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)[reply]

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". Presumably, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Vandalism

Hello Chuqqling!

Thanks for your edits! I saw the discussion above vandalism and wanted to jump in. There is a slight distinction to the word "vandalism" in Wikipedia-speak I hopefully can help clarify.

There are many edits to Wikipedia that add no value. These might be adding incorrect information, incorrectly changing grammatical structures, blanking pages, replacing pages with profanity, etc. Some are made with bad intentions, others out of ignorance of Wikipedia's process, or by mistake.

The convention for the term "vandalism" on Wikipedia to refer to those edits which are made intentionally to harm the project. Certain edits (replacing entire pages with profanity) are pretty unambiguously vandalism. Others are less clear - for instance, an edit blanking a page by a new editor might be intentional harm, but it also could be a mistake from someone unfamiliar with the editing tools. Many harmful edits aren't vandalism; they weren't intended to cause harm. Those are the types of changes that SSSB and MSportWiki are referring to above.

While any edit that causes harm should be reverted, the word vandalism (and the vandalism warnings), are used more sparingly. We want to encourage those who make bad edits by mistake to continue to contribute, so we wouldn't want to refer to their edits, presumably made in good faith, as vandalism. But for those who make bad edits intentionally, we do want them to stop, and the vandalism warnings and word vandalism is intended to convey that.

Semantics for sure, but wanted to try to clear up why they are asking you to be careful about throwing the word around. Let me know if you have any questions! Prodego ^talk 16:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were obviously harmful and obviously vandalism. What could possibly lead you to imagine that they were made in good faith? Chuqqling (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking generally, rather than about a specific edit. If it would be helpful, can you point to a specific edit in question, and describe what about it is vandalism? Prodego ^talk 16:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not going to waste my time explaining why an obviously vandalistic edit was vandalistic. If you believe that an edit I undid was in fact clearly a good faith attempt to improve an article, then you are welcome to describe why. Chuqqling (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the key tenants of Wikipedia it that it is a collaborative project, where many editors need to work together. For that reason, it is expected to discuss edits that others disagree with. In this case, that means discussing why you believe those edits are vanalism.

As an example, I see nothing in, say this edit which would indicate that the editor in question had any intention to harm that page. Indeed, I think the change of wording to avoid "in the other Ferrari" seems to be a good improvement. Prodego ^talk 17:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They changed the tense from the simple past to the present perfect. That is a tense you use to describe things that happened in the immediate past. Like, yesterday. The event happened 17 years ago. There is simply no way that was intended to be a positive change. This is an anonymous edit made six months ago. I cannot imagine why you are bending over backwards to defend it. Chuqqling (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point that is being made is that something can be wrong without being maliciously intended. At this point I am beginning to believe that you are either being deliberately obtuse, or are incapable of understanding the distinction between malicious behavior and unintentional errors. If this is something you cannot do, then you may not be able to contribute to a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Prodego ^talk 17:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]