Talk:The Wallflower

Okay faggots, listen up. No personal details. Ever. Clydec 01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Would photos of her count as personal details? There's a photo on this page clearly showing her. --Marco 01:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Gotcha. Brofose 01:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Am I missing something here? Didn't Chris just inform us that this girl is no longer interested in him, with Message to the Trolls? So why are we locking down details about her now, when EDF can do no more damage? Or is there more to this?--Sonichuistehcool 01:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm sure that she got some sort of email/phone call, but we don't know enough about her or the situation to assume that she's fully out of the picture. Until then, it's better to have less info than too much info. Brofose 01:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Some explanation please? I mean, all the other galpal articles have info, what happened here? Dave

• i have received a message from wallflower herself asking for her info to be removed. while i'd rather not remove any information, at the same time, the article was focusing on personal details about the wallflower that weren't at all related to chris. since i'd rather avoid any trouble here, i've complied with her request. this new article should be used purely for chris-related information, since she is part of christory. if chris uploads information, then you can add it here, but don't add anything you found through internet investigation or whatever. --Cogsdev 01:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • A'ight, but can we have a background on the story on cwcki? You know, what happened for them to break up and stuff. Loserbrain 01:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • There's no break up as far as I know. But I'm sure something must have happened between yesterday and today. We can document the drama but be vague. Example: Dedicated trolls found her information and then Chris got mad. Real mad. Clydec 01:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Does this mean all the sweetheart pages are going to be changed? -PeaceCeapPea
        • Most of the sweethearts were trolls. Megan avoid this site like rape, so I don't think we need to worry about it. Loserbrain 02:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Why are we doing this? Didn't Megan ask us for her dox to be taken off the internet? How do we know the message wasn't sent by a troll or a white knight?--Dan Dash 02:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Have you seen the latest video from Chris? He found the CWCki. I guess "WallFlower" used Google. Another thing; Chris volunteered the info we got on him. She dint. We dint passed the Dox of other sweethearts or made fun of them as we did with her. Just for this, It had to be removed. Griffintown 02:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• My apologies for deleting this page this page. I just woke up and I was confused about what the fuck was going on. I thought some faggot thought Chris was talking about two different girls. I absolutely agree with Cogs one hundred percent, if Wallflower requested this page to be taken down, I think that's a humble request given that the article was a threat to her wellbeing. It's not so much trying to cover our asses, I really can understand that the Wallflower (unlike Megan, who really didn't have much of an online presence) would have trolls be a very real threat and unlike Chris, she probably doesn't feed off negative attention.

I regret that I did not address the dox in the pages. I really wasn't a big fan of having her Facebook, MySpace, etc. profile on there, aside from Chris related issues, mostly because we don't do the same thing for Megan and we shouldn't encourage faggots trolling Chris related people who have little to do with Chris.

I think one lesson from this is we need to discuss some sort of privacy policy for CWCki. A less brash version of Clyde's dictum is that we should possibly treat pages about people only from the Chris universe perspective, that is how Chris views them and sees them as opposed to digging into personal details from online investigations. But yeah, people, let's not do shit like post MySpaces, Facebooks, and don't post people's personal information unless Chris posts it on the Internet for everyone to see. --Champthom 07:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Seems fair enough. There was, in retrospect, no hope of keeping a lid on this whole thing, I think, no matter how much or how little personal info got posted here - as soon as her given name got out there, it was inevitable that some goof was gonna link her to this or to the ED page or to the sex doll video or whatever else. But that seems like a good policy for simple decency's sake. I apologize for getting carried away with all the links on the page yesterday. Dkaien 12:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think the wording of this article should be more explicit as to how and what kind of idiot it was that contacted her over all this. I mean most EDF retards won't read krapple or PVCC etc. but they do read the Cwcki, and it might help in the future to have here an example to hold up of what exactly happens when you go the JULAYYY route of trolling. Hurrrr2 02:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC) 02:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Who cares about it, it seems something else is stirring within Chris. Guess he still has it out for me. Hmph. Clydec 07:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • I think we ought to be more careful with the information we post here. Most if not all CWCki contributors are either on /cwc/ or PVCC, but the readers are partially dumbasses (not just from EDF, I presume) who will fuck shit up. Yes, it's a shame this happens, but ultimately we are to blame here. It was very obvious the CWCki article on her would lead to someone contacting her. Documenting information is important, but perhaps there should be some articles protected from viewing? I don't know. --Wtv 10:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• combine with the sonichu crystals to the [Wallflower] page?? I Love Little Girls 10:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

no they want that page gone, that's why it's over here without any references to her personally. --Digital 11:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

oh, i see. whatevss I Love Little Girls 11:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I thought the same thing so don't feel bad. tl;dr is that Wallflower asked for it to be removed and Cogs complied, because it was a reasonable request. --Champthom 12:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, now we turned into Moralfags and we are going to censor trolling, for the sake of the trolls who already know who she is. Also, it is not that difficult to do a fucking google search and found everything there is to found about this girl, so this is just stupid. If you had any respect in the first place for any of the friends or family of chris chan you would not have all the information you have on them all over the page, and that's not the case, so for what I can see here this is a very hypocritical position, or this is just part of a trolling plan.--SGSS01 10:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

One, we're not Moralfags.

Two, the dox was removed by her request. Three, if we put the dox back up, she could net us some downtime for invading her privacy and personal life. So fuck off. Pfargtl9000 21:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking down the page because we put information already publicly available on the internet?, lulz, let her send in detectives, send in police, send everything in her power!. I'm sorry but that's not a valid reason, we have personal information about a lot of persons, and many of those don't even use the internet, or is information we got from hacked mail accounts (Cole), and fuck, he really could take the site down just for that, and we still have his article.--SGSS01 03:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a legal liability out there. Chris says most of what he wants. If he sue the site for libel, he will lose since all the material here mostly came from his own (dirty) hands. Wallflower on the other side came from nowhere and the tone used to describe her was quite unflattering. Keeping Wallflower previous page on line would had brought to this site much trouble (including legal ones) so it was wise to shut it down. Griffintown 03:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• What about the things that were coerced from him? Do those fall under acceptable use or not?--MoarLurk 04:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Coercing implies some form of entrapment. At any time Chris had the possibility to walk out and stop posting on the net as Chris-Chan. He dint. Up to there, humping his PS3 is on fact voluntary from his part. Griffintown 05:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We can put name what is she going to do? Chris reveal her name. We are NOT moralfags. If its on the internet its public information (as long as it is not credit card numbers, passwords, or SSN) we are just data mining. --Psycatalyst 21:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Any troll can go data-mining. We are not trolls, we are Christorians; Holy scribes monitoring the advent and life of the "Messiah Of Fail". It is in our upmost interest to play nice. How many of us would salivate over an e-mail of five lines from Megan ranting about Chris? Let's be nice to the Wallflower; she might bring us something great in the future. Griffintown 03:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Srsly though...

To improve the article:

1. Wallflower really isn't a sweetheart. Nothing public about this yet but as most of you can tell, she's more or less Megan - because she has managed to be around Chris for more than five seconds, Chris takes this to mean sexual interest and a serious relationship.
2. We need a pic of a Wallflower. Like, literally, a flower growing out of a wall. Not a drawn pic, but an actual photograph. Shouldn't be too hard to fine, just don't feel like it now. --Champthom 12:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Here you go a photo of what resembles Heather with Clyde Cash --Psycatalyst 04:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Pimp Claim Responsibility

This bloke known on YouTube as "ThyEnvysGreed" claim he's the one who alerted wallflower. What should we do with this faggot? Griffintown 16:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's possible the guy's full of shit and just taking credit for something. Going by the comments 'they' have been making, this is quite likely; his 'group' seems to be out to make a name for themselves rather than just have a laugh at Chris's expense. Aside from that, just do what everyone seems to be doing already; spam his comments informing him of what a massive prick he is and that he should lay off the fucking donuts. JerichoJack 16:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• This. Seriously, guys, let's not give credit to faggots who want attention. Damage is done, we need to move on. Besides CWCki is about Chris, not so much faggots like this. --Champthom 21:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• • I agree with the comment spamming, just piledrive him into the dirt. He fucked up an opportunity for some awesome shit. I would understand if he were trying to get a laugh out of messing with Chris, but he's just looking for e-fame. I say we don't give him that much attention unless it's totally negative.--JRampancy 16:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll need to find the picture I saw on /cwc/, but he also had an account on Fanfiction.net and I think that's how he alerted her, since I don't think they allow anonymous reviews anymore. And it was the same screen name.--Blazer 17:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Well gentlemen, I believe it's time to do what we do best. IT'S TROLLING TIME, LADS.JerichoJack 17:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Faggot deleted it. Did anyone save it? blind justice. to each his own. 18:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It's right there Griffintown 19:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks! blind justice. to each his own. 19:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

He's a troll, you guys. Attention will only make him stronger unless we find his house (which is unlikely). Until someone can dox him, the best course of action is to ignore him, depriving him of his e-fame. Bonus points if fifty different accounts simultaneously claim that they're the ones who pissed off Wallflower so nobody takes his claims seriously.--MoarLurk 18:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • I can't believe he tucked tail and ran away so quickly. He did post on A message to the Trolls which is still there for the viewing. Meeko 20:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)meeko
    • There's also a message in Don't Mess With Me, still in plain view and for all to see. He's like The Pinch - a coward who wants e-fame. Pure and simple.--Blazer 21:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• He destroyed your guy's plans to get drama out of a guy! Oh no. Just calm down. Seriously, it's not a big deal. Chaosakita 05:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• It is. Chris is the most interesting when conversing with "normal" people - especially women. --Derpalerp 08:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• • I found anothe possible leaker on twitter he/she says and I quote "Sonichuproducts @CWCSonichu I dare your faggot ass to do a curse ya fuck yo momma or whatever it is on me, I told Heather you dirty Retarded bitch."

could it be a lead or just an attention seeking fag?--Wintermute 23:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that Chris has dropped her name...

Is it ok to mention her first name on this page?--AdderCress 15:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• You have a point, and I see the logic, but I think the whole point of removing her name was sending a message to the rest of the trolls (and the external observers) that we are actually decent people. To go back on that would be to lose a social lead which is more valuable than the person's name. Again, this is just what I think. Feel free to prove me wrong. Thelieisacake 15:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• But there is no point in hiding her name, the problem with his page was the loads of information about her, not related to Chris, and since Chris mentioned her name; her name, her relation to Chris and anything Chris related shall be posted here, no more info about her. Basgon 16:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• You make a fair point, however given that Chris 1) assumes that it's a video only Tito will watch (forgetting that public YouTube videos are, you know, public) and 2) he's retarded like that, the thought that mentioning her name again probably didn't cross his mind. However, Wallflower asked us nicely to remove her page and adding her name back would sort of violate the spirit of that agreement. --Champthom 16:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I understand, but then, should we censor part of the kilt video when Chris says her name?, of course, keeping a copy of the original, and linking it on the page, and replacing her name with the pseudonym in the transcript. Better safe than sorry.Basgon 17:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• In my opinion, censoring the material would only draw more attention to the Wallflower's identity. People would start looking at the stuff that has been deliberately removed and get more and more curious and try to find it. Especially if we have a copy of video with the name bleeped or transcript with the name removed, while Chris has the actual video up on his own account. My idea would be not to cover her identity specifically (which this article already does that), but if Chris keeps rambling about it, there's little we can really do. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 17:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• But this page, as well as the LittleBigPlanet one reference the wallflower's name and her likes, is not really hard to find her anyways.By the way, someone already censored it in the kilt video.Basgon 18:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• It would be nice if someone contact Wallflower and tells her that Chris keep on yelling her name on the internet while wearing a dress. I am concerned with all this. A well-determined Grieffer can still reach her because the manchild can't keep his pie-hole shut.Griffintown 17:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I've sent two messages to her on Facebook and she hasn't responded yet. Also, PVCC isn't telling us something--Scarlet/Kim/Emily knows Heather, according to Chris.--MoarLurk 18:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Interesting twist. In this case, our best option is to lie down and wait for the PVCC to make their moves. They always bring the best Lulz. Griffintown 19:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No. The CWCki needs to be smart about this kind of thing. When a person is angry about Chris's antics and actively asks the CWCki to take their information down, that person should be respected. It's fine to document Chris's antics that he publicly puts online, but Wallflower did not ask to be a part of Chris's online life and has specifically tried to distance herself from all this. For that matter, I'm of the opinion that if Megan ever came to the CWCki and asked to have materials taken down or hidden, it should be done, too. Same goes for Bob, Barb or anyone else who has not deliberately made themselves a part of Chris's online life. If a person deliberately makes themselves a part of Chris's online life, then their "details" are a fair thing to put up. If they are trying as hard as they can to get away from Chris's online life, then their "details" should be respected. The CWCki needs to be wise when it comes to liabilities. It is one thing to put up Chris's funny antics that he's made known publicly. It is another thing to put up unnecessary personal details of a person who has never asked to associate with Chris in a public way. Besides, all said and done, there's no need to document her name or her personal information to track Chris's stupid antics. It doesn't make Chris's antics any more funny. This brings up a great debate for the CWCki though: how far is too far? For me, I would hope there are limits. This is not a "lulz" site. Elephant 20:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

My two cents is adding first name is ok since he mentioned it and it is an unspecific referential index, which means it is vague. I don't see a problem with putting their names online since you can get records with their names on it from realtors, department of elections, white pages, or the city accessor's office for free. We should put in Damian Antaria and Heather into the article since Chris mentioned it. The CWCki Only records encounters with Chris not personal information such as SSN or credit card numbers. By your logic we would have to take down the site if Chris makes the request which is NOT going to happen. The CWCki site is only recording what Chris is doing. If anyone is to be held liable it is Chris for revealing the information. For example: When Scooter Libby leaked info on Valerie Plame the CIA agent to the New York Times, the New York Times did not get in trouble If trolls wanted to find the information they would with or without the CWCki. --Psycatalyst 20:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I support her name not neing intentionally added here. I do, however, think it is stupid to try to hide her name intentionally. I think we should refer to her as the Wallflower, but if Chris says it in a video, merely changing it in the transcript is not only ineffective, it is annoying. If he presents the information, it takes 2 seconds to watch the video and hear the name. We let it stay in the transcripts merely for the sake of flow, but then we don't call her by that name anywhere else. I think that will give everyone pretty much what they want, as her name is not spread and her info is not known, but it isn't an eyesore to read and I don't have to be constantly reminded that I'm not supposed to know her name. Tl;dr: Hiding the name on purpose is futile and, in a selfish light, detracts from my experience (which I rail against with full force). Don't take it out of what he says, but don't put it up elsewhere. That also means that the people who missed all this won't go insane trying to find info. Meh, my idea sucks, but I'll put it out there. Thelieisacake 21:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that it's easy to put the information together; if you Google up the information that Chris has given, you can find her easily. I think we should do more or less as you've said- present exactly what Chris says and not link the two together. Anyone who is really confused can look it up. It's no less confusing to a newb, IMO, than the articles that refer to Chris as "Ian" and Liquid as "Chris". BubblegumPinkButler 00:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Flibel

• In case no one has been keeping tabs, the alias currently in the page had been discarded, so now we should be completely safe. (Did one of you talk to her?) --LeninandMcCarthy 02:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Name Change

In his most recent video, Chris refers to the wallflower as "Damian Antaria". I suggest we change the article to reflect this. "The wallflower" is simply a name the trolls gave her. Our purpose here is to document Chris, and so, if this is what he calls her, this is what we call her. This isn't meant to throw her personal information out there, or even link this article to her writings. If Chris wants to give us this name, then that's her name. Just saying. What do you guys think? --Megaman 23:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree for two reasons; First, Wallflower asked that we remove all her personal info. This includes, in my opinion, her pen name. Then, many Christorians out-there have adopted the name "Wallflower" to name her. Why changing that good habit and risking confusion? Griffintown 00:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Because Chris thinks we took this page down because he told us to. I think we need to make it clear that we removed the information because "Damian Antaria" asked us to, not due to Chris' bloated ego and aggressive, one-sided demands --Megaman 02:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris probably just takes quick looks at the pages, i doubt that changing the name will have any effect on him, besides, the page states ""The Wallflower" aka Damian Antaria...", so, there is no need for a name change, it would be like changing articles like " Punchy sonichu" to "Punchy "Fighting" sonichu", considering that's the species for Punchy, but trolls know him as Punchy Sonichu.Ttherefore, no name change is needed.Basgon 03:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)