"Why would you ruin perfectly good peanuts by adding candy corn? That's like saying hey, I have these awesome nachos, guess I better add some dryer lint." - Nonny
YOU, my friend, will always be #1 at storytelling. Always. I mean, yeah, little duck did a nice vocal recap once. And Mark Twain, he could spin a good yarn. But damn, NO ONE, no one, can tell a story like @ombligiogiogio (whateverthefuck it is). NO ONE.
Ever.
You win at life.
P.S. I like pixy0stix, but that she dare ventured to critique this post almost had me ready to be all up in arms against her. Then I remembered that she's equipped to survive the zombie apocalypse and I am most decidedly not so I changed my mind.
YOU, my friend, will always be #1 at storytelling. Always. I mean, yeah, little duck did a nice vocal recap once. And Mark Twain, he could spin a good yarn. But damn, NO ONE, no one, can tell a story like @ombligiogiogio (whateverthefuck it is). NO ONE.
Ever.
You win at life.
P.S. I like pixy0stix, but that she dare ventured to critique this post almost had me read to be all up in arms against her. Then I remembered that she's equipped to survive the zombie apocalypse and I am most decidedly not so I changed my mind.
I did consider putting the article in, so I forgive her! Also, I left out all the stuff about twitter.
"You. You and your crazy life. You and your geographic anomaly. You and your drunken lesbianic ways and terrible navigational skills." - ProfArt and her holy baby
(cur | prev) 03:49, 19 May 2012‎ OSborn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,847 bytes) (+78)‎ . . (→‎History: modified: the raw quote isn't clear as to its origins; formatted cite) (undo)
(cur | prev) 03:40, 19 May 2012‎ BumpKathleen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,769 bytes) (+103)‎ . . (→‎History: This is a good compromise. It's a direct quote from the article.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 03:35, 19 May 2012‎ BumpKathleen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,645 bytes) (+1,127)‎ . . (Undid revision 493290410 by Discospinster (talk) did you read the article? It's a direct quote from one of their financial analysts. Yahoo Finance is citing it.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 03:33, 19 May 2012‎ Discospinster (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,518 bytes) (-1,127)‎ . . (it's not a cite, it's a complaint, and it doesn't belong here) (undo)
(cur | prev) 03:31, 19 May 2012‎ BumpKathleen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,645 bytes) (+1,127)‎ . . (Undid revision 493290039 by Discospinster (talk). It's just a cite to the article now. Surely you don't object to that.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 03:29, 19 May 2012‎ Discospinster (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,518 bytes) (-1,388)‎ . . (remove complaint -- doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article) (undo)
(cur | prev) 03:22, 19 May 2012‎ BumpKathleen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,704 bytes) (+4,186)‎ . . (Undid revision 493288800 by OSborn I cited an analyst from the Motley Fool. The federal courts accept it as a valid source. You think you're better than the 9th circuit?) (undo)
(cur | prev) 03:14, 19 May 2012‎ OSborn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,518 bytes) (-4,186)‎ . . (Reverted 2 edits by BumpKathleen (talk): Not appropriate for Wikipedia: original research; forums are not acceptable sources. (TW)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 21:08, 14 May 2012‎ Smartse (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,518 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected The Knot (company): Invoking ignore all rules as this edit war has gone on long enough, even if I am [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]. (‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 21:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)))) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:51, 14 May 2012‎ Discospinster (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,518 bytes) (-3,863)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Phsgradin2005 (talk) to last revision by Discospinster (HG)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:24, 14 May 2012‎ Discospinster (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,518 bytes) (-106)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 71.184.79.9 (talk) to last version by Discospinster) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:55, 14 May 2012‎ Drmies (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,518 bytes) (-3,098)‎ . . (Undid revision 492571773 by BumpKathleen unacceptable: trivial and unreliably sourced) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:43, 14 May 2012‎ BumpKathleen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,616 bytes) (+3,098)‎ . . (Undid revision 492571530 by Cameron Scott (talk) What is specifically objectionable? Personally observed accounts are appropriate.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:42, 14 May 2012‎ Cameron Scott (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,518 bytes) (-3,098)‎ . . (Which is why we aren't interested - if you persist in reverting this page without discussion, we will have to lock the page to editing and block your account.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:40, 14 May 2012‎ BumpKathleen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,616 bytes) (+3,098)‎ . . (Undid revision 492571116 by Cameron Scott (talk) The board reliably reflects users' opinions - not facts - which are all this reports) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:39, 14 May 2012‎ Cameron Scott (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,518 bytes) (-3,098)‎ . . (It could be thousands of people, it's irrelevant, we don't use talk-boards as sources, we don't consider them reliable. If a newspaper picked up this story we could give it due weight but just a talkboard? No.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:37, 14 May 2012‎ BumpKathleen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,622 bytes) (+3,104)‎ . . (Undid revision 492569436 by Cameron Scott (talk) - Pro Board is cited for opinion of hundreds of people who personally observed event.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:29, 14 May 2012‎ Cameron Scott (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,518 bytes) (-3,104)‎ . . (→‎History: This is all junk, we don't use talkboard forums as sources - if a reliable source mentions this stuff we do, otherwise we don't care.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 18:40, 14 May 2012‎ 71.184.79.9 (talk)‎ . . (10,622 bytes) (+86)‎ . . (added new facts) (undo)
(cur | prev) 00:59, 14 May 2012‎ TheStairs (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (11,254 bytes) (+9)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 23:49, 13 May 2012‎ ClueBot NG (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (11,245 bytes) (+8,021)‎ . . (Reverting possible vandalism by 98.82.151.63 to version by BumpKathleen. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (1073240) (Bot)) (undo)
Last Edit: Jul 30, 2014 21:42:19 GMT -5 by Ohhmm(bligo)
"You. You and your crazy life. You and your geographic anomaly. You and your drunken lesbianic ways and terrible navigational skills." - ProfArt and her holy baby
YOU, my friend, will always be #1 at storytelling. Always. I mean, yeah, little duck did a nice vocal recap once. And Mark Twain, he could spin a good yarn. But damn, NO ONE, no one, can tell a story like @ombligiogiogio (whateverthefuck it is). NO ONE.
Ever.
You win at life.
P.S. I like pixy0stix, but that she dare ventured to critique this post almost had me read to be all up in arms against her. Then I remembered that she's equipped to survive the zombie apocalypse and I am most decidedly not so I changed my mind.
I did consider putting the article in, so I forgive her! Also, I left out all the stuff about twitter.
SHARE! I wasn't on much during that time dealing with some family stuff so I feel so out of the loop with all that went down!