CWCki:Community Portal

The Community Portal is designed to be a public forum to discuss CWCki related affairs for site wide concerns, policy, that sort of thing.

Please consult the archives to make sure your concern hasn't already been posted before:

CWCki:Community Portal/Archive 1
CWCki:Community Portal/Archive 2
CWCki:Community Portal/Archive 3

Welcome to the future

Welcome to the glorious future of MediaWiki 1.15.1! MediaWiki 1.11 was really old and busted.

Here are some of the things people should be aware of:

• This version of MediaWiki uses a new markup parser. It's a stricter parser that works a little bit differently from the old one. Which incidentally means that if you have broken markup somewhere, it might have worked in previous version, but it doesn't work any more at all. You may see a lot of articles that have broken <center> tags. Make sure they're properly balanced!
• There are a few new features that we might put to good use. One is __HIDDENCAT__. You can use it to hide categories that are purely for editors, and don't actually have stuff that benefits readers. For example, it's used in Stubs and Articles needing citations now.

I'll probably post more when I get inspired. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 12:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Some help needed at Templates. Some frequently used templates had consistently broken markup and have missing </center> tags. They also use <table> tags instead of MediaWiki table tags. Take a look at what I did at, say, Template:Needs Images to see how to fix all of these, for the GLORIOUS FUTURE. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 12:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

<center>

I'm pretty sure the (center) thing comes when people put a {{quote}} inside a <center></center> tag; quote has its own center tags included, so when MediaWiki parses them both you get two open tags and two close tags. One of the open tags, then, is rendered as text. --Umad 01:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Problem can also be avoided by changing the 'center' tag on Template:Quote to CSS; I'll look at it later. --Umad 14:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's more difficult than I expected... looks like {{quote}} is going to remain cludgey for the time being, until somebody more patient/learn'd than I takes a crack at it. --Umad 01:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Broken refs

Similar issue: Some articles may use <ref> tags without corresponding <references/>. Previous version was silent about this, but new version puts a giant big red warning in the end of the articles. If you see it, please add a source section! --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 14:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris and/New pages

There's a lot of newfags, which isn't a bad thing but I think some people who decided to get into editing CWCki since we moved to the new server and who really haven't gotten a feel of how we do things around here. For starters, a lot of people want to start making pages which can be alright, but the problem is that they really don't get when a new page is warranted and when it's not. Particularly, it seems like the "Chris and" series is drawing a lot of attention to this regard.

For starters, let's discuss the "Chris and" series of articles. I think I might have actually come up with it, now that I think about it, mimicking how CWCkipedia might have an article like "x and y" to discuss topics that are too in depth for the main subject article. For example, there might be an article called "Thomas Jefferson and slavery" to discuss his views on slavery since it's such a huge topic that can't reasonably fit in the main Thomas Jefferson article. Same deal here - we could in theory mention this shit on the Christian Weston Chandler article but that would be huge, especially for topics like sex. It would be awkward to call something like "Chris and sex" just "sex" since people know what sex is, what they want to know is Chris's relationship to it.

I think the problem is that every single trait of Chris does not need a lengthy discussion unless it's very notable. Do we need a full page discussion that Chris isn't reliable when it can simply be said "Chris is not very reliable"? Likewise, there's a need for a degree of subjectivity - what is reliability? It's not like Chris sets any deadlines to make. Furthermore, not everything has to be "Chris and." As I said elsewhere, pretty much every article on here could be a "Chris and [x]" article. HOMOS could easily be "Chris and homosexuality." JERKS could be "Chris and men." Women's rights could be "Chris and feminism." Point is, not everything has to be "Chris and." For fuck's sake, be original. Think of a better name. For example, "Chris and facts" could easily be called "The world according to Chris." Unorthodox but more original.

About new pages in general, seriously, not every little thing about Chris deserves a page if it can be incorporated into existing pages. As long as it's mentioned somewhere, it's cool. Srsly.

Feel free to weigh in on this. --Champthom 00:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the Chris and: Series, I really do, but It's really only for things that play major, consistent roles in the bizarre story of Chris-Chan. Chris and writing is a good example. The way Chris writes is just so impossibly fucked up that it deserves more than just a single mention in the main chris article, but calling it just "Writing" is weird and awkward.

I think some of these new articles could really go far. Chris and Authority seems like it could cover an awful lot, but people really need to draft their articles in their sandboxes or talkpages to show what they're aiming for instead of just making a page with the title and a half-paragraph.--Beat 00:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have a mind to try a 'Chris and competition' article. Covering not just in regards to how he feels entitled to win all competitions, thats covered in Chris and his ego. I was thinking also about how he views things that he dislikes negatively because he believes it competes with something he does approve of, Such as with the whole 'Aspergers vs Autism' fight that he seems to believe exists. Or his strange idea that Harry Potter sucks for competing with pokemon, even though Harry Potter is a book and movie series and pokemon is a game and anime series. I'm not too sure about whether or not to go ahead with it though. I think it may end up being rather small. Do you think I should go for it, or incorperate it into another article? --Edward 02:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• I say go for it. It's one of those weird quirks (of Chris) that we don't really understand because we haven't taken much of alook at it. Maybe start with a thread on /cwc/ to get more ideas/opinions about these things before you start writing. There's also how Chris 'competes' against other boys in his fuck quest, that might already be covered elsewhere, but maybe you could go more in-depth. -Whoreos n' Milf 19:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Asperpedia

Clyde has started Asperpedia, the OFFICIAL and ORIGINAL wiki for Asperchu, the electric hedgehog Pokemon with Asperger's syndrome. From what I've gathered from Clyde, it's going to be like a cross between CWCki and CWCipedia. As there's many gifted wiki editors here, I encourage all of you to help out there (particularly with uploading all the comic pages of Asperchu onto there).

Ideally, big things will come from this, wink wink stomp stomp nudge nudge. --Champthom 20:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm such a dumbass, here's the link. --Champthom 23:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I lol'd--Toughdog6789 06:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality control jerkops

I have just promoted Griffintown as the CWCki's first Quality Control Jerkop to patrol the CWCki to ensure high quality Bavarian standards for CWCki (i.e. pages don't suck). There will be a 30 day probationary period, ending 07 February 2010 so he will have to prove in that period he can help maintain high quality standards for CWCki.

CWCki strives itself on providing top notch info about Chris and the idea is that these new Jerkops will assist in making sure the CWCki doesn't suck and the information is accurate.

Godspeed to Griffintown and if you have concerns about article quality, be sure to mention it to him. --Champthom 04:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to thanks Champthon for the great mark of confidence he did to me by giving me the extra powers needed to keep this place clean. If any member of the CWCki community feels the need to discuss any of my decisions here, please leave me a message on my talk page. I am ready to listen to any comment that can make the CWCki site a better reference on everything Chris-Related. Griffintown 03:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also promoted Dude (formerly Umad) to Quality Control. Same thing as Griffintown, same probationary period. That's it for Quality Control promotions at the moment and I'll review how they do at the end of their probationary period to see if they remain permanently. --Champthom 01:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. I have recently been occupying myself with formatting issues and finding homes for Unused Files (thank my meticulous Swiss ancestors), but I will now start being more proactive with page organization and content as well. Please do not hesitate contact me with thoughts, questions, suggestions or critiques! --Dude 06:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixing internal links pointing to the old site

Apparently people used tons of internal hard links to the old site. Most of these are simply attempts to link at "tricky to link" entries, like categories and images. (Hint: You can make a link to a category or image if you prefix the link with a :, like [[:Category:Something|Category of Randomness]].) The above link lists all such links in main namespace, which is pretty important. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 10:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Stuff that Chris didn't do

Chris and racism currently has a PROTIP that says that Chris never actually used the expression "darkies". It reminds me: Should we have some sort of list of stuff that's often attributed to Chris, but never happened in real life? (Some other examples that spring in mind: Chris hasn't used the word "niggos" regularly, and he didn't actually have 100% trophies in Sonichu 2006.) Or should we just have some template like the PROTIP template, like this...

GET IT THROUGH YOUR DAMN FUCKING SKULL: Chris never said or wrote "No darkies", nor has he ever used the word "darkie". That doesn't make him a non-racist, however.

Ideas? --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 19:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• I actually like this a lot. This is a good thing for actual distributions to Chris. --Champthom 01:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• The protip thing, that is. It's kinda like a little "Did you know?" thing but should be restricted to common misconceptions about Chris (like the darkies thing). --Champthom 03:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs the word INDIVIDUAL, for some reason. I think it's fine. Chris is a complicated animal and some of the more subtle things, like race relations, are open to misinterpretation. --OFSheep 21:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a most excellent idea. The template is catchy and allow proper info to flow through. I will use it in the future Griffintown 03:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial Mailbag 41 project

I was originally going to have it so Chris would receive e-mails meant for Alec Benson Leary but instead, I did something more plausible by paying tribute to this Strong Bad e-mail by having every e-mail talk about Asperchu. Post e-mails in the same vein here and I'll post them. Only rule is please, don't alter the first four e-mails. --Champthom 01:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• P.S. Deadline is like, in 24 hours. --Champthom 01:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

DPF call?

So these videos have gotten some attention and it seems like the real deal. On the one hand, some of the people in the call seem like huge fags. On the other hand, there seems to be some nuggets of truth in it. So, should we make a page for this? Consider it "apocryphal?"? Thoughts? --Champthom 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I can't listen to them right now, but I guess if an EDF idiot calls Chris and records it, it's our burden to transcribe it. Also, why the hell don't we have pages for Kacey Calls 2 and 3?--Beat 21:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: New category

Do you guys think that there should be a category for Chris-related media that has appeared publicly? By which I mean things like the Sonic the Hedgehog Watch & Win Sweepstakes or the McIntire Park video that appeared on TV. Basically, anything that's NOT exclusive to the internet. Tyranogre 22:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• The two radio shows that featured him could go in that category too, if they had their own page. --Lime 22:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, there was a 3rd radio show on satellite that mentioned him. -Whoreos n' Milf 19:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Got it started. I also added the articles that were printed in Nintendo Power, for good measure. Tyranogre 23:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mailbags vs Simple Questions

I think Clyde already made a suggestion along these lines weeks ago, but can't we just replace the mailbags with series of simple questions? Most letters in the mailbags either: (A) insult Chris such that he deletes him, or (B) mix easy and hard questions such that Chris answers the easy questions but conveniently ignores the hard ones. If we replaced (or supplemented) the mailbags with series of questions (and more focused ones than what we're sending now), we could actually get Chris to answer tougher questions. Plus, less reading for Chris = a quicker turn-around time for answers = more opportunities for us to interrogate Chris about specific subjects. Llort 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Clyde's original intent was to replace the Mailbag with the questions, hence why he wanted to phase out Operation Mailbag. Unfortunately, Mailbag is a popular feature on CWCipedia and it's more or less devolving into a way to troll Chris than to get genuine information from him. Difference approaches to trolling are at play, I'm afraid. --Champthom 09:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Links to articles in heading

I think other pages do this, but I know this is particularly the case in Christian Weston Chandler. I'm not sure if this is good wiki style, as generally a heading shouldn't have a link but rather have a "Main article" link - for instance, the subsection of Sonichu really should have a note that says "Main article: Sonichu" for those who wish to delve into Sonichu. However, we can if we truly want to keep it like it is, but as I've said, let's try and mimic good wiki style. Thoughts? --Champthom 09:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Name for CWCki users?

Dumb thing to talk about, but any idea for a good term to describe CWCki users? Originally, "CWCkipedians" were used but that's confusing since there's now CWCipedia. "CWCki users" is used in some cases but it's a bit bland. CWCkians? CWCkifags? You people probably can come up with something better than I can. --Champthom 10:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

CWCronologists. Christorians.--Beat 14:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• I like Christorians. We already use the term "Christory", so it makes sense to use this too. -Whoreos n' Milf 19:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• I am sold to the "Christorians" term. So classy. Griffintown 05:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Today in Christory

You guys have really made a mess of the Christory template in January! 20+ red links, I'm ashamed! Ofcourse, I'm partially to blame, but I was travelling and under stress and stuff, whilst all of YOU GUYS were playing with your xBoxes and wanking and doing the shit your kind tends to do. So, anyway, I just created all entries for February, but that doesn't mean you can slack off and ignore this again, you lazy editors! Whenever you find time just make a bunch of entries for march and beyong. Get it into your routine. It's fun. Love and peace. Template:Christory :3 RachmaninovDESU 01:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

500 intenal servic error.

I keep getting these when clicking links. Is this a problem on my end, or is the website having trouble or what?--Beat 06:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the website's fault - sometimes the site is a bit flaky, especially if you hit potentially intensive operations like page history or RecentChanges. Just try again. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 11:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Getting the same. Just hit [back] and try again. lol, I got one trying to post this. -Whoreos n' Milf 19:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: A Chris Inactivity Chart

Similar to the tracker on the front page for the comics, I think it would be nice to have a tracker for the days that Chris seemingly disappears off the face of the earth. Ever since things... escalated on his CWCipedia, he's been quieter than a North Korean dictator after a stroke. It might be nice just to have an official record of how long our glorious leader goes without making a statement to the masses. May I suggest "All Quiet on the Weston Front"? -- TubularMonkey 08:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I support this. Its a good idea for a main page feature and its a fairly good pun as well.--Edward 17:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Interesting idea, but it may be annoying to update it daily to show when Chris isn't inactive those times when he seems to update stuff every day. --Champthom 19:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Even if I hated this idea, I would support it for the sake of the pun. (And I happen to love the idea.) Llort 20:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Quintin Tarantino

Would anyone be up for an article comparing Chris to Tarantino? Both are insensitive plagiarist, I think something good could be done here.

• No. Sign your comments--ThatMan 18:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Piping

Someone, do me a favor - take this and rework it to make it relevant to CWCki.

Seriously, I am tired of fucking shitty piping. "Lack of female companionship" should not pipe to Virginia is for Virgins. I would personally pipe it to "virgin with rage" or something like that. There's too much shitty piping going on and it needs to stop. --Champthom 21:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• How's this? Revolver Octopus 02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Special assignment

I have a special assignment for the CWCki for those who wish to accept it. Prerequisite is you have a LOT of free time.

AIM me or contact me in #sonichu (details on my user page) for more information. --Champthom 20:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Coca-cola

Considering how much CWC mentions coca-cola and his whole tangle with the company, should a Coca-Cola page be started? Chaosakita 08:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't the right place to suggest new articles. Also CWC Cola and My Coke Rewards. I guess that should cover most relevant shit on sugary kiddie-drinks, so no. :3 RachmaninovDESU 03:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Announcement

Since no one has risen to the challenge to be a temporary admin, instead I'll just say that until Tuesday, I'll be traveling and thus unable to monitor the CWCki. If there's some dispute how to do shit, sort it out amongst yourselves. If shit gets serious, then ask Cogs or Clyde. But ideally, I'm sure you're all big boys and girls and can sort things out yourself. --Champthom 04:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We should start a forum dedicated to Chris Chan's failings.

The CWCiki is awesome, I will admit. However, I have an great idea that if implanted correctly, will make the forum a success.

Someone here should start a forum dedicated completely to all of Chris Chan's failings. We can talk about anything Chris Chan releated and a lot more.

Does anyone agree? I'll start up the forum if so. Super Smash Bros. Fan 21:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• How would it be different from cwc? - Liquid! 21:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Or PVCC (aside from the fact they aren't letting new people in, though MAYBE cogs will let you in if you edit the CWCki, but I doubt it)? --Champthom 06:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only other people are doing it better but any Forums based on Chris-Chan will drag some crowd from ED. As much as I love them, I don't want to see 13 y/o EDtards uploading their crap all over the CWCki. Yes, I am a sad bloke but a forum is not worth the extra effort. Griffintown 04:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actual Wikipedia Page?

While the CWCki is a great source for information on the failure that is Chris, shouldnt we make him more... accessible to a mainstream audience? What im saying is that I believe the mastadonic level of Chris's failure throughout his life is legitamately noteable by the standard of Wikipedia at this point. He could easily be regarded as an "Internet Trolling Victim", and if the article is written from this perspective chances are the Wikiadmins will pass it. Share your thoughts. Gettanonymous 17:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Some people are gonna be like "WE DON'T WANT NEWBS TROLLING CHRIS" but that's not why I'd say that a Wikipedia article on Chris would be a bad idea. Essentially, based on notability guidelines on Wikipedia, for someone to be notable, you need for starters significant coverage and reliable secondary sources. To be honest, we're not really reliable since we're pretty biased as fuck, and Chris in the scheme of things isn't really that popular - he's been on maybe one, two big blogs but other than that he's mostly been on ED, random YouTube faggots' pages, etc. There's a lot of bigger Internet celebrities who don't have their own Wikipedia page and it's not the end of the world that they don't have them. Not to mention people regularly try to start a page for Chris and usually get shot down fast and frankly.

I think CWCki does its best to present Chris to the mainstream better than say, ED. Just because we work to document Chris's fail does not mean we're on some sort of mission though to spread the word or anything like that. --Champthom 18:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It probably is too soon. But the harder Chris fails the more the public will start looking at him. Its only a matter of time before making a wikipedia page titled "Chistian Weston Chandler (Serial Rapist)" will be justifiable. Gettanonymous 18:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the problem we have. Websites like ours or Wikipedia are pretty reactive. They are accessed by those seeking info. We are not pushing any messages out. For me, trying to put Chris-Chan up on Wikipedia in the name of accessing a mainstream audience is a moot point. Yes, I am waiting for Chris to produce an "Exhibit A" anytime soon. Griffintown 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So Chris has discovered the CWCki (finally)

As you can guess, he'll have to pry those pages from my COLD, DEAD HANDS before I consider deleting them. It's not surprising that Chris is targeting those particular pages, though maybe he's being pragmatic in that he knows he won't get the entire thing taken down.

Expect a video statement from me defending the CWCki and our refusal to comply. Much is at stake here, people, we shall not submit to Chris. CWCki policy refuses to censor itself (the only exception when there is a clear threat of direct harm as a result of something on the CWCki) and we shall not cave in to Chris's demands.

This is our hour, guys. Chris has discovered the fruits of our labor and we shall not go down without a fight. --Champthom 07:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• We will not vanish without a fight! We are going to live on! We are going to survive! Today, we celebrate our CWCkindependance Day! --T K 19 08:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• On second thought, I changed my mind about a video. As per "CWCki is not ED", we're not so much mocking Chris but trying to explain him. While a CWCki saga would be interesting, I'd rather risk possible "lulz" than CWCki's reputation as a (mostly) reliable and open source of Chris related information. In other words, let's not feed into Chris's ego at the moment by not responding in the positive or affirmative to his threat. If he does respond in some way, well, we're take it from there.

If one thing comes out of this, I really want to hear what Chris's opinion of the CWCki is. I wonder how far he's looked into the articles and I'm guessing if he's only seen the articles of people personally connected to him, he hasn't delved far. --Champthom 11:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I totally know how this will all go down. He's going to send some complaints, which won't work. Then he will register one or more accounts on this wiki and start editing, but of course with his edits we can all determine who he will be. Finally, he will include this website in a future installment of Sonichu, probably using a retarded plot like the survivors of the 4-Cent Garbage building assault have formed a remnant organization called CWCki to use as a hideout, and he and all the mary-sues will come destroy the trolls once and for all. Chris will give himself new powers, Heather Dalley (or the Wallflower) will be gruesomely killed off and mourned for exactly ONE panel, CWCki will fall and Chris will have certain users horribly executed and claim moral victory for himself. After all this, nothing will have changed. --Ninjaclown 09:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Chris already ramble previously about how trolls are good because most of the trolls are just documenting his life and acting like the paparazzi or something? Oh, wait, we hit the limit of his attention span. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 10:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• We need to find that exact quote, because at exactly midnight on 12 March 2010, that's gonna be the featured quote :3. --Champthom 11:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It's in C.W.C._-_Thank_You_:). Here's a go at it with the relevant portion, let me know what you think: --Executor32 14:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

“	It is good to have my own trolls. They may try, and sometimes succeed, in getting true, hard, honest information from one, and they may later twist the truth for their evil purposes. Just like the paparazzi. And, yet, they still, document the truth. And that text, audio, photographic, video, etc., type of information, is what separates the impostors from the real, true, honest individual.	”
Chris, on what we do here, 03 August 2009.

I was thinking about fucking with him. Delete those pages a few seconds before the deadline and put them back up shortly after midnight. He already hates us, so why not goad him on by exploiting loopholes? Until he comic murders us, we're his main villains. P.S. I'm glad that we were the direct cause of Chris' misfortune and pain. I love seeing him hurt. --OFSheep 12:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• What about "Booby-Trapping" pages? We could link the edit buttons of the said pages to hard-core gay porn. This should do the trick. Griffintown 14:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If we do that, which might be a good idea to deter Chris from making edits, we'd need to have a legitimate (i.e. non gay porn) way to edit the pages, in case something needs to be added or changed on those pages. Maybe have a fake advert on the side that will link to the edit page instead. But something that wouldn't interest Chris, so he won't click on it. ³⁷ Rb ^85.468 15:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Chris used paper strips to hide a side of his computer monitor when he uploads on his shitty site CWCipedia so he won't see the porn. I have a better idea; what about a "Pop-Up" window covering the edit page of all the articles? You want to edit? You must close the Phalus-Enhanced window that had just popped on your screen. That would be quite a deterrent for Chris and a minor hassle for us. Griffintown 16:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
      • And for those of us with a pop-up blocker, it won't be a problem at all. --BreadGod 16:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I support this. Having gay porn come up every time he tries edit warring would end this quickly. We can expect the CWCipedia forces surender within less than a week of the ads coming up. --Edward 17:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
        • CWCki is not here for trolling him. Except with the truth. --T K 19 19:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

“	As per "CWCki is not ED", we're not so much mocking Chris but trying to explain him.	”
Cogsdev, just a few paragraphs ago.

• I'm with cogs all the way on this one. We don't need to shit all over the CWCki in an attempt to piss Chris off. We exist. That's all we need to do.--Beat 19:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I said that but Cogs would be flattered in either case :3. TK said it better than I ever could. For that reason, we shouldn't try to turn CWCki into a trolling weapon. Doing so would turn the CWCki into something it isn't, at least as I see it. Something might go down but the CWCki itself won't be involved, just the persons involved, per say. If CWCki is going to be involved, it will be what we've always done and as TK put, have always done - troll Chris with the truth. --Champthom 20:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• You misunderstand. I support the gay porn links for use as a defense mechanism against Chris fucking with the pages. You know he will try with at least a few pages, and even if we don't go with that idea of gay porn links, I think we should do something to stop him fucking shit up. It shouldn't be harder to handle then any of the regular vandals here, but it'd be a good if we could somehow stop it happening in the first place. --Edward 21:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Remember his edits to the ED page. He didn't do much except blank it a couple of times, and the CWCki is way too huge for him to significantly damage. He might even give us some gems, remember shecameforcwc.jpg? We might get something nice like that.--OFSheep 21:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Any edits Chris attempts to make will be A) Pathetic B) Funny or C) Informative. Also, Chris never attempted to alter the Asperpedia to my knowledge, even though you don't need an account to do so. Either way, I don't think we need to take any precautionary steps. --T K 19 22:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Dont cave in to the basterds wills we shall stand as one--Wintermute 22:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• As much as I would have loved stashing defensive porn everywhere, an "Open Door" policy will bring much more material to us. T K is right; looks like our "muse" will delivers us fresh material at our doorsteps this Friday. We better act nice... Griffintown 22:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Just leave him to it, document his edits and then revert them. Whatever ensues will be hilarious. JerichoJack 23:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • For added hilarity, may I suggest changing the article of the now to the Homos article? This may provoke Chris into making another attempt to "Sort out fact from fiction" at the best and make him rage at the least.--MoarLurk 00:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Worth a shot. I know its a gamble, but if theres anything we know about Chris, its that he hates da homos, and especially hates being called one. It'd probably get us quite a lot of information. We thought we pretty much had Chris and his ideas of reality all summed up, and then we discover he honestly believes cartoons are real. I remember thinking, 'How the fuck did we not know that by now?' So who knows? Maybe we could get something fresh out of his stance on homos yet. --Edward 00:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • He went back and forth constantly during the Asperpedia saga, what with curing them and blowing them up and appoligizing the very day afterwards. I doubt we'll get anything more interesting than him blanking the Homos article and leaving the line "I am STRAIGHT YOU GODDAMN HOMO TROLLS!" on that front. --OFSheep 01:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • You never know with Chris. Failing that, what about the article on Snorlax? We could always use more information on her. Or he'll just blank it and replace it with "LEAVE MY MOTHER ALONE" and then we'll put the rule 34 the drunk drawfag made of him and Snorlax on his userpage. It's a good day when the best case scenario is "Chris tells us more information" and the worst case scenario is "Chris becomes angry".--MoarLurk 02:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Based on a post someone made on Krapple, I think I might need to clarify what I was saying.

There's two basic approaches to how we can react to Chris:

1. we fight him
2. we ignore him

Any plan more or less boils down to one of these two, as I see it. Let's say we decide to turn this into a struggle - then we're going to self consciously self censor ourselves, which is something I refuse to do (save for someone's personal well being is at stake, see Wallflower). In fact, I'm not a fan of some of the edits people have made before. I personally doubt that Chris will suddenly take credence of things said on the CWCki when they've been said before on ED, on the ED forum he supposedly reads, the numerous calls, e-mails, letters, etc. from white knights trying to tell him information, etc. It's implied in pretty much all the sweetheart articles that Chris's sweethearts are all trolls. Yet Chris still believes that these were all TRUE and HONEST women who were attracted to him and suddenly died for various reasons. Aside from documenting Chris, CWCki serves to dispel misconceptions about him and the trolls that surround him so we don't have faggots spouting the same memes over and over.

Okay, so we really don't need to self censor - there really doesn't seem to be anything indicative that Chris will take what we say with any more creedence than say, ED or any faggot who gets through to him. Chris bringing attention to CWCki makes us a very valuable target for white knights. No, not faggots who genuinely want to defend Chris, I'm talking about faggots who want to gain Chris's trust and will assume that Chris will see their CWCki edits and reward them handsomely so they can get their 15 minutes of e-fame. Vandals get shot down usually fast here on CWCki but it's a bit of a bitch still.

There's a reason why people trust CWCki over ED and other sources about Chris. It's not because we look legit or anything like that. It's because we have ways of doing things. Edits are not whims. I heard some EDiot make fun of us because we use "citation needed" because we're that serious. If you're going to make an outrageous claim about Chris or claim he said something, you better be prepared to say where and when. CWCki is serious business. Probably part of the reason is because we're mostly independent of trolling - this isn't PVCC where if you piss someone off, you're banned. We're not Krapple either. CWCki is generally free to do its own thing. People are allowed to express themselves freely.

So what does this mean? It means that CWCki should stay CWCki, not an elaborate trolling pawn. It is far better that we ignore Chris or at most stand our ground and remain a valuable, less biased, accurate source of information about Chris than to devote our time and energy into making the CWCki into an elaborate way of trolling Chris. I'd rather not see people censor themselves and go to great lengths just to troll Chris with CWCki when such efforts could be used more constructively.

Let's see how Chris responds. If he puts up a fight, then we might do something. If not, then we can carry on as business as usual. In fact, we should be trying for business as usual. March Mumble Madness is still on, and plenty of the Mumble chats still need to be transcribed. Don't worry about Chris discovering shit, just focus on the stuff you'd do any day. You CWCki admins are what ultimately make the CWCki so great, and I personally admire the time and dedication many of you have put in.

In the event Chris and/or white knights vandalize CWCki, jerkops, in addition to myself, Cogs, and Clyde will be on high alert for the next week or so.

In many ways, we are trolling Chris by not giving into his ego - the problem sometimes with creating villains for Chris is that it feeds into his delusion that he's some sort of hero and that he must defeat his villains to achieve his ultimate prize. In short, preserving the CWCki as it is and maintaining its integrity is our number one priority. Anything else is secondary.

Good night, CWCki, and good luck. --Champthom 11:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yeh, it seems to me the correct response to all this is as little response as possible. Personally, I reckon that anybody expecting some kind of apocalyptic confrontation is going to be sorely disappointed. I mean, practically speaking, what can Chris do? Rage and complain a bit, try to blank a few pages perhaps, maybe put a curse on cogsdev. Not much else. Then the laziness will kick in and he'll go find some other way of making an ass of himself. As for the notion that he might actually learn something from reading the CWCki...well, if there's anything I've learned from reading and contributing to this site, it's that Chris believes what Chris wants to believe. There's not a hell of a lot here that he wants to believe. Dkaien 18:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Posse commitatus

Any able bodied CWCki user who feels they can regularly monitor CWCki for recent changes in the next week or so, please contact me for a special assignment.

Current jerkops, please be on full alert. --Champthom 04:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll be home all day tomorrow and I'll likely be available this weekend. I'll help out as much as I can. --Lime 04:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• I'll gladly help. I don't really have anything important to do. --BreadGod 05:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Recently registered but very long time follower of Chris Chan (Back when ED and the sonichu home page was all we had) and lurker around here since the Cwcki's inception. Will also gladly help, I may be unavailable starting tomorrow for 2-3 days but after that I literally have all day every day free for a while. Hurrrr2 05:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• P.S. Contact info is available on my user page. Please contact me privately, guys, if you really want to help.--Champthom 05:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

possibly I get out of school early and will gladly help Message me on the details --Wintermute 06:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Response(s)

I was told to put this on the Cwcki yesterday. It's a little late

Dear Chris. We of the CWCki site have seen your demands and would wish to respond to them. First off, the CWCki's function is documentation, not trolling. We believe that your own CWCipedia does not fit all the criteria for being a wiki (only two people may edit) but is rather an online autobiography, and a rather one-sided one at that. We have filled this gap by creating an open and comprehensive documentation of you and your work.

Secondly, we of the CWCki pride ourselves in the accuracy of our articles. We strive constantly to attempt to check and double-check our articles for any errors. We have made no attempt to twist facts or lie in any way. If there is anything on our site that you believe is a lie, please let us know what it is.

Third, we never sent any message to your "girl friend", and we did not have any intention to. The person who sent the message is a third party member with no known ties to the CWCki.

Fourthly, since your "girl friend" ran away as quickly as she did, and since we go to great lengths to make our articles as accurate as possible, we are suspicious that you may have deceived her in some way. After all, if you were always telling the truth about yourself, why would she break up when she saw what she already knew?

Finally, we did not force your "girl friend" to leave you, she did that out of her own free will. We do not entirely understand why you are so angry at us for this. Hoping our further communications will be on more friendly terms, The CWCki

Well, could it hurt to make the Article of the Now into something from the Web of Life template(preferably Snorlax)? I'd like it if we could spit in his face at least a little bit before this is over.--MoarLurk 06:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Made some edits. --T K 19 07:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• It looks fine to me.
• I love this. Quite the perfect stance the CWCki need to take. Griffintown 14:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)