User talk:Toomanywordstoolittletime

License tagging for File:60second Recap® logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:60second Recap® logo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Www.60secondrecap.com homepage.png
Thanks for uploading File:Www.60secondrecap.com homepage.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Jenny Sawyer.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Jenny Sawyer.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Technical analysis
Much better wording. Thanks for your efforts. Yworo (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for yours! Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
The recent edit you made to Jenny Sawyer has been reverted, as it removed all content from the page without explanation. Please do not do this, as it is considered vandalism; use the sandbox for testing. If you think the page should be deleted, see here for what to do. Thank you. --§ Pump me up  10:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:60second_Recap_logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:60second_Recap_logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Www.60secondrecap.com_homepage.png
I have tagged File:Www.60secondrecap.com_homepage.png as orphaned fairuse. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. Otherwise, it will be deleted in seven days. Melesse (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to spam link removal. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wuh Wuz  Dat  15:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Nineteen Eighty-Four, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Wuh Wuz  Dat  16:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Dude -- I am not spamming! What's the spam? How is it inappropriate? What am I doing wrong? I am in no way connected to this project. I just think it's cool. Please advise. Cuz I am very confused Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk)16:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * see WP:EL and WP:SPAM, maybe after you read those guidelines, you will"get it". Wuh  Wuz  Dat  16:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't "get" it. Kindly offer a specific criticism. Thanks
 * every edit you have made here has been to promote that website. That makes you a WP:SPA(single purpose account). Wuh  Wuz  Dat  16:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 60second Recap


A tag has been placed on 60second Recap requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Wuh Wuz  Dat  16:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of 60second Recap for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article 60second Recap, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/60second Recap until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Wuh Wuz  Dat  16:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. You've convinced me to leave and never return. Keep it up. Wikipedia needs more folks like you.

P.S. I'm not a spammer.

Buh-bye. Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

60second Recap
I have re-instated the article content following your deletion request. The article is at a deletion discussion (see above), and I believe it would be appropriate to let it run its course. -- Lear's Fool 16:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. But I'm tired of being maligned. This guy just appended a nasty edit comment on his talk page calling me "spammer." And I'm not. So, feel free to write your own article. But this is my work. I'm pulling it. I'm done. Thanks

Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I commented on my talk page ... but I'll mention it here too. Please note the text directly below the "save" button on every edit screen which states "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." See WP:OWN for more details.
 * I won't revert you myself; but if others restore the text to let it go through the AfD process, you should allow it. You are the initial contributor of the content, but you do not own that content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are 100% correct, and as I commented on your talk page, I was seeking to assert moral, rather than legal, authority (if such a thing even exists.) It is unpleasant to be accused, repeatedly, by a senior Wikipedia moderator, of being a spammer -- and then, in essence, of being a liar -- without any apparent cause or explanation. Under such circumstances, there is nothing to do but to leave. And take my words with me. After all, if these are, indeed, the words of a "spammer," why should Wikipedia want them? Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Ron h jones (Talk) 17:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines.

Orphaned non-free image File:Www.60secondrecap.com homepage.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Www.60secondrecap.com homepage.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 17:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Account unblocked
I have unblocked your user account. The reason for the block was due to the addition of external links into multiple articles that seemed to violate the guideline at WP:EL and the policy at WP:NOT; however, I believe these were good faith additions and that you were not aware of the site linkspam guidelines and policies. Although, at this point you should avoid re-adding the external links until discussions take place about their appropriateness. Discussions could be started on each article talk page, or at External links/Noticeboard, or at the talk page of a related WikiProject such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare. The links should only be restored if community consensus supports the addition. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but I have put an author delete on that article. Why is still up? Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was deleted, but the admin who deleted it then restored it as a result of a short discussion on the admin's talk page. The AfD discussion is at Articles for deletion/60second Recap, and the comments thus far are to keep the article; however, AfD is generally a 7-day process, so there's time for additional comments and/or concerns with content policy to be addressed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh ... Barek, you're a reasonable man, and I'm sorry that you're being forced to waste your time here, but I am now in a white-hot rage and do not plan to take this lying down ... or quietly.

My contention: I have been slandered -- and now my original work is being held against my explicit wishes and authorization by the very people who have maligned me. I request, once again, that the article be removed from the site.

For the record: I have not, knowingly, entered into any binding agreement to surrender my copyright to Wikipedia. Indeed, it is my contention that no such agreement could possibly exist, as I have received no monetary consideration from Wikipedia or from anyone else in exchange for my copyright. I, therefore, request that Wikipedia honor my copyright and remove the article immediately.

Thanks. ( and, once again, my apologies for chewing up your time with this ) Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That is precisely what you've done. Every time you press the "save page" button, you agree to the terms clearly visable immediately above it:
 * "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL."


 * And below the "save page" button:
 * "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."


 * You should also be very careful using words that carry legal meaning like "slander". We have a policy of no legal threats being made on-wiki, and while I don't contend that you have breached it, you should be careful using such phrases.  -- Lear's Fool 03:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I had an edit conflict posting. Much of my reply is redundant to that by User:Lear's Fool; but here's my text anyways:
 * Well, in all fairness, none of those who have commented at the AfD thus far have agreed with the proposed deletion - all supporting keeping the article as it meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for web content listed at WP:WEB.
 * As to copyright - directly under the text window where you type all contributions to any Wikipedia page (talk page, article, etc) is the text "... You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details." I understand your frustration - but all of this is related to the other text which I had pointed out earlier that's listed below the "Save" button.  I hate saying it, but there's really nothing I can do at this stage.  Even if I were to delete it for you, I would be overridden and the article restored so that the AfD can proceed to its conclusion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Barek, I understand, and thanks again for doing your best.

Lear, Wikipedia has a stated policy about civil behavior amongst community members, and that has been entirely ignored in the moderator(s) treatment of me. Now, these individuals have accused me of being a spammer. In my opinion, their statements, and subsequent actions, constitute slander, and I believe my use of the term is both fair and well-considered. These individuals should be aware that the internet's anonymity provides no immunity from responsibility, and that I am preparing to use every legal avenue to defend myself.

As far as my copyright is concerned, as a matter of custom and law, I believe that it is impossible for any entity to lay irrevocable claim to someone else's copyright without payment of consideration. Now, that is my belief. A court of law may, or may not, agree with me. But, as far as I can tell, Wikipedia's copyright claims have not been subjected to legal test, so the question is an open one. (Please cite case history, not Wikipedia policy, if you believe me to be in error).

My first step will be to have my lawyer send a formal cease and desist letter to Wikipedia, which I will have him do, today. Please understand that this is not a "threat," but a heads-up. Thanks Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You have been reported to the Administrators Incidents Noticeboard. -- Lear's Fool 11:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you straightforwardly withdraw any and all legal threats, you may be unblocked. Otherwise, you can't edit here so long as there are any standing threats of legal action. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The block is actually indefinite. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 11:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An indefinite block can be and often is temporary, it doesn't mean forever, it more or less means length unkown. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a problem with the template. I fixed it shortly after your block. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 11:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Conditional" might be a better term in cases like this, as it's solely based on the legal threat, and if that's retracted, there's a good chance the block could be lifted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)