User talk:Eekerz

sédum
Please follow WT:CFI when creating an entry. I will tentatively delete this entry as it has no valid language tag. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 11:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? It's Macedonian, just as it (and seven) state. Nothing about "tag" on WT:CFI either. -Eekerz 11:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * oops sorry I meant WT:ELE. It should give you a good overview. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 11:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, Macedonian words should be in the correct script. See еден as an example of a Macedonian number. SemperBlotto 11:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Instead of deleting it why not just fix it (or at least give longer than 2 minutes so it has a chance of being fixed!)? Sheesh... -Eekerz 11:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to "fix". The page title is invalid, and there can be no content there.  The page was properly deleted, you were given an explanation, and chose to repeat the error rather than try to understand the explanation. --EncycloPetey 04:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The page title was not invalid because it's a transcription transliteration, which are all over Wiktionary. Also, see also does not only need to include links to terms directly related to the term, so your removal of the see also section in седум is incorrect because the relation is by overall word look ("sedum" vs. "sédum") with only the "é" being different. Lastly, why does the signature continue to incorrectly give dates from over a week ago? My time preferences are the same as on Wikipedia yet I don't have this problem there... -Eekerz 15:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked for your persistently adding edits that you have been informed are incorrect. Instead of learning from your mistakes, you persist in adding errors (in content, style, and format). This has caused several editors to have to spend significant time cleaning up after you. Please take the time of this block to learn about basic page format and Wiktionary conventions. Continued disruption will result in longer blocks. --EncycloPetey 20:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * On the subject of synonyms for liveforever which in this edit you say are fine... well let's look at just two of them to see why they're not. (1) The term live forever is not a synonym. It is the same word with a sapce between the components.  Words are not synonyms of themselves; they can only be synonyms of other words. (2) The term sedum is not a synonym.  Liveforever is defined as "the houseleek", which is a member of genus Sempervivum.  Sedum is defined as a member of genus Sedum.  Since the two plants are not even in the same genus, they are not synonyms. --EncycloPetey 22:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

vanden
Are you sure that this is Danish? The word does not appear anywhere in the text of Danish Wiktionary or Wikipedia. SemperBlotto 07:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not Danish, as far as I can tell. Surnames of Dutch origin "van den Something" may occasionally be written "Vanden Something", that might be what was meant, but it's not really a Danish word.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 08:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Vanden is a compound of "van" and "den": Vanden Plas, Vanden High School, and in Vandenberg. -Eekerz 05:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

References header
References is an L3 header in the appropriate language section, not at the end of the entry. With multiple languages, there may be multiple references sections. Robert Ullmann 14:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted, it doesn't do anything except make the tag less clear (:-) Robert Ullmann 14:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it makes the tag easier to use; hence why it's in use on Wikipedia. Eekerz 03:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

pouch
Where on Wikipedia does the "ceod" Etymology come from. It seems quite a departure from the Etymology in the entry, which is similar to that given by the OED. Conrad.Irwin 20:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheddar, Chidham and Hambrook, Google Books:, , , Google -Eekerz 05:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If it is the Old English term, then it should have an entry at ceod. That doesn't mean it had anything to do with the Etymology of pouch (and none of your references claim it does). Conrad.Irwin 14:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There was nothing about pouch being derived from "ceod" in those references, so I reverted you again.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 14:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)