User talk:ConTenFir

Hello, this is ConTenFir.

December 2017
Hello, I'm Hammersoft. I noticed that you recently removed content from American frontier 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 the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Howdy Doody, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * These are NOT copyright violations. Please STOP what you are doing. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at American frontier, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Howdy Doody. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Neil N  talk to me 17:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Please explain here why you believe the content you are removing are copyright violations. --Neil N  talk to me 17:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They are all illegal images. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goldilocks_and_the_Three_Bears&diff=prev&oldid=655078003 for the deletion of an illegal image. ConTenFir (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you not understand copyright expires after a number of years? --Neil N  talk to me 17:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, another editor did it, so it is right. Community consensus. ConTenFir (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet other editors have undone it. Pretty clear there's not consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean another editor did it? And I think you need to learn about what consensus actually means. --Neil N  talk to me 17:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2 editors agree, a bullies disagree. ConTenFir (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First, please refrain from calling other editors "bullies". That could be deemed a personal attack. Second, when there's a dispute about whether material should be included, the best course of action is to discuss the matter on the relevant article's talk page. You either need to provide a convincing argument that policy requires deletion of the material (which you haven't), or there needs to be enough discussion for a clear consensus to emerge. —C.Fred (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Another editor doing it is not community consensus. Please read Consensus. An image from 1890 is well outside of any copyright protections in the United States. Given that it was published in 1890, there is no way for it to continue to attract copyright. Have a look at The Cornell Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States table. Copyright is a serious issue to me, but blanket, wholesale removal of content without discussion about the images will not move forward. Trying to force your way via filing a DRN and further filing a 3RR is not helpful to your case. That is just disruptive editing. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It once held copyright, so it should not be included. ConTenFir (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're saying copyright should be infinite? Nthep (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. ConTenFir (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies are based around how copyright actually exists, not how you would like it to. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Block length change
I've changed your block length to indefinite to prevent further disruption by your fundamental lack of understanding of copyright. You will need to convince another admin that this is not true to get this block lifted. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to bring the consensus up with him at his tp. ConTenFir (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And how is that user relevant to this? —C.Fred (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because he is right in his revert, and he is right in a lot of things. ConTenFir (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but when a new user says that a user blocked two years ago was right, the natural assumption is that the new user is also a sockpuppet. I'm revoking your talk page access. You'll have to make any unblock requests at WP:UTRS, and really using your original account. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)