Talk:Van Mundegaarde

(Difference between revisions)

Revision as of 01:07, 24 July 2005

It has been suggested that the content of the page this talk page accompanies should not be a separate article on the wiki.

Please discuss below whether the content of the page should have its own article. Remember to consider ways the content could be brought up to the wiki's standards before making this determination.

If it is decided that the content should not have its own article, then the following additional issues need to be addressed:

Van Mundegaarde was a one-email throwaway joke. He does not need a page of his own. — It's dot com 00:54, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Every charachter deserves his own page jerk! -Thechamp

Excuse me, but why would you call me that? — It's dot com

And I don't stink. That insult was completely unoriginal. User:Rogue Leader.sig

"Thechamp" (24.62.243.222) is a problematic user who blanked montage and Strong Bad Email a few days ago. He doesn't hold much weight here. —BazookaJoe 01:06, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)

How did this wind up on my watchlist, anyway? Is it a copy of the Sandbox or somethin'? --Shadow Hog 00:57, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the Sandbox was moved here and back. Why would you watch the Sandbox? — It's dot com 01:02, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I have my reasons. --Shadow Hog 01:06, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Hey, if there's a page on Bub's shotgun, which will probably never be seen again, why should'nt there be a page on Van?

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 :Yeah, the Sandbox was moved here and back. Why would you watch the Sandbox? &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 01:02, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 ::I have my reasons. --[[User:Shadow Hog|Shadow Hog]] 01:06, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)
+Hey, if there's a page on Bub's shotgun, which will probably never be seen again, why should'nt there be a page on Van?