>>284
For The Coins of the Jews, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_William_Madden
>>293 see https://www.amazon.com/Johnsons-Baby-Powder-Cornstarch-Vitamin/dp/B0009STDJW for your tender little bum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_featuring_home_invasions
It is not so much the article that is DQN quality as the fact that someone thought the subject was deserving of an article
>>316
disappointed it doesn't cover Austria (and probably because the couple of sightings there are believed to be genuine)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shantideva
"worst. monk. ev--oh nvm"
>>322
Excuse me, "(also) see" is a signal that things are slightly different from the exact statement and would be worth a double-check for someone who's being really anal. What you should be saying 99% of the time is "also supra".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_signal#See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supra_(grammar)
>>323 I'm not using it in that way, and “supra” isn't what I mean either. You're referring to citation signals and their usage in the realm of law, I'm on a textboard using “see” in its everyday “have a look at” use.
>>>321 see https://4-ch.net/dqn/kareha.pl/1669033612/674
>Re: that post, look at this post
Worry about something more important! You're trying to correct me on things I don't really care about. I'm not a lawyer, I'm just noticing when an article is posted which I've read here before.
Anyway, let's continue posting ＊ＤＱＮ ＱＵＡＬＩＴＹ＊Wikipedia links!
>your usage "see" means "you didn't see, you big dope".
Heh. Wrong!! And here's your problem, you keep taking my posts as some kind of personal slight. Here, and in your previous post, you project words and motivations onto me that aren't there. For instance, assuming that by saying “see” I'm using it in the same way as a citation in a legal document, then telling me I'm doing it wrong, when that was never my intention. The “you big dope" aspect has never been there either, that's you (or whoever) taking it personally for some reason. I've never, ever suggested that the poster should have checked for duplicates before posting. I don't care if it is. I'm only observing that it is. That's also why replying with the Shitposting article every time doesn't bother me in the slightest, it only tells me that I've successfully wound you up.
>unwillingness to budge in the face of constructive critique
Even if you'd ever said anything at all constructive (you haven't), I'm not looking for critique. Again, you're imagining my motivations and telling me what I should do, but you don't know, so your words are meaningless.
>exposes you as the low-effort troll you obviously always were
Is that really the case? Lol. ““““““Obviously””””””. If I really was a troll, and if you had been on the Internet before, then you would know that a troll only wants attention. If I'm simply a low-effort troll, why do you keep feeding me?
>I'm done playing nice
Great! As I said before, any persecution you feel is entirely in your head. Now it gets funnier and funnier every time you whinge about it.
>People are here to use links as shitposts, not so much to read them or reminisce on the last time it's been done
You can do whatever you like. That says more about you though. You might be interested in this: https://4-ch.net/dqn/kareha.pl/1669033612/340
>I truly pity you; you need to 反省汁 your entire online life, but you probably won't.
Tilted! Don't worry about it. Come back with a Wikipedia link, biatch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior%27s_tonk