I was just asking if there was a particular reason why this edit was considered to be not constructive, as it was undoing another user's edit that appeared to be fairly obvious vandalism.
Hi, Mjesticfalco! My sincere apologies. Your edit was completely in order and I removed my message to the contrary from this page. Unfortunately the vandal did more vandalism that you noticed and corrected. So what I saw was an article with some vandalism and you were the person who had just changed it and wrongly assumed you had done that vandalism. I then realised my mistake and cleaned up the vandalism, but I forgot about the automated message you would have received. Sadly the article History of Qantas has a very long history of vandalism and so I am on a hair-trigger of "oh no, not again". I should have taken more care. I am sorry. Kerry (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
