Difference between revisions of "User talk:Champthom"
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
So is there any hold up or is the page good to go? I've answered all your questions and it seems to meet all the requirements.--[[User:Steve Landcleamer|Steve Landcleamer]] 16:32, 5 May 2012 (PDT) | So is there any hold up or is the page good to go? I've answered all your questions and it seems to meet all the requirements.--[[User:Steve Landcleamer|Steve Landcleamer]] 16:32, 5 May 2012 (PDT) | ||
*Don't you think it might be a little bit imprudent to make a page about Kim?--[[User:Champthom|Champthom]] 17:58, 5 May 2012 (PDT) | *Don't you think it might be a little bit imprudent to make a page about Kim?--[[User:Champthom|Champthom]] 17:58, 5 May 2012 (PDT) | ||
*Why would it be imprudent? All the information is public and sourced. All the other gal pals have pages, so what would the problem be?--[[User:Steve Landcleamer|Steve Landcleamer]] 18:37, 5 May 2012 (PDT) |
Revision as of 20:37, 5 May 2012
Talk to me.
Be sure to check out the archives as well:
Champ, I mean it now
When I come on here and see that people like this mouthbreather have been fucking with pages while being told not to and spamming pictures of furry porn that we for some reason allow on here, and yet I have the power to neither delete the image or ban the sperg, it cuts me deep. I'm on here often enough and I've already contributed a lot to the wiki. Can you throw some Jerkop powers my way so I can sort this shit out in future? We don't have nearly enough active mods and this place seems to have this kind of shit all the time. I mean this seriously Champ, I think the CWCki could benefit a lot from more Jerkops. --Old meme 06:09, 20 April 2012 (PDT)
- Before you answer him, Champ, keep in mind that I've also been here a long time and am also actively contributing; so if you decided to give Old meme jerkop rights, I sure would appreciate receiving them as well. Just saying. --T K 19 09:24, 20 April 2012 (PDT)
- You both make good points. Could you point out the furry image though, the only image I've seen by him is that picture of Chris ejaculating on Anna's face, which I've incidentally deleted because I don't think it really improves the Anna article. Anyways, about quality in general - I've discussed this issue with Anonymax, and this goes for the both of you, that as regular users you have all the tools needed to improve the quality of the CWCki. If there's an incidence such as an edit war going on, you're welcome to ask any of the admins to step in to resolve the issue. For these reasons, I don't think it's needed to add more jerkops or admins for these reasons. However, if it ever got out of control, then I would consider making someone a quality control jerkop to enforce quality standards. However, I think for the most part you all have the tools you need, just keep making good edits and reverting shit like you have been doing and I think that should be sufficient.--Champthom 22:11, 20 April 2012 (PDT)
- He's probably talking about this picture, which was spammed on CWCki:Privacy policy. --T K 19 23:46, 20 April 2012 (PDT)
Deletion of Fail; Effects
Would it be necessary to organize a project of some kind to remove red "fail" pipes from pages across the CWCki? --IwegalBadnik 11:27, 23 April 2012 (PDT)
- Here they all are. Clean them at your leisure. --T K 19 11:57, 23 April 2012 (PDT)
Fail article deleted, stupid page names corrected, Champ finally got around to deleting the furry porn. It's been a good week. --Old meme 06:39, 24 April 2012 (PDT)
- At least SOMEONE is happy.--Champthom 04:18, 25 April 2012 (PDT)
Why did you delete the article on Kim?
She is as notable as any of the gal pals, and all the info IS public, coming from the Kacey calls.--Steve Landcleamer 23:03, 4 May 2012 (PDT)
- How do you know the Kim from the Kacey calls is the same Kim Wilson? Kim is a fairly common name. You're also assuming a lot of things, like Kim is ScarletSanctum when you have no proof of that, and you're including a lot of things that are rumors like how some apology video was because Kim was upset. --Champthom 23:04, 4 May 2012 (PDT)
- 1. Chris states her name is Kim Wilson in one of the Kacey calls.
- 2. ScarletSanctum is Kim's youtube handle, as stated in SingStar Challenge.
- 3. Chris addresses in that video that he upset Kim and Kacey with the previous video.
And if the name was an issue why not just redirect the page to "Kim"?--Steve Landcleamer 23:17, 4 May 2012 (PDT)
- How do you know that ScarletSanctum is Kim? Does Chris explicitly mention it? Also does Chris specifically say Kim in that video in that it upset her? --Champthom 23:23, 4 May 2012 (PDT)
Chris does explicitly mention it. Look at this dialouge in Kacey Call 1:
- Chris: Yeah. So you know uh, Kim, you know uh, how she, uh, yeah you know, uh, Kim, I actually heard that Kim and her friend Logan actually live in the Charlton area close to the downtown mall, you know? So if you ever wanted to look her up and, you know, just talk to her, you know, find about more about the impostor for me, or you know, see what her opinion of me is on the Internet from her point of view...
- Kacey: Oh, you want me to do some undercover stuff? Chris, that is so sweet of you! You know how much I wanted to get involved.
- Chris: Oh yeah, sure. You know that ScarletSanctum account? That's hers.
- Kacey: Okay, no, I will totally, totally message her. It's Kim Woods, you said?
- Chris: No, Kim Wilson. Totally. Message her, talk to her all about me.
As far as making the video in response to offending Kim, he also implicitly states this:
"Uh, I dedicate this video to uh, Logan. Boyfriend of my gal-pal, Kim. Yeah, anyway uh, I've--I just wanted to uh, apologize for uh...offending you in anyway"
He could also be referring to offending Logan, but either way why through the baby out with the bathwater?--Steve Landcleamer 23:35, 4 May 2012 (PDT)
- Let me think about it. In the meantime, I've made a subpage for you in the meantime.--Champthom 23:39, 4 May 2012 (PDT)
So is there any hold up or is the page good to go? I've answered all your questions and it seems to meet all the requirements.--Steve Landcleamer 16:32, 5 May 2012 (PDT)
- Don't you think it might be a little bit imprudent to make a page about Kim?--Champthom 17:58, 5 May 2012 (PDT)
- Why would it be imprudent? All the information is public and sourced. All the other gal pals have pages, so what would the problem be?--Steve Landcleamer 18:37, 5 May 2012 (PDT)