User talk:Primetime

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Template:Warning

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

red links

By changing pipe organ to w:pipe organ you hide that fact that we don't have an entry for pipe organ yet. Red links are our friends - they show us what needs to be done. We even count them and sort them so we know what is most important to add. SemperBlotto 14:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I can keep this one red because every one older than 12 knows what a pipe organ is, but I need to keep "harmonium" linked to Wikipedia because learning about that is essential to understanding the definition. (I created these entries anonymously.)
Also, I noticed you are adding too many links to my entries. Wikiformatting guidelines state clearly that you shouldn't add too many links to an entry (e.g., adding more links than lines, linking low-value items without reason). I use the rule of thumb that if it wouldn't say qv ("which see") or see also in a dictionary or encyclopedia, then it probably doesn't need a link here. Primetime 14:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

pseudologue

This word does not appear to be in English, but in Greek. It does not appear to meet the criteria outlined at requests for verification (or the more complete criteria at criteria for inclusion.) While I do some work on en.wikt, I am currently on the site for vandal patrol along with several other sites I am monitoring; I'm sure you'd prefer to format your entry since you seem more aware than I of the standard layout. You have now reverted my application of the tag three times. Please do not violate the 3RR. - User:Amgine/talk 00:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Using le mot juste does not make it English. Common usage may. While it surprises people, I am not actually an admin on en.Wiktionary, and I will leave enforcement of policy to them. I will also not violate the policy myself. But I will note your threat to use sockpuppets and open proxies to force your opinion on the wiki. I'm sorry you feel this way. - User:Amgine/talk 00:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to weigh in here, perhaps out of turn, so please forgive me if this is so. Common practice dictates that we should leave the rfv notice on the page, until the entry is discussed to satisfaction on WT:RFV. There is certainly a Merriam-Websters entry, no doubt about that, but as it is such a rare word, perhaps closer inspection could provide some useful additions to the page; citations, for example, are always welcome.
As for making it 'look unprofessional', I agree... Partially. While the page is less neat and 'finished', as it were, the application of the template shows a different level of professionalism, that of scrutiny and validation. This, I think you'll agree, is rather important for a dictionary. -Wytukaze 00:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see WT:RFV. Primetime 04:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Polite notice

Please do not copy content from copyrighted dictionaries (viz. irrupt, which was very nearly identical to the content of the Merriam-Webster online entry for this word, and so has been removed). Please also understand that other users are at liberty to modify anything that anyone contributes to Wiktionary. Wiktionary is a collaborative effort and none of us own the content that we contribute.

See the notice that appears under the text box when you edit an entry. — Paul G 18:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I hope a few more regular wiktionary contributors come forward against the nomination. They must be asleep or on holiday. Methodology 17:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

ideational

It's an adjective, not a noun. Definitions start with a #. SemperBlotto 08:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

DO NOT SIGN MY NAME!!!

NEVER sign my name again!!! Millennium Sentinel 19:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Formatting

You seem to have forgotten how to format - ==English== then ===part of speech=== - definitions start with a # - what's with the UPPERCASE stuff? SemperBlotto 22:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Images

I notice you've uploaded quite a few images lately. Please consider uploading appropriate images to Commons, instead. Commons is much better set up to contain this sort of matter, particularly from a license standpoint, and it will allow all projects to use such material. Thanks. —Dvortygirl 06:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

Hi,

Can you take a bit more trouble to format your contributions according to the standard, please. You must be familiar with it by now. If you aren't sure, see Entry layout explained. This will help reduce the amount of work that others end up having to do. Thanks. — Paul G 10:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've posted my reply to your comments on my talk page. — Paul G 10:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
but the language entry MUST be at level 2, not 3. SemperBlotto 14:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

roan

It would be nice if you edited your etymologies in a way which makes clear what refers to what. One can't tell what accusative is supposed to be: Is the Gothic word raudan in accusative case, or is accusative, together with red, a translation of raudan? Ncik 21:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I seperated it with a comma, though. I doubt any one would think that the translation for roan would be "accusitive, red" (unless they're a bufoon). --Primetime 22:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Warning

I have been watching the way you have been reverting changes to articles which you claim to be yours. Being the first to create an entry does not imply any ownership over that article. It does not imply any right to retain your formatting preferences in that article. As I've said before, when you start an article you have the right to put it in whatever format you want. After it's posted other members of the community have just as much right to change the article to reflect their own vision of community standards. When several members of the community make these same changes, that alone implies a particular community standard. Perhaps, at some other time, with more diplomatic promotion your suggested changes could prevail, but that time is not now. Practice rather than printed rules guides policy. I have observed your multiple reverts, your insistance that format reflect your point of view, and your personal attacks on at least two other community members. Unless this stops forthwith I am prepared to block your activities here for progressively longer periods. Eclecticology 23:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

quaint

I have responded on the talk page. theDaveRoss

Edit war

Please, for your own sake, do not start an edit war. You have been warned before. — Vildricianus 09:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Trying to attack other members of the community is then your method of team-play? . — Vildricianus 09:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Block

Primetime,

I noticed you reverted quaint five times in the last few hours. You have now been blocked for one day, mainly because of the personal attack on another user's talk page.

You can post messages on this talk page if the meantime.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 10:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyvios

Please be aware that you are violating Wiktionary policy by posting entries copied from www.bartelby.com. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Most recent block

Primetime,

Today's block is much longer than the previous one. You have created a lot of nuissance by entering copyright protected entries from various sources that will take a long time to verify and remove.

The silliness of intentionally formatting entries incorrectly is not just incomprehensible, but problematic as well.

I will continue to discuss your situation with others. A longer block may be applied as a result.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 22:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have blocked me from editing my own talk page. You have also failed to provide any evidence to back up your claims. --145.253.122.204 22:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
No matter. I have sent a few e-mails to several administrators because you seem not to be discussing this with them as you said you would. --145.253.122.204 22:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The entries you created just now do not have any Wiktionary formatting. I don't see why the rest of us should have to clean up your mess... Jonathan Webley 22:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have reduced the block to 48 hours. No evidence was given of the copyvios, or that this matter was discussed in an attempt to resolve the problem. On the other hand the persistent imposition of his formatting views at quaint and other places do justify doubling the previous 24 hour block that was imposed. If you persist in doing this after your 48 hours are up, I would suggest roughly doubling the time on each occasion, 96 hours, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month etc. Eclecticology 11:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

bloody

No, bloody is not a common swear word in Canada. Tawker 04:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Eclecticology 00:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Who uses it in Canada? --Primetime 01:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I've certainly been heard to say "No bloody way!" on the rare occasion when I'm being stubborn. :-) I have even added a couple of American quotes at bloody. Eclecticology 05:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Bloody 2

Nope, all I ever hear bloody used for is cases like "the meat is bloody." Tawker 04:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

re: RFV

[1] -- Zondor 22:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

ZD

Looking good, thanks for citing :) -- Tawker 02:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Primetime 02:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Thanks

Good to hear that. I hope we'll all be able to cooperate constructively. Apologies accepted.

Cheers. — Vildricianus 09:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

give

This entry (rendered) is currently at 3,798 words of text, not including the Wiktionary header, footer or navigation bar.

Do you know of any published dictionary that devotes over a thousand words to define a single term?

Honestly, I don't see what you are trying to prove.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 05:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary's entry for the word is much longer. The entry for the word in Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabdridged is 2950 words long. --Primetime 05:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Request

iwouldliketohumblyrequestthatyouformatyourentriesinthesamemanneraseveryoneelseitisimportantforavarietyofreasons- nottheleastofwhichisthatitmakesalotlessworkforwhomeverhastocleanupyouradditionsthanksTheDaveRoss

I see I'm not the first with this request. Please, pleasepleaseplease, format your entries. --Dvortygirl 03:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Trailing spaces

On your recent entries: do they serve a purpose? It smacks of poor copy and paste skills, which is highly disconcerting. Please see this page, just in case. - TheDaveRoss 05:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You're a liar. If you think that they're copied from somewhere, then provide a link to the source. --Primetime 05:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, I could find nowhere (primary or secondary source) where that number (or more than the usual one) of trailing spaces were included. Please explain why these terms properly include the spaces. - TheDaveRoss 05:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
It isn't proper to include the spaces. Thus, I will move the articles to correct for that. --Primetime 05:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Your typing speed is incredible, as is your recall and expertise on a variety of subjects. I am going to initiate a discussion on the Beer Parlor regarding both of these things, you may wish to participate. - TheDaveRoss 05:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking

Why so many articles with quart in them, it seems a little odd so many at once -- Tawker 06:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a few more words that begin with quart- in English than the ones I defined. I agree, though, that the number of words in English that begin in such a way is surprising. --Primetime 06:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
More to the point, how are you getting the words in such a rapid fashion, you were creating 4 per min which seems a little rapid for a non bot account -- Tawker 06:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I write a group of entries in MS Word because it has a spell-checker. I then move them here. --Primetime 06:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough, I've done that too. Would you mind formatting your entires per WT:ELE though, I really don't want to have to write a formating bot :) -- Tawker 07:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block

From Beer Parlour discussion

I am not the only one who has expressed concerns about this contributor, but I may be the first to bring it up here. Primetime has been asked repeatedly to follow the standard formatting practices of wiktionary, and hasn't, and recently their contributions have more and more closely resembled copyvios. This evening they made 4 edits in the space of a minute (xanthomatous, xanthophyll, xanthophyceae, xanthism) consisting of 113 words not including formatting, a tremendous feat of typing let alone recall and expertise. I am not sure what the policy is regarding contributors and dubious activities, but I am certain that Primetime merits some scrutiny. - TheDaveRoss 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC) (I appologize if this is the wrong venue)

The reason why the entries were created so quickly is I use MS Word to write my them because it has a spell checker. I write a list of entries, then move them here. In any case, my format still includes headers, italics, etc. I have explained in detail in previous discussions here why I don't add a second, unecessary header and why I don't link words unrelated to the entry in question. I don't see why Connel blocked me over this.--Primetime 06:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
What then, are you using to upload them? And when, did you alegedly compose all these wonderful submissions? Why do you have no references cited? Any of these considerations taken alone are untenable; as a whole, there is simply no way that you are not engaging in massive copyright violations. Even if you are alternating your sources for each entry, you are still cycling through them all and cutting and pasting from those resources. Your refusal to format any part of your entries as per our formatting conventions is obviously due to the inconvenience of reformatting your copyright-violation sources.
But the ultimate reason I blocked you, was because the rate of your copyvio flood was increasing. The longer you were permitted to continue, the more would have to be deleted later. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
My copy of MS Word does not tack spaces onto the end of everything. (Just tested, pasting into a couple different browsers.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

An additional concern (besides spaces) is the use of ALL CAPS for linking to other definitions. Appropriate capitalization is much more important in Wiktionary than in some of the other WikiMedia. --EncycloPetey 07:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


I'm simply going to give two parallel sets of quotations. One comes from seven randomly chosen articles created by Primetime in the last couple of days. The other comes from Webster's Third International New International Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged), copyright 1993 by Merriam-Webster, Inc. Any commentary would be redundant. Keffy 22:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • quaddle
    • Primetime: dialect England: GRUMBLER
    • Webster's 3rd: dial Eng: GRUMBLER
  • quarter blanket
    • Primetime: a blanket used under a horse's harness to cover from the tail to beyond the saddle
    • Webster's 3rd: a blanket used under a horse's harness to cover from the tail to beyond the saddle
  • quaestuary
    • Primetime: archaic: interested in or undertaken for monetary gain or profit "this may be termed the quaestuary class, this being the end which they aim at" -- J.F.Ferrier
    • Webster's 3rd: archaic: interested in or undertaken for monetary gain or profit <this may be termed the ~ class, this being the end which they aim at --J.F.Ferrier
  • xystus
    • Primetime: a long and open portico used especially by ancient Greeks or Romans for athletic exercises in wintry or stormy weather; sometimes: a walk lined with trees
    • Webster's 3rd: a long and open portico used esp. by ancient Greeks or Romans for athletic exercises in wintry or stormy weather; sometimes: a walk lined with trees
  • gonystylus
    • Primetime: a small genus of East Indian trees (order Malvales) constituting a monotypic family, having alternate leathery leaves, regular paniculate flowers and woody fruits, and yielding fragrant timber resembling agalloch
    • Webster's 3rd: a small genus of East Indian trees (order Malvales) constituting a monotypic family, having alternate leathery leaves, regular paniculate flowers and woody fruits, and yielding fragrant timber resembling agalloch
  • gopura
    • Primetime: the gateway of a temple in southern India; often the massive tower resembling a pyramid above the gateway
    • Webster's 3rd: the gateway of a temple in southern India; often: the massive tower resembling a pyramid above the gateway
  • xerogel
    • Primetime: a solid formed from a gel by drying with unhindered shrinkage
    • Webster's 3rd: a solid formed from a gel by drying with unhindered shrinkage -- compare AEROGEL

Until these issues are resolved I have given Primetime an indefinite block. Primetime please respond on this page if there is some confusion. - TheDaveRoss 23:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


No, I can't edit this page. I'm having to use an open proxy right now. Anyway, someone should provide evidence to back up these claims. Keffy's Australian, so how did he get an American dictionary? I can guarantee you that those are not from M-W, Unabridged.--Primetime 23:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1) Canadian actually. 2) From a magical place known as a "library". Keffy 23:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you back up these guarantees? Keffy (a Canadian by the way) has provided verifiable evidence that your work is probably copyvio, your "nuh-uh" is not sufficient rebuttal. - TheDaveRoss 00:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I am innocent until proven guilty. Right now, it's just his word against mine. His word is not "evidence," it's "testimony". He has provided no evidence that these words are actually in M-W, Unabridged. Until he does, I should not be blocked, and definitely not indefinitely. You have not provided a rationale for that, by the way.--Primetime 00:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the "indefinite" duration, while the situation is assessed. This can take weeks. Considering the gravity of the situation, no set timeperiod can be guaranteed at this early phase of investigation. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Any single quote from M-W or anywhere can be fair use, but a pattern of copying from such a source is not acceptable. When there has been a reasonably documented claim of copyright infringement, as there has been, that shifts the burden on the contributor to show evidence of where the material comes from. If you can guarantee that the material is not from M-W, and is legally being used then do it by showing your sources. Please make this your priority. If you let us know where this material came from, and are ready to add references to all the articles you have recently added, the block can be lifted to allow you to do this. Eclecticology 10:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Most of the entries are either from The Century Dictionary, ed. William D. Whitney, 1891; or Funk and Wagnall's A Standard Dictionary of the English Language, 1893. None are copyrighted. All were formatted in MS Wordpad and then moved here. I would be happy, though, to cite my sources for the entries.--Primetime 10:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

spanish entries

perhaps you can help creating spanish entries from sapnish requested articles, there are many words waiting to become blue. I can help!--62.175.97.149 10:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Proof that "Give" "J," and "C," Aren't Copyvios

The following are page scans from A New English Dictionary, volumes 2 and 5, published in 1893 and 1919, respectively. It appears that Oxford University Press copied them straight into it's Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1989).

--Primetime 18:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Feeding the troll...
Gee, that's not where you said you got it here. It shall take some time to determine even if those images match the pages of the texts you say they do (which, I have good reason to doubt strongly.)
Why did it take you a month to find these alternate references? Never mind. Since you didn't cite your sources in the first place, the copies were invalid. Since you violated the intent and style of Wiktionary, it still doesn't matter, as this material is inappropriate. Furthermore, your use of sockpuppets (to a rather extreme degree) has you banned from Wiktionary, regardless of further proof you wish to submit.
--Connel MacKenzie T C 19:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I wonder why but I actually took some time to look at this material. Apart from that it won't help you however much of this sort of stuff you try to convince us with, the "evidence" for give only concerns the etymology so far. Perhaps you should spend (waste) some more time copying and uploading the second page there, to show that the definitions are by accident also the same. However, I doubt they are, as you probably would already have done so if they had been. I'm waiting to see how your "proof" is going to be dealt with at Wikipedia ([2]). — Vildricianus 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought that this would have been enough--that's why I didn't scan the second page. I looked at the other pages and they all match the OED2 word for word except for new meanings. That's why Marion Sader and Amy Lewis in Encyclopedias, atlases & dictionaries (1995) claim that certain parts of the OED are not accurate due to the outdated scholarship. I'm not in the city where that library is now, though, and that's why it took me so long to get this to you. If you tell me what city you live in I can even look up the book on your library's catalog and tell you how to get it.

Connel: The NED is technically the first edition of the OED. The OED was simply a re-issue of the NED and a supplement in 1933. They were both published by Clarendon Press at Oxford. Therefore, it is what I said there. Further, the yellowing and light fox spots match a book from the turn of the century, given the heavier paper used and its high cotton content. The column spacing is way closer than that found in the OED2, which you already know since you said that you visited your library to look at the entry.--Primetime 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. That's why it took you months to get your hands on a copy of the source you claimed to have copied it from in the first place? Oh wait, you claimed you didn't copy anything. Sorry, forgot about that part.
Would your desire to know what city I'm in be related to your apparent return to simpler criminal behavior? You'd like to know if you got the city right? Well, I haven't gotten any "catalogs" yet. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
And why is it, then, that your submissions match the text in OED 2nd, so much better than the NED text pictured here? You happened to make the exact same copyedits as the OED staff? --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed this user's talk page on Wikipedia for the first time tonight. Even before any of the copyright violations were found, I was astonished at the number of different editors who had complained about reverts. Certainly there will be edit wars, and there were several times when the number of reverts had maxed out for both. But what was more surprising were the few cases where the reverts were pointless, rolling back changes in formatting for instance. This user was trolling pages that he or she created. There was even a Croatian professor of Croatian studies who argued at length on a minor point on which this user had only a handy Britanica and insignificant background in comparison. In the end this user reasoned that the professor and the encyclopedia had the same weight, as if this user's judgement carried more weight than either. Taken together with a long-term refusal to apply conventional styling to Wiktionary contributions, I can only conclude that this user never really understood and never picked up on the way this collaborative system is intended to work. That is an amazing stubborness.

But all of that pales in comparison to the copyright violations, if that itself doesn't extend from the same stubborness. It appears that this user does not believe his or her actions are harmful to Wiktionary and Wikipedia, arguing that legally the corporation isn't liable so long as they try to stop people from violating copyright, or at least pretend to. It is also quite apparent that this user will argue a point to the death, not giving ground unless the facts are stacked squarely against him or her. Based on his or her record of lying about specific copyright violations even after being discovered and even when given the chance to recant, it is also quite certain that nothing this user says can be taken for truth. This is not surprising psychologically given that he or she does not believe that his or her actions here are wrong, even that he or she is forced to lie in order to fool administrators and make the actions legally permissible. Therefore what is most worrying is the user's statement that "I never have nor will I ever stop editing on Wikipedia or Wiktionary." A couple of hours ago I had thought too harsh some of the actions taken against this user as well as potentially innocent other accounts that had been treated as suspected sockpuppets. The ban on an entire university IP domain seemed excessive. Now I wonder if banning even entire systems is a sufficient way to remedy the problem, as intent as this user is on circumventing whatever restrictions are placed against him or her. Perhaps it would be best to take legal action, to determine the user's identity and obtain a restraint against him or her, and sue for damages if the restraint is broken so far as it applies to copyright violation.

Incidentally I've placed this here on the BP originally as I have absolutely no intention of arguing any of these points with the user him- or herself. Davilla 20:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be willing to compromise. Perhaps Connel could unblock the IP range, not send the letter, stop messaging everyone in Wikimedia, and allow "give," "J," and "C" to be restored and I will agree not to edit here anymore. If you have another offer to make, please do so. I am a perfectly-reasonable person, and am willing to compromise. The reason you are doing this is to get me to go away. I can do so without any other type of action.--Primetime 21:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you can't read properly. Davilla said: I have absolutely no intention of arguing any of these points with the user him- or herself. We don't have any offer to make you - we're only taking action against your criminal behaviour - nor are you in any position to draw the lines of any compromise or proposal here. You are banned, will remain banned, and will under no name or account whatsoever reappear here. Let alone have your copyvios re-inserted. — Vildricianus 21:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have received a couple e-mail replies indicating they (CSU) are initiating their investigation into the matter.
  • Davilla, Wiktionary is a web site that allows "anyone" to edit. On what basis would I/you/Wikimedia bring legal action? Libel? Slander? Harassment? Criminal mischief? I think the OED themselves are the only ones that could press a lawsuit against Primetime for copyright infringement. (Ahem: IANAL.) I'd rather it not get that far. Let's see what CSU can do first, before any more such speculation. Even though we don't have Wikipedia's "no legal threats" policy here, we should try to keep the spirit of it. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Davilla 14:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Adding my two cents here: As you may know, I was in trouble in Wikipedia for a time, for creating "nihilartikels" and boasting about them, then was blocked for not saying which ones were fakes. I was in a similar position to Primetime, having a university-owned IP adress, shared by a handful of users. I kept on popping up and getting reblocked all the time too. But then the Wikipedia ArbCom got in contact with my uni and the IT staff found out who I was, and, to cut a long story short, I was first of all blocked from using the computing facilities, and then subject to another sanction. (To cut a long story short, and not going into the specifics, if I do any bad again, I'll be severely reprimanded). So Primetime, you too will probably deservedly end up in the shit (figuratively speaking). You, as I did, had many warnings already. You gotta remember that Wikipedia (and Wiktionary, somewhat less so) is one of the biggest websites out there. So anyway, be aware. --Newnoise (Shout louder) 11:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)