`   you wrote me: :``If you check the edit logs on that particular article, I never actually reverted your edit`` to the contrary, here's the last time i re-added park, and here's where you deleted it, labeling me a vandal.  yes, not all cases of vandalism are as clear-cut as say, this random example i pulled from my own contrib history. sometimes people add nonfactual information to articles in an act of vandalism. usually, these acts are identifiable only because there is a history of vandalism associated with the edit or the account. if you had taken but half a second to look at my own contribution history, you may have realized that i am not one of those people. you say that ``sometimes it is really difficult to tell the difference;`` of course i agree. but by your own admission, you seem to be relying on gut instinct to make the distinction: ``For some reason, I really believed you were doing good, so I chose not to delete...``  basically, i'm suggesting that in the cases where it is hard to tell what is vandalism and what isn't, the best course of action is probably not to go and label the other editor a vandal. my personal feeling is that the vigilance you show against vandalism on WP is admirable, but it would be great if you would label these more questionable rvs in the edit summary with some real reasoning. a vandal won't care what you write, a well-intentioned if ill-executing editor may learn what they need to do to make a good edit, and someone like me will fail to be insulted.  `