Nice job, new baker. You still good to keep going?
Oh, and this is a minor thing, no need for BO/BV to fix, but it helps archivists if the bread titles always have the same elements in the same place. In this case, you missed a couple things:
>the colon after the bread #
>the word Edition at the end
Q Research General #5999 Baby Baker Bakes Based Bread
Should be like this:
Q Research General #5999: Baby Baker Bakes Based Bread Edition
kek wut.
Just conveying what archivists have told us bakers when we bake.
Not kvetching, said it was minor, makes no difference to me.
>It's a little out of hand.
Isn't baker's call alone how/whether to make these changes. Anons can bring it up just as you've done. I agree with you here fwiw.
>would lose half the standard setup in hopes of providing readable two-post starts.
>Like the little buns.
How would you change the title? Although at this point, we'd lose so much in continuity for archiving not sure it's broke enough to warrant fixing.
>am more than happy to let a more experience baker take the 6000th bread. I want it to be perfect.
Selfless patriot is selfless.
And don't worry about missed bread announcement, bread can move fast toward the end as moar ppl are just commenting and fewer uploading content.
To conclude your first baking session all wrapped with a bow on top, you may want to confirm handoff to the next baker. Just reply to this offer post below with a redtext of "Handoff Confirmed"
>>4701095 Handoff Confirmed?
>Let the number be first so it shows easily in tabs.
Would prefer this as well, but am guessing would be too much hassle for archivists to deal with.
Shills replying to shills (am just reposting BO's hash history of this guy, not a BO/BV m'self)
>why did you post a collage of posts by jews my jewish fren, yet call them all "shills"?
I put up the hash history bc I recognized the image (vid) in the post as belonging to a known spambot that BO called out on Jan. 1st with the descriptor of "study material, please review all posts."
BO/BV have been stepping up their calling out of these spambots to help anons discern them from genuine pro-JQtalk anons like myself. JIDF plays both sides of all debates they want controlled. This hash history clearly shows them attempting to control the pro-JQtalk side of the JQ vs. "muh joooos" debate.