonus link: WP:NOTVAND) - in addition to the continued urge to post walls of texts isn't particularly...
Click to read more »pointy edits are explicitly mentioned as things that are not vandalism: NOTVAND. These fall under disruptive editing. For an admin to initiate a block...
Click to read more »protests Warns Therexbanner Warns Gladsmile once and then again Per WP:NOTVAND "if an editor treats siuations which are not clearly vandalism as such...
Click to read more »(UTC) First of all, none of those edits are vandalism - please read WP:NOTVAND. Both of you are edit warring and need to discuss on the talk page, and...
Click to read more »keep Twinkle, and won't mark edits as vandalism when it's a dispute/WP:NOTVAND. Is everyone reasonably happy now? (yes, I'm butting in) tedder (talk)...
Click to read more »that? Debresser (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC) I would point to WP:NOTVAND - "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk...
Click to read more »vandalism | the vandalism of this user | My work, Your vandalism. @Niyskho: WP:NOTVAND. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 03:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC) Niyskho this person...
Click to read more »28 December 2011 (UTC) IvanOS you should familiarise yourself with WP:NOTVAND; the edits you mention are not vandalism. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:56...
Click to read more »Area/Resources (Depending on how fast that works, re-read WP:NOTVAND in the meantime). Then I think we're done here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:12...
Click to read more »further edits should be made to this discussion. CONTENT DISPUTE See WP:NOTVAND. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC) The following discussion...
Click to read more »blame the admin, blame the community that created the stupidity that is WP:NOTVAND, which means that practically nothing except replacing the article with...
Click to read more »(edit conflict)It looks like somebody needs to peruse WP:TRUTH and WP:NOTVAND, as well as possibly WP:EW, WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE. I'm personally...
Click to read more »to damage Wikipedia rather than to right great wrongs (see generally WP:NOTVAND). You should be careful with that designation, especially in a dispute...
Click to read more »Tim Trent, you really need to stop calling it vandalism. Please read WP:NOTVAND. That said, something does need to be done. Can we find a mentor?--v/r...
Click to read more »pointed out, the 2nd instance I noted wasn't Twinkle, but was WP:EW and WP:NOTVAND - the latter could be considered WP:CIR, but not the former. More fundamentally...
Click to read more »policies you linked to really say that. Here's a better policy to read: WP:NOTVAND. Levivich 20:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC) Yes, those policies are correct, and...
Click to read more »isn't an admin - and has apologised. The OP is also advised to read WP:NOTVAND, and that he's as bound by WP:CIVIL as anyone else. As Davey has apologised...
Click to read more »whether involving the same or different material. I also suggest reading WP:NOTVAND, because nothing here is vandalism. Woodroar (talk) 16:36, 14 February...
Click to read more »contribs) 21:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Reports by editors who haven't read WP:NOTVAND or WP:3RRNO. Some background to this dispute: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon...
Click to read more »April 2013 (UTC) Whoa whoa whoa, hang on a minute strike eagle. Read WP:NOTVAND. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to deface the encyclopedia in bad faith...
Click to read more »users as "vandals" and their edits "vandalism" in manners proscribed by WP:NOTVAND ([134][135] [136]) since they acknowledged that it is "a violation of wiki...
Click to read more »reverted as "vandalism", no matter how often people try to explain WP:NOTVAND. I can't speak for other editors but Abhidevananda has reported me to AIV...
Click to read more »very serious... But, "Harassment and personal attacks" are primarily WP:NOTVAND. In addition, Talk:Sarabjit Singh edits are definitely not vandalism. They...
Click to read more »"vandalism". Mjroots is an admin, and so should should be aware of WP:NOTVAND, and should not try to justify their actions in a content dispute by making...
Click to read more »Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Not a vandal. See WP:NOTVAND and use talk page to resolve your dispute. So far neither of you have used...
Click to read more »Randolph Fladmark, Jr." InfoLeak (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC) See WP:NOTVAND and WP:AGF. This poorly attributed paragraph length quote potentially goes...
Click to read more »thing, calling a Bold action Vandalism. Clearly someone hasn't read WP:NOTVAND in a while. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC) Both of you stop...
Click to read more »cover it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Please read WP:NOTVAND. "Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with...
Click to read more »even know.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC) WP:NOTVAND is rather clear, FWIW. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:07, 16 September...
Click to read more »he's right or wrong is not what would make the edits vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND. Noformation Talk 12:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Agreeing with Noformation,...
Click to read more »normal editing and improvements to the article. The OP is directed to WP:NOTVAND. And for future reports of actual vandalism, WP:AIV is thataway→. That...
Click to read more »instead of sniping.--BETA 15:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC) BETA, please see WP:NOTVAND. I don't believe there is a valid way to characterize the edit you reverted...
Click to read more »WP:Recentism, but do not care to make them myself. 142.105.159.60: please read WP:NOTVAND. You are also edit warring just as much as JoeSakr1980 is. If JoeSakr1980...
Click to read more »that the user should be blocked per NOTHERE. Absolutely pathetic. See WP:NOTVAND when looking to policy on vandalism blocks (esp. indefinite) for dangerously...
Click to read more »you alone don't like it, vandal (diff). That looks bad. Have you read WP:NOTVAND? El_C 12:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC) El_C, That's fine, I accept the distinction...
Click to read more »refers usual content removal/addition as vandalism,[6][7][8] (see WP:NOTVAND) while he is abusing,WP:ROLLBACK,[9] he re-inserts sentence that is unsourced...
Click to read more »strongly suggest you carefully read our vandalism policy, especially WP:NOTVAND, as more incorrect accusations will result in a topic ban or block. --NeilN...
Click to read more »having looked at the history of JD's page, the IP needs to remember WP:NOTVAND, as well, but given they were pretty thoroughly bitten I think they can...
Click to read more »(Talk/Edits) 23:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC) You need to read WP:V and WP:NOTVAND before editing any further. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)...
Click to read more »cooperated or discussed. Dragovit (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC) See WP:NOTVAND, read the linked discussion where there is clear consensus (Wikipedia talk:Manual...
Click to read more »sources? 151.20.4.197 (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Please read WP:NOTVAND. Whether or not this is appropriate it is not vandalism, and continued...
Click to read more »over that you didn't miss. It is an easy thing to do. These edits are WP:NOTVAND. Per Rob, WP:AGF may be a bit lacking but no action is currently needed...
Click to read more »diff, this diff, this diff and this diff). This, of course, violates WP:NOTVAND and can be considered harassment. And because I'm banned from their talk...
Click to read more »IP's edit "is bordering on vandalism" (diff) is bordering too much (WP:NOTVAND). If anything, it'd be disruptive editing to which vandalism is a narrow...
Click to read more »think we're looking at a block here. So Kb217, please read WP:BRD and WP:NOTVAND and explain how you're going to change your editing behavior. --NeilN talk...
Click to read more »maybe bring it back here. Monty845 03:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC) @IP: WP:NOTVAND.--v/r - TP 03:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC) The basic problem is that the IP...
Click to read more »2021. Holy WP:MWOT! Not quite sure what "subtle vandalism" is but per WP:NOTVAND accusations of vandalism which aren't, are a WP:PA, which would be an issue...
Click to read more »2016 (UTC) Then tennis project members will get a very swift lesson in WP:NOTVAND and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 23 December...
Click to read more »Sanketio31 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC) @Sanketio31: Please re-read WP:NOTVAND. Vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia and misusing the term can...
Click to read more »keep Twinkle, and won't mark edits as vandalism when it's a dispute/WP:NOTVAND. Is everyone reasonably happy now? (yes, I'm butting in) tedder (talk)...
Click to read more »[114] [115] and continued [116] to do so even when I pointed them to WP:NOTVAND, clearly explained that we had a content dispute [117] , and asked them...
Click to read more »without his permission. I think someone might have to explain WP:OWN and WP:NOTVAND to him. I doubt he's going to listen to me or NorthBySouthBaranof, as he...
Click to read more »meaning of vandalism, and agree to change how you use the word. See also WP:NOTVAND for more information. --Jayron32 12:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC) That is not what...
Click to read more »username by himself.[157] He has no idea what a vandalism is contrary to WP:NOTVAND.[158][159] Makes a page move by misspelling the "Bangladeshis" as "Bengladeshis"[160]...
Click to read more »discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. WP:NOTVAND. This is a content dispute, please discuss it at Talk:Pinto Martins – Fortaleza...
Click to read more »for it--and admins and others should not be afraid to use Template:uw-notvand. Now, let's get back to work. Fender Stratocaster XII is wholly unverified...
Click to read more »bully.--Robertmossing (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Please read WP:NOTVAND. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC) No, it's the...
Click to read more »but true).--Amadscientist (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC) When WP:NOTVAND specifically points out that harassment is not vandalism, it's not appropriate...
Click to read more »information 11 December: Falsely claims other user is vandalizing. See WP:NOTVAND. 11 December: When presented evidence of his wrongdoing, he removes discussion...
Click to read more »April 2018 (UTC) @WikiNutt: How these[62][63] edits are vandalism? See WP:NOTVAND. Have you attempted to discuss the issue with Ashbourne1? Why do you mark...
Click to read more »recent my edit, calling it a "rv possible vandaliam"[30], contrary to WP:NOTVAND, and has been warned about that before as well."possible_vandalism?" I...
Click to read more »vandalism is bad. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Per WP:NOTVAND: ... sometimes honest editors may not have expressed themselves correctly...
Click to read more »Please ban her. --Momo Monitor (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC) See WP:NOTVAND, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:DUE, and WP:SYNTH. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:58, 21 April...
Click to read more »information 11 December: Falsely claims other user is vandalizing. See WP:NOTVAND. 11 December: When presented evidence of his wrongdoing, he removes discussion...
Click to read more »constitutes a "vandalism"[60] even after already being told about "WP:NOTVAND".[61] This misuse of ANI after filing a malformed report on ANEW should...
Click to read more »commented on it. Also, the edits they commented on were not vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND), as these edits reflected what appears to be a genuine attempt to improve...
Click to read more »your conclusions." This message reeks of WP:BATTLE and ignorance of WP:NOTVAND. 12 February: Removes maintenance tags without resolving the issue in the...
Click to read more »rnddude: As you should well know, good faith edits are not vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND 1, 2 did indeed have broken DYK sections. My bad; I had been watching out...
Click to read more »lack of understanding of key policies, particularly WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:NOTVAND. Moreover, in discussions on the user's talk page they seem unamenable...
Click to read more »after being reverted.[7] 5 July: Alleges me of vandalism contrary to WP:NOTVAND.[8] 5 July: Refuses to self-revert and falsely claims that "Indian government...
Click to read more »to Interfase not to refer to content disagreements as vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND) was not successful, and that inaccurate accusations of vandalism are personal...
Click to read more »reports. Those who make them should, if anything, be educated earlier on NOTVAND rather than later, and we get a net reduction of frivolous warnings and...
Click to read more »Template:Uw-notenglishedit-no Template:Uw-nothanks Template:Uw-notvand Template:Uw-notvote Template:Uw-npa Template:Uw-npa1 Template:Uw-npa2 Template:Uw-npa3...
Click to read more »real mess if using it without having an understanding of WP:VAND and WP:NOTVAND. I think filtering for Huggle/SWViewer is only real point of rollbacker...
Click to read more »project. Adapting the page to policy is not harming the project QED. See WP:NOTVAND. (ii) IMDB has never and will likely never be a reliable source on WP because...
Click to read more »that editors are exempt from it in certain arbitrary circumstances; WP:NOTVAND by claiming that persistent revert may be handled as vandalism even though...
Click to read more »personal attacks, and also strike that bogus accusation of vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND). As I clearly noted both above and on the portal page, I reverted because...
Click to read more »a lot of stuff. Littlecat456💬(.log) 09:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC) WP:NOTVAND. If the templates are too close together, the solution is to separate them...
Click to read more »deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg. Bahnfrend (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC) WP:NOTVAND explicitly states that "disruptive editing" (regardless of whether this...
Click to read more »ensure your image abides by copyright guidelines. Thank you. {{subst:uw-notvand|Article}} Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However...
Click to read more »Vandalism means to intentionally cause harm to Wikipedia pages. See WP:NOTVAND. Also, on Wikipedia, there is a difference between a block and a ban. Plain...
Click to read more »ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Have a look at WP:NOTVAND and the links I gave in the edit summary. Justify your additions on the...
Click to read more »described at WP:VAND, and not something else (i.e. anything listed at WP:NOTVAND) because labelling non-vandalistic edits as vandalism is not good, against...
Click to read more »signs of vandalism (see WP:VANDTYPES for examples of vandalism and WP:NOTVAND for examples of non-vandalism), remember that most Wikipedia editors intend...
Click to read more »left them unblocked. If you properly warn a user (making sure that WP:NOTVAND does not apply to their edits) and they keep engaging in blatant vandalism...
Click to read more »Bahnfrend (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Please see WP:AGF and WP:NOTVAND. Note that "disruptive editing" is expicitly stated as not being vandalism...
Click to read more »project. Adapting the page to policy is not harming the project QED. See WP:NOTVAND. (ii) IMDB has never and will likely never be a reliable source on WP because...
Click to read more »TT me 19:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Bahnfriend: please remember that WP:NOTVAND explicitly states that "disruptive editing" is not vandalism. Even if there...
Click to read more »represents a form of vandalism. --Cvdr (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC) WP:NOTVAND. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Also there...
Click to read more »admin."NightHeron (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC) You need to read WP:NOTVAND. Considering the circumstances my renomination was good and I believe fully...
Click to read more »147.187 (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict) Please see WP:NOTVAND. That's not vandalism. While there may be other issues with including such...
Click to read more »WP:BLOCK(including WP:BEFOREBLOCK, WP:NOPUNISH) WP:PREFER, WP:ROLLBACK, WP:NOTVAND Worm That Turned WP:AC/DS,(check Expectations) WP:TBAN HJ Mitchell WP:BLOCK...
Click to read more »be researched and added. -- pde (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC) WP:NOTVAND. Please do not make statements like "would be an act of vandalism". Also...
Click to read more »ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Have a look at WP:NOTVAND and the links I gave in the edit summary. Justify your additions on the...
Click to read more »template to the end of your unsigned comment is not vandalism. Please see WP:NOTVAND; Wikipedia uses a stricter definition of the word vandalism, and none of...
Click to read more »reverted it, maliciously and falsely labelling my edit as vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND, and please learn some basic manners. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)...
Click to read more »the encyclopedia is no less than required in a vandal fighter as per WP:NOTVAND, WP:AGF, and WP:BITE. The STiki instruction page cannot override our policies...
Click to read more »sampling of recent vandalism warnings suggests this editor understands wp:NOTVAND, and while a lot of the automated warnings are canned, they are the right...
Click to read more »statement than I was previously comfortable with as Lar has gone against WP:NOTVAND/WP:VANDTYPES in [21]. "Significant content removals are usually not considered...
Click to read more »against Adamgerber80, alleging IP and him of vandalism contrary to WP:NOTVAND. Nauriya never interacted Adamgerber80 ever before,[45] neither he edited...
Click to read more »there's no reason whatsoever to call any such revert "vandalism" per WP:NOTVAND.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Demonstrated in...
Click to read more »direct them to? Someone else already requested that they see WP:VAND and WP:NOTVAND but it's seemingly had no effect. 109.236.4.20 (talk) 20:10, 19 January...
Click to read more »admin."NightHeron (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC) You need to read WP:NOTVAND. Considering the circumstances my renomination was good and I believe fully...
Click to read more »” and restoring it. Nick Levine (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC) WP:NOTVAND may be worth a read. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)...
Click to read more »March 2016 (UTC) Also, make sure that the problem does not fall under WP:NOTVAND before warning and reporting someone. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:02, 21 March...
Click to read more »nationalist glasses"[16] Doesn't understand difference between Vandalism and WP:NOTVAND.[17][18][19] Both made edit request on Kulbhushan Jadhav[20][21] Both voted...
Click to read more »for Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings, some of which (uw-ewsoft, uw-notvand, uw-fringe1, uw-fringe2, uw-fringe3) are included with Twinkle. I am running...
Click to read more »3 reverts in less than 20 minutes), but also failing to understand WP:NOTVAND, which is expressly clear that any good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia...
Click to read more »that with them. If the warner is new, I'll be more likely to explain WP:NOTVAND. If I recognize their name more easily than User:Jimbo Wales, then I might...
Click to read more »America Free space WP:ROPE WP:DRUNKEDIT Anti-white WP:MERCY WP:MERCY "Not" racist WP:NLT WP:ITEXISTS Jimmy WP:NOTVAND Godwin's law God(/less) delusion...
Click to read more »so blanking it from the talk page does not do any harm, but it's not vandalism. (See WP:NOTVAND.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)...
Click to read more »[74][75] Canvases people by misrepresenting others edits as vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND).[76][77] Canvassing same editor in a friendly manner.[78][79][80][81]...
Click to read more »will be automatically unprotected. Nemov, that is not vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND. El_C 20:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Joseph Quinn (actor) (edit | talk |...
Click to read more »other people's edits - as vandalism despite repeated warnings about WP:NOTVAND. For instance, [6] [7]. Previous Bormalagurski socks had the same habit...
Click to read more »and how can I report her? Mridu (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC) See WP:NOTVAND. The user you describe does not appear to be a vandal at all. If she has...
Click to read more »Ekdalian, that is not "vandalism," please don't misuse the term (see WP:NOTVAND). El_C 20:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Conservapedia (edit | talk | history...
Click to read more »may be unhelpful, but the majority seem to be made in good faith. See WP:NOTVAND. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC) Anti-Hero (song) (edit...
Click to read more »material that could have been completely made up is not vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Hi again Capankajsmilyo...
Click to read more »attempting to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I suggest you read WP:NOTVAND. Wikipedia is pretty strict on what is considered vandalism, and accusing...
Click to read more »page or other forms of dispute resolution. Kush sinhala, please read WP:NOTVAND NeilN talk to me 14:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Otherkin (edit | talk | history...
Click to read more »for Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings, some of which (uw-ewsoft, uw-notvand, uw-fringe1, uw-fringe2, uw-fringe3) are included with Twinkle. I am running...
Click to read more »AldezD, that is not "vandalism," please don't misuse the term (see WP:NOTVAND). El_C 02:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC) MG 42 (edit | talk | history | links...
Click to read more »unprotected. El_C 13:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC) BTW, onel5969, please review WP:NOTVAND. Vandalism is a narrow subset of disruptive editing, so best to employ...
Click to read more »read WP:NOTVAND after he several times called me a vandal, and increased his vandalism counter after I left a comment asking him to read WP:NOTVAND on his...
Click to read more »resolution. Copyvio to boot. @NZ Footballs Conscience: Please read WP:NOTVAND. NeilN talk to me 01:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC) Hi User:NeilN Can you explain...
Click to read more »but it isn't vandalism, and shouldn't be referred to as such. See WP:NOTVAND. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Frank Hamer (edit | talk |...
Click to read more »105.123 (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Declined XyZAn, please read WP:NOTVAND. If you must, take it to WP:ANEW after warnings have been given. NeilN...
Click to read more »Semi-protected to stop the drive-by IP edits. Bob80q, please read WP:NOTVAND and use the talk page which hasn't been touched in months. NeilN talk to...
Click to read more »resolution. NeilN talk to me 19:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Dan56, and see WP:NOTVAND. The IP is using the talk page. Please join them. --NeilN talk to me 19:48...
Click to read more »no reason under the policy to protect the page. The user should read WP:NOTVAND. I've now seen then make numerous false claims of vandalism. 167.98.54...
Click to read more »in my mind. If Бровар's edit are indeed vandalism (be sure to read WP:NOTVAND before saying it is), then the solution would be dealing with that user...
Click to read more »preferred version be fully protected. Also, please read WP:AGF and WP:NOTVAND. NeilN talk to me 14:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Bhut jolokia (edit | talk...
Click to read more »enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Please read WP:NOTVAND, and note that you are expected to provide an edit summary when reverting...
Click to read more »vandalism that you've made here and in several other places. Read up on WP:NOTVAND and WP:NPA. I corrected an absurdly incorrect statement. I thought that...
Click to read more »inappropriate editing. We have demonstrated multiple times with reference to WP:NOTVAND that our edits are fair. Minphie does not accept this and keeps telling...
Click to read more »inappropriate editing. We have demonstrated multiple times with reference to WP:NOTVAND that our edits are fair. Minphie does not accept this and keeps telling...
Click to read more »(talk) 01:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Declined Johnsc1277, please read WP:NOTVAND NeilN talk to me 01:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Sofia Richie (edit | talk...
Click to read more »mind that 1) Vandalism means to intentionally harm the project (See WP:NOTVAND for more things on what is and isn't vandalism) and 2) You are responsible...
Click to read more »While Breein1007 shouldn't refer to good faith edits as vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND), you should note that neither diff shows Breein1007 calling you disgusting...
Click to read more »--LennBr (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Disruptive editing is WP:NOTVAND. Also, not an issue for ITN, but for AN/3RR or ANI RandomCanadian (talk...
Click to read more »An article being non-notable is not vandalism (please see WP:N and WP:NOTVAND - I will nominate the article for deletion as I agree it is not notable...
Click to read more »Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy might be of interest for you, as well as WP:NOTVAND. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC) This would've been better...
Click to read more »Urban XII (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Please take a look at WP:NOTVAND. This is your final warning. Verbal chat 16:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC) No...
Click to read more »crude humor. Content disputes are not considered vandalism, as per WP:NOTVAND, which is why the administrator declined the AIV report. Also, please assume...
Click to read more »parler) 04:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC) (Oh, and I also gave the IP a {{uw-notvand}} warning.) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 04:11...
Click to read more »focus on being less WP:BITEy, such as Template:Uw-ewsoft, Template:Uw-notvand, and Template:Uw-middlepost. 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing...
Click to read more »(talk) 17:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Declined This isn't vandalism: see WP:NOTVAND. However, there may be issues with sourcing. Marcelus, please warn the...
Click to read more »diffs of Randy accusing you of vandalism after Valeree advised them of WP:NOTVAND? I also don't see any evidence provided for the WP:CIR allegation. Concerning...
Click to read more »Further he labeled my well explained edits as vandalism (ignoring WP:NOTVAND)[27], made 3rd revert during active WP:3o request & talk page discussion...
Click to read more »you, however, are edit warring. This edit is not reverting vandalism (WP:NOTVAND), and it's not helpful to have an edit summary that simply says stop edit...
Click to read more »Comments: Mislabeling any edits he disgrees with as "vandalism" contrary to WP:NOTVAND despite having been warned to stop it.[229] Was reported to ANI before...
Click to read more »edits as "vandalism " in their edit summaries, which is a violation of WP:NOTVAND. I have explicitly asked the user in my edit summary at 15:40 to use the...
Click to read more »summary that is a personal attack agaisnt the IP editor here. Please read WP:NOTVAND. This is a content dispute, but it's over multiple articles. I have protected...
Click to read more »Kam (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC) No evidence of vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND. Drafting and AfC pior to publication, in principle, are optional. Editors...
Click to read more »that it is also absolutely not bordering on vandalism; please read WP:NOTVAND. Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and referring to edits...
Click to read more »you have mentioned above are "a textbook example of vandalism" (see WP:NOTVAND), and given that UtherSRG is an editor with 200,000 edits, many to the...
Click to read more »you sent me shows you don't understand what vandalism is; please read WP:NOTVAND. Cases where subtle vandalism are missed would not be helped by your suggestions...
Click to read more »WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY WP:NOTUS WP:NOTUSA WP:NOTUSEFUL WP:NOTV WP:NOTVALUABLE WP:NOTVAN WP:NOTVAND WP:NOTVANDAL WP:NOTVANDALISM WP:NOTVIDEOGAME WP:NOTVOTE WP:NOTW WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME...
Click to read more »it is. @The Herald, do you think WP:VANDALISM was right in context? WP:NOTVAND applies to automated messages as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46...
Click to read more »top of the edit page regarding notifing editors you bring here. Also, WP:NOTVAND. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC) The edit in...
Click to read more »supporting their agenda. Swoonfed (Ping) 18:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC) See WP:NOTVAND. Capitals00 (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC) Considerably more harm...
Click to read more »Lemonademan22 (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC) You might find WP:PASG and WP:NOTVAND worth a read. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC) War 2 (film) (edit...
Click to read more »talk page for removal? Kj1595 (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC) @Kj1595: WP:NOTVAND. Accusing other editors of vandalism when they are not vandalizing is a...
Click to read more »not understand. Longislandtea (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC) WP:NOTVAND. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising...
Click to read more »even in your false dichotomy, neither case would be vandalism; see WP:NOTVAND. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC) O.K. I see. We are...
Click to read more »this is extremely concerning coming from an editor of your stature. WP:NOTVAND. Calling admins who are adhering to policy vandals is a bold strategy,...
Click to read more »edit was obviously not vandalism, because it hits multiple criteria at WP:NOTVAND. Someone patrolling for vandalism shouldn't have even touched it, because...
Click to read more »vandalism, as they are both plausible good-faith contributions. Please see WP:NOTVAND. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC) The link...
Click to read more »in the last 50 edits, that I can see. The user should be referred to WP:NOTVAND and warned not to make false claims like this. 86.28.234.5 (talk) 18:49...
Click to read more »treating WP:3RR as polite suggestions. When your block expires, remember WP:NOTVAND and Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other...
Click to read more »policies and guidelines. As an example, note that what Gawoan did was WP:NOTVAND, and claiming it was constitutes a personal attack, which is forbidden...
Click to read more »of the templates were vandalism ones, which this plainly wasn't per WP:NOTVAND. Meanwhile, they've now been pblocked from the article, and the block message...
Click to read more »highly contentious article" does not equal vandalism per se. Come on, WP:NOTVAND is quite clear. Users may be sanctioned for disruptive editing or edit-warring...
Click to read more »requesting what the user just did be noted as vandalism Please read WP:NOTVAND; "vandalism" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, which is edits whose...
Click to read more »disruptive. Calling it "MOS-compliant vandalism" seems way over the top. See WP:NOTVAND. Secondly, in cases where the information is sourced, I do relocate it...
Click to read more »talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. @Dapr03: please read WP:NOTVAND. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:40, 4 April 2026 (UTC) Template:More...
Click to read more »edit war with me by falsifying my edits as "vandalism" contrary to WP:NOTVAND.[299] Evidently he is falsely terming productive edits as "vandalism" for...
Click to read more »the baptism. PahlaviFan (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC) Please see WP:NOTVAND. Any edit done in good faith is not vandalism, no matter if you don't like...
Click to read more »21:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC) @Logosx127:, your edit summary here violates WP:NOTVAND. "Edits I disagree with" are not vandalism. Note that referring to edits...
Click to read more »sections above. SakuraSmart, for a start, you're going to need to read WP:NOTVAND. -- asilvering (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2025 (UTC) @SakuraSmart, I've...
Click to read more »own article. Nathannah • 📮 16:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC) Also please see WP:NOTVAND. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC) The discussion...
Click to read more »One ping only 19:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC) @Avishai11: and please read WP:NOTVAND. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Robox (edit...
Click to read more »