Talk:Lil' Chris

Copyvio?

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)

I absolutely think that the articles should be merged. :mad: Kether83 14:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please say why. Also, this is officially a single, which has appeared on the UK Top 40 and has had airplay, and it has been played on music video channels. So why on earth merge it??? Leemorrison 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this should be merged together and possibly include info on Figure It Out, his next single

editing protection should be taken off.

Merge

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

Vandalism

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) 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) Now let us work through your response step by step. You pointed me to Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Now, each point in turn: The post was not random information. It was a collection of selected changes from the history of the article, there was a clear purpose, therefore it was not random. It was all sourced from the history. Therefore it was not unsourced. Nothing i added constitutes a message board or blog. The next three points are irrelvant. Free advertising space? I did not add any advertising. My new ideas? I cannot see what I posted as being anything to do with my new ideas. Not my opinions. Nothing in that article represented my opinions. As should be obvious. Now, unless you can elaborate further and explain why you directed me to that article, I feel it is safe to ignore that sentence completely. To further this, vandalism was not being discussed. What you are saying is the same as sayin that a list of singles should not be included as that would equate discussing them. In case this is not clear I will express it in different terms. If you feel that I am incorrect I will happily explain the concept further to you. Let us know examine your second and final point. This being the Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose article. Now, I will accept that this article carries far more weight than anything you have presented to me yet. However, looking closer this seems to be a flawed argument. To take the message of the article at its most complete measure, every page that gives an example of home to cause disruption should be taken down. The notion is ridiculous and should not even be entertained.The level at which to stop is hard to ascertain. Should articles on rioting and historic references to these events be deleted? I could go further, yet I feel that only one line is required, that being the one at the top of the article: "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline." After examining your two points, I cannot see any justification for deletion. Please elaborate further if you feel that I have somehow missed your point, or if you failed to express your views correctly in haste. Lungwortwitheggs 2:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC) "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) Firstly I would like to know where I can raise isues about IP blocking, the system seems amusing inadequate. Anyway, once again your first point. Again, as with the last time you cited such a list, I can find no category that my addition to the article fell into. Also, with woefully little explanation on your part, I find myself little interested in trying to fathom what interpretation you have tried lay upon the article which you cite. As for your second, I quote: 'Notable here means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice", not "important" or "famous". It is not synonymous with fame or importance.' By this I argue that the article is no more notable than the edits in question. By this deduction deleting the edits logically leads to the necessity of deleting the article. I am sure the world would mourn the loss of such a brilliant article to such a musical talent. However, I am sure that to cite this you must have a system of calculating notability on the basis of some numerical method, otherwise the citation would look silly. Finally, as you did not reply to any point I made in response to your first contribution, am I to assume that my estimation of it was correct? 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

Question

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

Page name

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)

I vote Lil' Chris, most official sources seem to use it, including his album cover. -- Psychedelicfrog 13:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree Leemorrison 18:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed

Removed the confusing section below: "

1. On an interview on CBBC's TMI
2. was the support act on Mcfly's up close and personal tour
3. 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).

Updates

"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)

Vandalism/possible protection

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)

I think it is vandalism, certainly incorrect.[1] It has been added again, although not the same claim[2] but this time it may have been in good faith (although incorrect) as another person also known as Lil' Chris died on 20 September.[3] --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2015

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)

Already done - see Lil' Chris#Death. --ElHef (Meep?) 15:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lil' Chris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)