Talk:Latin Meltdown - Revision history

Interrobang at 16:18, 19 November 2011

2011-11-19T16:18:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 19 November 2011
Line 5:		Line 5:
	While I still see no reason for a single gag like this to warrant an article of its own, as long as it's hear it should at least comment on it's nature. So now it does. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:33, 19 November 2011 (EST)		While I still see no reason for a single gag like this to warrant an article of its own, as long as it's hear it should at least comment on it's nature. So now it does. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:33, 19 November 2011 (EST)
	:<strike>And now it doesn't. Great. Well, I'm in no mood for a fucking revert war, so I'll just say that while this shouldn't be an article at all, because we don't need articles for every individual gag ever, if it is going to say it ''should'' make it clear exactly what sort of thing this is.</strike> Ha ha, sorry, wow, I jumped that gun on that, huh? Just assumed it was sttraight revert. Nevermind. Sorry. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:41, 19 November 2011 (EST)		:<strike>And now it doesn't. Great. Well, I'm in no mood for a fucking revert war, so I'll just say that while this shouldn't be an article at all, because we don't need articles for every individual gag ever, if it is going to say it ''should'' make it clear exactly what sort of thing this is.</strike> Ha ha, sorry, wow, I jumped that gun on that, huh? Just assumed it was sttraight revert. Nevermind. Sorry. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:41, 19 November 2011 (EST)
			::It's alright. I just thought it was better presented in the opening line. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 11:18, 19 November 2011 (EST)
	I clearly shouldn't be doing stuff on the internet right now when I'm barely awake anbd feel like crap, sorry. But i do want to say again that we don't need whole articles for every single gag in the movies, do we? This should be deleted IMO. I go away now.--[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:46, 19 November 2011 (EST)		I clearly shouldn't be doing stuff on the internet right now when I'm barely awake anbd feel like crap, sorry. But i do want to say again that we don't need whole articles for every single gag in the movies, do we? This should be deleted IMO. I go away now.--[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:46, 19 November 2011 (EST)
			:While I wouldn't have made this article, I'm not really one to talk when it comes to making articles on "gags". [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 11:18, 19 November 2011 (EST)

KilMichaelMcC at 15:46, 19 November 2011

2011-11-19T15:46:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, 19 November 2011
Line 5:		Line 5:
	While I still see no reason for a single gag like this to warrant an article of its own, as long as it's hear it should at least comment on it's nature. So now it does. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:33, 19 November 2011 (EST)		While I still see no reason for a single gag like this to warrant an article of its own, as long as it's hear it should at least comment on it's nature. So now it does. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:33, 19 November 2011 (EST)
	:<strike>And now it doesn't. Great. Well, I'm in no mood for a fucking revert war, so I'll just say that while this shouldn't be an article at all, because we don't need articles for every individual gag ever, if it is going to say it ''should'' make it clear exactly what sort of thing this is.</strike> Ha ha, sorry, wow, I jumped that gun on that, huh? Just assumed it was sttraight revert. Nevermind. Sorry. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:41, 19 November 2011 (EST)		:<strike>And now it doesn't. Great. Well, I'm in no mood for a fucking revert war, so I'll just say that while this shouldn't be an article at all, because we don't need articles for every individual gag ever, if it is going to say it ''should'' make it clear exactly what sort of thing this is.</strike> Ha ha, sorry, wow, I jumped that gun on that, huh? Just assumed it was sttraight revert. Nevermind. Sorry. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:41, 19 November 2011 (EST)
			I clearly shouldn't be doing stuff on the internet right now when I'm barely awake anbd feel like crap, sorry. But i do want to say again that we don't need whole articles for every single gag in the movies, do we? This should be deleted IMO. I go away now.--[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:46, 19 November 2011 (EST)

KilMichaelMcC at 15:42, 19 November 2011

2011-11-19T15:42:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:42, 19 November 2011
Line 4:		Line 4:

	While I still see no reason for a single gag like this to warrant an article of its own, as long as it's hear it should at least comment on it's nature. So now it does. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:33, 19 November 2011 (EST)		While I still see no reason for a single gag like this to warrant an article of its own, as long as it's hear it should at least comment on it's nature. So now it does. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:33, 19 November 2011 (EST)
	:And now it doesn't. Great. Well, I'm in no mood for a fucking revert war, so I'll just say that while this shouldn't be an article at all, because we don't need articles for every individual gag ever, if it is going to say it ''should'' make it clear exactly what sort of thing this is. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:41, 19 November 2011 (EST)		:<strike>And now it doesn't. Great. Well, I'm in no mood for a fucking revert war, so I'll just say that while this shouldn't be an article at all, because we don't need articles for every individual gag ever, if it is going to say it ''should'' make it clear exactly what sort of thing this is.</strike> Ha ha, sorry, wow, I jumped that gun on that, huh? Just assumed it was sttraight revert. Nevermind. Sorry. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:41, 19 November 2011 (EST)

KilMichaelMcC at 15:41, 19 November 2011

2011-11-19T15:41:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:41, 19 November 2011
Line 4:		Line 4:

	While I still see no reason for a single gag like this to warrant an article of its own, as long as it's hear it should at least comment on it's nature. So now it does. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:33, 19 November 2011 (EST)		While I still see no reason for a single gag like this to warrant an article of its own, as long as it's hear it should at least comment on it's nature. So now it does. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:33, 19 November 2011 (EST)
			:And now it doesn't. Great. Well, I'm in no mood for a fucking revert war, so I'll just say that while this shouldn't be an article at all, because we don't need articles for every individual gag ever, if it is going to say it ''should'' make it clear exactly what sort of thing this is. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:41, 19 November 2011 (EST)

KilMichaelMcC at 15:33, 19 November 2011

2011-11-19T15:33:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:33, 19 November 2011
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:: I concur with Killmichael. [[User:Tom Servo the Great\|Tom Servo the Great]] 22:45, 18 November 2011 (EST)		:: I concur with Killmichael. [[User:Tom Servo the Great\|Tom Servo the Great]] 22:45, 18 November 2011 (EST)
	Canon is agnostic in regards to appropriateness. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 00:39, 19 November 2011 (EST)		Canon is agnostic in regards to appropriateness. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 00:39, 19 November 2011 (EST)
	While I still see no reason for a single gag like this to warrant an article of its own, as long as it's hear it should at least comment on it's nature. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:33, 19 November 2011 (EST)
			While I still see no reason for a single gag like this to warrant an article of its own, as long as it's hear it should at least comment on it's nature. So now it does. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:33, 19 November 2011 (EST)

KilMichaelMcC at 15:33, 19 November 2011

2011-11-19T15:33:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:33, 19 November 2011
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:: I concur with Killmichael. [[User:Tom Servo the Great\|Tom Servo the Great]] 22:45, 18 November 2011 (EST)		:: I concur with Killmichael. [[User:Tom Servo the Great\|Tom Servo the Great]] 22:45, 18 November 2011 (EST)
	Canon is agnostic in regards to appropriateness. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 00:39, 19 November 2011 (EST)		Canon is agnostic in regards to appropriateness. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 00:39, 19 November 2011 (EST)
			While I still see no reason for a single gag like this to warrant an article of its own, as long as it's hear it should at least comment on it's nature. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:33, 19 November 2011 (EST)

ItsWalky at 05:39, 19 November 2011

2011-11-19T05:39:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:39, 19 November 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Does this one (unfunny, racist, sexist) gag need an article? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 22:00, 18 November 2011 (EST)		Does this one (unfunny, racist, sexist) gag need an article? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 22:00, 18 November 2011 (EST)
	:: I concur with Killmichael. [[User:Tom Servo the Great\|Tom Servo the Great]] 22:45, 18 November 2011 (EST)		:: I concur with Killmichael. [[User:Tom Servo the Great\|Tom Servo the Great]] 22:45, 18 November 2011 (EST)
			Canon is agnostic in regards to appropriateness. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 00:39, 19 November 2011 (EST)

Tom Servo the Great at 03:45, 19 November 2011

2011-11-19T03:45:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:45, 19 November 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Does this one (unfunny, racist, sexist) gag need an article? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 22:00, 18 November 2011 (EST)		Does this one (unfunny, racist, sexist) gag need an article? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 22:00, 18 November 2011 (EST)
			:: I concur with Killmichael. [[User:Tom Servo the Great\|Tom Servo the Great]] 22:45, 18 November 2011 (EST)

KilMichaelMcC: New page: Does this one (unfunny, racist, sexist) gag need an article? --~~~~

2011-11-19T03:00:02Z

New page: Does this one (unfunny, racist, sexist) gag need an article? --~~~~

New page

Does this one (unfunny, racist, sexist) gag need an article? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 22:00, 18 November 2011 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 19 November 2011
Line 5:		Line 5:
	While I still see no reason for a single gag like this to warrant an article of its own, as long as it's hear it should at least comment on it's nature. So now it does. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:33, 19 November 2011 (EST)		While I still see no reason for a single gag like this to warrant an article of its own, as long as it's hear it should at least comment on it's nature. So now it does. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:33, 19 November 2011 (EST)
	:<strike>And now it doesn't. Great. Well, I'm in no mood for a fucking revert war, so I'll just say that while this shouldn't be an article at all, because we don't need articles for every individual gag ever, if it is going to say it ''should'' make it clear exactly what sort of thing this is.</strike> Ha ha, sorry, wow, I jumped that gun on that, huh? Just assumed it was sttraight revert. Nevermind. Sorry. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:41, 19 November 2011 (EST)		:<strike>And now it doesn't. Great. Well, I'm in no mood for a fucking revert war, so I'll just say that while this shouldn't be an article at all, because we don't need articles for every individual gag ever, if it is going to say it ''should'' make it clear exactly what sort of thing this is.</strike> Ha ha, sorry, wow, I jumped that gun on that, huh? Just assumed it was sttraight revert. Nevermind. Sorry. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:41, 19 November 2011 (EST)
			::It's alright. I just thought it was better presented in the opening line. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 11:18, 19 November 2011 (EST)
	I clearly shouldn't be doing stuff on the internet right now when I'm barely awake anbd feel like crap, sorry. But i do want to say again that we don't need whole articles for every single gag in the movies, do we? This should be deleted IMO. I go away now.--[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:46, 19 November 2011 (EST)		I clearly shouldn't be doing stuff on the internet right now when I'm barely awake anbd feel like crap, sorry. But i do want to say again that we don't need whole articles for every single gag in the movies, do we? This should be deleted IMO. I go away now.--[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:46, 19 November 2011 (EST)
			:While I wouldn't have made this article, I'm not really one to talk when it comes to making articles on "gags". [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 11:18, 19 November 2011 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, 19 November 2011
Line 5:		Line 5:
	While I still see no reason for a single gag like this to warrant an article of its own, as long as it's hear it should at least comment on it's nature. So now it does. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:33, 19 November 2011 (EST)		While I still see no reason for a single gag like this to warrant an article of its own, as long as it's hear it should at least comment on it's nature. So now it does. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:33, 19 November 2011 (EST)
	:<strike>And now it doesn't. Great. Well, I'm in no mood for a fucking revert war, so I'll just say that while this shouldn't be an article at all, because we don't need articles for every individual gag ever, if it is going to say it ''should'' make it clear exactly what sort of thing this is.</strike> Ha ha, sorry, wow, I jumped that gun on that, huh? Just assumed it was sttraight revert. Nevermind. Sorry. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:41, 19 November 2011 (EST)		:<strike>And now it doesn't. Great. Well, I'm in no mood for a fucking revert war, so I'll just say that while this shouldn't be an article at all, because we don't need articles for every individual gag ever, if it is going to say it ''should'' make it clear exactly what sort of thing this is.</strike> Ha ha, sorry, wow, I jumped that gun on that, huh? Just assumed it was sttraight revert. Nevermind. Sorry. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:41, 19 November 2011 (EST)
			I clearly shouldn't be doing stuff on the internet right now when I'm barely awake anbd feel like crap, sorry. But i do want to say again that we don't need whole articles for every single gag in the movies, do we? This should be deleted IMO. I go away now.--[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:46, 19 November 2011 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:33, 19 November 2011
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:: I concur with Killmichael. [[User:Tom Servo the Great\|Tom Servo the Great]] 22:45, 18 November 2011 (EST)		:: I concur with Killmichael. [[User:Tom Servo the Great\|Tom Servo the Great]] 22:45, 18 November 2011 (EST)
	Canon is agnostic in regards to appropriateness. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 00:39, 19 November 2011 (EST)		Canon is agnostic in regards to appropriateness. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 00:39, 19 November 2011 (EST)
	While I still see no reason for a single gag like this to warrant an article of its own, as long as it's hear it should at least comment on it's nature. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:33, 19 November 2011 (EST)
			While I still see no reason for a single gag like this to warrant an article of its own, as long as it's hear it should at least comment on it's nature. So now it does. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:33, 19 November 2011 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:33, 19 November 2011
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:: I concur with Killmichael. [[User:Tom Servo the Great\|Tom Servo the Great]] 22:45, 18 November 2011 (EST)		:: I concur with Killmichael. [[User:Tom Servo the Great\|Tom Servo the Great]] 22:45, 18 November 2011 (EST)
	Canon is agnostic in regards to appropriateness. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 00:39, 19 November 2011 (EST)		Canon is agnostic in regards to appropriateness. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 00:39, 19 November 2011 (EST)
			While I still see no reason for a single gag like this to warrant an article of its own, as long as it's hear it should at least comment on it's nature. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:33, 19 November 2011 (EST)