Notice: We are aware that many of the Chewiki’s images are still broken. We promise: we will try our best to fix it, but we don't guarantee that the fix will be trivial.
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Chris-Chan"
m (Oops.) |
|||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
==I think he made that comic bad on purpose.== | ==I think he made that comic bad on purpose.== | ||
| − | Isn't that obvious? - [[User:Melink]] | + | Isn't that obvious? - [[User:Melink|Melink]] |
| − | :Possibly, but probably not. - [[User:TheMarxer]] | + | :Possibly, but probably not. - [[User:TheMarxer|TheMarxer]] |
Latest revision as of 07:41, 31 July 2010
No, seriously. Aside from the sarcastic tone of "his comics" section (and the "kawaii boy" bit), everything in this article is completely true. Just look: (NOTE: Some links are NSFW.)
And of course...
--NinjaCoachZ 14:48, 18 May 2010 (CDT)
- I see. -Yoshit
Just throwing this out there...[edit]
I think I should keep an eye on this article just because it honestly has the potential to turn into a complete mockery similar to the ED article. In its current state the article looks fine but like I said, potential is key. And please, don't accuse me of defending the guy or being a "white knight" like many of the CWC-obsessives would say because I think the guy is as weird as could be but I don't want things getting out of hand, and I find the people who closely watch the sad little sod to be as creepy and obsessive as Chris.
tl;dr Just keep it clean, but not clean enough you could eat off it. The Chewiki's "White Knight", Billion 03:30, 19 May 2010 (CDT)
- Yeah, that's what I'm aiming for. Funny, but not directly making fun of him. --NinjaCoachZ 05:13, 19 May 2010 (CDT)
Way too far as in directly making fun of him, or too much information? - TheMarxer
- Both. We don't need a complete rundown, and we don't want to be Encyclopedia Dramatica. --NinjaCoachZ 21:22, 26 June 2010 (CDT)
- Okay.
I think he made that comic bad on purpose.[edit]
Isn't that obvious? - Melink
- Possibly, but probably not. - TheMarxer
