Talk:Lil' Chris

message: The first paragraph sounds suspiciously like a bio blurb from another website.  If this was indeed copied, it will need to be replaced ASAP with non-copyrighted text.Kether83 14:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio?

message: The other articles shall not be merged inton this one. This is not how Wikipedia works. --Madnessinshorts 21:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Discussion closed, please do not feed the trolls.
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
I wish to defend my addition from those who delete it. It states that those vandalisms occured: if you can prove that anything there as I state it is false then you are right to remove it. If it is badly formatted then edit it. If something is spelt wrongly then change it. Please do not just delete an entire section that does not state falsity as fact without giving full justification. Lungwortwitheggs 12:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles are not the place to discuss vandalism to an article.  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.  If you want to create a "tribute to vandalism", it should be done in your user space.  Please also see Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose.  J Di 12:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia."  Also, edits made to a Wikipedia article are normally not notable.  J Di 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, my first response was a bit hasty, as was my previous one; quoting and linking to policies resolves most disputes I'm involved in.  The only thing I can really think to say in regards to this is that individual edits are not notable enough for mention in a Wikipedia article unless they are so controversial that they attract media attention.  I only know of one time where this has occurred - John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy - and even then I don't really know much about it even though the whole article about it is right there.  J Di 23:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am unclear on this, I looked at this argument and cannot see why the edit in question has not been put back up. I hope you do not delete this as you did the last two posts that opposed your view, but I cannot see why the edit is not back up.152.78.254.245 15:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Another user wondering why the edit is not back up. Start a campaign now, unless the administrators can justify it properly, not just 'unencyclopedic nonsense' or some equally stupid statement, then the edit should return. Administrators seem to have gigantic egos, and as we have seen, not much intelligence when it comes to arguing. I apologise for any offense caused. And the wannabes are as bad. Someone unprotect this page, no-one do anything stupid like meatspin, that's pathetic. Just put the edit back until its removal is justified. 81.26.155.11 01:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a quick look at the edit in question. Frankly vandalism to the article is not noteworthy in the article. A different matter would be if there would be widespread mediaattention. We already have a few cases of some celebrities openly vandalising wikipedia to prove a point/to draw attention. If that is sourced from outside wikipedia that is fine. Looking at a article history though would constitute WP:OR Agathoclea 11:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  The whole section in question suffers from a few problems.  For starters, the whole section is unverified by reliable sources and constitutes original research. I don't see any 3rd party WP:RS covering this (remember, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for articles that appear on Wikipedia); and as stated above this is "sourced" by the edit history, hence this is original research from an unreliable source. That in and of itself justifies the removal of the section.  Beyond that it is needlessly self-referential to Wikipedia, and fails to establish any notability of the occurance.  Hundreds if not thousands of articles get vandalized daily, some in very prominent patterns, but that doesn't mean there needs to be a section on common vandalism to the article unless it is a John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy or Colbert Report situation (and the latter is relegated to a 1 line blurb in Wikipedia in popular culture despite the fact it was actually done on air on a cable show).  There just is no good policy, guideline, or otherwise justification for adding that section back to the article.--Isotope23 17:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: What happened to his picture? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.81.33.39 (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Should this article be located at Lil Chris or Lil' Chris? His MySpace page uses no apostrophe; his official website spells it both ways; Amazon.com and All Music Guide use an apostrophe.--Muchness 17:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote Lil' Chris, most official sources seem to use it, including his album cover. -- Psychedelicfrog 13:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Leemorrison 18:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name

message: Removed the confusing section below:
" 
# On an interview on CBBC's TMI
# was the support act on Mcfly's up close and personal tour
# Chris also had feces thrown at him for charity, on Channel 4 " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThisIsAce (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: "feature" should read "featured", and the tense needs to be changed on the Celebrity Scissorhands entry.  Oh, and some people around here just need to grow up.--83.216.69.33 (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates 

message: It seems someone childish has claimed that Lil' Chris has died. Now I'm pretty sure that someone as famous as he is would be mentioned in news articles if he had died. but since nothing has emerged i assume this is Vnadalism. i would be grateful if someone coul revert it. (I do not want to do it in case I mess it up further) Matt G (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is vandalism, certainly incorrect.  It has been added again, although not the same claim but this time it may have been in good faith (although incorrect) as another person also known as Lil' Chris died on 20 September. --Snigbrook (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well he's dead now, for reals this time, RIP  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.167.55 (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism/possible protection 

message: Lil' Chris has died today (24/03/2015) at age 24. 
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-32038895 
Thejhez1 (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done - see Lil' Chris#Death. --ElHef (Meep?) 15:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Lil' Chris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131203002042/http://officialchrishardman.co.uk/studio-finishing-off-the-xmas-single-with-lloyd-wilkinson/ to http://officialchrishardman.co.uk/studio-finishing-off-the-xmas-single-with-lloyd-wilkinson/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131203002440/http://officialchrishardman.co.uk/tour/ to http://officialchrishardman.co.uk/tour/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lil' Chris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160117215445/http://www.wintergardensblackpool.co.uk/news_more.asp?news_id=14 to http://www.wintergardensblackpool.co.uk/news_more.asp?news_id=14
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lil' Chris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402113717/http://www.entertainmentdaily.co.uk/lil-chris-found-dead-at-24-after-battling-depression/ to http://www.entertainmentdaily.co.uk/lil-chris-found-dead-at-24-after-battling-depression/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified