Honestly, I don't really have the interest or energy to fight nonsense like this.

Wikipedia is not your little soapbox. If you want to provide useful information to the subject at hand, fine, but you mostly just seem to want to rant on the "security" topic more than any other part of the article. Internet forums are specifically recommended against as "sources", especially using topics filled with your own assertions to back up your own assertions.

I'll also note that the "Future" section is utter nonsense, and Nokia has come out and stated that the Trolltech acquisition doesn't have a damn thing to do with maemo for the foreseeable future (aside from the possible bundling of Qt libraries sometime around the end of this year).

I'm too dumbfounded and disturbed at the moment to try and knock down your arguments point by point. Suffice to say, it's incredibly disheartening that a simple attempt to improve a wikipedia article could descend into being accused of vandalism and bribe taking (FULL DISCLOSURE!!! I'M ABOUT TO RECEIVE A FREE MAEMO T-SHIRT FOR MY WORK ON BUGZILLA!!!!!!).

Or even link to a separate security article and use the maemo article to actually say something of use about the platform

Well, there's the warning. I wonder if they actually bother to investigate vandalism claims or just go with whatever random people tell them.

I'm done, if anybody else wants to fight this out, feel free.

Well, if meanwhile doesn't reverse changes himself I'll volunteer to undo them again, and again, for as long as it takes, if noone else beats me to it. That'll let GA free to concentrate on adding useful contents, as he's been doing so far (unlike meanwhile). I'll check back on the wiki page after the weekend.

If he tries banning you and succeedes , i'll take over.

I don't even contribute on wikipedia and I'm gonna change isp's soon so I don't really give 2 ****s if I get banned.

I have reverted it again with a note to take this to the discussion page as well as a note in the vandalism section backing up GA's edits. Meanwhile made his edits in bad faith and this should be hashed out on the discussion page before being applied to the article.

Looks like GA is prevailing.

Any vandalism here was not done by GA, but by the other user who is pushing a myopic view of the maemo platform. He has already trolled the iTT forums and has decided to take out his anger on the maemo page. GA has been attempting a good faith cleanup of this page, nothing more. Brontide (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I recognise when I make a wrong decision, i'll leave it as is. Sorry, CycloneNimrodtalk? 16:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try and do an unbiased review of the diffs and see what NPOV materal can be salvaged Brontide (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way the policy is very clear that this was not vandalism on either side, NPOV and nonsense edits maybe, but not vandalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VAND#NOT

Proof that meanwhile is a knob.

I've added my comments on the talk page. If I don't get any comments I'll go ahead and reapply the sections/text that I think are NPOV.

The fact that wikipedia editors seem to respond to vandalism charges without any sort of review or verification is a bit disheartening and rather sours me on the whole project.

Well, one good thing came out of this mess. It seems to have gotten Quim involved a bit.