Ghyll talk:Quezlarian Ooo - Revision history

PhineasCrank: Going thrice?

2005-02-10T15:19:22Z

Going thrice?

2005-02-10T12:07:52Z

Going twice...

2005-02-10T11:28:55Z

Going once...

2005-02-07T15:40:08Z

WTF?!

2005-02-07T14:35:01Z

Adding "see also" - a rather big gap in Known Fact here.

New page

See also [[Talk:Harrabloon Bank]]. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 09:35, 7 Feb 2005 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:19, 10 February 2005
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Well, scholar comments at the bottom of an article are non-canonical/authoritative, so just because you're saying it down there doesn't make it Truth. But, I'm (personally) more inclined to just let the scholar comments point out the problem, and let it be an inaccuracy that can be fixed at a later date by a normal person (I have no intention of using Stottlemeyer again). --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 07:07, 10 Feb 2005 (EST)		Well, scholar comments at the bottom of an article are non-canonical/authoritative, so just because you're saying it down there doesn't make it Truth. But, I'm (personally) more inclined to just let the scholar comments point out the problem, and let it be an inaccuracy that can be fixed at a later date by a normal person (I have no intention of using Stottlemeyer again). --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 07:07, 10 Feb 2005 (EST)
		+
		+	I'm good with that. So, I'm assuming, based on this, that someone may completely strike the article as total heresy? That's cool, as long as I still get "credit" for not having missed my turn. If I'd caught the earlier reference, I would have written a different article, obviously, but I've had a lot going on in my personal life and just didn't quite keep up. --[[User:PhineasCrank\|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 10:19, 10 Feb 2005 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:07, 10 February 2005
Line 4:		Line 4:

	So, I take it that you all are okay with this amazing inconsistency being blamed on my favorite scapegoat? --[[User:PhineasCrank\|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 06:28, 10 Feb 2005 (EST)		So, I take it that you all are okay with this amazing inconsistency being blamed on my favorite scapegoat? --[[User:PhineasCrank\|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 06:28, 10 Feb 2005 (EST)
		+
		+	Well, scholar comments at the bottom of an article are non-canonical/authoritative, so just because you're saying it down there doesn't make it Truth. But, I'm (personally) more inclined to just let the scholar comments point out the problem, and let it be an inaccuracy that can be fixed at a later date by a normal person (I have no intention of using Stottlemeyer again). --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 07:07, 10 Feb 2005 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:28, 10 February 2005
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Bloody hell! There was no link to this entry from that one, so I didn't catch the connection. Now what? Do I rewrite the whole damn thing? --[[User:PhineasCrank\|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 10:40, 7 Feb 2005 (EST)		Bloody hell! There was no link to this entry from that one, so I didn't catch the connection. Now what? Do I rewrite the whole damn thing? --[[User:PhineasCrank\|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 10:40, 7 Feb 2005 (EST)
		+
		+	So, I take it that you all are okay with this amazing inconsistency being blamed on my favorite scapegoat? --[[User:PhineasCrank\|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 06:28, 10 Feb 2005 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:40, 7 February 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	See also [[Talk:Harrabloon Bank]]. --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 09:35, 7 Feb 2005 (EST)		See also [[Talk:Harrabloon Bank]]. --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 09:35, 7 Feb 2005 (EST)
		+
		+	Bloody hell! There was no link to this entry from that one, so I didn't catch the connection. Now what? Do I rewrite the whole damn thing? --[[User:PhineasCrank\|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 10:40, 7 Feb 2005 (EST)