Talk:Quack

I've never heard of quack as urinating, can anyone verify? 130.76.96.17 18:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't hear it before either. As it stands this page seems more like a Wiktionary article S.. 14:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed two entries, because neither had an article in Wikipedia and dab pages, "are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term." Qaz 23:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, but what about links to not yet existing quack articles? Removing info from this page doesn't make wikipedia better. That is what you should worry about. --MarSch 14:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about this issue too. Obviously, some things would belong even if there is not yet an article for it. However, many things would not because they were not encyclopedic enough to warrent mention, which is one of the reasons why they do not have an article already. Feel free to put them back if you think I was too bold. At the time I made the edit, I decided on removal even though it was not always clear which side to come down on. Qaz 14:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

quack emacs mode

Please stop removing this info. Since "Quack is now included in GNU/Linux distributions Debian Sid (package quack-el) and Gentoo (port app-emacs/quack)" it satisfies notability criteria for software. --MarSch 11:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Anonanon3333 (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]