User talk:Charliehdb

Sreeleela

Hi @Charliehdb, in your recent revert on the Sreeleela page, you suggested that the previous edit was a case of vandalism. I very much doubt this to be true: the unregistered editor had simply removed content whose inclusion in the lede seems dubious even to me, and they provided an edit summary for it. This does not constitute vandalism, though of course, it can be argued that the edit is misplaced, even potentially disruptive. The accusation of vandalism should be used sparingly and only in cases where there is clear intent to deface an article. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: Its true that IP has provided summary. But it was only for formality; and if you check the sources you will see that all mentioned film's were critical and commercial failures and were mentioned in the film's main articles too. Cheers! Charliehdb (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Charliehdb, I think you're missing my point: whether the films were failures or not isn't important here (though it remains debatable whether this should be mentioned in the lede); what's important is that there is no obvious reason to assume that the user intended to vandalize the article, whereas that is the conclusion you seem to have reached. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)