User talk:Hérisson Ford

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Welcome!

Hello, Hérisson Ford!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~), be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, MB 15:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Having a look at it now. Hérisson Ford (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question

You have responses.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 13:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't see the brief summary just below your name . . . ? Perhaps you could provide a direct link? Hérisson Ford (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! It looks like you've removed just about all my contributions to this article! :-( Hérisson Ford (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from response left at MB's page) More info:

Rationale As mentioned in my edit summary, I some material being added would appear to be too close to material found at this site (Note this is not the link mentioned in the discussion above).
Viewing earlier versions It is generally correct that all prior versions are viewable but there are a few exceptions and this is one of them. We do not permit copyright violations and that extends to all prior versions, so when there is a copyright violation, we want prior versions to be hidden.
Erased from History. Not erased but hidden. They are not completely gone and I can restore the view if it's relevant to sort out what happened.
Why not a full investigation first? You didn't explicitly ask this, but occasionally new editors ask why we act so quickly, rather than doing a full-blown investigation before removing material. The answer is twofold — we are trying to drink from a fire hose, dealing with hundreds of potential copyright violations every week. My track record is I get about 98% of them correct based on my limited review, and the second reason for handling quickly is that in the few instances of error, it's trivial to undo them.
Perhaps it was copied from Wikipedia? Perhaps it was. That is permitted but must be done in a particular way. Editors should not simply copy, they must provide attribution and that's documented at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Editors who review reported potential copyright violations do check to see if that guideline was followed, which did not happen in this case. It still may be the case that this edit consisted of copying within Wikipedia and the guideline wasn't followed. If that's the case it will be trivial to restore the edit and then comply with the guideline
Academia - obliteration without rhyme or reason While I personally didn't encounter this in academia I know that it can be a problem. While Wikipedia is far from perfect, it is an important part of our culture that removals do have to be accompanied by at least reason if not rhyme. My edit summary, while terse, explained the issue, and my longer comment on your talk page explained my willingness to discuss the issues. I apologize for not updating my hiatus message which I have now updated.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]