User talk:Griffintown

A Lovely Dialogue that Griffintown had with Dr. Spammalot

Thanks for undoing all my hard work, dumbass.Mah boi 19:35, 29 October 2009 (CET)

• I aim to please! :D Griffintown 19:36, 29 October 2009 (CET)

• You hate me don't you. Mah boi 19:44, 29 October 2009 (CET)

• Hate, for me, needs a certain amount of respect. As far as I can tell, you are merely annoying and not worth of hating.Griffintown 22:05, 29 October 2009 (CET)

Psssst

You don't get the sarcasm very well do you? Spoiler: I'm Kacey. GenesisHime 08:06, 1 November 2009 (CET)

• So glad to meet you Kacey. I am the King of Spain, at your service! :D Griffintown 15:51, 1 November 2009 (CET)

• Sweet! Spain is awesome. GenesisHime 17:58, 1 November 2009 (CET)

the fuck is wrong with you?

learn to use

it's not that hard. --Sonijew 18:37, 29 December 2009 (CET)

Because you'll get different effect on different moitors and resolutions anyway (a PROTIP). --Sonijew 18:41, 29 December 2009 (CET)

• Yup, my big mistake. I din't knew the template existed. I went back and fixed some of the mess I made when I discovered it earlier today. Sorry for the mess. Griffintown 19:14, 29 December 2009 (CET)

Contact me

See my user page - either get in touch with my on AIM or on IRC. We need to talk (it's nothing bad). --Champthom 03:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Videos

It's not quite done... there's still vids on the list without a date at all; all I did was formatting. But thanks =) --Umad 05:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• You are doing a stellar job so far, I salute you. Griffintown 05:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice job stopping that vandal

Srsly. --Champthom 07:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• No vandal will mess with the CWCki on my watch. Third time I had to deal with one here. I am glad I can ban them now. ;) Griffintown 07:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and have a safe day

Thanks for helping me with the 01142010.MOV page. I was trying to help out some by getting the page up fast, but lack of proper wiki skillz hindered that effort. Cows 21:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, no problem! Skills came with practice, don't worry yourself so much. Have a nice day! Griffintown 21:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Curse-Ye-Ha-Me-Ha

I see you changing a lot of curse words to SFW; is that a thing that we're doing? I understand it in a lot of cases. Usually there's no impact on the content or the delivery, other than to make it more professional.

But other times it seems like a little excessive, considering the NSFW nature of so much of CWCki's content, and the creative component of CWCki writing vs. Wikipedia. Like the change on the straw page: "fucking vacuum lungs" is totally different than "lungs able to generate vacuum". The mental imagery is different, the humor value is different, and the readability/flow is different. The original author wasn't trying to make a physical analysis of gas pressures; they were trying to say that your lungs have to be comically powerful machines. The way it is now is just... blah.

Let me know what's up in case I need to be looking for things too, or if this was more of a personal thing. --Dude 04:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have two reasons for working on this. First, swear words are highly unimaginative. Of course I am impressed by the versatility of the word "Fuck" and it's derivatives but it degrades the article for nothing. Yes, it adds some emotional emphasis but, if you can't explain it without proper words, why bother? I have to agree with the loss of humor in some article but I am convinced that we can do better. Then, I noticed that articles with "Blubber" (material unrelated to Chris) were littered with swear words. Since both are correlated, it makes my work easier. If the swear word is in a "Historical Document" or a talk page, I will ignore it. So this is nothing personal (I dint went Southern-Baptist on you all) I just want the CWCki to look shiny-clean. Griffintown 05:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I can agree with that; it's generally overplayed (like "JULAY" or "of Fail" or any number of other now-"ho-hum" items). I have wtf'd a few times on the rephrased versions, though (e.g. lungs). I think in general, if "fucking" can be deleted completely without changing the meaning of the phrase, it's definitely not needed (or can be replaced by a more expressive adjective). But it gets a little weird when we start substituting mild language for some, like these ones:

Sarah didn't give a flying toss -> Sarah couldn't care less

Chris would be willing to fuck a dog. -> Chris would be willing to have intercourse with a dog.

Those changes really kind of take the air out of the phrases, and don't give them the 'smirk' that the articles had before. The articles still need to be fun to read... CWCki is entertainment, after all. Fuck may be overplayed, but it shouldn't be verboten.

But seriously, it's only maybe one out of every forty or fifty of your edits that are like this. This being a wiki, I guess I should just shut up and fix 'em as I think they should be, but I don't want to step on any toes. Would you be offended if, in those cases, I hit it a second time? I promise not to get in a revert war with you--if we can't agree after one round, I'll happily defer. --Dude 06:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, the very nature of the Wiki system is the capacity to re-edit everything. Please feel free to add to everything I have edited. I am sure that you might have better ideas that mine on the subject and it would be a waste to ignore them. I assure you, I am secure enough with my Ego to not slip into a edit-war. Do your Best! Griffintown 07:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Allow me to step in for a minute. While, CWCki is not ED, it's not totally Wikipedia either. We can cuss, we can use more personal language in articles, etc. I've seen some articles where there's an informal tone in some passages that would never fly on Wikipedia. It's not truly encyclopedic to have informal tones like this, but it makes articles readable - one of the goals really should be to make articles readable yet accurate and objective. For instance, let's look at 2007. Strictly speaking, the article should start with "2007 is the year we made contact with Chris." However, right now it starts with "The year we made contact." It's less formal but it works a lot better. It's catchy, it draws the reader in. It's better that way.

So, where does swearing come in? First, please remember the audience - I'd say the core of trolls tend to be 18-25 year old males, current or former /b/tards where swearing is pretty tame. You're going to come off as dorky if you said something like "Chris would be willing to have intercourse with a dog." It's too wordy. "Chris would be willing to have sex with a dog" is alright, but pretty bland. "Chris would be willing to fuck a dog" has flavor to it. It appeals to the audience who are not offended and it has a stronger connotation than just "sex." "Fucking" generally indicates a sort of more carnal sex - you fuck a whore, you have sex with your girlfriend, you make love to your wife. But I think in some cases, people do try to hard so in a situation like "Sarah didn't give a flying fuck" could easily be reworded like "Sarah couldn't care less" or maybe "Sarah couldn't give a shit less" to give it some flavor.

Editors should try to keep in mind that in writing articles, try to write for your audience. CWCki should have articles that are readable such that trolls will want to read them without feeling like falling asleep or being bored. A little spice goes a long way. But that doesn't mean you pour the whole damn pepper shaker onto the plate. In other words, a bit of swearing is okay, if it conveys some impact, but if swearing is there when a non-swear word will do, then by all means replace it. --Champthom 07:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion, briefly: it is silly to eliminate the F-word from a site that extensively discusses and displays Chris masturbating, shaking his naked ass, and yes, fucking the shit out of a blow-up doll. Also, if you're going to go on a crusade against naughty words, you should at least be willing to properly capitalize and format the words you replace them with. Dkaien 07:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)