Talk:Field agents - Revision history

Gray Deign: /* Delete field agents page */ new section

2022-10-26T15:53:19Z

Delete field agents page: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:53, 26 October 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The field agents aren't Miscreants and in theory, really shouldn't get their own article, mostly due to the nature of their work and because they're people in the field, they're more susceptible than random faggots like us who hide behind a monitor in safety. I'll consult them to see how they want it handled. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 21:00, 27 September 2009 (CEST)		The field agents aren't Miscreants and in theory, really shouldn't get their own article, mostly due to the nature of their work and because they're people in the field, they're more susceptible than random faggots like us who hide behind a monitor in safety. I'll consult them to see how they want it handled. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 21:00, 27 September 2009 (CEST)
	:*K... didn't really know where to direct this, trying to fix broken links really. Guess we can just delete it again. --[[User:Fuckingstupid\|Fuckingstupid]] 23:00, 27 September 2009 (CEST)		:*K... didn't really know where to direct this, trying to fix broken links really. Guess we can just delete it again. --[[User:Fuckingstupid\|Fuckingstupid]] 23:00, 27 September 2009 (CEST)

			== Delete field agents page ==

			If there isn't a suitable redirect for this page, it should be deleted. Field agents is a broad term and has been used to reference other individuals who were not part of the Miscreants. [[User:Gray Deign\|Gray Deign]] ([[User talk:Gray Deign\|talk]]) 11:53, 26 October 2022 (EDT)

Clydec: 2 revisions

2010-01-03T08:58:56Z

2 revisions

← Older revision	Revision as of 04:58, 3 January 2010
(No difference)

VanKrause at 21:00, 27 September 2009

2009-09-27T21:00:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:00, 27 September 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The field agents aren't Miscreants and in theory, really shouldn't get their own article, mostly due to the nature of their work and because they're people in the field, they're more susceptible than random faggots like us who hide behind a monitor in safety. I'll consult them to see how they want it handled. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 21:00, 27 September 2009 (CEST)		The field agents aren't Miscreants and in theory, really shouldn't get their own article, mostly due to the nature of their work and because they're people in the field, they're more susceptible than random faggots like us who hide behind a monitor in safety. I'll consult them to see how they want it handled. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 21:00, 27 September 2009 (CEST)
			:*K... didn't really know where to direct this, trying to fix broken links really. Guess we can just delete it again. --[[User:Fuckingstupid\|Fuckingstupid]] 23:00, 27 September 2009 (CEST)

Champthom: New page: The field agents aren't Miscreants and in theory, really shouldn't get their own article, mostly due to the nature of their work and because they're people in the field, they're more susce...

2009-09-27T19:00:36Z

New page: The field agents aren't Miscreants and in theory, really shouldn't get their own article, mostly due to the nature of their work and because they're people in the field, they're more susce...

New page

The field agents aren't Miscreants and in theory, really shouldn't get their own article, mostly due to the nature of their work and because they're people in the field, they're more susceptible than random faggots like us who hide behind a monitor in safety. I'll consult them to see how they want it handled. --[[User:Champthom|Champthom]] 21:00, 27 September 2009 (CEST)