Talk:Anna Leporskaya

"the painting [...] was damaged by an unknown vandal"
It's confirmed to have been a security guard now. I believe it's unfair to simply call him a vandal; that word implies malicious intent, but this guard was just bored, ignorant of workplace rules and probably not specifically intending to ruin the art (if he was, he would certainly have done much more to that painting). Sources from before the confirmation call him a vandal, yes, but blindly following them to the letter is again unfair and goes against common sense.

Most of enwiki has forgotten this by now, but the creators of Wikipedia did not intend for it for it to be a place where guidelines and sources are dogmatically followed at all times like we're in the military. Glades12 (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Glades12 -- I have made further edits to tighten the article's wording, as the text was derived from news articles which were superseded by later ones. I do think it's fair to call the individual who damaged the paintings a vandal: the word is defined as "a person who deliberately destroys or damages public or private property" and the security guard, by all reports, deliberately added ink to a painting, damaging it. He did not trip and fall, nor was he mistaken about the facts. He caused damage (however negligible) to a painting with his ballpoint pen. Anyways, if there's anything else that needs adjusting, let me know, or go ahead and take a stab at it! RexSueciae (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)