User talk:Roccoharde

Welcome!

Hello, Roccoharde, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question.
Again, welcome! --CherryX (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello Roccoharde, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Hello, I'm FlightTime. I noticed that you recently removed content from Christopher Columbus without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

Sourced content removal. Take you concerns to the article talk page - FlightTime (open channel) 01:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @FlightTime! I appreciate your comment. However, I do have a question in response to what you wrote. I did provide an edit summary which included reasons for the changes, so your comments don't make much sense to me. It appears like your reversion of my edit was solely because I removed sourced content, which, regardless of whether sources were provided, seem to be misplaced and irrelevant to the article, as I tried to note in the edit summary. I don't think an edit war is productive, so I just wanted to ask if you could further explain why you viewed my edit as unconstructive, especially since you have many more edits under your belt and likely have a deeper understanding of Wikipedia policies and etiquette. Thanks!

-- Roccoharde (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's a standard template, my issue really is (shown in bold above) removing sourced content without a discussion, which this kind of change requires. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FlightTime I realize this is coming three months late but you should understand it doesn't require a discussion to remove sourced content. In fact, per WP:ONUS if content is disputed in good faith it may require a discussion to generate consensus for the inclusion of said content. WP:Content removal is an essay. (t · c) buidhe 19:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Hi Roccoharde! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Hangman's knot that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCENSORED

I'm not going to make a fuss about the content you've removed in Suicide by hanging (though in the future please be mindful of removing references that are used elsewhere), but please seek a consensus for removing the lede image in Hangman's knot. We don't remove things because someone thinks they are "controversial"; you'll need a better rationale than that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]