User talk:Why Not A Duck

Thank you!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For catching that mistake. Keep it up! =) Malinaccier (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy the first day of Spring!!!

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 22:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RD/C

Hi there I have re-added your comments on WP:RD/C as part of me undoing your accidental removal of other things (curiously though, my undo had disappeared in the history for some reason, maybe you've already undid it when I pressed undo?). --antilived^{T | C | G} 00:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In short: I think that's exactly what happened. Replied on your talk page in more detail. -- Why Not A Duck 00:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Cobra

thanks for catching the vandalism i missed! it was me who removed the date-link. from what i've heard, there's a movement away from wikilinking to entries that don't relate to the given subject matter. i don't care too much either way, but i will see if i can find where i found that factoid. ttfn - Metanoid (talk, email) 01:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey, thx for restoring that. personally, i think it's fine one way or another, but i appreciate the reasoning behind some de-wikifying. lots of times i just de-link while i'm fixing something else, like with this pg. see you 'round! - Metanoid (talk, email) 04:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for informing me about being accused of vandolism and copyright violations. Those claims are nonsense at best. They make no sense. He is attacking me and User:Sesshomaru . Thanks again for informing me of this. - Prede (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user

When I reported this user, he/she was on a spree of changing articles and the explination I got was, they are fictional characters that shouldn't be there. Why would they be there this long and no one else removed them. I, at first, assumed good faith, but after the numerous GF warnings I gave, he/she continued. I'm not familiar with the articles, do you see anything wrong with them? Dusti^{speak and be heard!} 18:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the personal attack revert on my userpage :) Cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 20:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Why Not A Duck/sredir

Do you still want this test page? It's successfully confused a bot and the bot has tagged it for deletion... –xeno (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's okay to delete (and I see that it's already deleted). -- Why Not A Duck 18:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serial vandalism pattern

You figured out that I didn't know how to repair the complex vandalism to Russo-Japanese War; and you solved the problem. Thanks. I have two questions:

1. I just wonder if posting to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is the thing to do in future when I encounter a complex series of edits I can't resolve myself? ‎ It doesn't happen often, but frequently enough that this question seems necessary.
2. Did I really need to post a warning message inviting whomever to stop? I did follow the posted instructions, but it felt like an odd exercise.

Thanks for your investment of time in what I assume to have been a conventionally thankless exercise. --Tenmei (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quack

Just a passing comment: like the username. (Remember the routine?) Chico Higgins ^{☎ can you hear me now? ☎} 15:04 & 15:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your rollback request

Hello Why Not A Duck, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 00:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing of the velocity article

I don't know your physics background, so I hope that I am not talking down to you. The problem is not so much that "displacement" is a technical term but that it is actually incorrect to say that "velocity is the rate of change of displacement". Displacement is a change in position and so "change in displacement" divided by "change in time" becomes "change in the change of position" divided by time. This is a very common error that is advanced in many physics books as well as on many websites. It is something that can confuse students learning physics for the first time. For many professional physicists, the difference between a change in position and a change in displacement is something that they would consider trivial in that the context would often provide the necessary clarification. However the difference is important for proper concept formation at the foundational levels of learning in physics. Please look out for this on other websites. I did try and correct this in August 2007 but with time the errors do seem to come creeping back.Phillip (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. Fine by me. I was never pushing to say "displacement" in the article; it was already there, and I was trying to make things easier to understand by also saying "position." If "position" is what really belongs there, then even better. One thing I did see to correct in your edit: I've changed where the link on "position" points to, from Position (vector) which doesn't exist, to Position vector which does and which seems to be relevant. -- Why Not A Duck 18:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For spotting instances of vandalism that might otherwise have gone unnoticed Jdrewitt (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitley_Bay_High_School

I appreciate your efforts against IP vandalism on this page and have now submitted a page protection request for the third time. Ive got it on watch so ill look out.--CorrectlyContentious 14:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Papyrus

Thanks for reverting old vandalismus. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Gasol

Like you said "I'm not going to play an expert on anything." Then stop trying to play! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.107.103 (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidity

I'm not the bub who made the editions to the creativity, I'm only the bub who redid them because they were funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imbecileler (talk • contribs) 21:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre

Hi Why Not A Duck! There appears to be a discrepancy between the information in The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre article which you have contributed to or edited. The November 2008 Ofsted report and the article may not be referring to the same schools. Moreover, in an article about Heathfield School, Wolverley it is claimed that it merged with Bewdley. However, a website exists for a Heathfield school in Wolverly about an independent school on which there exists very little verifiable online information. There is clearly some confusion concerning these two schools and their affiliation. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre, improve the article if you can, and leave any comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:USB_On-The-Go#Products_-_Second_round

Just in case this one's been pushed off of your watchlist in the last year, note that the discussion you participated in last year didn't result in concrete examples being posted to the article. Got any? The most interesting, and likely the simplest to support, is obviously the Nokia Internet Tablet, but your comment doesn't make it clear whether the spec is behind the dual-purpose ports for the entire device series, or just the N810.

By the way, I've steered clear of a number of topics since becoming employed by the US Government and understand if you'd rather just ignore this or point me to third party source to avoid directly breaching WP:COI, but a fairly straightforward statement of fact is all the article really needs. Thanks/Happy editing, MrZaius^talk 13:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed reply. I've become a lot less active a contributor in recent months. And unfortunately, I don't think I can be much help. Not for COI reasons (I'm no longer a Nokia employee or shareholder) but simply because I don't know much about the topic. I think at the time I commented on the article I was researching buying a product that supported USB OTG. In particular, Pandora, which unfortunately isn't out yet. The other devices that come to mind (Beagle Board, and the Gumstix Overo) aren't really consumer devices. None of those sounds like a really good example, though they do prove USB OTG has actually been implemented. -- Why Not A Duck 06:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, now that I go look at the article, I see you already took care of it and added some examples. -- Why Not A Duck 06:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Glass

Thank you for correcting my "mistake", but my scientific research leads me and many others to suspect that glass is indeed still a liquid, by the fact that it's atoms have fluid motion, and behave how supercooled liquids act. Respond Please. Duckyplox (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at User talk:Duckyplox. -- Why Not A Duck 02:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While studying Chemistry, my professor gave us a horribly long lecture about this debate. She also gave us websites on the discussion and "proof" for both sides of the argument. If I can find these sites, I will be more than happy to cite them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckyplox (talk • contribs) 02:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Triphenylene

Sorry about the mixup. I meant to write triphenylene, not diphenylene; had been looking at a lot of chemical pages that day. Thanks for checking with me all the same, though. It's nice to see some people still have respect here. Mr0t1633 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy the Kid

I'm curious why the Billy Joel song reference keeps getting reverted out of the BTK article. IOW - why doesn't it belong, in your opinion? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a particular opinion about it. I was going by a comment hidden in the article that argues against adding all sorts of pop culture references to the list, especially mentioning the Billy Joel song (which gets added pretty often I think -- it was added three times this week). Looking at that and the discussion thread on Talk:Billy the Kid it seems like the issue is limiting the list to things that are particularly about the subject. At any rate, the thing to do about it is discuss it at Talk:Billy the Kid. -- Why Not A Duck 02:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For beating me to removing the NPOV vio on Albert Pujols. Cheers! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duck?

Why-a no chicken? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC) (Marxist of the Harpoist-Chicoist-Grouchoist [Non-Zepponian] tendency)[reply]

Regarding NPOV

There should be a message that recognizes someone douchery. You corrected my "non-neutral" additions to J.K. Mullen. Okay, fine. You're a buzz kill. But you went and copied/pasted directly from the J.K. Mullen High School website. That, my friend, is a violation of Wikipedia rules. So, you are a douchebag and a thief of work that is not yours. Get a life and have a little fun in your life besides correcting entries 10 minutes after they're put up. Balla108723 (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I stole nothing. If you actually look at my edit (here) you see that I only removed your garbage. And as for needing to get a life... if I have fun making Wikipedia better, and you have can only have fun making it worse... which of us is a douche? Huh? --- Why Not A Duck 19:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image question at Talk:Dawn

An editor has inquired about the absence of the word "Sunrise". I go a step forward and suggest including the angular diameter of the Sun and/or atmospheric refraction breaking the straight line, but only if it does not add needless complexity to the diagram.Novangelis (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Why Not A Duck. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Why Not A Duck. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Why Not A Duck. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha!

Because it's a goat. :)

Heyurgr8 (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]