Difference between revisions of "Talk:Jackie"
Kwippleton (talk | contribs) |
(→Uhm.: new section) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
You have to remember that The Wallflower herself requested to take her name down of the site - all the other names e.g. Megan Schroeder are still there --[[User:Maximilian Graves|Maximilian Graves]] 19:14, 13 September 2010 (PDT) | You have to remember that The Wallflower herself requested to take her name down of the site - all the other names e.g. Megan Schroeder are still there --[[User:Maximilian Graves|Maximilian Graves]] 19:14, 13 September 2010 (PDT) | ||
== Uhm. == | |||
Are you deliberately not using Tineye? | |||
http://www.amateurdump.net/587/what-a-fucking-hot-redhead/ | |||
--[[User:ChkSss|ChkSss]] 03:25, 14 September 2010 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 05:25, 14 September 2010
tl;dr: This woman decided to contact us and wants to tell other women not to go out with chris. she doesn't know how the wiki shit works so just like...i'm handling it for now. so yeah. okay. Clydec 04:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
and apparently now she's back with chris for some reason. Clydec 14:35, 13 September 2010 (PDT)
- I'm assuming this is the same woman as in the Jackie e-mails, right? - Boop 15:24, 13 September 2010 (PDT)
Wasn't the Jackie page deleted sometime ago between the 6th and now while we were trying to figure it out. Or am I forgetting the origonal name? --SerenityMoonstone 21:37, 13 September 2010.
I thought that listing the last name was a no-no after the Wallflower incident. Is this something that should be taken out or are we going to leave it up this time? --Caboose -1 19:10, 13 September 2010 (PDT)
You have to remember that The Wallflower herself requested to take her name down of the site - all the other names e.g. Megan Schroeder are still there --Maximilian Graves 19:14, 13 September 2010 (PDT)
Uhm.
Are you deliberately not using Tineye? http://www.amateurdump.net/587/what-a-fucking-hot-redhead/ --ChkSss 03:25, 14 September 2010 (PDT)