User talk:Chuqqling

What vandalism is not

Firstly, greetings. Secondly, edits such as this and this are elaborating on existing content, not examples of vandalism. Vandalism is making unconstructive alterations, such as this one. Indeed, one could argue this alteration of yours is vandalism given the careless removal of information. Please keep this in mind in the future. MSportWiki (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be completely confused. You've linked to two edits of mine, which undid vandalism, and cited them as "elaborating on existing content". Presuming that you meant to link to the edits I undid. Replacing "The 53-lap race was won by Michael Schumacher driving for Ferrari" with "Ferrari's Michael Schumacher has won the Italian Grand Prix" is obviously vandalism, and not "elaborating on existing content". But apparently you perceived something valuable in that edit?

And do not dare to suggest that my edit could be argued to be vandalism. No such argument is possible. I regard your suggestion as a personal attack of a highly insulting nature. I was undoing edits by an ipv6 address which had vandalised numerous articles. If you think those edits were not vandalism, you are free to explain why; do not make personal insults while doing so. Chuqqling (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

None of the those edits you undid (from those linked above) undid vandalism. Citing from WP:VANDAL: On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, none of the above fit that criteria.
SSSB (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

They do.Chuqqling (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I was about to say exactly the same thing. I recommend you take a read of WP:VANDAL to gain a clearer idea of what vandalism is. Thank you,
SSSB (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

So what value did you perceive in the edits which removed content from F1 articles and rewrote sentences using the obviously incorrect tense? Chuqqling (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Just because you don't think a sentence adds value it doesn't make that edit vandalism. Simarly an edit written in the incorrect tense, or poorly written in some other way isn't vandalism either.
SSSB (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Strange that you evade my very simple question. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to compromise the quality of the encyclopaedia. Introducing incorrect grammar in this way obviously was that. Nobody could possibly believe that an article about an event nearly two decades ago should use that tense. You should be thanking me, not criticising me, for fixing vandalism. If you perceived some value in the edit, and sincerely believe it not to have been vandalism, you must explain how you come to that conclusion. Chuqqling (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)